420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
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


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Weekly Classic phillosofical questions! #1 by Jarvis Turveywill - Sat, 01 Oct 2016 19:50:50 EST ID:aZIQO4pB No.206952 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1475365850364.jpg -(2142B / 2.09KB, 93x93) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2142
>does good or/and bad really exist?

I'll try to give once a week a typical, classic question and begin a discussion. Should bring a bit more life to the board and action. don't forget to spam on the other boards
However i won't do it every week because i'm a lazy, forgetting and postponing guy (proscinating? i forgot the word in english....) So every one is invited to put the question at the beginning of a new week.
16 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Molly Sepperwell - Sat, 08 Oct 2016 15:10:43 EST ID:P/dExdeU No.206989 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206982
In the context of this discussion, not much, since they both have the upper hand over the people of each respective nation.
>>
Lydia Pabbletatch - Sun, 09 Oct 2016 10:40:34 EST ID:FSjrOHi0 No.206997 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206989
The POTUS has a lot more restrictions and is more liable to the people he governs, but is in a much better position than the Supreme Leader due to the power of the people governed, and the social institutions that can be built on that power.

For a more theoretical argument, see Prof. Scott E. Page's diversity prediction theorem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtaaCAJjGr4). Diversity can generate better predicitons that individuals can, so e.g. an investment club of diverse peers can do better than one dominated by a single point of view.
>>
Priscilla Bardwater - Tue, 11 Oct 2016 01:08:24 EST ID:P/dExdeU No.207005 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206997
Yes, but what you seem to be forgetting and the point I'm trying to make is that Barack Obama would not have chosen the position if he didn't have the upper hand. Anyway, we're talking about good and bad, not diversity. Diversity is a quantitative measurement of a system. When you try and communicate it as a qualitative thing, you impose your own biased judgement on the matter.

Whether the conclusions derived from this measurement are good or bad is subjective. A person would have to be annointed with godlike power to be able to claim something as "universally good". They might think they have that power, but there will always be something out there that disagrees, and so it really isn't universal after all.
>>
Hamilton Wezzlewock - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:21:26 EST ID:O5hl5Ujj No.207016 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207005
Are you still going on about good and bad being subjective? No-one is arguing that they're objective. I already qualified good and bad in the context of goals in
>>206954.

"Good and bad is subjective" also isn't the final word on the topic. We can do better than throw our hands in the air. Every concept exists in the mind, that doesn't invalidate good and bad. We can look at the ontological status of good and bad, the categories it can be applied to, and how they relate to each other. We can compare the judgments over time and at different scales, and discuss whether short-term good/bad corresponds to or contradicts long-term good/bad, and whether individual good/bad is necessarily in line or opposed to collective good/bad.
>>
Hamilton Wezzlewock - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:27:25 EST ID:O5hl5Ujj No.207017 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207005
The point of bringing up diversity was to show that an individual may benefit more from being part of a group that isn't dominated by single member, than by dominating the potential members of that group. Families, teams, organizations, cities, nations in general demonstrate the value of group membership. Such arrangements aren't only good for the leaders.


Meaning of white in the United States by James Weffinghidging - Sun, 29 May 2016 19:27:33 EST ID:ryqaNXqr No.206075 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1464564453693.jpg -(109777B / 107.20KB, 600x797) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 109777
According to most I've read, white means European caucasian in the U.S. Is that true and if it is, why are non-European caucasians thought to be a different race?
34 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
David Fanman - Sun, 11 Sep 2016 07:09:30 EST ID:3AOFBN19 No.206753 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206711
Youre so full of shit. America has bought us almost to extinction roughly 3 or 4 times during the cold war. They dropped charges on russian subs and nuclear holocaust was avoided due to the actions of the sub commander. He disobeyed orders.

Stop acting edgy as if the global human society is some fucking competition where the americans have the right to fuck over the third world because theyre top dogs.

I can assure you that if you start the fight the united states will be wiped off the map very quickly after the first strike.

You fuck heads risk everybodys lives, fuck everything up then wonder why everybody hates you.

The world is turning back on us imperialism because of the information available nowdays. Whatever bullshit youre governments have planned, free trade agreements, foreign policy strategies, state emails and phone calls will be leaked by hackers for all the world to know.

