Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
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
[*]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


Curated Society by Archie Blackwill - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 03:50:57 EST ID:39IBXNMV No.208728 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1518598257318.jpg -(65051B / 63.53KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 65051
>Essentially the Authoritarian Left-Libertarian paradise everyone wants to live in:

Religion is banned outside of a personal philosophical context.
Essentially meaning religion as an oranized entity and force is illegal. However religious texts,images and iconography would still be available for individual study via an internet 3.0, libraries, museums and distributed archives. Some religious architecture of significance would obviously have to be preserved.

As for the rest of society I'm making the assumption that humaniry is going to likely destroy itself and be replaced by machines. However being in North America I would advoacte the cessation of poor land use and misuse of resources.

Personally I like a lot of the benefits of the American Way of Life. But unfrotunately it's going to go away forever if we dont invest ourselves intellectually,financially, societally and physically. As for the rest of the world I dont really give a shit about them. Being a Canadien or a US Citizen is a real priviledge, despite one's heritage.
17 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Hugh Dibberwon - Fri, 16 Feb 2018 20:37:15 EST ID:hbTtukSa No.208751 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518831435311.jpg -(1768558B / 1.69MB, 2000x1319) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Personally I'm not really concerned about the implications of these sort of posts. If I get arrested or killed for exercising my first amendment rights I would be considered makes me a Secular Martyr. This is a Holy War against religious Zealots everywhere for the freedom of all peoples.
Barnaby Snodwill - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 03:11:23 EST ID:hbTtukSa No.208754 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518941483356.jpg -(14514B / 14.17KB, 365x138) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Dont be mistaken I'd put rounds on some Nazis too. I don't hate Nazis but it is what it is I'm a Liberul Libertarian and they hate me.

.45cal AR-15
Barnaby Snodwill - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 12:25:05 EST ID:hbTtukSa No.208755 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518974705356.jpg -(56562B / 55.24KB, 700x348) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I've been thinking how most politicians could be replaced by extras from central casting without too much effort. Its a very novel idea considering how useless they are;politicians not extras.
Clara Smallham - Wed, 21 Feb 2018 23:40:54 EST ID:2qiFtTs9 No.208777 Ignore Report Quick Reply
racism is curated by white peoploe
Ernest Sackleville - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:03:03 EST ID:hbTtukSa No.208782 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519336983505.jpg -(2225633B / 2.12MB, 2048x1536) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Yeah I guess racism is

Indoors by Alice Grimway - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 03:02:56 EST ID:Vz5f1vq5 No.208757 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1519027376325.png -(35166B / 34.34KB, 198x242) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 35166
If you had to do an Anne Frank and stay indoors for an unknowable but at least several years time, and you knew for a fact that you could never go outside for risk of being caught, would you prefer to have a window (or possible a live video feed) of your immediate surroundings, or would you prefer no window, as to not tempt yourself into wanting to go outside when you cannot?
Basil Brookfuck - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:40:13 EST ID:fOlLozee No.208760 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it'd be so much better to have a window are you retarded?
Lillian Sabberham - Mon, 19 Feb 2018 22:30:42 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208763 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I've basically lived like that for the last 5 years, and having internet access is probably the only reason I didn't put a bullet in my head.

Theory by Angus Blashdock - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 23:32:12 EST ID:vU7xlEnh No.208717 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1518409932751.jpg -(3171B / 3.10KB, 196x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3171
I have a theory as to the purpose of this reality. I think, thru a variety of means, this reality is how god learns to be alone and powerless. Every life lived eventually comes to this conclusion. We are all alone and powerless before the unknown. The more we desire the more we suffer. This is how god learns desirelessness. He watches us try to survive, to have eachother, and to understand, and he sees us fail on all accounts inevitably.
And so he learns its okay to be alone, powerless, and confused. I don't think god fully understands what's really happening. This shit is making me want to fucking kill myself so badly. Please help.
5 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Matilda Mangerfoot - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:57:29 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208731 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yes. Random shit is happening. If God really existed, only God would exist, because God needs nothing. Or else, it's not God. But just some alien wanker that evolved earlier than mankind and seeded Earth with life.
Rebecca Handerhun - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:02:47 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208735 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I mean, where do you get the idea that God needs nothing? If you get that from the idea of medieval theologians, the suggestion that God must be perfect in every respect, then while God might have no needs in the sense of needing something else in order to sustain its existence, that doesn't preclude the possibility that it desires something, that it 'needs' to do something to be fulfilled in its own nature. Thus, if its nature is to create, then it 'needs' to create, and thus would, since its desire and its ability to manifest its desire are also as perfect as its lack of need.

>> just some alien wanker that evolved earlier than mankind and seeded Earth with life
Well, under some definitions of 'God' it absolutely would be. What if the alien in question didn't just seed our planet, but is the one running the simulation which our universe is contained in? That individual would certainly qualify as God under some definitions, but not others. What about the alien wanker that evolved the earliest? The one whose simulation contains all other simulations (in the Omega Point/ Simulation Hypothesis mash-up theory) and certainly would qualify as God under the biggest definition it makes sense to discuss, yet still wouldn't qualify as God under certain other, more specific definitions, some of which specify a being of much less power than that.

