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


honesty by Clara Turveyspear - Sat, 02 Jan 2016 22:50:59 EST ID:H0iuvgD/ No.204633 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1451793059029.jpg -(66382B / 64.83KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 66382
What would the world be like if we were to invent a fool proof lie detector by use of machine learning techniques and a bunch of physiological measurements?

The ability to force politicians, criminals, etc to always tell the truth (or say nothing) would possibly have a sever impact on the world.
11 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
TX Dog - Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:14:40 EST ID:t8lq0BoQ No.204701 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204662

i suppose the anonymity reduces in part what credibility one could have in such a place, further reinforcing the passage. Indeed, there is a time for all things.
>>
TX Dog - Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:46:01 EST ID:t8lq0BoQ No.204705 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204667
Privacy sets you free? In an increasingly surveiled world, i still hold to the concept "if youre not doing anything wrong, you have no reason to hide." People obsessed with privacy have something to hide, or fear criticism. Part of bein a human, bro.
>>
Graham Fandlepog - Sun, 17 Jan 2016 09:29:28 EST ID:gQG5CuU9 No.204762 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If the world came to rely upon such a machine, the man who could outwit it would be the most powerful in the world.
>>
Augustus Niggerman - Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:20:29 EST ID:ENMEIEDX No.204763 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204705
>i still hold to the concept "if youre not doing anything wrong, you have no reason to hide.
You've been proven wrong over and over again. The only reason you believe this is because you are stubborn.

Shall I explain it again anyway? Might as well huh?
First there's the implication that only criminals need to hide things, as if law-abiding, good citizens are never targeted for any reason at all. That's a flat out lie, so I don't need to bother explaining further.

Then there's the suggestion that the authorities are only after criminals, or that they're always correct in deciding who is criminal. I'll take this oppurtinity to remind you that many governments will throw you in jail for your political or religious beliefs. Even western nations will persecute dissidents. There was nothing wrong with being in a trade union, yet union leaders were spied on and harassed.
>>
TX Dog - Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:05:21 EST ID:hGyuk28u No.204792 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1453316721078.jpg -(849365B / 829.46KB, 1440x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
So Im Stubborn AND wrong???? grrrrrr!
Okay, to answer the OP, there already is such a machine, but as you probably already know, there is a small percentage, (very small) of people who can fool this machine. (actors, pathological liars,psychopaths who feel no guilt, etc.) and because of that very small percentage, the lie detector is not a valid truth finding machine. (personally, i think its a legit machine)

One of the "severe impacts" could be people revealing "truths" that they believe, even if those truths are really just "fears".... such as the point you make:
>too good, too honest, you are in danger:
well, yes and no, bro. this has been true in the past, like the example you laid out about the unions. but i think your paranoia should be dissipating. I see more and more examples of people coming forward with the truth and coming to no harm. I mean, have you listened to a Bernie Sanders on the Thom Hartmann Show? They are just unloading massive truths, for a while i have been nervous for a while that some kind of harm would befall them bet they have been at it for a few years now. Times are changing bro. This is whats supposed to happen in the Information Age. The unlifting of the Veil. Even the truths of the past are bringing out the truths of today and tomorrow. A lot of people fear, they fear retribution, or exclusion, but humans are messy creatures and no ones perfect. The only path is to forgive and move forward. Forgive, but don't forget. Ill tell you what i think bro, those who continue to hide truths will eventually be exposed.

And please allow me to reiterate my previous comment about "Jesus comin back" because i don't want y'all to think im some kind of nut. I have noticed the coming forward of several individuals who resemble Christ, such as Lee Camp and Russel Brand and a friend i have here, they are all about the truth like JC. Its Interesting. They have been removed from the American Mass Media Echochamber, but the things they say eventually make it....slowly.(not talking about reincarnation, just history repeating itself, ) I am nervous, too bro. They just turned an old Sony Chip Plant into the "Texas NSA" Its like 7 m…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Killing Fun by Frederick Worthingson - Fri, 08 Jan 2016 18:07:01 EST ID:JQnDFS+M No.204675 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1452294421037.jpg -(91600B / 89.45KB, 488x516) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 91600
Hey /pss/, I've been thinking.

You know, one of the key elements of fundamentalist religious thinking is No Fun Allowed, right? Either it's the old and new Christian movements fighting against everything from scientific development to dance and music, or the muslim sectarians who can't tolerate any female body unless it's covered by a tent, they all want to kill fun and beauty.