This will be an asian century whether you like it or not. Next recession will fuck americans hard, and with such a short sighted economic strategy, maybe itll be a good thing.
>>
Doris Sablingfield - Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:04:12 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206822 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So it has just come to my attention that the word 'Caucasian' in the dictionary can represent all white people, and that the word 'Indian' in the dictionary can represent all Native Americans.

Literally fuck the dictionary and fuck every English speaker who normalizes erroneous speaking. Like those fucking heathens who say stupid sentences like 'But it's only a theory.'
My English is superior to this dictionary English, and I shall not use the word Caucasian to denote anyone outside the caucuses, nor use Indian to denote anyone outside of India, because I'm not furthering these erroneous definitions of words.
>>
Edward Pudgefatch - Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:47:54 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206861 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206753
I'm pretty sure that the total amount of times the USA and Russia almost started WW3 numbers in the 10 times. Possibly the true number is 15 or 20. You never know how many close calls are still kept under red tape.
>>
Augustus Pocklock - Sat, 08 Oct 2016 20:40:05 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.206994 Ignore Report Quick Reply
what would a non european caucasian be ethnically speaking.

I think the term is nomenclating it's way back to a time when all caucasia was in one place.

Other wise it's us citizens getting out of being called white
>>
Ghengis Dong - Fri, 14 Oct 2016 02:03:48 EST ID:mQSzo9rp No.207034 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1476425028680.png -(775823B / 757.64KB, 800x622) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>206994
Armenian, Georgian, Chechen, Ossetian, Balkar, Kabardian, Ingush, Abkhaz, and Azeri people to name a few.


ethics by Plato - Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:32:14 EST ID:6FMjnYNY No.206805 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1473888734260.jpg -(32131B / 31.38KB, 600x596) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 32131
lets talk ethics

Is it a virtue to throw ham on a cat for the laughs of people on the internet?
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Charles Fammerson - Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:03:53 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.206933 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206817
Those would be vices, the opposite of virtues.

>>206932
>>can anyone really know anything?
Probably not. At best, knowledge is relative.
>>
Martha Siblingfoot - Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:23:01 EST ID:km8PyPWR No.206935 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206932
I know I exist.
>>
Molly Clerrydale - Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:05:39 EST ID:Pn8OQSEF No.206936 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206933
>>206935
It was a joke friends. It was supposed to be ironic because in the same post where I mention that OP's question of virtue is not one of ethics, I also mistake epistemology for metaphysics. hue hu
>>
Matilda Fellyhall - Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:47:31 EST ID:GViFPk9x No.206944 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i like cats
>>
Bombastus !uYErosQbLM!!Mybq1UbK - Sat, 08 Oct 2016 17:09:21 EST ID:lJKwg7RK No.206991 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm glad this is the first thread I read when I haven't been on /pss/ in 2 months.


philosophical crickets by Fanny Turveyshit - Fri, 30 Sep 2016 18:40:38 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.206947 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1475275238486.gif -(36790B / 35.93KB, 267x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 36790
If a philosophy thread falls in a chan, and nobody replies to it, does it really make a sound at all?

What is the sound of one troller trolling?

plz no ban 4 stupid thread just complaining the board has been dead for days
>>
Walter Beddleworth - Sat, 01 Oct 2016 07:46:55 EST ID:+vYB2HV+ No.206948 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206947
its always been dead. HOwever you could start another mysoginyst hate thread feminism thread, this is pretty much the only board on the chan that allows extended trolling rational and logical discussion on the subject. they are usually quite lively.
>>
Ebenezer Hecklesturk - Sat, 01 Oct 2016 10:16:40 EST ID:37fjOf8M No.206949 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206948
>its always been dead
it's always been shit too. Even without the feminism thread this board has historically been nonsense and wankery. usually anyways.
>>
Barnaby Wabblebanks - Sun, 02 Oct 2016 03:24:35 EST ID:wQ+xU09t No.206955 Ignore Report Quick Reply
/pss/ was born deformed and retarded. However, I have good memories of /ph/.
>>
Frederick Lightshaw - Wed, 05 Oct 2016 09:07:19 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206972 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206948
I lol'ed so hard at this.
God damn those fucking feminism threads used to make me so mad. So many retarded feminazis. So many retarded MRAs.
"You saw the new Mad Max!? You're a fucking traitor! They're trying to feminize our culture! We need more masculinity!"


