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


Popper by Isabella Sobberhood - Wed, 22 Oct 2014 02:59:41 EST ID:oMT6pyKv No.196272 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1413961181903.jpg -(86349 B, 600x769) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 86349
According to Popper, how do we determine which theories are "truer"?

For example:
>conjecture A: vaccine A won't kill you. Evidence: None
>conjecture B: vaccine B won't kill you. Evidence: Numerous studies

How do we, according to Popper, determine that the vaccine B is safer than vaccine A? As far as I know, he rejected the notion that some conjectures can be truer than others, and that conjectures can only be proven false.
6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Shit Bardbanks - Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:41:42 EST ID:S6jz9OtD No.196283 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196280
More certain, from our perspective, but it doesn't mean "more true".
>>
Barnaby Cogglestark - Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:45:30 EST ID:dtnI5Fnu No.196285 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196283

Maybe the point is that that's the best we can do
>>
Syllogism - Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:27:48 EST ID:HeRkYJIq No.196287 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>According to Popper, how do we determine which theories are "truer"?

According to Popper we don't. As Shit Bardbanks was saying, there's no such thing as, "more true," T and F are binary. The solution to this situation would be to employ something that was called abductive reasoning. It followed the structure of:

>P is sufficient, but not necessary, for Q.

In this framework, P would be evidence, and Q would be, "doesn't kill you." Vaccine B entails P, while A does not, which gives it the leg up in the eyes of abductive validation. Probabilistic logic would later come along as a means of formalising the entailment of P in A or B and for expressing truth value as a probability, but that framework didn't arise until after Popper's passing.
>>
Sidney Navingkod - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:34:56 EST ID:S6he6NfA No.196305 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196272
It's called the scientific method. Claims based on documented and repeatable evidence are truer (though not exactly "true"), specifically because they are documented and repeatable. If something has happened already, and can be made to happen again by a duplication of the original circumstances, it is more likely to be within the realm of possibility than something that is claimed /will/ happen without any such prior evidence.
>>
Alice Fimmlenidge - Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:02:49 EST ID:McimSD/A No.196332 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196283

there's very little that can be proven true in terms of rational knowledge


Learning materials by Charles Nizzlebury - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:56:59 EST ID:oMT6pyKv No.196325 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1414195019627.jpg -(582952 B, 3968x2976) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 582952
Any good science books or leaning materials on the following?:
>How problem solving works?
>How learning works?
>How memory works?
>>
Phyllis Chennerford - Sat, 25 Oct 2014 00:28:30 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.196326 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't know about the others but this is a good one:

http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Damned-Science-Scientific-Controversies/dp/0132849445 It gives you the tools on how to spot junk science and know where science stands on many issues through personal research


orgasms shape sexuality by Fanny Bongerketch - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 00:31:40 EST ID:4DJQkMXz No.196294 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1414125100747.jpg -(53936 B, 500x673) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 53936
what u are thinkin about durin the orgy shapes your sexuality
sexuality can bend
if u as masturbatin to the other thing
6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
John Pundlewell - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 07:11:10 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.196315 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196314
Reprogramming homosexuals has already been tried. It doesn't work. It just amounts to regressing the urges which ends up causing psychological problems. At this point, it seems very unlikely that anyone can change their sexuality only repress it.

Correct in principal? In what way?

And I agree, what is wrong with most sexuality? Everyone has preference just like everyone is a certain ethnicity. Some are introverts while others are extroverts. Do we need to make everyone into an introvert or extrovert? I appreciate the variety.

I am not sure what Republicans obsession with sex is about. It could be that they were taught that it was wrong all their life so they attack it as adults. Aside from the extremes, sexuality is as natural an expression as eating. It's normal and healthy. Sometimes people's lovemaps take a detour and they are attracted to peculiar and uncommon things or situations.

I do believe that orgasm plays a part but not in the way someone in this thread expressed. It could be that having an orgasm during a specific event as a child can create a fixed association between sex and an object. But once this pivotal moment occurs, I think this preference as an adult just evolves and lasts for their life cycle. I think it can only be repressed.