In general, if you're going to use medieval definitions to try to answer questions about what God is or might be, you're always going to come up against the problem that medieval theologians' ideas about a lot of things were really dumb and self-contradictory.
Eugene Siggleforth - Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:18:56 EST ID:blmfRlfa No.208744 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518740336378.png -(288870B / 282.10KB, 458x301) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The alien wanker is oddly relatable to Vishnu who is the sleeping god in whose dream is the universe. Brahma the creator god sits on the lotus that represents divine energy and divine grace, and the lotus grows from the navel of Vishnu.

20. An important function of myth: how to live a human life
Henry Chinderridge - Sat, 17 Feb 2018 01:21:25 EST ID:ZrOoKGT8 No.208752 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"Brahman is full of all perfections. And to say that Brahman has some purpose in creating the world will mean that it wants to attain through the process of creation something which it has not. And that is impossible. Hence, there can be no purpose of Brahman in creating the world. The world is a mere spontaneous creation of Brahman. It is a Lila, or sport, of Brahman. It is created out of Bliss, by Bliss and for Bliss. Lila indicates a spontaneous sportive activity of Brahman as distinguished from a self-conscious volitional effort. The concept of Lila signifies freedom as distinguished from necessity."
Henry Chinderridge - Sat, 17 Feb 2018 01:26:05 EST ID:ZrOoKGT8 No.208753 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I should probably add to that, that in other cases (non-Hindu) creativity transcends even God itself (as is the case with A.N. Whitehead and process philosophy) so who's to say.

Country Portfolios....Canada and U.S.A. by Kim Jong-fun - Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:40:31 EST ID:TriMJvI1 No.208602 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1515595231668.gif -(662767B / 647.23KB, 2717x2342) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 662767
The world's second largest country by surface but relatively small in terms of population, Canada punches above its weight in economic terms.

A federation of former British colonies, Canada follows the British pattern of parliamentary democracy, and the UK monarch is head of state. Ties with the US are now vital, especially in terms of trade, but Canada often goes its own way.

Both English and French enjoy official status, and mainly French-speaking Quebec - where pressure for full sovereignty has abated in recent years - has wide-ranging cultural autonomy. Indigenous peoples make up around 4% of the population.

Canada is one of world's top trading nations - and one of its richest. Alongside a dominant service sector, Canada also has vast oil reserves and is a major exporter of energy, food and minerals.


The USA is the world's foremost economic and military power, with global interests and an unmatched global reach.

America's gross domestic product accounts for close to a quarter of the world total, and its military budget is reckoned to be almost as much as the rest of the world's defence spending put together.

The country is also a major source of entertainment: American TV, Hollywood films, jazz, blues, rock and rap music are primary ingredients in global popular culture.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Augustus Cupperstadge - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 22:35:24 EST ID:tBJp2aGG No.208690 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What will be left of a distinct Anglophone Canadian nationalism/identity once the US acquires universal healthcare, Quebec finally manages to leave confederation, and the US starts giving a shit about hockey enough to beat you guys at it frequently?
You're just left with being an extra cold, extra liberal blue state with a parliament and less stabbings.
Augustus Clibblepug - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 02:24:10 EST ID:Kpl02ca1 No.208693 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ways to tell this poster is American:
>assumes the only identity some completely foreign place has is totally dependent on what the US does
>assumes anyone who doesn't view the foreign place 100% through the lens of American values isn't American, and thus must just secretly be a butthurt native of place in question
Very sad, man. Are you deliberately trying to sound like a caricature?

By that logic, what is the US but a very conservative renegade Kingdom of the Empire with a circus for a government and more shootings? What is western civilization but a bunch of gothic barbarians pretending to be ancient greeks? What is the human species but a bunch of terrified monkeys desperately staving off death? We can trivialize the whole world like turtles all the way down if you want to go that route, fam.
Augustus Cupperstadge - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 18:03:40 EST ID:tBJp2aGG No.208701 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Take an amnesiac person and drop them in downtown Toronto. Ask them what country they think they're in.
Jenny Mottingsatch - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:02:07 EST ID:Kpl02ca1 No.208704 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Your myopia is staggering.
If you dropped a Canadian in Toronto...they would probably correctly guess they are in Canada. What kind of evidence do they have access to? I mean, if you dropped any random english speaking person in the middle of Sydney they might guess they are in New York, but they also might guess London. If the person in Toronto could see the combination of English and French signage, they would have better odds of being right than most other major english speaking cities.

The amnesiac in question would presume it is whatever major city whatever history or world culture they remember and are familiar with. Otherwise, you would seem to be asking us to assume that the default, memory-less human consciousness is American, which is absurd. What's the point of this silly thought experiment?
Phoebe Chonningtine - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:04:11 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208705 Ignore Report Quick Reply
People might not guess they're in Canada, but they will FOR SURE accurately guess they're NOT in the USA.