4 branches of government by Lydia Drublingcocke - Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:38:27 EST ID:ffaKH0UR No.206950 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1475350707763.gif -(2090821B / 1.99MB, 318x241) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2090821
We all know the "3 branches of government" (executive, legislative, judicial) having checks and balances sounds good in theory, but in practice is pretty ineffective. Moreover, it results in the common people having little say.

What if we added a fourth branch of government that was effectively direct democracy? Imagine there's an additional "congress" made up of every citizen who's not an elected official. People generally cry "tyranny of the majority" when direct democracy is brought up but if it was just another branch of government with checks and balances, even they'd no longer have any ideological problems with it.

Other than The Powers That Be not wanting you to have control over your life, why isn't this a thing?
4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Eliza Chunnernedge - Mon, 03 Oct 2016 00:03:16 EST ID:kmTPwmWm No.206959 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If your concern is that government isn't listening to you, we currently have not one, but three options that most people in America would never even think of doing.

  1. You can contact your representative and tell them your concerns. Did you know people used to actually call their congressmen and talk to them (or their staff)? It sounds crazy doesn't it.

2. If that doesn't work, you can vote their asses out.

3. If you aren't happy with either of those options, you can run for election on your own platform and see if enough people support it.

What more do you need? Do you want them to hang a microphone in front of our mouths 24/7 and somehow take heed of every word? It would be a cacophony! Everyone would want what's best for them and nobody would be able to make sense out of any of it, let alone translate it into a feasible plan.
>>
William Conkinbedge - Mon, 03 Oct 2016 08:36:37 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206960 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206950
Sounds like shit.

It might have worked in simpler times, but our current society is so complex you need experts running government. And it's only going to get more and more complex.

The only reason how I can see direct democracy work is in the far future, when we have access to intelligence-increasing drugs, and intelligence-enhancing implants, etc.
>>
Lydia Guvingridge - Mon, 03 Oct 2016 12:18:47 EST ID:ffaKH0UR No.206962 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206959
>contact your representative
I do know people used to do that but you'll get put on a watch list if you do it now. I'd prefer that personally but it hasn't been a viable option for decades

>vote their asses out
>run for election on your own platform and see if enough people support it.
These are ineffective for actually changing society because republics are not about governance. They're about getting elected. And it's not like the people we elect are "experts" either. They hire/get a team (their cabinet). Shit, I'd bet the average person on this board is honestly better suited to be in congress than the average person in the House.
>>
Emma Drenderway - Mon, 03 Oct 2016 12:28:12 EST ID:Uo2Tvgaj No.206963 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What people want and what people need are not the same thing. The best form of government is benevolent dictatorship, but since we can't trust anyone, democracy gives us a peaceful mechanism of revolution - vote for someone else. That brings competition into government and makes people work to get in power or to stay in power. That's the total value of democracy, what people want on a day-to-day basis is irrelevant if not harmful to government, since the masses are easily swayed by the media and fashion.
>>
Molly Bunkinpadging - Wed, 05 Oct 2016 09:05:10 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206971 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206963
Eh, that's actually a good description of how democracy works. I like it. I'll remember that.


Are concepts real? by Frederick Focklelin - Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:12:36 EST ID:i0p+MvmF No.206828 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1473973956133.jpg -(250254B / 244.39KB, 1000x377) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 250254
Is a concept real? Concepts can obviously impact reality, for example the concept of a nation, but the concept is not physically real, there is no physical America. Yet at the same time, to deny that America exists would be ridiculous.

Can something that is not real impact physical reality? Luke Skywalker is not real, but he's impacted our reality. So is he real then?

What do you think 420 chan? Are concepts real? Is there any non-physical thing that you think is objectively real?
59 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Ian Hingerbanks - Mon, 26 Sep 2016 07:28:46 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206931 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206929
>very clear concise technical language

