Give a welcome to 420chan's
first new board in four years - /vape/
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
Subject
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Data-driven decision-making is the only rational philosophy by Beatrice Gannerfeck - Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:25:49 EST ID:sIpriB3R No.202351 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1439997949999.jpg -(1009323B / 985.67KB, 1280x5859) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1009323
Why the fuck do people think anything other than statistics and hard facts matter when it comes to determining how to properly organize society? No, your feelings do not matter. No, your bible does not matter. No, your abstract logic and even morals do not matter. Being gay used to be immoral. Doing drugs used to be immoral. Morals change over time but numbers don't. Data is the only objective truth. The only tricky part is determining the proper metrics to use, but regardless, we utilize those anyway.

We know that tough-on-crime policies don't work because places where they don't do that have much lower recidivism/arrest rates. We know that criminalizing/repressing sexuality doesn't work because places where they do that actually have more IPs per capita accessing porn sites. We know that basic income/welfare does work because all strong welfare states have less crime and higher employment rates.

So tell me /pss/, why do your words matter more than my numbers?
86 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Edwin Honnerleg - Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:43:48 EST ID:/K5GM6am No.202794 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'll just leave this here:
http://gamasutra.com/blogs/AndreasPapathanasis/20150908/253104/Data_obsession_and_the_politics_of_facts.php

>Data obsession and the politics of facts
>Data obsession pitfall #1: Relying exclusively on data to decide what to do next
>Data obsession pitfall #2: Losing focus and wasting time on small data-driven improvements
>Data obsession pitfall #3: Not understanding the short-term predictive nature of most data
>>
Barnaby Grandwill - Wed, 14 Oct 2015 07:34:59 EST ID:vcFCSwwO No.203552 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I am all for data, but is it just me or is there an open secret that is taboo to talk about that everyone realizes that our rationalist world view isn't quite the full picture but we just go along with it because
a) It generally works
b) As soon as you open up the discussion a myriad of nutbags jump in with their tired crap and behave generally unpleasantly
>>
A Wizard - Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:17:33 EST ID:K2C3c/Hm No.203590 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203552

Because you call them "nutbags" when they supply alternatives to the very shit you're complaining about.

If you don't want a solution, then don't fucking ask for one.
>>
Ebenezer Drummlelure - Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:29:06 EST ID:kl+rP6sx No.203667 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>202351

>feelings don't matter

>even though the pursuit of good things is an irrational drive

I totally understand the problem of bias impeding utility, but tons of aspies seem to literally think ethics and oughts are some matter of brute formal logic, rather than of preference (in the most root sense).
>>
William Debbledock - Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:40:12 EST ID:j0uoDf21 No.203692 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203552
You're totally right, it is taboo to say our world is not rationalist. Why? Because if people realized that were true, there'd be a revolution tomorrow. People want their leaders to make the objective best decisions and they want their laws to be reasonable. Everyone, regardless what they say in this thread, wants a rational society. We aren't quite there yet, but at least we have something to strive for.

>>203667
>ethics and oughts are some matter of brute formal logic,
Hate to break to ya, but that's exactly how it is. Do you think we made stealing and rape illegal a long time ago because that's what it said in some magic book? No! Societies where rape and theft went unchecked had more disease and worse economies. Those societies collapsed. The societies with laws against that stuff survived to influence modern society. Like it or not, pedophilia is as innate a sexual desire as homosexuality. However, one causes a negative mental impact on children and one does not. Guess which one was recently made legal/socially acceptable? The measurable impact of the legislation is the only thing that's relevant. It's like Newton's Flaming Laser Sword for government.

Do you realize that in certain countries, it's not only legal, but commonplace to mutilate the genitals of infants? Do you realize that in certain countries cannabis is still illegal? Like you say, these laws/ethics are a matter of preference, but there is a recent strong push to get these changed. Why? These laws are likely to change in our lifetimes because they cause more problems than they solve. Crying shit "BUT IT MUH RELIGION" doesn't cut it anymore, and that irrational sort of argument is quickly becoming powerless the world over.

It really sucks you guys hate rational laws based on logic and facts, but that's the world we live in, and it shall only be moreso in the future. Laws are fortunately driven by numbers, for the most part. That's just not up for debate. Remember, people on the side of data-driven decision-making don't have to convince you in this thread or anywhere else. We already won. If you earnestly believe that "FACTS ARE DA DEVIL&quo…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Drugs and society by Polly Popperwater - Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:51:03 EST ID:Qcd7zFOx No.202969 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1442515863706.jpg -(126605B / 123.64KB, 1200x834) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 126605
I'm uncertain whether to put this here or on /pol/ but years ago I used to post here frequently so I'll go for the nostalgia value.

With the title, I'd hope to focus mostly on the present and practical. What do you see as currently going on in society regarding the drug war, attitudes towards and beliefs about recreational drugs, their users and producers? How would you see it improved?
Perhaps there is a bit of exhaustion on this issue? Everywhere on the internet you tend to see very polarized arguments from people with passionate opinions but at the same time "the drug problem" keeps being regarded as unimportant, even childish and not worth serious consideration.