What the hell is the deal with this? I completely fail to understand this venue of thinking. These kinds of people want to cover up the most attractive and beautiful parts of humanity, kill anyone remotely more happy then themselves, deny any frolic or laughter, and it's all in the name of God(s)!

No matter what religion you study, you always finds these kinds of people. The fantastical and fanatical dudes/dudettes intolerant and allergic to fun, games and colour. Christianity have them, Islam have them, Buddhism, Hinduism, conservatism and hell even communism. No matter where in the world you are, you always have some sort of monastic/religious/ideological order entirely devoted to eliminate Fun.


Can somebody explain to me why the fuck this is a, and at some points of history, popular part human nature? Is it truly so that some people can't actually have fun for biological/psych reasons? Or is it just a theological/intellectual trap for bitter or too serious people?
15 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Edward Binderwell - Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:55:21 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.204752 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204744
Hahaha not bad. You're a cunt, but you're well-read, and I like that. I did make some generalizations based on the popularity of those philosophies I mentioned in comparison to the many other philosophies of those times and places that were less prominent. I was just trying to keep it simple for OP since he was merely asking about history's take on happiness. Yes, I'm familiar with all those books. Hey, I'm not here to explain all these philosophies to OP, I just wanted to talk about the topic of happiness specifically from historically significant philosophies. But I will say this, I'm not wrong about Nirvana.

>In Indian religions, the attainment of nirvana is moksha,[note 1] liberation from samsara, the repeating cycle of birth, life and death.
>liberation from life and death
That's total annihilation. That's a universe with 0 energy.

And I was saying that Buddha is from India, Lao Tzu and Confucius are from China, and Plato, Aristotle and Socrates are from Greece. That's what I said, not what you were insinuating.
>>
Betsy Pittcocke - Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:07:28 EST ID:JQnDFS+M No.204755 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1452895648009.jpg -(92340B / 90.18KB, 765x772) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>204752

>liberation from life and death
>That's total annihilation. That's a universe with 0 energy.

That's pertaining to the liberation of the soul from eternal reincarnation, not the destruction of the universe. Buddhism is highly individualistic in that sense.

FFS the universe already has zero energy sum according to theoretical physics so fuck off with your pandering.


>I was just trying to keep it simple for OP since he was merely asking about history's take on happiness.

I was not looking for 'history's take on happiness'. I clearly defined 'Fun' as behavior that's fun to do but taboo/immoral behavior according to extremist views. In a lot of those people's views happiness is only attainable through elimination of 'Fun', but this thread is not dedicated to views of happiness. Rather I was seeking an answer to why 'Fun' stuff is banned by certain viewpoints even though it's an integral part of human experience.

Perhaps I should have rephrased OP to asking why some religious/ideological movements wants to censor and deny parts of human behavior that's already accepted by the majority of humanity, but I was drunk at the time of writing and I felt defining 'Fun' the way I did made the point of this thread clearer.
>>
Hedda Fiffingcocke - Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:58:57 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.204767 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204755
Wow OP, do you often post drunk? Are a lot of people here drunk? Is that why we bicker so much?

I believe that, based on historical contexts, 'fun' has been oppressed in various cultures, not all, for 2 main reasons; enslavement, and therapy. Enslavement, as in the church tells all of it's followers to forego fun things and instead work hard for God or whatever; as long as there's nothing fun dissuading the followers from hard-work, they'll never dream of a better life and continue to work. Therapy, as in like the way the Taoists viewed fun; it's good to enjoy yourself, but enjoy yourself too much and you'll throw yourself off balance. The Ancient Greeks noticed, throughout all their schools of thought, that fun can be like a drug and can weaken a person.
>>
Barnaby Dindleway - Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:13:56 EST ID:JQnDFS+M No.204769 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204767

>Wow OP, do you often post drunk?

I tend to make new threads and throw out new ideas when drunk, so yea kinda.

>Are a lot of people here drunk? Is that why we bicker so much?

Kirkegaard was a drunkard, and likely most of the ancient Greek, Nietzsche was a cocaine addict. I guess it goes with the territory.
>>
Barnaby Dindleway - Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:16:18 EST ID:JQnDFS+M No.204770 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204769

Oh wait, I meant Freud. Nietzsche did copious amounts of opium.