Let's use pedophiles as an example. A dominant pedophile is always going to be a pedophile. He or she can decide to suppress their urges as to not harm children but it'll always be with them. We have tried to cure pedophiles. It doesn't seem to work. We can zap them, castrate them, and everything else in our arsenal but they are still what they are.
>>
Fuck Pingerdig - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:57:03 EST ID:P3uH3/Ds No.196320 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196315
>Reprogramming homosexuals has already been tried. It doesn't work

It's been tried by idiots that have incredibly stupid ideas about humanity, and for idiotic reasons. Of course it didn't work. Only incompetents tried. People who have a little more understanding of human nature, won't try in the first place, because there's no point for wasting all that effort. They can just coexist with homosexuals because they're not idiots out to get anyone who grosses them out.
Someone like Timothy Leary for example could have "deleted" the imprinting and substituted it with another one.. But he wouldn't have ever done that, because he was a decent human being.

>Correct in principal? In what way?

That it's a choice. Not like a trivial choice like what kind of ice cream, but the kind of choice that you make little by little, over the years, without realizing you're making it.

>We have tried to cure pedophiles. It doesn't seem to work. We can zap them, castrate them

Again, you mention stupid, barbaric ways to "cure" these people and then say "pedophiles are pedophiles".
Maybe if we got over our rage-boner against pedophiles and considered them human beings like everybody else, we could try alternative methods that could actually work, instead of torturing them and calling it "medicine".
>>
John Pundlewell - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:20:05 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.196321 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196320
>That it's a choice. Not like a trivial choice like what kind of ice cream, but the kind of choice that you make little by little, over the years, without realizing you're making it.

I am not sure of this. It could be those little by little choices were inevitable given the person's intrinsic qualities. Even if it were a choice, it doesn't matter. Republicans like to use the whole choice argument for some reason. They think that if it's actually chosen that it places blame on them. It doesn't seem to understood that no blame exists and no one worth their salt considers it a disorder. They like to talk about how it was once in the DSM but fail to know that even Freud said that nothing is wrong with it. Not only this but they only went by psychoanalysis of patients only and never studied homosexuals outside therapy which was only started around the 50's; Those studies showed that homosexuals were productive and healthy minded citizens.

>timothy leary

but I personally doubt that homosexuality is a result of imprinting but rather intrinsic state of their brain. That could be wrong. I am open to the possibility. I just think it's a fixed state based on hardwired biology.

>pedophiles

I agree with you that we should treat them like the human beings that they are. All child molesters are not pedophiles and not all pedophiles molest children. It is uncertain how many pedophiles never molest children but there are those pedophiles that are deeply disturbed by their attraction. Just because one has an urge does not mean they have to succumb to it. Just as men that find a woman walking down the street attractive must rape. A pedophile can just as easily not rape.

Having said that, there are pedophiles that are pretty much hopeless. This is because they simply don't care about the well-being of others and tend to be repeat offenders. Castration doesn't always prevent future molestation either way since there is the psychological aspect. If we could use something more humane, it would be a step up.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Fuck Pingerdig - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:10:56 EST ID:P3uH3/Ds No.196322 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196321
>but I personally doubt that homosexuality is a result of imprinting but rather intrinsic state of their brain

I don't know either, but I lean more towards the imprinting stuff. I mean, how many times were we convinced something was intrinsic and instead found out it was totally changeable? At this point, concepts like "unchangeable", "hopeless", or "intrinsic" seem more like excuses to not admit your temporary powerlessness and lack of results. After all, if you blame nature, you don't have to admit that the limits are your own. This is just semantics, though.

>This is because they simply don't care about the well-being of others and tend to be repeat offenders

Well yeah, if they're not even interested in changing, there's not much to be done I think. Maybe that would change once they're behind bars though.. No one wants to be in that position.
>>
Fanny Bongerketch - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:11:31 EST ID:4DJQkMXz No.196323 Ignore Report Quick Reply
'can we reprogram' is not important - that is a cretins notion, when he thinks he understands the world and that there is a right and wrong way to live. when he looks around himself for cheap examples of the 'natural order' and begins forcing that perception onto those around him.

'should we' is a much better debate worthy of philosophy.


Psychology by Shit Druffingcocke - Thu, 23 Oct 2014 22:44:06 EST ID:c8ZqwS2n No.196291 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1414118646347.jpg -(27977 B, 423x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 27977
Hey, so, guys. I have this homework thing, I don't want you to do it for me but maybe you can help me get started, not by writing for me but providing maybe some sources and suggestions for topics to discuss.