I've thought about this for long, since teenage I've thought the world drug situation a great injustice, though as a teenager one is likely to think a great many thing injustices, but this was different. The more you looked into it, especially the recent history, the more it baffled as I couldn't see any profit in it for anyone. Recently watched the Netflix fast food version of the story of Pablo Escobar and it had a nice quote something like this "In the [drug] world the line between good and evil get's a little blurry...", blurry to the point of farce I would say. I've heard a wide variety of conspiracy theories as to what the vested interests are in maintaining the current paradigm in drug policy, but throughout the years none have convinced me. I remember once a big moment on a LSD trip being a "realization" that the drug war made sense as an essential part of producing this beautiful experience I was having and that's still the best rationalization/justification I've been able to produce... I honestly believe that with great likelihood whatever beliefs you profess you would regardless find benefit in prioritizing the improvement of the global drug problem.
Certainly, there is no easy solution. Yet I think it's worth giving some thought to the violent massacres in producer and transit countries and the suffering of junkies everywhere. Those are really serious issues that sweep the foundations of whole states, involving countless lives and billions of capital. The uproar in Latin America about this should really come as no surprise, but are we gonna pretend drugs are just their issue?

I'd assume many people on this site have consumed illegal drugs as I have and in this historical tragedy I'm most disappointed in *us* as we drift through it assuming no responsibility. Of course the people who have to identify themselves as drug users unable to hide it and unable to follow along with society pretending that nothing is going on are usually in awful positions for carrying responsibility over it and are often branded mentally ill, not without any reason either. Recently watched a documentary where someone said that "the traditional user of drugs has historically been primarily the military" which is a sort of funny statement, but true. Generally it seems that sad lives invite drugs, as suggested by the Rat Park experiment, rather than drugs inviting sad lives. Still, there are countless stories of users and abusers doing service to their communities and themselves, both of those that quit and those that didn't. I recommend watching this speech, especially the part where he tells the story of Bud Osborn( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Osborn ):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsu_4zsfp2M

But these stories get overshadowed by the hatefulness, the self-loathing, the conflicts. One of the most impressive reform organizations on the planet has certainly been LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) and I remember someone from LEAP in a speech giving advice to the marijuana reform movement in it's earlier stages in the US highlighting that the movement should learn at least one thing from the police: discipline in maintaining mission focus. It is essential to avoid falling into divisive internal struggles and instead keep pushing forwards with one purpose. It's tempting to throw 'the other drug' user under the bus but it does not serve the greater collective benefit.

Personally I've for long been angered about how the government which one insists to at least pretend to serve the citizens interests fails to rationally deal with this huge market and fails to extract any capital through taxation, drive forward scientific knowledge through research or protect the consumers and workers. I find it very annoying that rarely anyone is willing to contemplate trying to capture the drug demand into a publicly regulated market as an anti-terror and anti-crime strategy to sap the financial fuel of non-state actors. It is usually only pulled out as a last resort option when the drug problem becomes too visible and not given serious thought until then, in a "oh shit, this game is getting way too hot, imma pull out!" fashion that is all part of the unique charm of this issue. Well, actually in my country recently the head of anti-drug police was put on trial for multiple counts of drug trafficking and corruption and whatnot, so I guess he was at least trying to have some kind of handle on the market?
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
15 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
David Ferrywell - Thu, 24 Sep 2015 08:39:01 EST ID:VYQEhjpx No.203216 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203212
You might believe it in advance but if you believe it always works it can lead to the opposite in terms of conflict resolution.

I'm not saying in terms of parental discipline, across contexts you have to be tactical.

The result of violence is often acceptance of an ongoing conflict.
>>
Simon Bunridge - Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:12:04 EST ID:Qcd7zFOx No.203219 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Perhaps in the future the Drug War will just be ashamedly thought of as The Big Overreaction. It's really not supposed to be this big of an issue and it's artificially made this big.
>>
A Wizard - Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:48:18 EST ID:K2C3c/Hm No.203509 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203216

It DOES always work. There's no fucking conflict when the other guy is motherfucking dead. How fucking stupid are people nowadays? I can't fucking stand it!
>>
William Tillingdale - Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:05:17 EST ID:aG9/2Wow No.203511 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203509
Yes no way there would be any retaliation for that nobody knew that guy, and he wasn't part of larger group, or the "other guy" isn't a larger group.

yes that's exactly what happened with the hatfields and McCoys, and the bloods and the crips.

It's not how World War I started or anything with one dudes death. It's not how you end up arrested years later in some cold case file. It doesn't work. And it's not the start of a conflict. Violence is the beginning presumably if the other guys death is on the line of potential outcomes in whatever level of violence you are imagining now so is yours.

How is this effective or worth it at all.
>>
William Tillingdale - Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:13:10 EST ID:aG9/2Wow No.203512 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203511
Also I'm alluding to situations where it really isn't the only option left but people's mind sets and arguments get put to use in shooting people they see because of thinking in a higher stakes situation then they were in. In reality they were the threat.


AI and qualia debate by Thomas Crusslenedge - Sat, 05 Sep 2015 12:03:47 EST ID:JQnDFS+M No.202696 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1441469027001.jpg -(125258B / 122.32KB, 900x844) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 125258
I'm not well versed in philosophy, I have only read wiki-sites and a few canonical works, so sorry in advance if I use terms wrong or something.


You know how some of us claims that how can we know strong AI isn't just dumb algorithm and logic systems faking they're conscious?

I've been thinking about this, leaning towards thinking an AI would just be like a very convincing doll, and suddenly it struck me: There's no difference between simulated qualia and 'real' human qualia. The experience is exactly the same.

How can I claim this? Well, human qualia IS simulated. This is indisputable fact, and here's why according to biological psychology;

The brain receives sensory stimuli from our extremities. Cold, pain, vision, hearing. All begins as varied neuronal signals, constantly feeding into our thinking lump of fat. Most of the brain is dedicated to analyzing this information. To make sense of it, pick out the parts that's relevant to the organism and its survival. It then, and here's the critical part, generates an integrated simulation based on the analyzed information for the consciousness to experience. This is why dreams often feel, look and smell so real, it's the brain simulating a reality without outside sensory information. The reality we experience is nothing but a simulated representation of the world.