What by Shit Drunkinhall - Fri, 01 Jan 2016 05:17:32 EST ID:ahJfQ3XW No.204619 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1451643452198.jpg -(115660B / 112.95KB, 514x514) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 115660
How do you use your perceptions to lead yourself to a greater truth?
8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
TX Dog - Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:34:58 EST ID:t8lq0BoQ No.204704 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204700
This.....!
>>
Alice Fuckingson - Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:04:23 EST ID:mHpxHYRr No.204721 Ignore Report Quick Reply
at least give us a vague idea of what you think a greater truth means?
>>
Cedric Bennershit - Sun, 17 Jan 2016 07:47:42 EST ID:SvONg1DG No.204761 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204624

It sounds like you're being a bit reductionist here à la Descartes

Not sure if you're familiar with him. In case you're not, https://youtu.be/cDNCv-ob87E

To the commentators that said to use the scientific method I think it's a bit missing the point. Obviously all praise to science and scientific process. Not dismissing that.

But in the context of philosophy and the Socratic tenant of "Knowing thyself", the scientific method exists within a framework of the spectator. But knowing thyself from a first person perspective, you don't really depend on the scientific method because your interest is the whole framework. It, however, definitely helps and I would also recommend you make use of it.

If you're hungry, you know you're hungry and you eat. Not very scientific. You're not feeling well and you get blood work done and they're telling you you need vitamin supplement because of some medical condition, you cure the illness similarly to how you cure your hunger but with VERY needed help with the scientific method.

There are things that you can't deny. Like your feelings and emotions. And sometimes the scientific method helps us with that. Psychology and psychiatry help us, for example, by guiding our behavior to what they should be so that our emotions are contained within a (normal) range and allows us to live within the margin of error. We generally want to move towards "eudaimonia". This was a word used by Aristotle that means good spirit (eu=good; daimonia= demon, spirit). This need exists within us and when we can't reach it, we are in anguish or in a bad mood. For some eudaimonia is happiness. It's a sunny day at the beach with family and loved ones eating and drinking. To others it's a metal concert on a saturday night with your friends or partner. But it's an eternal feeling. So even if you're in a job you hate, you can have good spirit. And even if you're in a perfect setting, you may not have good spirits for various, complicated reasons. But reasons you can deduce by "knowing thyself" and looking within your own mind.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
TX Dog - Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:29:38 EST ID:hGyuk28u No.204803 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204761
This is a great post, bro. Do you usually post high, instead? I mean, I hope you score a sack soon, but....will you still make good posts?......im just bein silly... down here we often speak of the "cards we are dealt"
>>
Nell Duckhood - Sat, 23 Jan 2016 08:14:25 EST ID:SvONg1DG No.204829 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204803
Thanks bro, SLAYER.

I've been coming to 420chan for years.

The greatest punchline ever was I majored in philosophy and in my last semester we read Wittgenstein and what he said of contemporary philosophy in a world of science and all that progress. He said philosophers need to learn to be quiet. Kind of a kick in the nuts but I only comment when I think there's a philosophical reason.

nb


Justice, Revenge, Forgiveness by Martha Cheddledock - Wed, 13 Jan 2016 03:47:10 EST ID:DSADnNlo No.204734 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1452674830827.jpg -(30101B / 29.40KB, 745x447) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 30101
http://aidamanduley.com/2016/01/12/david-bowie-time-to-mourn-or-call-out-2/

Seeing this article pop up in my feed really twisted my wizzles. TL;DR: SJW types on the planetary intertubesphere feel the most salient thing to draw out of Bowie's death is another round of cannon fodder on that old saw of white privilege, abuse, etc. stemming from the general fact that a lot of people only found out about allegations against Bowie that were hammered out in the press and the world of public discourse decades before they were born. They are even willing to throw an icon so important to their/our own marginalized groups (queer, trans people who have always looked to him as a visionary of transgression of the normative) under the bus just to move forward this long-standing ideological trench war one peg further, when again, all of this was hashed out decades ago, and, importantly, during a time when the man was alive to get his $0.02 in!

It closes with a long, more or less stream of consciousness sequence of contrary oppositions of interpretations, but comes to the conclusion that the wicked acts people do, regardless of any relative or subjective factors that influence it, or whatever other good they may do, irrevocably and eternally follows them, such that these ideas as inextricably but individually bound up together -- not as a grey mean, but a white fact forever overshadowed by a black fact. It seems to me that this kind of thinking is a growing trend, but it also seems to be a bit naive of both history and the realities of human nature.