The USA always has that unique USA look. That "This is a rich country but the infrastructure looks worse than fucking South Africa." look.

Racism by Hamilton Soggledene - Thu, 28 Dec 2017 03:12:18 EST ID:KAVbWdaM No.208576 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1514448738873.jpg -(13119B / 12.81KB, 480x336) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 13119
Simple question. And I am looking for more insight into the line of thinking based on upbringing, and community ideals.

Why is it acceptable to call someone white, or black,l. But is taboo to call someone red or yellow?

Is it as simple as social conditioning? Or does it play a deeper part in the group psychology?
3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nathaniel Gummlepack - Sun, 07 Jan 2018 20:02:09 EST ID:cc26aplb No.208591 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is all fucked up and wrong
>' 'red' and 'yellow' additionally communicate 'dangerous' and 'foreign' while 'black' communicates 'primitive' and 'servile.'

This is obviously just your personal views, subconsciously typed out or otherwise. They also obviously aren't accurate to what the entire world's views have been in the past until now, if if they are views that some people have had. You also seem to assume that the only people who's opinions matter are white, you don't even mention them, almost assuming they are the "norm". WHat about what native Africans thought of the term "black person". Or Inuits for that matter?

ANother thing is, thing is wrong:

> It has never been offensive to call someone 'white,' because for as long as propagandized racism has existed, whites have been at the top. The idea of social hierarchy and inequality of power is so intrinsic to racism, it doesn't even make sense without it -- otherwise, it would just be shorthand for groups of characteristics. So it could never be offensive to essentially complement someone -- 'you're so at the top of the hierarchy, and my singling you out for your race further highlights your supremacy!' -- just doesn't work as an insult.

I'm guessing you don't think the Native American's had slurs for the white man? That they thought white people were bad for invading? And what about right now, being white is associated with being boring, no rhythm compared to blacks, that white should pay for what their ancestors did to the other races, etc...

Though I agree with you about the dangerousness of using such simple terms as "black people" and "white people". I think it's actually very dangerous indeed, because we naturally think of black and white as a dichotomy, making the relations between "white people" and "black people" almost naturally divisive. It's fucking stupid, dangerous, and most likely engineered/pushed by TPTB to cause chaos on our planet. If only everyone knew about the yin-yang...
Nathaniel Gummlepack - Sun, 07 Jan 2018 20:03:35 EST ID:cc26aplb No.208592 Ignore Report Quick Reply
And whites aren't white and blacks aren't black, all humans are varying shades of brown. What are YOU on about?
Nathaniel Wimmlelat - Tue, 09 Jan 2018 13:46:07 EST ID:ZS66X4xy No.208594 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Please read posts before you get all butthurt over them.
>>aren't accurate to what the entire world's views
In my post I said:
This version of the term dichotomy you describe is specifically a north american issue
Moreover you claim:
>>This is obviously just your personal views
>>You also seem to assume that the only people who's opinions matter are white
Fuck. You. You don't know me man, how dare you tell me what my opinions are?
I was providing historical context for the history of the terms for color, and specifically the way they're used in NA. 'Black' means 'aboriginal' in Australia, but you don't get huffy about that? If you can't hear someone dispassionately describe the history of racism without automatically assuming the person talking about it is racist, you're either incredibly simple minded or a closet racist yourself.
It's obviously not the case that the people to whom these terms were applied opinion doesn't matter. Of course their opinion matters, but it's not germane to the question of the OP, which is why did the terms come to be seen as they are? Answering that question requires us to specify that the use of those english color terms to signify races is nearly a wholly white invention, which makes those terms etic demonyms, so an emic understanding of them is both irrelevant and confusing to comprehending their origin. Ergo, duh Natives had names for white people, but you can guarantee among them wasn't the english word 'white' (unless they were talking to English people.) When used in today's society, sure english speaking people will use white to refer to white people because that's the norm (that white people established) -- but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't carry the same connotation of offensiveness that red or yellow do, which is again, OPs point. Otherwise, why would there have been the need for invention of different english slurs for whites, like cracker, honky, howlie, etc? Do you see how my post addresses OP's question, while your post just gets huffy and defensive about how that can't be the explanation, and does nothing to pr…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Jarvis Cravinglick - Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:40:25 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208601 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Fun fact, I was discussing this with a gay guy at some party and some random guy walked past us and gave the gay guy shit for saying "faggot" within the context of the conversation.
It was just so absurd.
Shit Blipperfun - Fri, 26 Jan 2018 23:11:59 EST ID:9zW8Ti/l No.208633 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Is it as simple as social conditioning? Or does it play a deeper part in the group psychology?

In the grand scheme of things, it's simply social conditioning. Group identity is made by the use of certain terms, and the rules of these terms can be pretty esoteric. In Australia for instance, it's almost encouraged for people to use the most insulting terms possible for their friends. Of course, people outside the friendship group using such terms would be considered insulting, but by the same token being overly formal would be considered an insult on it's own. Every culture has these implicit and explicit rules regarding social etiquette.