So, i'm writing a few pages about:
"How has Freud's psychodynamics and Watson's behaviorism - respectively and comparably - affected our culture?"

So yeah, i'm discussing their psychology perspectives form a cultural perspective. Any good ideas for things to write about?

ALSO - another, more important question. How do I get started with real learning? I mean, in all subjects, I've learned how to produce and turn in great schoolwork and get perfect grades, but I don't feel like I learn anything, I just do it for my grades. Same goes for all my subjects, but I have zero passion. I want to learn to love math, science, history, civics, english etc. and read and learn stuff that's not even necessary for school but just because I want to learn more! Is it possible to get to that point? Anyway please help with my report. :^)

(also i'm 18 so no rules broken)
10 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Sidney Navingkod - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:08:03 EST ID:S6he6NfA No.196310 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196309
DO YOUR OWN FUCKING HOMEWORK YOU SPOILED SHIT
>>
John Boppersadging - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:10:30 EST ID:RBb5Co0p No.196311 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196310
I never asked someone to do anything for me.
>>
John Boppersadging - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 07:25:18 EST ID:RBb5Co0p No.196316 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196310
I never wanted someone to write for me or anything, I just asked for ideas + sources
>>
John Pundlewell - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 07:31:00 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.196317 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196293
>I'm interested in religion - i've read the Bible and the Qu'ran in their entirety.

I am non-religious but holy books are fun to study for some reason. Exegesis debates can be oddly stimulating. It may be the same for you. Maybe the report can use this in some way. Give an interesting perspective that you noticed.

>movies

Do you enjoy dissecting elements of story as you watch a movie? I enjoy doing this and try to see how the writer formed those elements and connecting the dots in the story.
>>
Shit Druffingcocke - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 07:51:57 EST ID:c8ZqwS2n No.196318 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196317
You are really nice and those are some great ideas, thanks!


Would this be a good or a bad thing. by Beatrice Brettinglock - Sun, 19 Oct 2014 18:45:57 EST ID:HaLdDEdt No.196238 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1413758757927.jpg -(5882 B, 240x180) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 5882
On a typical soda bottle you can see the ingredients. Some places you can see how many percent of ingredients the drink has based on your daily recommended intake.

I want a revolutionary thing to happen with that, i want them to be completely honest and include BPA in the ingredients. Because its a fact that its there.
7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Fuck Bunstock - Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:52:21 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.196274 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196270
"The government" isn't some maniacal maniac scheming in the shadows. Corruption will always be present but people generally stay away from the bad stuff once they know about it. It just sometimes takes a while for it to catch on. Most people know about harmful chemicals that can leech from certain plastics and there are indicators which one's those are; That's what those numbers on the bottle of plastic containers represent. I haven't yet seen a product in the stores I frequent contain the harmful sort of plastics. They are usually a 1 or a 5. This isn't always because of the kindness of people but people's desire to survive.

The greedy business man isn't going to continue selling the bad plastics if most want to avoid them. BPA free is a common tag on most products - I just bought a Blender Bottle and it has a BPA Free sticker and a 5 score.

Hell, they even started selling milk and juice for kids menus in fast food restaurants. If they can get away with being cheap then they would but many times they can't. Eventually information becomes common knowledge and it's largely different since information is widely available.
>>
Fuck Bunstock - Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:01:44 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.196275 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196274
And to add:

Sometimes it is based on the kindness of people. The common man is actually helpful and empathetic. Government reflects the best and worst of human nature. I think the best of human nature tends to shine through. I know that it's popular to complain about how things are but it has only been improving and has helped many people. If we didn't have government, (which is essentially the community working towards the community), businesses and whatnot would have far more free reign. If a business could make millions selling icecream made of dogshit, they would. That would easily happen if we didn't have measures in place. Of course, government can be swayed towards the agendas of the wealthy whether those agendas are good or bad depends on the agenda and opinion.
>>
Graham Shittinghall - Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:09:20 EST ID:DkfyGCIY No.196277 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196270

i agree, people are sheeple. On a individual level it is not enough to just stay away from plastic containers, the planet is so contaminated with plastic and BPA is not the only known chemical in plastic with such effects. So basically we can in the
future see a sharp increase of birth defects, especially in boys, as the chemicals such as BPA travels around the ''Ecosystem'' and eventually into our food sources. I even think that all of us are using keyboards made out of plastic.