Yet while this is true, we have the audacity to scream "Chinese Room" and refute strong AI. I claim that there's no functional OR qualitative difference between the Chinese Room and the brain. They're both computational substrate, one wetware, one analog. Both simulate experience and give rise to a person capable of responding like a person should and would.


Feel free to pick this claim apart. That's how we grow.
48 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Lydia Gillychun - Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:45:45 EST ID:iWimWzNV No.203302 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The experience is the same, sure, but the methods used to reach it are different. It's like a computer being coded to learn how to paint perfectly and an artist practicing and perfecting their art after years of struggle. The artist's understanding and experience came about "naturally," for lack of a better word at the moment, whereas the computer just does it.

The artist has experienced failing and errors, and that's a kind of qualia that the computer does not experience. If you program an A.I. to do that, it's no different than a psychopath pretending to be sad or happy. Yeah the experience and expression may be or appear to be exactly the same, but it's artificial, fake, replication with none of the human foundation upon which the final result rests.
>>
Phineas Fudgewedging - Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:42:33 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.203349 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203302
Prove it.
>>
Lydia Shakeridge - Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:40:10 EST ID:2MghtRCB No.203363 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203302

The AI would be an extension of our selves, in the same way that child is made out of materials gathered from the earth, which is then broken down by our bodies and reconstructed inside of them womb into a human fetus, which is programmed to experience and interact with reality. I don't see how a human made machine is much different from a human made human, other than the method by which the body was constructed.
>>
Barnaby Fuckingway - Sat, 03 Oct 2015 15:14:01 EST ID:V4/SgSD9 No.203376 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203363
It's one more step.

And people have to question if that is the step that's to far. At least one party will feel obligated to voice the opposition if not just for the reason of that position being understood.
>>
Eliza Niggergold - Mon, 05 Oct 2015 15:03:01 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.203404 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203363
That's not a proof. That's a hypothesis, untested.


Cultural Marxism General by Edwin Sammleware - Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:27:15 EST ID:62NzWXBw No.202452 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1440426435583.png -(323975B / 316.38KB, 1261x2917) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 323975
Denial thereof should be a crime.
Leftists hate figuring out their positions are all the intellectual legacy of soft Marxism.
36 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Charlotte Wuggledit - Sun, 04 Oct 2015 20:55:20 EST ID:62NzWXBw No.203394 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1444006520918.png -(46341B / 45.25KB, 1500x2207) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>203392
because the deconstruction of everything that made the west affluent (family, faith, religion namely) emerged organically and has no ideological origins? Utter nonsense.

This is because what is contrary is promoted in order to foster a better habitat for Marxism, whether that is done by malefactor or do-gooder useful idiots is irrelevant because it is still occurring.
>>
Samuel Fanhall - Sun, 04 Oct 2015 21:12:36 EST ID:iWimWzNV No.203395 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203394

Explain why something should be followed simply because it happens to be tradition. Also, social norms have changed throughout history, and not because of some huge fucking orchestrated chain of events.

>faith, religion namely

Boo hoo, mass delusion is finally being laid bare and getting the criticism it's deserved for a while but never got because people would be fucking burned and hanged for doing so. Did it help the west become affluent? Absolutely, but it's still horse shit.
>>
Charlotte Wuggledit - Sun, 04 Oct 2015 21:33:03 EST ID:62NzWXBw No.203396 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1444008783918.jpg -(222458B / 217.24KB, 1068x1285) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>203395
well tradition for its own sake is a problem, but the solutions offered in its absence are largely worse.
Divorce, single motherhood in place of family.
Crass materialism and consumerism in place of religion.
Individualism in place of nation.
This just atomizes people and makes them more vulnerable.
there is nothing wrong with changing tradition, but it has to be for the BETTER, and frankly you just don't have that.
>>
Nell Dodgefene - Mon, 05 Oct 2015 01:39:16 EST ID:xWdZfKYd No.203398 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203394
what is contrary is promoted because people like to to be contrary
>>
Nigger Blatherham - Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:40:39 EST ID:62NzWXBw No.203611 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1445218839271.png -(338419B / 330.49KB, 514x450) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>203398
but the result is the same, the motivation is extraneous as I said in the part you omitted.
The old cultural hegemony is being attacked and torn down and replaced with "progressive' untested values. This is a necessary step to erode the former system to replace it with another, presumably Marxism but not necessarily.


truth by Hugh Cindleson - Wed, 23 Sep 2015 02:34:31 EST ID:DxqgwD1T No.203168 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1442990071704.jpg -(666674B / 651.05KB, 2941x1570) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 666674
Any and all gender(male/female) specific behaviour is a social construct(early life conditioning). Masculinity/femininity don't inherently exist a-priori as metaphysical objects and are things of appearance and behaviour that aesthetically fits that appearance. This all only exists because of how male/female bodies are (physical function and the resulting illusionary perceived aesthetics of that function) and so because the average of humanity and its inferior nature could only figure out (trial and error, semi-consciously, bullying/tradition) this way to survive (not optimally as it isn't optimal being of their inferior nature in the first place) in this physical existence.

and asian men can never be masculine by default so its just raw misogyny and at that point etc see different cultures/ethnicities and how the aesthetics of their bodies don't make sense to be masculine or feminine.

condition them to act like a child since child since they more have like the bodies of children when adult then they will act like a child

socialization(brainwashing)
25 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Phineas Sullerfetch - Wed, 30 Sep 2015 01:15:47 EST ID:1L4dN++T No.203283 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203168
>Asian men can never be masculine by default

I feel like I met your double in the mental hospital where I work. He was an Asian dude with some serious self-loathing issues pertaining to his ethnicity relative to his masculinity.