>Why is it acceptable to call someone white, or black,l. But is taboo to call someone red or yellow?

Specifically about these terms, like someone else said, that's an American way of doing things. "Red" and "yellow" were pretty common until the 60s/70s as I understand it. The terms became taboo for the same reason they were used. They connote otherness, illegitimacy, whereas "whiteness" (and, in black communities, "blackness") connotes authenticity.

There's actually a really good book called "Appropriating Blackness" that explains how the black community started to strictly police it's own ideas of "blackness" and exclude members of it's own community (especially gay people) on the grounds that they were undermining that group identity.

Schools turned into psychic-wards by Childfree 4life - Fri, 28 Jul 2017 05:24:38 EST ID:wN9L5jv0 No.208300 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1501233878679.jpg -(20439B / 19.96KB, 590x350) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 20439
What the fuck is wrong with children at schools nowadays?!

It turned really to the worse!

Learned it the hard way during an internship:

Children don't learn any essential behavioral patterns anymore. 90% are getting their educational input by some arsehole youtuber and the parents just don't care.

So the teacher has too often the role of educating these hellspawns in basic social-skills!

Too often I hear stupid parents say shit like "we were bad in school too! We did also pull pranks and were disrespectfull" (best if done in hearing-range of their hellspawn!)

but I dare you to visit a regular school or Campus these days: There is a difference between smoking in secret at the restrooms or attacking teachers with scissors (and beeing a disrespectful cunt in general)
24 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Fuck Diffingridge - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:21:45 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208536 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I believe parents would complain if their aggressive child got a syringe full of Thorazine

Not these days. These days parents are all too happy to dose their 'autistic' (aggressive) kids with risperidone even if they grow tits in the process.
Nicholas Settingfoot - Tue, 09 Jan 2018 20:24:06 EST ID:YzWsRZXQ No.208599 Ignore Report Quick Reply
<spoiler>It's not ethical to generalize an entire generation based on the perception of one group of individuals</spoiler>
Jarvis Cravinglick - Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:36:27 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208600 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The best part is when American students go study abroad and their entire understanding of the Cold War and the Vietnam war gets turned upside down because in Europe we don't have blatant propaganda in our history books.
Charles Wanninghall - Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:02:55 EST ID:RF6hola9 No.208612 Ignore Report Quick Reply

What if its 51% if the total population? Or Higher? At what point is it safe to make a generalization for an entire group based on a majority percentage?
Cyril Sebberwell - Wed, 17 Jan 2018 20:40:58 EST ID:8fJL5KPf No.208613 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My sister is a teacher and she says that they're not allowed to take the children's cell phones from them and they're not allowed to punish them in any way. It's a fucking joke.

My thought: What did the greats get WRONG? by Sophie Gaddleford - Thu, 28 Sep 2017 04:13:02 EST ID:tKRmy9hF No.208440 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1506586382687.jpg -(727321B / 710.27KB, 1200x1759) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 727321
Everyone remembers the greats for what they got right. But what about their follys? I was just about to start googling when I thought this might make a good thread. I'm more of a philosophy fanboy and am not well read. I hope we have some philosophy wizards here who can enlighten everyone about this.

My reasoning, I want these men to be humanized. I want myself and others to be able to see them as men with faults and contradictions and not unapproachable gods.
3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
William Fundlechore - Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:05:02 EST ID:zwKlR0Nw No.208459 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Another way to look at those same sets of particulars is that western philosophy became fixated on re-interpreting the philosophy of the classics, and became bound up in shadow-boxing increasingly abstracted transformations of classical philosophy, which had increasingly less to do with what the ancients actually believed and more with interpretations of interpretations, and in that sense we never really progressed out of the shadow of the ancients.

Sure, the ancient Greeks got huge swaths of empirical things inaccurate. Even seemingly impressive things, like Socrates' alleged drawing out of the principles of geometry from a slave are really just cunning bits of linguistic sleight-of-hand. But, on the other hand, philosophy has never been able to conclusively dismiss or get away from certain other points of their philosophy. The model of the world presented in the allegory of the cave/theory of forms is still a useful way to introduce the concepts of ontology and epistemology, and while perhaps they may be unscientific because they are untestable, they are also by extension unable to be disproven.

tl;dr: Yes ancient Greeks were wrong about a lot of things, but they were also eternally right about a lot of stuff, and I dare you to categorically disprove the theory of forms (you can't, it's impossible.)

Yes, you shouldn't get hung up on something or treat it as the end of philosophy when you can't disprove it, there are certainly more things to think about ontology and epistemology beyond the theory of forms, but you can't get rid of it either -- it remains a feature of philosophy to the present, whereas many ancient ideas are now definitively useless.
Fuck Diffingridge - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:19:59 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208535 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Plato took the math stuff even further and believed that since reality was mathematically defined, and aesthetically pleasing mathematics lead to an absolute truth observation was meaningless and all truths could be arrived at through mathematical calculations.