>>196274
>>196275

Its not enough to simply tell the public what type of plastic to avoid, like archie said, people aren't yet that much willing to avoid plastic. This would change if BPA would be among the contents, right next to sugar and calories.
>>
Reuben Snodshaw - Wed, 22 Oct 2014 22:35:56 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.196286 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196277
>This would change if BPA would be among the contents, right next to sugar and calories.

That's probably in the near future. Knowledge has a way of catching up to the common person.

People aren't as stupid as you may believe, at least not on the common level. We will always have to place silly warnings on products just in case some dullard decides to put electrical equipment near a pool.

There is also the fact that people can be overly paranoid. People stay away from lots of things because they are "bad" for them. In reality, it's just ignorance in the same way people can be overly concerned whether something is "organic" or "natural"; Implying the logical fallacy that natural = good.
>>
Sidney Navingkod - Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:37:01 EST ID:S6he6NfA No.196306 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196238
Why not just due this with all incidental inclusions? Because then the FDA would have to do its job, and big gov wins.


roomates by Walter Chiggledock - Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:08:36 EST ID:MaC6bxeO No.196157 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1413310116907.jpg -(6141 B, 271x186) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 6141
I am sick of their dishes and then when i bring it up an possible solutions i am labeled as a passive aggressive, then the discussion dies down and the dishes keep piling and people keep whining and nothing gets actually done.

They do not know about 420chan so this in its self is an honest attempt to hear some good tactics for approaching this. Because if i hear one more Passive Aggressive sorta phrase in response to me trying to generate a solution I am going to Assertively Dominate every dish and pan and dirty stain and towel i see with ink and paint and dyes
8 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Henry Honkinbick - Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:49:23 EST ID:7pGkwbyG No.196242 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1413798563699.jpg -(15073 B, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 15073
Passive - Assertive - Aggressive

One interpret spectrum about how people communicate their wants and intentions, or respond to others'.
Assertive statements are clear, short, and to the point. Prepare a one to two sentence assertive statement ahead of time to avoid emotional erroneousness, in this case to clean up after themselves, and Chiggledock'll do the same. Next reflect their predictable defensive response by restating their response in your own words, this will demonstrate you are listening and understand. If you are mistaken it will give them an opportunity to elaborate. Ignore their points that are off-topic. After thus course, most importantly repeat the same assertive statement again. Assertive statement > defensive response > reflective response until acknowledgment to alter their behavior, or an impasse.

Aggressive is violation of others space. Passive is ceding personal space without rebuttal. Physical space, coercion of actions, rule. "Do this, do that, ack ack ack! ack ack."
>>
Barnaby Pevinglock - Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:23:24 EST ID:MaC6bxeO No.196245 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196242

your hard to follow but i believe i get the jest, could you maybe bullet point it for me a little?
>>
Matilda Cundlenog - Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:10:46 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.196250 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196188
> Messy people do not like being told they're messy and lazy, that's just how it is.
Well, noone does, but some accept the criticism.

I'm messy as hell; and while I usually clean up after myself, often the amount of work I gotta do prevents me from doing so. If that bothers anyone, I just apologize and try to do something about it. Even if it doesn't improve much (hard to change a man's nature; once a slob, always a slob), at least it's a signal to the other person that it's not like I completely don't give a shit about them. Helps ease things up a bit.
>>
Emma Blasslefin - Tue, 21 Oct 2014 01:54:12 EST ID:7pGkwbyG No.196259 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1413870852481.jpg -(216346 B, 417x604) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 216346
>>196245
  • State short and to the point assertive statement
  • Wait silently for response
  • Predictable defensive response
  • Rephrase their response in your own words
  • They'll confirm or dispute your rephrase
  • Reassert

This cycle may continue for awhile before acknowledgement. Here's an example: "When you don't clean up after yourself, I feel annoyed because I have to clean up after you two, and my dog eats the cigarette butts if I don't."

Defensive response: "The others sure are right, you're just a passive-aggressive asshat who only cares about your dog."

Reflective listening: "You think I'm using my dog as an excuse to pressure you about the mess."