No you're not doing that. I've read plenty of actual English philosophical texts. And you're not posting replies in that kind of English. You are using too many flowery words nigga.
>>
Charles Fammerson - Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:11:23 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.206934 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206931
No, I'm just using words I would expect educated people to know. Are you for real still going on about this? I don't come into a conversation in your native language and start complaining that people are using too fancy of words for me to understand. It is not my job to speak at a level you understand, if you can't understand an argument made using a high level of vocabulary, then don't complain about it. I can't even believe I'm having to make this argument. The things I'm saying are grammatically correct English that convey the ideas I'm trying to get across, I refuse to speak less precisely just so any random person can understand it. I wouldn't anticipate a 6th grader could understand my arguments, nor would I try to find a way to convey what I am arguing to a 6th grader. If I was speaking incorrectly you might have some justification for telling me to speak differently, but I am being absolutely correct, and you're asking me to speak differently just so you can understand, when what you need to do is either improve your comprehension or not interfere with what you don't understand. It's exactly the same as me coming to your country and shouting at everyone 'why don't you idiots speak in English?!'
>>
Eugene Fiblingwater - Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:06:18 EST ID:4do4rcf2 No.206937 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206828
words will never be "real," all labels are simply metaphors. humans, with our thought process bound by language, will be the ouroboros for as long as we are addicted to language
>>
Rebecca Bunstone - Tue, 27 Sep 2016 23:25:15 EST ID:cLVVDDMN No.206940 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206937
>words will never be "real,"

Surely a concept is more than just a spelled out word, though. When I think of math, I don't think "M-A-T-H... there, that's all there is to math". It's theorems, formulas, and proofs. We must acknowledge the existence of the concept as a foundational proof. That's what makes it real.

But I really do get what you're saying. In order for us to understand math or anything else in reality, including an object like an apple, we need to use symbols. Not just written or vocalized symbols in language, but mental symbols. The mind evokes ideas about the object whenever it senses a similar pattern. The shape, the taste, and perhaps even a more basic sense of the nature of the thing. Reification is the mental process that evokes the concept of whatever it is we think we're observing. And you're right, the symbols are not yet perfect.

>all labels are simply metaphors

Yes, but metaphors of what? Is it really an apple that we're trying to define, or is the concept of an apple too inaccurate to represent what's actually there? Obviously it's real enough for us to carry on with our daily lives. But at a fundamental level, if it isn't a picture-perfect apple, then can we really say that apples exist outside of the concept of the thing? Or is the notion of an apple a trick that the mind plays when trying to cram the ineffable, infinite world into a very finite set of symbols?

Can there ever be anything in reality that's capable of painting a perfectly accurate picture of the world, if not symbols? How many different variations of a symbolic thing can there be? No two apples are exactly the same, so is there really such a thing as an apple in the first place?
>>
Matilda Fellyhall - Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:45:28 EST ID:GViFPk9x No.206942 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206828

is this like plato and his forms?


Post modern arguments by Rebecca Banderwitch - Sun, 18 Sep 2016 18:11:59 EST ID:vs7quCaP No.206867 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1474236719285.jpg -(169678B / 165.70KB, 525x680) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 169678
Does post-modernism make having any kind of substantive argument literally impossible in this day and age?

There's no way to really have a back and forth, if people are coming from two different positions, the argument immediately devolves into semantics and personal attacks or implications about identity and bias.

There's no way to convince people of anything anymore, you can't point to any scientific fact without people questioning it's validity. Morality is even more ambiguous, people can justify or decry any act no matter how depraved or altruistic.

Am I being dramatic or has it always been this way?
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Ebenezer Cashsutch - Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:17:19 EST ID:C45Vc/AJ No.206872 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206867
> the argument immediately devolves into semantics
Sounds like post-modernism is saving you time. During debates in modern times, it took me many rounds of back-and-forth to get that far.
>>
Ebenezer Cashsutch - Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:19:24 EST ID:C45Vc/AJ No.206873 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206867
> Am I being dramatic or has it always been this way?
Yes
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Mon, 19 Sep 2016 02:29:00 EST ID:vano1wpA No.206874 Ignore Report Quick Reply
All of these things have existed since the beginning of disputation, they're not particular to modernity. All philosophical disagreement is ultimately linguistic.
>>
Beatrice Hashlock - Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:01:45 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206877 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think you're fucking retarded, Rebecca Banderwitch.
>>
Cyril Baddleham - Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:39:17 EST ID:U7ynDDaE No.206880 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206877
Prolly some high guy who thought he was on /b


free psychology courses by Sidney Buzzlefore - Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:35:15 EST ID:1UA91FuB No.206729 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1473496515116.png -(108928B / 106.38KB, 1257x716) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 108928
Hello, I'm interested in finding free (or pirated) psychology courses, full education programs, syllabuses etc. I don't care for any kind of certificates, just acquiring the knowledge itself.