Modern mathematicians do the same thing more or less. They call it soft platonism, all the numbers without any of the fiddly interpretations of Good and the One. The one difference between Plato and they is Gödel.
Jenny Draddledale - Sun, 24 Dec 2017 23:46:00 EST ID:hGJqk5Sv No.208571 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That guy's pretty cool imho
Lydia Trotbanks - Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:16:30 EST ID:PwzxhROR No.208580 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Where does Plato say the 'forms' can be mathematically defined? Is there a source for this? Because if so, then the people who should rule the 'polis' are not philosophers (those who are best at perceiving or gaining some 'Truth'), but instead, mathematicians. A field of study I don't think the greeks even considered as existing in 500BC
Priscilla Bashfoot - Sun, 31 Dec 2017 14:01:52 EST ID:XUUNgMgt No.208582 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Modern mathematicians that have a naive knowledge of philosophy. Once you begin learning about logic and foundations, you encounter many non standard models of arithmetic. The easy way to think of it is a mathematical multiverse in the same way people talk of the possibility of physical multiverses. Why are the physical laws what they are? Similarly, one could ask why is this what the natural numbers are if there are other things that match its description and structure?

Statements in mathematics should only be considered as true when this claim is restricted to a single mathematical structure. There are many different mathematical structures with different properties, and no one of them has any inherent claim to be the "real" mathematical universe. There are claimants to the title of mathematical universe, for instance the class of all sets V, but it can always be expanded and doesn't contain all objects encountered in mathematics.

If we have no conception of what the real mathematical universe is, what can we say about what is out there?

humor me please on what you would do to help someone by amatuerhour - Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:03:52 EST ID:Pl+UfWe9 No.208521 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1510322632042.gif -(1554544B / 1.48MB, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1554544
Paradox of logic and spirituality and the dichotomy of self

He's on a path that cant be reversed and we can't force a river to bend, it has to flow to its natural whims. As this
cycle he has is about to end, we have to find the catalyst that hold together his psyche in an unhealthy manner. This is his defense mechanism of equal parts dismissive and destructive, meaning when he feels threatened he tries to defuse and disassociate the meaning of the consequences of his actions that is conditioning him in a negative way.

This defensive mechanism is the thing that has tricked him that he can survive like this, in perpetual self-destruction
affecting the people around him. The pain of losing what HE think he has lost and the loves and passions associated is
what is keeping him from the final catharsis and becoming his true self. Cody is in a sense reversed his negative and positive selves(which are in every way equal, one and the same and also the greater sum of their parts as a whole) to their positions.

I picture codys energy and form that is as inverted being yet thats is just as much as cody as the all badass parts of
cody, because his natural instinct (again this is all an initial summation) is to protect the things and emotions and passions he values the most. Like a black hole or as an abyss I described earlier or a living organism of emotion that has form and is formless. This energy around him that is controlling his actions to accept the wrong kind of energy
that festers and feds this almost parasite that rejects everything and everyone

Its appearent this feeling/form/energy has become more and more tangible in a sense that it has spread to you guys
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Cyril Bivinghare - Tue, 05 Dec 2017 16:17:29 EST ID:Sm7nPCsL No.208560 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think you are thinking the correct way but not necessarily the correct thoughts, because you sound like you are on to something, but I don't know who cody is.
Jenny Draddledale - Mon, 25 Dec 2017 00:24:43 EST ID:hGJqk5Sv No.208572 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Cody wants to lick your booty hole

What is even evil? by Molly Fonkinspear - Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:54:17 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.208438 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1506549257864.png -(69205B / 67.58KB, 292x191) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 69205
So there's this discussion I've been having on /b/ about belief, and it naturally evolved to banter about the nature of evil.

So I'm pretty much a relativist, because firstly I think humanity embodies both sides of the dichotomy as a fact of nature i.e. how we're made and how we perceive the world, and secondly because I believe there's no meaning beyond what humans the ones humans apply to the universe.

Yet I do find myself agreeing to being on the "good" side.

Why is this?
16 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Molly Blillerhog - Sat, 04 Nov 2017 17:11:09 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.208497 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1509829869726.jpg -(44497B / 43.45KB, 872x701) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

You may have a point with virtue I think. It's close to my own way of seeing reality. I don't apply some moral derivative of the divine to my actions, yet I do agree with a lot of religious morals of religious preachers, like Jesus, simply because what they essentially talk about is these human ideals which are usually something we all want to strive for. We all want to become better people than what we actually are, no?