Affirm or deny: "You said it! She's all you've talked about since you got her."
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Basil Nebberwill - Tue, 21 Oct 2014 03:08:58 EST ID:1nXldICE No.196260 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196157
1: Proper communication on YOUR part can solve almost any problem of similar nature to your problem, regardless of the difficulty or unwillingness of your roomates' communication.
2: If you fail or refuse to achieve 1 then move on with your fucking life and either A)Kick them out if you're in charge B)Move the fuck out C)Fucking deal with dirty dishes or do the dishes yourself until you can achieve A or B


How is empirical data converted to a true/false value? by Faggy Cublingwuck - Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:11:40 EST ID:eB1toxKQ No.196202 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1413501100912.jpg -(13898 B, 225x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 13898
Try to answer this question: How is empirical data converted to a true/false value?
17 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Ian Droblingledge - Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:00:36 EST ID:PD7yx7is No.196225 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196222

>For example, there's no way to prove god doesn't exist.

Are you sure about that?
>>
Nell Bunningstig - Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:12:51 EST ID:vFpEa1Nb No.196226 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196225
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
>>
Wesley Peddlechurk - Sun, 19 Oct 2014 13:53:52 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.196227 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196225
Well, has there ever been a sane method put forward? Was there ever given a finite, reproducible set of steps that results in a for or against evidence linking some apparent phenomenon with what is commonly defined as God?

No.
>>
Phoebe Cengerfield - Sun, 19 Oct 2014 17:36:24 EST ID:HjMbP06g No.196235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196202 No. But then what is Lord, in all it's manifestations, essentially but a idea for that which is beyond, assumed, held on faith to underpin the empirical, practical, contingent world? It's the point at which the search for proof in which verificationism runs aground and finds only nothingness. I'm an atheist on the grounds that I think the hypothesis of a deity is one that came about for precise reasons corresponding to man's position in history and the knowledge and needs that he had at the time (which is to say, I believe in a social science).

I don't accept the boundaries between a priori sciences (mathematics), a posteriori "sciences" (i.e. natural sciences such as biology), or social sciences with a lesser degree of agreement on methodologies. Everything is more or less true, and everything - from that which encompasses 1+1 and appears finite to that which appears to represent your free will and is subject to a chain of infinite causes - must be subject to the same scientific understanding. Where you are today could be produced into an equation or causal chain, it would just be a very long and arduous one to produce. Whether we are material or ideal substances is somewhat irrelevant here, the ultimate test has to be whether something bears out practically; this starts with experimentation to show something's truthness and the falseness of the opposing hypotheses, and ends with successfully linking this to other hypotheses and practical application. Verification and falsification must play a part in this. Some things have been verified to the point that, even with a great mote in our eyes, we can see that we've built upon certain knowledge to expand what we can do and expand our knowledge further. As I say, more or less known. The hypothesis that cancer causes smoking we can fairly assume to be true by most standards, string theory is more conjectural, but it is an attempt to abstract from better known truths that may produce a concrete truth in time, and this is often how science works (see PAUL FEYRABEND). Unless a theory/hypothesis contains within it the notion that it is inherently beyond empirical proof (a method which should be regarded as dishon…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Wesley Peddlechurk - Sun, 19 Oct 2014 17:45:43 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.196236 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196235
> No. But then what is Lord, in all it's manifestations, essentially but a idea for that which is beyond, assumed, held on faith to underpin the empirical, practical, contingent world?
Holy shit, this escalated quickly.


Beauty and the fat acceptance movement by Barnaby Hicklechark - Mon, 13 Oct 2014 22:45:40 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.196146 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1413254740342.jpg -(45175 B, 480x328) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 45175
What I love about Plato's symposium about beauty and love is
>men and aesthetic beauty goes back to nature
This is proven more so with evolutionary biology and anatomy and the breakdown of the human appealing factor for bearing children. Without these impulses and drive we would not have survived as a species.
>men are able to see themselves as aesthetic without appealing to a woman
*muffled sound of gay symposium drunk sex*
>women are not capable of thought on such a level
Women, in vertebral mammalian evolutionary anatomy, physiology, biology, and in nature affirm their beauty by...wait for it...wait for it
appealing to men. They know they are beautiful based on reciprocation from men (in a situation where there is no secondary standard).