Also: see Genghis Khan regarding that notion.
>>
Martha Blytheford - Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:33:26 EST ID:9ypPT5Zn No.203354 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203283
Also notice how masculinity is literally no different from being a psychopath/immoral/evil etc, no reason for it to exist or femininity to exist for that matter.

also
>afraid of dogs
>doesn’t lead and fight at the front (or do any fighting for that matter) like alexander

western masculinity is the only true kind, it defines masculinity itself.

also lol at how everyone here is sexist but not racist, fuck jolly african-americans and chinks and so on
>>
Martha Blytheford - Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:44:05 EST ID:9ypPT5Zn No.203356 Ignore Report Quick Reply
and see how it all depends on the body originating in greek aesthetics

but jolly african-americans are more chimp like than man like so they are just animals instead of manly men rofl and are put to slavery
>>
Barnaby Fuckingway - Sat, 03 Oct 2015 00:42:44 EST ID:V4/SgSD9 No.203368 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203354
But that's a flaw people saw great me and made examples of them and followed that concept. If a concept could get the recipe for masculinity right it happened to miss a lot of details and get some wrong that weren't apparent.
Alexander's homosexuality(ciatation needed) isn't included and many other aspects of western(Greek) masculinity.
>>
Samuel Horringfield - Sat, 03 Oct 2015 18:23:21 EST ID:K8/OIBY0 No.203378 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ape memetics are strange, brah


GolfClubToTheGonads by Isabella Weffingsot - Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:07:19 EST ID:XRdEzSkw No.203241 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1443308839600.jpg -(836461B / 816.86KB, 2047x1459) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 836461
We're HUNTER gatherers right? But what do we spend all our time doing? Commuting to places we "have" to go, buying useless junk at shops in town for that momentary dopamine buzz, watching idiots on tv replay the same old tired tropes out again and again, perhaps go for a heavy (we're british afterall) drink so we can get all stupid and forget about the whole affair.

As animals we're not really built for this. Sure we adapt, we're good at that. But just like the sports car that can drive at insanely illegal speeds on public roads, part of you wants to push and push and push it that little bit more. Just to see. Just to feel it.
We're supposed to be running through the bush throwing pointy sticks at things. Why? Because we need food and because it's fun. Yes fun, animal against animal. The stuggle of nature and all that. We're far too comfortable now, it dulls the mind. Makes you lazy. Potatofies. How can you be expected to grow in a stagnant pond?

Where's the bloodlust? Granted morally speaking, there are benefits to the social system we have in place. People live and die mostly happy overall. Apparently. But given the ever increasing level of antidepressant use in the UK (The total number of prescriptions dispensed in 2012 was 50,167,201 for all types of antidepressants up 7.5 per cent on 2011) i have my doubts over that.
The life we are sold is the dullest thing going. The odd bit of sparkle here and there, but mostly people do nothing. Again, i can see why you'd want society to behave given just how tits up everything would go if everyone was like, "Fuck dis". But the type of gifts the system gives with left hand (stability) it summarily takes away with the right (living as our physiology dictates).

I want to go out into a forest naked and beat a rabid wolf to death with a house brick. I want to smash the legs off of a giraffe with a baseball bat and then cook it in my convection oven.


I want to be alive.
10 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Beatrice Mobberstock - Mon, 28 Sep 2015 04:36:11 EST ID:k+bOJdZi No.203262 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203258
>Well, when i say we're hunter gathers (...)
ok, yeah we have the same bodies that require the same nutrients and exercise and so on, you can go to a gym or play sports or something and get your diet in order to satisfy that. Hunter gatherers were also pretty well developed societies though, not really so much different from us - some of those societies still exist btw in africa/sth america. I don't really understand why you would attribute 'animalistic urges' to them.

your thread just seems to be saying 'im a fat fuck who needs some excercise' in this light. what is you point/question? why society evolved in a certain way?
>>
Sidney Bissleford - Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:43:33 EST ID:+uMLIG+P No.203263 Ignore Report Quick Reply
ITT: What is the naturalistic fallacy

>We're far too comfortable now, it dulls the mind. Makes you lazy. Potatofies. How can you be expected to grow in a stagnant pond?
There are more oppurtunities to increase your brain power now than ever before. You can still hunt, but you can also build, invent, write music, read books, learn languages. If your mind is dull, it's because you chose to keep it that way.

>But given the ever increasing level of antidepressant use in the UK (The total number of prescriptions dispensed in 2012 was 50,167,201 for all types of antidepressants up 7.5 per cent on 2011) i have my doubts over that
Increased prescription does not necessarily mean increased depression. It could also mean improved detection.

>The life we are sold is the dullest thing going. The odd bit of sparkle here and there, but mostly people do nothing
Our stone-age ancestors weren't so different, it's not like they were always hunting and gathering. In the old days we spent a lot of time just doing not very much at all. Again, if you do nothing today it's because you chose to do nothing.

>I want to go out into a forest naked and beat a rabid wolf to death with a house brick
That's a good way to contract rabies!