But then what makes a virtue?
Nathaniel Clublingworth - Sun, 05 Nov 2017 11:27:38 EST ID:pf1/qTT/ No.208498 Ignore Report Quick Reply

It's actually mostly because of slavery. Which is pretty meaningless, for the slave.
Martin Clagglebury - Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:04:56 EST ID:/iCKvJxT No.208541 Ignore Report Quick Reply
First, establish what is commonly accepted as "good" and "evil".
The most popular human forms of evil have been established throughout the ages.
Murder, rape, thievery, lying, wrath, and hatred.
The most popular forms of good have also been established.
Charity, honor, truth, kindness, modesty and love.
These are highly prototypical expressions of what "good" and "evil" are.
Now the question, why do you believe yourself to be on the "good side"?
Is good and evil something we are born with? Something inherent in a soul? If a soul is a real thing?
Or are we products of environment? Would you be the same person if you were born and raised in a slum like downtown detroit? Would you be the same if you were raised by only one of your parents?
If an african american man was born in a nice suburb, would he still sell crack? #roasted
And how much does culture affect? Do the movies and stories you were told as a child and even now affect your perception, affect your morals? And when you finally do realize that your set of beliefs are manufactured by external stimuli, you will see yourself as nothing more than a collection of experiences and impulse responses, knee jerks that tweak your perceptions and affect how you understand and respond to future experiences. Seeing beyond the veil of subjectivity you discover that no objective truth is observable and that you are the ultimate judge of reality.
Enter the wild, wild, west. A cowboy riding a horse, a gun on his hip. He has written and signed his own constitution, of what is just, just for him. What is right and what is wrong when he stick his gun in your mouth? Will you die for a philosophy? As far as the cowboy sees its survival of the quickest..
So why are you "good"? Because life has been good to you? Because your life has shown you goodness so it exists within you? You obviously didn't make the choice to be good on a basis of logical axioms or you wouldn't asking why your good..And when you see through your own bullshit perhaps then you will discover what you really are. Nosce te ipsum.
Cedric Beggleshit - Fri, 08 Dec 2017 21:15:18 EST ID:NMygqr00 No.208561 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Hard relativism assumes that all moral values are relative... you answered your own question
Betsy Brookbury - Sun, 10 Dec 2017 16:24:39 EST ID:Sm7nPCsL No.208562 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Is then the notion that morals should be relative, is that notion relative? Is absolute morality permissible in relative morality?

Should i feel guilty for hating homophobes? by Eliza Gemmerwell - Sat, 18 Nov 2017 07:26:05 EST ID:qJ30WOYM No.208540 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1511007965459.png -(78814B / 76.97KB, 1280x509) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 78814
I live in Australia and we found out on wednesday that Homophobes are now in the minority in Australia. Should i feel guilty for hating them? because they are a minority i am legitimately confused on how i should feel toward them.
4 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Alice Brookridge - Sat, 25 Nov 2017 16:00:43 EST ID:5ANwUosA No.208547 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1511643643973.jpg -(68497B / 66.89KB, 422x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>Jesus had...a out of earth God.
Are you implying The Christ merely possessed divinity rather than being divine? Heresy punishable by death.
>> In no way where they in a relationship with each other.
Are you saying that God didn't love Joseph in an intimate, personal, divine relationship? Further damnable heresy bucko. Get the pitchforks!

Easily trolled reactionary is easily trolled. Sad.
Fuck Nicklefield - Sat, 25 Nov 2017 16:23:02 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.208548 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1511644982415.jpg -(9629B / 9.40KB, 256x196) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Well honestly Joseph was a mere adoptive father.
The bible is clear that God is Jesus' one and only father.

If anything this makes Joseph the biggest stallion in religion.
Reuben Dibblechere - Sun, 26 Nov 2017 21:11:41 EST ID:z/FiZpQC No.208549 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1511748701792.jpg -(62952B / 61.48KB, 397x293) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Hate is too much. There is no need to hate them.

But there is no need to sympathize with them, either. Fuck em.
Basil Pittbury - Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:03:29 EST ID:1kfT+DW9 No.208550 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1511813009041.jpg -(144646B / 141.26KB, 1024x611) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I've been struggling with where the line is drawn, I use to believe that people are fundamentally good and society has a place for everyone.

This last year + has really changed how I view my fellow man. I was a pacifist for well over a decade and now I see that as completely naive.

If you're a bigot or anti-worker the least I can do is hate you.
Martha Ponkinfitch - Tue, 28 Nov 2017 18:24:12 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.208551 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1511911452385.jpg -(47698B / 46.58KB, 580x525) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>If you're a bigot or anti-worker the least I can do is hate you.

Dude just chill. We're all imperfect humans.

Hate is such a powerful thing. Disagree, deny, resist or revolt sure. Hate though, nah dude that is for lesser men.

>This last year + has really changed how I view my fellow man. I was a pacifist for well over a decade and now I see that as completely naive.

Take care not to flip entirely. A lot of people with strong opinions tend to do this, maybe because having strong opinions is more integral to them than having the "correct" opinions.
Just chill, remember this Earth is at first man vs man, not idea vs. idea.
If you don't accept the world as-is, a complicated mess of a place hell even in your personal life, you gonna have a hard and bad time.

Do you think important people of the past, who weren't important in their time by Basil Dessleford - Sun, 22 Oct 2017 16:31:33 EST ID:tKRmy9hF No.208470 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1508704293015.jpg -(31320B / 30.59KB, 928x510) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 31320
ever thought themselves fools for writing it all down?