Now relating to the fat acceptance movement
>Everyone is beautiful!
If everyone is, then nobody is.
Not everyone can be objectivly beautiful. One can be as 'beautiful' as one can be, but measured to the standard of another, they wont measure up. As mentioned above, this standard is based in evolutionary empirical anatomy and biology. If you are obese and show you cant even take care of yourself, how would you take care of a spouse or another human being?
>There's a false standard set for women in society
So this beggs the question, what is the ideal woman? If there is a false standard, you also beg the question of: "where did you get your apriori source of info for the ideal woman?"
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
23 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Polly Cavinglut - Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:11:49 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.196189 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1413425509111.png -(31358 B, 306x541) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 31358
>>196183
Its like youre trying to claim those things are bad though.

Here's a cartoon better depicting societal influences and why people need to stop bitching about it
>>
Hamilton Buzzford - Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:32:31 EST ID:46t9vNLP No.196190 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1413426751144.jpg -(362802 B, 1000x666) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 362802
>>196172
>>
Walter Savingtit - Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:25:38 EST ID:glwb5C6i No.196191 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196189
Sorry if it seems like I'm trying to claim it. I'm not trying to claim it, I'm just saying it's not what defines beauty in a post-modern world.

>>196184
By "white standard" i just mean classical philosophies of beauty repeated and enhanced from rome in the dawn of the Western/European empires before modernism. That's all.
>>
Augustus Blathercocke - Thu, 16 Oct 2014 09:28:40 EST ID:YtiRBqxn No.196195 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196189
>weight change
We're not talking about fluctuations in body mass though.

>>196191
Well it's pretty disengenuous to frame it in that way, but it's no big deal.
>>
William Hundlebanks - Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:06:48 EST ID:u4S/NaUO No.196228 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Just chalk up fatness to a mental disease. Case closed. Lonely fat women can still feel special and they still don't have to accept its their own faults.


Man, the world is shitty by Esther Monningbury - Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:23:44 EST ID:hCeWRAr8 No.196193 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1413462224976.jpg -(74215 B, 960x640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 74215
Man, I hate politics. Especially my countries (USA) politics.

Who the hell drew a line in the sand and said "you can only be blue or red. You can be green but nothing you say or do matters because you aren't red or blue."

Aren't all parties started as general movements to better the people and in direct effect, the country as a whole? Sure, it's a voted situation and not everyone agrees, but neither has the intention of crumbling the people, because the people are the country.

How is it the best intentions always lead straight to hell?
>>
Charles Tillingwill - Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:47:38 EST ID:vFpEa1Nb No.196194 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196193
>Aren't all parties started as general movements to better the people and in direct effect, the country as a whole?
They're usually founded to advance the interests of a single group.
>>
Alice Niggerlock - Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:54:13 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.196198 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The founding fathers agreed (as do most philosophers) that the country needed multiple parties competing at all times to stop one party from being tyrannical and to stop the populace from falling into a single mindset.
>>
Nigger Soshshaw - Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:03:11 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.196199 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196193
>Who the hell drew a line in the sand and said "you can only be blue or red. You can be green but nothing you say or do matters because you aren't red or blue."

The people of the USA when they decided en-masse to listen to bullshit.
>>
Angus Buzzstone - Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:34:45 EST ID:/TWQS86w No.196211 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Red and blue disagree on polarizing issues such as abortion and/or gay marriage.

The key issues, such as warfare, expansionism, infrastructure, taxes, are always off of the table because both parties will rule the same way.

It's just a puppet show to make the commoners feel like they are in control of their own destiny.

It's basically an aristocracy now.
>>
Shit Brookgold - Sat, 18 Oct 2014 07:20:48 EST ID:EdihGt77 No.196218 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The reason that political parties in the US and coalitions in other countriea typically divide on a two dimensional spectrum is because the fundamental political conflict in our world is two sided: capital and labor.

I'm not saying the Democratic Party is actually fielded by or struggles for the interests of labor, but plenty of people at least perceive this to be true.