>I want to be alive.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
A Wizard - Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:54:57 EST ID:SKHxX8OK No.203274 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203258

Dude, shut up. You're a fucking liar. If you gave two fucks about what you said, you'd of listened to the advice and just wondered off to hunt and gather, AS IS JUST AS EASY TO DO TODAY AS EVER, and that would've been that.

I won't speak for everyone, but I know I'm not stupid, and it seems a lot of others here aren't either. So take your fucking rabble rousing elsewhere. Your words poison your own message.
>>
Martha Blytheford - Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:36:12 EST ID:9ypPT5Zn No.203355 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You do not have to be ted bundy to be a OH MY GOD HUNTER/gatherer) you fucking stupid immature edgy kid.

>I want to go out into a forest naked and beat a rabid wolf to death with a house brick. I want to smash the legs off of a giraffe with a baseball bat and then cook it in my convection oven.

start by killing yourself
>>
Phineas Cuvinghid - Fri, 02 Oct 2015 12:40:18 EST ID:bLmd3gtK No.203357 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203274
>but I know I'm not stupid
There is a substantial amount of evidence on this website indicating otherwise


Need Research Suggestions by Clara Mollypidge - Tue, 22 Sep 2015 21:32:10 EST ID:cMbh4dR9 No.203166 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1442971930227.jpg -(1035094B / 1010.83KB, 1524x2587) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1035094
Gentlemen,
I don't normally post here, but, I am enrolled in a college course re: history of modern philosophy, and we have just been assigned a research project. It's a basic exposition on a published scholarly article in philosophy. It must be related to the works we have read in class, and points will also be awarded if the publication is one from the Leiter Reports top ten list of philosophical journals.

Pretty standard, but here's the catch:
My professor is a raging feminist, she has assigned us to read women philosophers along with the standard modern canon (Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant)

For the paper, extra credit will be awarded if the author of the secondary literature is female. Double extra credit if both the author and the philosopher are women.

Obviously this is pure unfiltered bullshit, but perhaps someone here has had similar bullshit foisted on them and maybe has a suggestion.


Bonus: I also found this article refuting the claim that women are underrepresented in philosophy:
https://www.nas.org/articles/women_in_philosophy_problems_with_the_discrimination_hypothesis
27 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Martha Dandlewell - Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:10:42 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.203294 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203264
Because women, historically, were vastly uneducated. Since the dawn of man, men have been the ones working, creating, educating and getting educated while women were having babies and raising them. It was a symbiosis that created two drastically different but completely necessitated lifestyles.

Philosophy doesn't under-represent women, there just haven't been anywheres near as many women working on philosophy as men, or at least not at the same level as them. Yet, clearly women were never barred from Philosophy because we see them all throughout it, just in a much lower density than men.
>>
William Moblingcocke - Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:09:03 EST ID:kl+rP6sx No.203313 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203294

I never implied an opinion on the matter, I was just clarifying, as nobody else had done so earlier in the thread.
>>
Lydia Gillychun - Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:46:17 EST ID:iWimWzNV No.203324 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>It's false that women are underrepresented in philosophy
>OP still complains about having to read some of them like a little bitch

And yet you sti-

>National Association of Scholars

Oh, nevermind.

nb ignored
>>
Martha Sibberlock - Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:53:42 EST ID:kl+rP6sx No.203350 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203324

If you read the article, it didn't seem that unreasonable. They propose the 'possibility' of a sex difference in cognitive ability or cognitive style, but it wasn't a hard assertion or anything.

They handled it well, given the somewhat ambiguous data on the matter.

The meat of the issue is whether or not discrimination is the most primary cause of sex inequality in academic philosophy. I don't believe there's much evidence for that case, and this belief's prevalence among smart people is more of a partisan stratification bias. Liberals are better at appealing to smart and rational people than are conservatives, but liberal politics are not gleaned from some universal science of human relations. Rather, they additionally appeal to and contend with irrational drives, as subjective / perspectivist matters of morality and preference are intrinsic to political decision making.

Smart people might tend to care so much about sex inequality in philosophy because their faction pressures their conscious into doing so and they are emotionally rewarded by affirming the ideals they belong to, not because they have any care to critically address the subject.
>>
Martha Sibberlock - Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:53:42 EST ID:kl+rP6sx No.203351 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203324

If you read the article, it didn't seem that unreasonable. They propose the 'possibility' of a sex difference in cognitive ability or cognitive style, but it wasn't a hard assertion or anything.

They handled it well, given the somewhat ambiguous data on the matter.

The meat of the issue is whether or not discrimination is the most primary cause of sex inequality in academic philosophy. I don't believe there's much evidence for that case, and this belief's prevalence among smart people is more of a partisan stratification bias. Liberals are better at appealing to smart and rational people than are conservatives, but liberal politics are not gleaned from some universal science of human relations. Rather, they additionally appeal to and contend with irrational drives, as subjective / perspectivist matters of morality and preference are intrinsic to political decision making.

Smart people might tend to care so much about sex inequality in philosophy because their faction pressures their conscious into doing so and they are emotionally rewarded by affirming the ideals they belong to, not because they have any care to critically address the subject.


Run your own school by Hedda Sozzlechotch - Tue, 22 Sep 2015 07:48:51 EST ID:Qcd7zFOx No.203160 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1442922531537.jpg -(44092B / 43.06KB, 628x414) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 44092
If I was a newfound principal of a kindergarten-school-university given funding to come up with an education plan I would have the students learn about how to relate to the world around them. From earliest safely possible I'd have them learn about four elementary relationships that is how to socially relate to each other (language, customs, role-play, games, art, literature, psychology, sexuality...), how to healthily relate to themselves (hygiene, survival, biology, medicine...), how to relate to tools and technology (mathematics, artisanship, computing, chemistry, agriculture...), how to relate to society (sport, history, philosophy, religion, law...) and finally voluntarily choosable specializations starting at some age as hobbies that take up a small part of time and slowly become more prevalent until the study of them would make up the whole time of the student effectively becoming their work. Initially these would be separate areas but they would quickly start to intersect so of extreme importance is to give much consideration to the overall synchrony.