I mean we have all these books, written long before the telegraph or even the printing press. We have records, documents, journals, short stories tales and fables. Do you think the people writing these seemingly frivolous and pointless logs containing their dreams hopes opinions plans debts and whimsies, ever thought to themselves the way we today do, "What's the point of writing a book? What's the point of keeping a journal? I'm a nobody. It doesn't matter. I'll never be famous. I'm going to play videogames/watch tv/movies/jerk off/do yard work/eat food.". Except minus the modern stuff they obviously didn't have, replace with old timey equivalents.

My point is, i've been mulling it over and I don't think they thought in those terms. They didn't have kardasians, they didn't have instant porn on tap. When they got bored, they contemplated life, they wrote things down. Not in aetherial online forums. They wrote them down in a way that they would be kept and organized. Not lost and scattered to the winds of the internet. They probably didn't expect anyone to read their crap (i'm talking about normal people who later became known through their journals and works, not people who were doing multigenerational work at the time and expected their shit to be read down the line.) and didn't care either. It was for them.

What I'm also getting at is that we're rarely doing it "for me" anymore. Like everyone I know is doing things so they can...SHOW it to the world. So they can, get some kind of sliver of fame. I don't understand it. Fame is stupid. Self fulfilment is what matters, you'll find that out after you get fans. It even will grate on you, because you will hate them for loving you, because you don't love yourself...it angers you that they see something that you don't consider to exist. It bothers you that they get to love you, but you don't get to love yourself.

Idk. I think tech is fucking us up badly. Socially. It's getting fucking creepy. Like really, really fucking creepy. Kids have their faces in their phones all the time now and I always thought it was bullshit when adults would say that growing up but now...it's creepy, like I said. I'm only 27. And shit is getting fucking weird

Was just thinking all this while journaling for the first time in years. I've been putting my phone in a drawer recently...idk why. It creeps me the fuck out. When I can visually see it, it grips me. I can't explain it and it just creeps me out badly. When it's not physically on me, or visible, I feel differently. My anxiety goes the fuck away. I have had crippling anxiety for the last 4 fucking years (when I got my first smartphone...) and have had no idea why, or what changed me. These shit's are fucking creepy. I pretty much use my pc again when needed now. Feels much more normal. I don't even use it often. Mostly for movies/tv, but I only watch maybe a few shows a day, whereas with the phone, I was watching dozens of yt videos and random distracting horse shit. Something about the touchscreen...it grabs your monkey brain harder. Another note, I can't use pc on acid or shrooms, but I can use a touchscreen fine. It's fucking bizarre.

Anyway, this turned into kind of a rant/ramble but it started as a simple thought. I was wondering what the differences were between us and them after having the initial contemplation on what their intention was for their personal journalings. As a form of personal entertainment and remembrance at a later date, or as a means to be "remembered in history somehow" as I personally have fantasies about as a "modern man".

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Emma Fanford - Tue, 24 Oct 2017 22:47:56 EST ID:e5C650gC No.208475 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i most assuredly understand and agree with your points about the creepiness of smart phones and how easily people become addicted to their blinking screen. at work when i am in the break room 90% of the time, out of 5 or 6 workers, i will be the only one not slouching forward playing with my smart phone or tablet. one lady is always shopping. for anything. clothes, shoes, groceries, home things, doesn't matter. if she has a free nanosecond she is online shopping. another guy always play games. like the shitty asian tap-screen-faster-to-win phone games. 3 or 4 others are glued to their facebook feed. meanwhile i am just slowly gazing from person to person like i am at a zoo. i could pull a gun out of my pants, disassemble, clean, and reassemble it, or just pull out my dick and then put it away, and none would be the wiser.

as to the "doing it for yourself" vs "doing it for others" i think that varies on an individual basis, obviously with cultural and nurtural influences, but still the ultimate view and choice is one's own, regardless of time. think of the graffiti on a wall from ancient pompeii that gets posted, http://www.pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti%20from%20Pompeii.htm where they talk about getting drunk and fucking bitches and shit. that was essentially their "social media" of the time, and i am sure at least one scribbler was thinking "gee i hope pontificus thinks im funny when he reads this" while another was thinking "ha ha i pooped here" and does it for themselves
Albert Goodhall - Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:28:15 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208476 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>They wrote them down in a way that they would be kept and organized.

Nope. Most written historical records are gone... forever. You should read up on lost books that we only know from lost books that were mentioned in half-decayed books.
Matilda Clucklestone - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:08:15 EST ID:Iw2FXFb1 No.208533 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1510646895885.jpg -(141136B / 137.83KB, 437x606) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
For example China had ten ages in their mythology that spans back beyond what is known. Of what little history remains the dating is dramatically inaccurate. Anyways, the reason that is is because all the sages were killed and the books chronologing those eras were burned.

If you go back farther, history was remembered through storytellers, poets, and bards or whatever. The stories were fluid, altered over time, and varied per teller, until they were written. The story of Beowulf being the most obvious example. That tale was told countless times taking on different meanings while the core premise probably remained. Its continuous development occurring in spoken form becomes stunted in writing. From the novel a movie, diluted for the worse, to inspired variations like the 13th Warrior, its re-presented in another medium. Scroll credits.