rape by David Wovingstone - Mon, 06 Oct 2014 23:39:02 EST ID:fwtQsfWg No.196096 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1412653142383.jpg -(49796 B, 500x375) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 49796
is rape inherently?
>>
Eugene Nindlebanks - Tue, 07 Oct 2014 00:12:40 EST ID:QN6YHSWH No.196097 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Inherently what?
>>
Archie Duckville - Tue, 07 Oct 2014 00:36:17 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.196098 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196096

rape is bad because sex is an emotionally charged event and people already have crazy thought patterns and sensations associated with it, so when you hold them down so they can't escape, which would be a frightening violent act in itself, and then do this neurosis-related thing to them, all up in their personal space, it's traumatic

i don't think it's fair to call drunken consent equal to rape, i agree that its bad, but its not really rape. if your pussy is wet, and you are consenting in the moment, your suffering is much reduced to the fear and suffering of forcibly raped woman, whose pussy is probably damaged and the rest of her body bruised and hurt, who was held against their will

taking advantage of a drunk person is a bad thing to do. whether it's making them sign unfavorable contracts in business, or trying to fuck them, it's bad. But it's not the same as rape, sexual encroachment perhaps? half the prison time of rape or something, idk
>>
Archie Bungerset - Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:56:48 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.196114 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196098
At the end of the day, the factors are just so unknown. Did that drunk guy fuck that drunk girl because he liked her and they hit it off? Or was he actually sober enough to concoct a plan to take advantage of this girl, knowing she'd protest otherwise? Two very different scenarios with the exact same outcome, yet one is acceptable while another is unacceptable. What to do.
>>
Isabella Hungerkadging - Thu, 16 Oct 2014 23:36:26 EST ID:iYlR5Rfl No.196206 Report Quick Reply
> if your pussy is wet,

the body will lubricate the vagina to protect it from damage, it is not a sign of consent, attraction, or high level arousal.

i agree that a lot of consentual-at-the-time drunk-on-drunk activity should not be classified as rape. there's a difference between a woman going out for a jog in exercise clothing and getting tackled by some sick fuck and forcibly raped, and some girl going out and getting shitfaced at a bar with her ass hanging out and going home with some dude and having sex and then claiming rape later. it just cant be the same thing, in my mind.
>>
Hannah Mazzlehall - Fri, 17 Oct 2014 02:57:30 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.196207 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196206

>the body will lubricate the vagina to protect it from damage, it is not a sign of consent, attraction, or high level arousal

i didn't say it was consent, i said that it makes the experience less painful than a forcible rape where the pussy doesnt have time to get wet or is tight and dry from fear and tension. my point was just like you, to make clear the severe difference in pure suffering that a forcible rape victim experiences compared to "merely" being taken advantage of


Why don't we just worship the SUN?? AKA an inquiry into obscurantism. by Thomas Fendlestone - Fri, 04 Jul 2014 17:00:33 EST ID:vdSv87ti No.194961 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404507633244.gif -(881451 B, 300x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 881451
Ok so my general idea is summed up by the title. I figure in this age of far-reaching understanding, we could just hand the proverbial blue ribbon to the societies that worshipped the sun and admit that they had it right.

The Sun:
>Photosynthesis
>Our ability to see objects well
>Not freezing
>Solar panels
>Giant respect-demanding eye-and-skin-searing fireball in the heavens
>An orbit not in the middle of the oort cloud
>Common social conventions of time
>Can electromagnetically dick around with our feeble gadgets
>Seasons (see: not freezing and orbit)
>The Earth itself created out of the matter from or near the birth of the sun

So why are we worshipping the sun LESS and not MORE now that we know more and more about it?
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
33 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Ernest Gundleston - Sun, 28 Sep 2014 07:14:07 EST ID:i3f9JbfR No.195977 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194961

OP the sun should not be worshipped, but it should be recognised as the reason humans exist, the sun has existed for all of time as far as we are concerned. The sun asks nothing of us because we are nothing to it, we are 0, we are insignificant, if you look at all of time our existence is barely a drop in the ocean.

But we do owe it our life and we will return to the sun once we return to the earth.
>>
Faggy Bardstone - Wed, 01 Oct 2014 13:09:59 EST ID:cc9eROX9 No.196034 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195977
Yeah but the sun is the objective cause of the ideas that could determine that the sun is beholden to the machinations of the rest of the universe, not to mention it's been present in human ideas throughout all of human history, so it certainly acts as a sort of predicate for the development of consciousness as such. I mean yeah, though, the question of "is it godlike" is different from "should we worship it," but then the point is if you're going to worship something *anyways* then you know where to look.
>>
Jarvis Honkinnit - Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:14:33 EST ID:FnLSIj6V No.196115 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1412799273127.jpg -(58286 B, 600x338) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 58286
>>195977
but was it really the sun? why not the milky way which kind of put the sun there, same way as the sun helped us get around
but why not go for matter and laws of physics, or something even bigger and more-encompassing
i find it weird that people stop by the sun so often.
okay, historically stars looked small but whatever
oh wait... maybe the picture answers the question
>>
Walter Chiggledock - Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:08:13 EST ID:MaC6bxeO No.196142 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1413245293907.gif -(1409973 B, 256x143) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1409973
DICKS EVERYWHERE
>>
Archie Herrywell - Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:04:38 EST ID:KUJuRFtu No.196144 Ignore Report Quick Reply
anduEBFIeblfYWLFUvlwef