What I see the current system lacking in is teaching:
-How to treat each other
-How to holistically use and take care of our bodies
-How to optimally and efficiently use our mind and hands
-How to collectively organize and get things done


There are some major taboos that would have to be broken to properly educate children in sexuality, drug use, hacking, self-defense, etc. But I would want to ensure that each graduate was informed on all of these topics.
4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Eliza Bremmerpetch - Thu, 24 Sep 2015 00:31:20 EST ID:mr8ua9v+ No.203210 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1443069080222.jpg -(31071B / 30.34KB, 374x587) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>203160

john holt, for the educationally inclined: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXLWPpln0rQ
>>
John Chummlewell - Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:23:55 EST ID:9PdOSkmz No.203221 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203160
This is really interesting, OP.
One of my dreams is fund a school with an alternative educational system and you have great ideas that i could consider.
The school as we know it now its pretty useless. It was used in the beggining of the modernity to create a nationalist identity, but not to educate.
Where i live, there is a really big educational problem: old people that have 70 years old is teching to young people that have 15 years old, the cultural brench is imposible to jump, they just dont understand each other and why should they? im tired of hearing the old people blaming the young people for the failure of the educational system. They blame the young people because they think that the youngers dont have the good values that are require to be well educated (they said that the young people are more crazy, disrespectful, etc), but the truth is that the roles that the traditional school have are dissapearing: most of the young people learn about their interest alone and not in the school. If you learn about your intereset alone, why should i respect a teacher that just forces them to learn something? why should i respect a teacher that, when i asked him "why am i learning this" he answered me "because you have to pass the exams"? why should i respect someone that, when i'm having curiosity and make a question, just extinguishes it? a teacher must grow the curiosity, not extinsguish it!
Sorry if i climb to high and my english is not very good. To conclude i have to say that you have a good starting point but its hard to build a whole educational program... maybe you have done it i would like to see it, but thats the same problem that i have.
I have always think that the teacher should be just one more person in a group that guide the desire of the young, someone that have a lot of knowledge in a lot of subjects and should have the skill to make that desire even bigger, not extinguish it. I will always remember a gesture of a teacher that i had at university: he always have big classes, like 100 students and he can make almost everybody talk but when you search him in the class he is just sit in the middle of the classroom with all the students, nobody was afrai…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Fanny Nuckleman - Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:01:36 EST ID:Qcd7zFOx No.203235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203221

Well one thing I was thinking about was that in the same way that we teach some kind of understanding of mathematics very early programming should be given the same consideration. People often joke about not needing much of the math they were taught but our civilization wouldn't really run without it all, mathematics has long been a motor of human freedom and it is not taught so that we could do calculations so much as it is taught as something mind expanding, it opens up new solutions to problems and allows us to improve our thinking in general. Programming too is like a materialization of mathematics into these calculators we call computers and that as anyone who has witnessed the internet will tell you opens up a whole new world. Young people should be introduced to programming from earliest possible as a kind of necessary skill for life in the new world, these calculators are defining more of everything around us and learning to understand them and know how to properly use them is going to be increasingly critical, even more so than it already is. I don't think this consumer attitude of letting someone else think for us is going to cut it and that a good citizen should be taught respect to the potential of these machines as such that run the infrastructure of civilizations rather than just home entertainment centers.
A computer is like an external brain that you need to be taught how to use and currently we aren't quite realizing their full potential, just with basic scripting life can be made so much easier. I think I read some article about how more and more employees are expected to self-automate their work, but I am at least certain that everyone will need a well defined relationship to computers. Computers came from universities where huge loads of thought was put into them, now they've kind of escaped into the wild and we should ensure that respect to their history and the legacy of the pioneers is not lost as young people get used to them as just these screens in their life.
It's at least in my life been a stereotype to know someone who gets good pay without any education because they had a programming related hobby.
Programming is an extremely powerful tool …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Alice Gonnerwedge - Sat, 26 Sep 2015 13:09:12 EST ID:9PdOSkmz No.203238 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203235
don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that we shouldn't learn math because we don't need it in our everyday life. Math is one of the oldest science and it's the base of almost every science maybe, exept in some cases, social science but sometimes social sciences use statistic.
I was talking about a particular case in wich a teacher, when i asked her something, just put my curiosity down.
anyway, you idea of teaching programming is interesting.
Do you have a plan to create a space where all your ideas can become flesh?
>>
Fuck Smallforth - Sun, 27 Sep 2015 13:45:09 EST ID:1H+49Jdp No.203256 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203235
I agree that programming should be taught more widely, and also as a language than as a technical skill. I always tell myself that as citizens of a profoundly weightless world, new definitions of literacy will necessarily include being able to communicate with technology like you would with people.