I'm especially interested in developmental and personality psychology. Don't care for historical theories on the other hand.
>>
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:45:31 EST ID:G2LMnx/t No.206778 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Try searching Youtube for Harvard/Yale/MIT..etc. lectures, they often post complete playlists of all lectures for a given class.
>>
Betsy Penningway - Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:39:20 EST ID:1UA91FuB No.206826 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206778

I see like 1 20-30 video series per university and its all "introduction to" or about some nonsense like positivity/happiness. I want to attain the knowledge of a psychologist, bits and pieces here and there won't be enough.
>>
Nigel Doggledale - Mon, 19 Sep 2016 04:27:14 EST ID:t6MSIlrw No.206875 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206729 There's this kind of stuff: http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses https://www.edx.org/


New feminism thread by Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Tue, 08 Mar 2016 12:41:59 EST ID:3WIWFXhs No.205226 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1457458919375.png -(99965B / 97.62KB, 720x334) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 99965
World women's day.

Take over, faggot queers. Fight on.
510 posts and 55 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Basil Ballydale - Fri, 16 Sep 2016 03:09:37 EST ID:UuDDsFCa No.206836 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1474009777761.png -(9547B / 9.32KB, 785x113) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Ctrl F these ids in this thread to see how Trump trolls ruin everything
>>
Fucking Baffingmun - Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:57:29 EST ID:bxnv9yH4 No.206912 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1474646249850.jpg -(63454B / 61.97KB, 623x713) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>206833
You're dumb.

For starters, it's not a wage gap, it's an earnings gap. Difference being men and women get the same wage for the same work, but men and women generally don't go into the same work, hence the earnings gap. Secondly, blaming society for women not being interested in certain fields is retarded. It's not societies fault that men tend to not want to work as an ECE, that's just the way it is. It's almost as if the genders evolved to compliment each other over thousands upon thousands of years and the biological drive to fill those roles isn't going to go away overnight. What a strange thought.

Just because we don't need to stick to traditional gender roles anymore doesn't mean we're past wanting to. Maybe in 3348 we'll have outgrown it, but acting like society is oppressing women because we haven't done it already is ridiculous. It's been ~50 years since the wall between what men and women can do started breaking down and you honestly expect us to already be past millennia of evolution?
>>
Oliver Blythegold - Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:56:11 EST ID:iAquTtgI No.206928 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206912
If anything it's men who are getting paid less.
>>
Doris Brezzlepire - Wed, 28 Sep 2016 09:42:26 EST ID:iAquTtgI No.206941 Ignore Report Quick Reply
AAAAH how? how? How are there still women who CRITICIZE VIDEO GAMES!?!
>>
al - Wed, 05 Oct 2016 02:41:55 EST ID:1Zs+LhOW No.206970 Ignore Report Quick Reply
ive never read so much bull in my life Katherine johnstone did not calculate any trajectories for any mission.it was a white man.you feminists are society wreckers and clit lickers go to hell.


Love by Shitting Clushkotch - Wed, 15 Jun 2016 01:07:30 EST ID:aGRkxiU7 No.206207 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1465967250218.png -(532843B / 520.35KB, 600x384) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 532843
Hello fellow travelers.

The relationships i've had throughout my life have been, for the most part, dysfunctional and often one sided. I feel as though I have never truly been loved by a partner or by my peers. So I've come to you today to ask what love is to you. Have you ever been loved? How can one tell the difference between love, infatuation, desire and lust?

This question has been plaguing my mind for the past couple of weeks because I have recently found someone whom i find myself very passionate about. I truly feel as if I could spend my entire life with this person... but I'm afraid that these feelings I have could be mere desire or perhaps infatuation.

tl;dr How do I know if this love i'm feeling is real?
17 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Lydia Sogglebug - Sun, 14 Aug 2016 17:20:25 EST ID:DJSoBwlI No.206523 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's only love if the sentiment is equally returned back upon you by the other person. Otherwise it is only infatuation and lust on your part.
>>
Cornelius Greenfuck - Mon, 15 Aug 2016 00:08:52 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.206527 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206523
i would limit that to attraction and chemistry. Attraction because not all love is about the reality of mutuality, or in heidigarrian terms not all love goes along, some love is toward. Towards a being. Now in reality you may love your child and they may love you, may denoting a hypothetical situation not a questioning of that possibility, but they may return a feeling.

The return, being loved in return, getting the energy back in return, that refers to a feeling that we may desire out of a relationship with an effort towards a practice not only a person. Why can't something feel the same way back?