The storytellers of the distant past who kept humanity's lessons and history alive across many generations are unknown. Certainly there is power in being the keeper of culture, its flame, but it was about what they told, not who they were. A select few people can make movies, many can write, everyone can tell stories.
Fuck Diffingridge - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:15:20 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208534 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The internet as a historical document will outlast every notebook journal diary or folio in existence.
Eliza Gemmerwell - Sat, 18 Nov 2017 06:57:53 EST ID:qJ30WOYM No.208539 Ignore Report Quick Reply

and yet finding anything of worth is like finding a certain needle in a pile of needles.

Atavism? by Cyril Dremmlefuck - Tue, 06 Dec 2016 15:26:13 EST ID:Y5UP2WQL No.207410 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1481055973605.jpg -(8587B / 8.39KB, 200x246) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 8587
Does anyone else have a bad reaction to the mentally handicapped? Am I literally hitler?
41 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Phoebe Nullerton - Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:20:09 EST ID:c1i9jeUP No.208490 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>but the right to kill is definitely innate.

I think we're conflating "rights" with "capacities." Rights are social constructs, not innate truths or potentials about the world. They change over time in response to the change of rulership, culture, and technology. They only exist when a society 1) chooses to acknowledge them and 2) provides a pathway through which individuals can invoke them.

>if I wanted to kill people, I could, period. That's my right.

There are all sorts of things that we can hypothetically do, but that doesn't make them rights. In fact, rights are moreso about what you can't do, in that most rights are protective in nature. For example, I have a right to not be killed by you or any other human. This is a right of mine because our legal system acknowledges and upholds it in a society in which we've all (probably implicitly) agreed to that right. If they didn't uphold it, then I would have no way of invoking that right when you try to kill me.

I thought about mentioning this essay on /b/ the other day, but mentioning the idea behind it led to a flurry of knee-jerk "animal hater" accusations. I think it would be better understood here though, since this thread seems more thoughtful:

back in undergrad ethics, I remember reading this essay (I wish I could remember the author, but I've spent too much time on /benz/ and /weed/) which, on the surface, alleged to take a contentious position: that animals have no rights. At the time I was a staunch believer of animal rights, mostly because I think we should treat living creatures with respect. However, upon closer inspection, I realized that his argument wasn't about whether or not we should respect animals (he explained in his conclusion that we have obligations to treat animals with respect), but that the nature of rights is such that they can only exist when upheld by a society or other authority. Unfortunately, this idea is easily confused with "we should abuse animals" when not given more than a passing glance. Fingers crossed that that doesn't happen here.
Simon Ninkinmurk - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 01:11:08 EST ID:dWvanT/s No.208500 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>For example, I have a right to not be killed by you or any other human.
But you don't. There isn't a legal system in place to stop you from being killed, if you try to say that to someone who is trying to kill you, you are going to die. But, you do have a right to bear arms(in the US), and that can be used to stop someone from killing you. And you do have a right for the person who did the action to get justice, but there is no magical mechanism that will pop up between you and death. Only those ready to defend themselves will survive.

>In fact, rights are moreso about what you can't do
Incorrect, rights are about what the government cant do to you. Laws are about what you cant do to others without consequences from society. Neither of those things make those actions impossible.

>alleged to take a contentious position: that animals have no rights
>but that the nature of rights is such that they can only exist when upheld by a society or other authority
Before humans, all animals took their rights, or they didn't get them. At this point, we are no longer just animals, so we offer all rights to our whole species. Even with all that, we still cannot take care of our own, why should we move on to other species. I would slaughter every animal on the planet if it meant longterm success for humans. We can either subjugate force, the only power, or be at its mercy.
Samuel Shittinglock - Mon, 06 Nov 2017 15:19:22 EST ID:nX761Sq0 No.208503 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>all animals took their rights, or they didn't get them.
No, animals operated without rights. A lion catching a gazelle isn't the lion taking a right. Rights are societal constructs. They exist only as much as a society is willing to uphold them.

>There isn't a legal system in place to stop you from being killed
Just because I can't stop a murderer with an explanation of my rights doesn't mean that they don't exist. The capacity for a right to be violated doesn't prove its nonexistence.
Priscilla Pennernerk - Tue, 07 Nov 2017 14:30:14 EST ID:wRqF/W2w No.208504 Ignore Report Quick Reply
ITT: People conflate arguing about semantics with ethical debate.

Spoiler: The fuck does it matter how we describe these things? Isn't what really matters (and the point of the thread) what we should or shouldn't do viz. other people (i.e. ethical debate) rather than what we do or don't call our ideas about what to do? Rights, capacities, justification...all just human meat-sounds to cover up our incomprehension of how we ought to behave or what even reality is...mistaking semantics for epistemology or ethics, a very primitive kind of misunderstanding...
Fuck Diffingridge - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:24:27 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208537 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Belief in biological rights is a sure sign of a social darwinist.

<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.