Culture, nation, religion by Basil Mogglestut - Sun, 20 Sep 2015 12:02:08 EST ID:Qcd7zFOx No.203076 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1442764928451.jpg -(77719B / 75.90KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 77719
TL;DR: Just my analysis on culture, religion and identity of people, their history and it's influence today. If you CBA to read just post your own thoughts and observations on your culture and identity and those of others that you've experienced. (try to not be overly offensive, I'm not sure about the rules here)

I've been thinking about the cultural differences of peoples on this planet. I myself come from a country/culture that is very young, although of course I share ancestry with all of humanity, but my identity and that of the people around me is very young. My friend once said to me "Like in America, in Finland a hundred kilometers is a short distance and a hundred years is a long time.", he said it offhandedly but it's stuck to me a long time. You'd think a hundred years would be a long time, to live at least it is but actually it is also just about one lifetime these days and what's one life in our collective history?
I've also lived in Italy, where everyone is packed together much more tightly and enchanted by living breathing history of civilization stretching back to the edges of our understanding. Then you go further south and further east and you find yourself at what are commonly understood as the birthplace of civilization and the holy lands of multiple religions and where the great majority of the world's population is found. I'm an atheist but I can't say I would be for sure if it wasn't what my parents taught me and I can empathize with the feeling of that ancient wind behind you but here north west you don't really have it, here you look at the world very differently. My country has undergone a very rapid change in the last hundred years changing from a very agricultural based economy to a service, that is gone from rural to urban, it is only 500 years ago that we started to write our own language, our national identity started forming 200 years ago, have been independent since 100 years ago and there isn't much recording by anyone of our history into the ancient times, mostly obscure legends.

I feel as if here you have to look forwards rather than backwards, it is a bit depressing as you don't feel so bonded to a m…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
TX Dog - Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:11:43 EST ID:t8lq0BoQ No.203138 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1442873503720.jpg -(15428B / 15.07KB, 492x345) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
History is another subject that facinates me. Ill put in my two cents as to Hispanic cluture, mainly Mexicans, Americans, and Mexican Americans. Most Mexicans come to America to get some money and then take it home, they usually like it and decide not to leave. They are a very hard working peoples, love to sweat and dont really like to take the day off, and if they do, theyll clean the house or find something of the sort to do. this work ethic has been exploited by rich folk.

Since religion is in your title, I will mention this. In all english speaking bibles, the final 66th book is called the book of Revelation. Revelation means "a great revealing of the truth" and was written by John the Apostle, not the be confused with the baptist.(while he was an old as shit, I might add, in his 90s) In all SPANISH speaking bibles the final book is called "Apocalipsis" yes, it means what it sounds like. So to quote Terry Pratchett,"Anyway, if you stopped tellin' people it's all sorted out after they're dead, they might try sorting it all out while they're alive." I offer this perspective because the whole Donald Trump thing is givin me Hitlery vibes. And the ethnicity under fire is mine. I just wish theyd like to do some learnin every now and then. But yall know, here in Texas, the attitude is "FUCK LERNIN" or LERNINS FER PUSSIES. Everythings big around here except the brains.
>>
TX Dog - Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:25:06 EST ID:t8lq0BoQ No.203139 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I know it will change, though. It will get better.
>>
Jenny Decklehall - Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:47:38 EST ID:yHZPJws1 No.203145 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203138
> In all SPANISH speaking bibles the final book is called "Apocalipsis" yes, it means what it sounds like
"Apokálypsis" is a Greek word composed of two parts: "ἀπό" wich means "off, away" and "καλύπτω", "to cover".

"Revelation" is a synonym of "apocalypse" used for translation purposes. Some versions of English Bibles also name the book "Apocalypsis of John" (it's also its title in many other languages, especially those in which no suitable synonym existed), which, well, is pretty much the same thing. The word "Apocalypse" only came to connote destruction and mayhem because of secondary association with the contents of the book, so furrowing your brows at the title is a case of shooting the messenger. If John wrote about flowers and love, "apocalypse" would came to connote leprechauns shitting rainbows or something.

The moar you know.
>>
A Wizard - Thu, 24 Sep 2015 05:32:07 EST ID:SKHxX8OK No.203213 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203076

OP, you are a blind fucking fool.
>>
James Pazzleway - Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:14:08 EST ID:nwIK6AXh No.203214 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203138
Surprised you didn't specifically mention it - as a Texan - but that state has such a strong and interesting identity. I lived there a long time ago (north Texas, close to OK, mostly dry plains). Texas history is more strongly emphasized in the schools than any other state I've been in. You see the flag flying everywhere (I live in FL atm, and I couldn't honestly tell you what ours looks like). The former status as a republic and all the old battles get a lot of play.

I liked the people where I lived as well as anywhere else I've been (I can't speak for the whole state, and the majority where I was were white). A stronger sense of community and religion, too. Both may have had something to do with the fact that there just isn't that much else to DO in a small plains city. Or maybe it's all the suffering you do under that summer sun that makes everyone more equal.

I did feel a much stronger sense of community pull and shared purpose while I was there, though. I've lived in a number of places in the US, and I never identified as a Floridian (though I've spent more time - and more tolerable years - there than anywhere) or a Virginian or what have you. Most of the people I know only identify as US citizens as a sort of default (I really do think we lack a sense of identity as nation. I think it's a problem).

Texas pride is what Southern pride ought to be. Liberal dose of machismo in there, but I think that works (like the British "stiff upper lip." There's a lot to overcome for anyone in life, and sometimes that attitude just helps). Just a healthier overall spirit in that sense.