So unless you're worried about causing feelings of terror in someone of the opposite sex, about sex and there personal security, i would never indeed establish any precedent that the moment your love isn't returned you are not in love.
>>
Walter Siffingstodge - Sat, 27 Aug 2016 18:27:17 EST ID:NnrWEb8R No.206644 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206253
This I think.

>>206280
Concordantly, he can dodge ergo, bullets vis a vis.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:55:22 EST ID:aq1kevQR No.206779 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Love is amazing! It is free and full of laughter! It is sad and full of longing when the other is away. It is a way to make sense of the world, to see in it the beauty that really is there! Love is also very powerful, and can make great works happen. Love is God given, a gift from the Higher Planes, and connects us all within Creation.
>>
Samuel Hunningfuck - Tue, 20 Sep 2016 07:28:34 EST ID:3gwHjft7 No.206888 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OP it seems like you're insecure in other people's feelings for you. knowthatfeel.jpg
Have confidence that you're worthy of love or love people the way you would want to be loved. Also, know your love language (physical touch, acts of service, words of affirmation, quality time, receiving/giving gifts)


Humans vs Animals (where Intrinsic and Instrumental values meet) by Phoebe Fuckingdale - Fri, 09 Sep 2016 01:27:59 EST ID:M6ZpQrYI No.206724 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1473398879473.jpg -(24009B / 23.45KB, 944x333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 24009
How do you justify an anthropocentric view of the world? Should animals have the same fundamental rights as humans?

From a Gaia point of view, there's nothing intrinsically superior about humans that would justify half of what we entitle ourselves, but the Earth is not a living thing. From an anthropic point of view, we should always put ourselves above other species in the same way other species should put themselves above each other. Which is not to say we must permit genocide, or the destruction of habitats, or even impose our superiority in any way, but our needs should mean more than anything else in the long run. Don't you agree?
From this perspective, it would make sense to raise animals for food, for example, even though they are also living beings with feelings, intelligence and culture. But we must still respect that they are also living beings with feelings, intelligence and culture, and enforce dietary alternatives and sustainable consumption of animal products.

What are your thoughts on the matter?
24 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
I AM THE LAW - Mon, 12 Sep 2016 05:41:42 EST ID:OoTYAE4u No.206769 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206768
>he had done the opposite, maybe he would have lived, but it would not have mattered

Hahaha. So no one would give a shit if Yahweh didn't brutally murder his son. Makes sense his followers are insane.

Look. Even the Jews and the Muslims believe in Lex Talionis same with Buddhists. How do you think they survived for so long? They do know when to give up though but they try to keep to themselves because almost every religion or group of people has been demonized time and time again by the Christians because they won't stop not being like Jesus, am I right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye#In_religion

>If you survive at the expense of everyone else, have you really survived at all?
Of course, you have. Your heart is still pumping. What a dumb question.

>What will it matter?
You survived! Now you can go home and take care of that family of yours, continue on your way to your job. You survived the encounter and fought back.

And if someone steals from you just call the cops, shit. Get them jailed. And if they can't get your shit back do it yourself! There are tons of methods but you think we should outlaw lex talionis in order to reach a peaceful world? That sounds a bit like a fucking authoritarian dystopia, like Yahweh wants but Lucifer didn't allow him to have.
>>
Rebecca Sellynet - Mon, 12 Sep 2016 08:53:33 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206772 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Anthropomorphic ethics don't apply to reality, they only apply to humans.
>>
Fucking Blatherstock - Mon, 12 Sep 2016 10:51:59 EST ID:OFuMVc7+ No.206774 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206764
You're a gigantic fucking retard.
>>
Lydia Bardbanks - Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:33:13 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.206777 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206769
Christianity is a deplorable religion, and I'm not articulating a defense of it. I'm saying that lex talionis is a barbaric ancient concept, that only has currency in the cultures you mention because they are so ancient, and it leads to severe problems in the world for rational reasons that have nothing to do with religion.

>>your heart is still pumping
You're either not considering the question or more shortsighted than I imagined. If you survive at the expense of *LITERALLY* everyone else, i.e. your country or tribe or however you want to define your ingroup has killed off literally everyone else, you would have destroyed the planet so thoroughly that your group itself would not be able to survive much longer. Killing your enemy at the expense of yourself is by definition a Pyrrhic victory.