Kant; Transcendentalism, forms, categories etc. by Priscilla Blythefoot - Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:33:12 EST ID:eB1toxKQ No.196130 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1413084792647.jpg -(82260 B, 700x523) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 82260
Could anyone please explain all the transcendentalism, form and category stuff that Kant proposed?
>>
Isabella Criblingshit - Sun, 12 Oct 2014 00:00:16 EST ID:46t9vNLP No.196131 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's all about the noumena and shit, man.

The noumena is reality in itself. But we can never fully grasp what the noumena is, because it's filtered through our imperfect senses.

Jesus. Isn't it crazy?
>>
Reuben Pendlechere - Sun, 12 Oct 2014 02:11:09 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.196134 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196130

kant was not a "transcendentalist", which is a type of poetry from the 19th century i believe, kant was a "transcendental idealist", which meant, for him, that he was an idealist in the sense that he believed all our dealings with the world are through ideas which the mind creates out of sensory data and built in structures like spacetime and the other categories he mentions. the things-in-themselves, the actual physical objects of the world, we have no access to, rather, we see them because they give off light which our eyes receive and then the brain creates image. the noumenal, to kant, is the world that we cannot perceive, because to perceive is to translate the noumenal to the phenomenal, which is the world of ideas that the brain creates for us

to be honest most of the categories aren't really that important, space and time are important because they govern how we perceive things, theoretically the eye receives a flat wall of photons from every ray that hits the retina, the mind constructs objects and 3-dimensional positioning of these objects (depth perception) out of this data in conjunction with the other senses especially touch

if i recall correctly, the "transcendental" part of kant's ideology was that we can examine ourselves in a different way than we can examine other objects, we have access not just to the idea or form of ourselves, but also our own subjective "what it feels like to be me" stuff, and from this we can "transcend" the purely ideal world and know what the thing-in-itself, or noumena, is like, at least what humans-in-themselves are like, they have subjectivity, they have feelings, they have a point of view.

and from this he thought we can transcend the is-ought gap, because humans are NOT just objects our mind has perceived, we also know through introspection that they have feelings and you can't just treat them however would serve your purposes, you have to treat them with respect for their feelings, and thus he created the categorical imperative, which is to never treat another human strictly as an object which you can use to satisfy your purposes
>>
William Brookshaw - Sun, 12 Oct 2014 23:38:41 EST ID:Ku0Jrxtx No.196138 Ignore Report Quick Reply
anything related to kant makes me wanna puke

guess thats what college philosophy does to you
>>
Cedric Fishnug - Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:11:29 EST ID:vFpEa1Nb No.196139 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196134
Yeah, transcendental is one of those words with a bunch of different meanings. There's the 19th century American movement. There's Kant. I think Buddhists use the word. And transcendental numbers are a thing in math.

For the record, 19th century American transcendentalism was more than just poetry, and includes Ralph Waldo Emmerson, and Henry Thoreau.

Great explanation of Kant's transcendental ideal.
>>
Cedric Fishnug - Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:21:29 EST ID:vFpEa1Nb No.196140 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>196134
You seem to know what you're talking about, so I've got a question.

Has anyone tried linking Kant's works to our modern understanding of the brain? I'm sure people have done it, but is it a common connection? I mean, the way he divided the way we percieve into different categories seems to coincide with how we have different structures in the brain. You could argue that his categories are universal for anything with intelligence, but that's probably too anthropocentric. Instead, it makes more sense to think of the various circuits/structures in our brains as the different categories.

For example, the nobel prize in physiology was just awarded to a team that uncovered a fundamental way in which our brains perceive space. That looks like a neural basis for a category to me. In addition, there's probably a category for facial recognition. It's not as high-minded as Kant's categories, but many of those are can probably be reduced to some sort of Bayesian statistical method.

Get what I'm saying?


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