OOO thread by Reuben Brookway - Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:40:39 EST ID:jVd8yVSG No.203147 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1442886039131.png -(223529B / 218.29KB, 640x620) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 223529
tfw fire burns cotton
>>
Ebenezer Briffingford - Tue, 22 Sep 2015 04:10:00 EST ID:k+bOJdZi No.203156 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203147
can you feel the third table yet?
>>
Sophie Sonderline - Wed, 23 Sep 2015 02:30:08 EST ID:jVd8yVSG No.203167 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ay bby don't withdraw from relations. *abyss winks sensually*


Dancing in the Abyss by Jarvis Pingerfield - Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:27:50 EST ID:3x0vYBz3 No.203120 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1442849270042.jpg -(59744B / 58.34KB, 770x433) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 59744
So, some guys at my college (Philosophy school of the Universidad de Buenos Aires) did this mini-webseries about philosophy. It's two seasons long, though only the first is one is out. In the first season they ask questions to students (one per episode), the second season will be with teachers. It's pretty funny and it has some interesting answers, I thought you guys may enjoy it.

First episode, What is philosophy? : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hQkCXQ07V4

pic related, a party at my college
>>
TX Dog - Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:47:56 EST ID:t8lq0BoQ No.203134 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203120
tava chido, guey. se mira bonito buenos aires, y las mujeres tambien. espero la segunda parte. ay saliste tu en ese video, verdad?
>>
Archie Febberdock - Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:44:11 EST ID:7eVZsI0k No.203144 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203134
Ya salieron las 8 partes! Yo no salí, pero conozco a todos los que están en el video.
Also one says "Se ve bonito buenos aires" and not "se mira bonito"


Why i think feminism should be destroyed. by James Pannermare - Sun, 08 Mar 2015 05:49:29 EST ID:eh5ANwxk No.199206 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1425808169008.gif -(178369B / 174.19KB, 351x799) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 178369
Typically a feminist utopia is imagined in such a way that in society both genders inhabit all positions 50/50. Or maybe some kind of a world where gender doesn't matter and has no place inside personal identities, a world with equal rights between the sexes etc.....

I argue that this vision of utopia is terribly tragic. I think of early feminism as simply a demand for females to be respected more. You can consider it as changing attitudes where the roles of women became disrespected yet violently sustained. So i think what finally
set the time bomb to explode was the rising ''respect'' for the increasingly amazing ''male jobs'' that lead to a cocky male attitude to females and where roles of women was no longer confined in the name of respect but disrespect. So the feminists go marching for respect which
also involves the necessary fairness of the sharing of roles and jobs.

What i think happened eventually is that they were strong and they got the jobs/roles but they kept the old mentality of being the disrespected. I don't blame them, it still is so. But here we reach a crucial turning point, taking the disrespect serious the females start to draw
a very stupid plan to tackle the disrespect. The plan is the above utopia that i mentioned.

Its a very stupid vision of a utopia because you cannot destroy personal identities like that of being a fe/male. So we can be 100% equal but they will still have the disrespected mentality and men will still have the respected mentality. If i generalize what all women and men feel that is.


So you see feminism is in a trap where they are in a very FUCKING strange position of being the source of the male superiority myth. They point to all the things that they say makes men more respected and demand it to
be torn down (but yet do not act like its the end game of their mission for respect) and the demands continues to involve more and more of human engineering. It doesn't take much thought to recognize that their vision of utopia is pathological. At the same time they
say we should not take gender seriously in our own identities yet they obsess about those very same genders being in a perfect equilibrium.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
531 posts and 63 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
A Wizard - Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:33:49 EST ID:SKHxX8OK No.203201 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203186

Very few people who protest aspects of modern society, actually bother to do ANY fucking research on fucking anything. They just regurgitate shit all day long.
>>
Henry Worthingford - Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:20:01 EST ID:62NzWXBw No.203203 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203201
It's because they have no real problems so they generate first world ones to satisfy the need. It is very cultlike with the groupthink.
>>
Whitey Caffingfoot - Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:46:05 EST ID:/K5GM6am No.203204 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203185

There's an aspect of this that you're missing.
Muslims world-wide are not a minority, just as christians are not.
Muslims in the United States are a minority, and not one that's particularly well-thought of, while in the US christians are the majority.

Spoiler: feminists in the US mostly care about things that occur in the US.
>>
Jarvis Fillerdid - Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:02:51 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.203230 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203204
Regardless, if a feminist actually cared about making the world a better place, they'd be anti-sharia, but feminists don't even know what Sharia is because they're too busy pretending Islam isn't a problem and instead that men spreading their legs are.

Feminists only care about what's going on in the US and that's a huge part of why nobody respects them. They're too busy crying about men talking during class and men spreading their legs to do anything about the ghastly human-rights violations women face every day in other parts of the world. And these disgusting western feminists could be banning together to make an impact, actually help women who need help, gather together their time and energy and money and make a positive impact, but no, they're too busy running around 'free bleeding' with vaginal blood running down their legs and making safe spaces that all need to be filled with crayons and hate-speech about everyone white, male and straight.
>>
Black Seashell - Thu, 01 Oct 2015 00:00:06 EST ID:MTFVyUcI No.203333 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1443672006695.jpg -(132803B / 129.69KB, 960x371) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Feminism is a very disturbing, borderline mental disorder.

one of the obvious hypocrisies of feminist theory is that men are objectified in every single media.
The man has to be strong.
The man has to be confident and charismatic.
The man has to be the hero.
The truth is that feminists don't care if men are objectified.
They don't care if men can accomplish anything.

In fact: That's basically what they want the female characters to become.
They don't want a women to be feminine.
So the truth is that any feminist complaining about objectification
their ultimate goal is to eradicate female gender.

If you portray women as they were almost identical to male characters, it doesn't matter if the male characters are "objectified".
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.