>take care of that family of yours
again, if you follow lex talionis to it's conclusion, your family would not be able to survive, and the only reason you would not have applied lex talionis to them is because they are in your family group. If you were perfectly consistent with applying it, eventually they would be gone too. And you keep seeming to think I am talking about personal, one on one interactions. We are talking about the general principles on which to base society. Something that works in a one on one interaction might only be working because of external factors mitigating the damage, and when you apply it to society, the global effects are apparent. So why exacting equal revenge for every slight might work for a few people, if we practiced it universally as a society, everyone would eventually be dead. The only way out would be to not apply it universally, or not apply it consistently, therefore making it not a sufficient principle on which to base our society's views on the use of force, since we would have to know when and where to apply it, making it no longer a principle at all and little better than a guideline advocating revenge.

>>get your shit back
Recovering stolen property is not lex talionis. Recovering stolen property and then stealing additional property of equal value would be. Thus there still ends up having been a theft. If your e…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Sophie Drendledale - Tue, 13 Sep 2016 10:11:51 EST ID:OoTYAE4u No.206784 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206777
You're exaggerating and are making it into some bloody genocide in your head, even, it'll weed out the criminals and scumbags that roam the streets and provide nothing for human society.

nb
ignored for trolling


The Ethics of CP by Edgewick Edgeington - Mon, 05 Sep 2016 09:15:47 EST ID:OJbm7ckc No.206699 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1473081347712.jpg -(50353B / 49.17KB, 496x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 50353
This thread is in response to a comment on /drank/, the new /hooch/
(http://boards.420chan.org/drank/res/268557.php#i269316):

>I'd be okay with [child] nudity

Even if that fetish weren't fucked up in its own right, how could you be okay with content that proliferates the sexual abuse of children? Have you not considered the suffering that goes into it, do you not care, or do you have some other reason? If there is an ethical justification behind this belief, I'd be interested in hearing it.

inb4 moral relativism
pic unrelated
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Ernest Follerwug - Sun, 11 Sep 2016 06:50:11 EST ID:Snn9qg7v No.206752 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Child nudity isn't wrong. It's most probably innocent, not forced, or sexual, or any of the rest of it. Having images of that nudity isn't wrong. That's a family taking photos of their little kids having fun. They should be able to run around nude without criticism of any kind, and no one should think twice about photos that get taken.

People in our society used to get this, at some point. It used to be acceptable to show little kids nude in film; it was recognized that there was nothing sexual or wrong about it. Those same films - if they're shown now - are generally edited for those parts. It's a shame that so many people don't understand the difference.

As a single guy, I often feel singled out if I'm walking in public where there are children. People look at me with suspicion. In most cases, I wouldn't dare try to stop and talk to one of them. I know what that would look like. I find it really disheartening, because of course I'm not out to rape people. I just want to be able to speak to somebody - man, woman, or child - without others seeing sexual subtexts. Even trying to talk to a single girl (I mean someone who is of age), that always seems to be just below the surface of the conversation, whether I want it to be or not.

TL;DR, child nudity isn't harming anyone. This cultural trend of seeing sex absolutely everywhere probably causes a few problems, though.
>>
Emma Duckshaw - Sun, 11 Sep 2016 19:24:48 EST ID:FSAozKjO No.206760 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206752

Yup.

And there are people who are still more open about nudity, and it's not really a sexual thing at all if you actually spend time around them.
>>
Esther Hinnerridge - Sun, 11 Sep 2016 20:43:18 EST ID:Wj366uQt No.206761 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206752
You helped me to see something I had overlooked when making this thread. Nudity ≠ pornography. You also made a few great points that I can relate to.
>>
Hedda Pigglebury - Mon, 12 Sep 2016 04:28:38 EST ID:OoTYAE4u No.206767 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's context dependent. Do doctors get boners when doing breast surgery or child birth procedures? The intent is obviously the thing that matters most, why was it recorded: to sell it? for "enjoyment"? or just for a silly family memory?

>This cultural trend of seeing sex absolutely everywhere probably causes a few problems, though.

I think it's more how it's presented. Especially because it's presented so differently in porn than in real sex. It's definitely gonna confuse some people.
>>
Jarvis Gazzleway - Mon, 12 Sep 2016 06:59:33 EST ID:FSAozKjO No.206770 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>206766

You can remember to look before you cross the street and you probably won't get hit by a car. Better choice than never leaving your house out of fear.


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