What am I going on about? Well, we humans have a strong sense of a concept that some things are right or wrong, some things good or bad, and we have built our societies by and large around this innate impulse to make a judgement about something, food or poison, predator or prey, friend or foe. We do this as a neurological necessity, because our internal biocomputer, while analog, still is governed by the same computational rules as any computer system and so always needs to reduce, condense, simplify and reach conclusions in order to be able to process and fathom reality. Reality itself is of course completely devoid of objective meaning, which doesn't negate the value or importance of our subjective experience of it. It also doesn't negate the fact that we like to arrange our society, composed of these relative, imperfect and almost always contradictory personal and cultural factors into definitive forms, especially when it comes to systems like justice, criminal punishment. In order to function, we find it necessary to label acts as definitively good or bad, and to place people in what ultimately amount to segregated societies for the good and the bad.

However, humans are also soft and gushy computers, and are particularly gifted with the ability to try to experience others experiences as if they were our own -- indeed, our super enlarged mirror neuron complexes may be responsible for a lot of the neat intellectual tricks we (mostly) hairless apes pull off. We recognize, at least subconsciously, that if we were in the other's shoes, we would most likely have done the same thing. Moreover, we recognize that there is such a thing as beating a dead horse, and that after a certain point, heaping abuse and punishment onto anyone, under any circumstances, if it doesn't provide a practical benefit, is really just hurting everyone by increasing the total amount of negativity in existence. So we also have an important need to forgive, and our societies have certain degrees of mechanisms built in for this, and our cultural and spiritual systems much more fully developed versions. At a certain point, we need to simplify the equation of the universe, decide if it is good or bad, and ultimately, we 'forgive' everything, boiling everything down to human nature, the intractable inevitability of physical reactions, or the careful planning of the mind of god, according to interpretation.

So my question is; what is the point of justice, punishment? On the surface we think it is about establishing a safe society, but really it is just another way our shared neural nets are trying to simplify their cognitive workload. In the end, it sort of accomplishes both and neither end: certain behaviors are selected against by whatever law or societal enforcement apparatus exists, like they would in natural selection, but never truly go away, except in the specific case (we may execute any given murderer -- there will always be murderers) while also making us feel good both in the particular and in broader society that justice -- cognitive equilibrium -- has been established, and all the 1s are with the 1s in paradise, and the 0s with the 0s, burning for eternity. The individuals this algorithmic process uses to carry out its drama, however, may or may not be changed by what's happening, and though society and the judgement of others will always need to condense them down to 1 or 0, they all, to the last, unquestionably, are some unknowable and forever-fluctuating in between.

To help you see where you stand on this idea, I'll offer a thought experiment: Imagine a world at a far post-human level of technological development. All disease, hardship, want, are cured, of course, but so are many other problems. Death is impossible, not only because of cybernetics/uploading, but because we have learned to address the quantum state of any individual and thus can 'resurrect' anyone at will, no matter how they popped out of existence. As a fairly routine matter, we have elected to resurrect all humans who have ever lived, just so they can be in on the party (all past humans still making up a tiny fraction of the entities in this largely AI based society.) This includes many people, of course, but for ease of illustration for the most obvious target, let me point out it includes Hitler. The actual stream of consciousness that ended with a mouthful of cyanide and a 9mm Luger to the cranium suddenly emerges into this technological utopia.

How would/should we respond to him?
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
8 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Jack Sucklegold - Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:21:47 EST ID:T2Gbm2L6 No.204750 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204749
btw, Bowie apparently did fuck a 14/15 yo and she loved it:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/music/david-bowie-and-the-15-year-old-girls-
"I was an innocent girl, but the way it happened was so beautiful," she replied. "I remember him looking like God and having me over a table. Who wouldn’t want to lose their virginity to David Bowie?"
>>
Nell Dezzleshit - Fri, 15 Jan 2016 23:46:59 EST ID:sm8EY56F No.204756 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204749
Assuming you are the same twat, you just keep demonstrating you can't read. I can't be assed to find it, but like one paragraph above what you quoted she makes a big point about how we can never forgive Bowie and how that is different from trying to deal with the fact of his existence which is where all that arms length bullshit comes in. You're grasping for anything to save face and frankly I'm too bored to keep caring, please go. Nb
>>
Barnaby Pozzlemadge - Sat, 16 Jan 2016 00:13:30 EST ID:DSADnNlo No.204757 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204749
Apparently I can be assed
>We should not simply dismiss David Bowie’s artistic legacy and the impact he had on many AND we should not dismiss the allegations of rape and the realities of how he had sex with a 14/15-year old when he was a powerful and revered adult.

demanding eternal superposition of positive and negative, denying judgement because of an inability to forgive, which is effectively its own judgement, but that's a separate argument

>We can say “it was the 70’s!” and “things were different back then with all the free-flowing drugs!” or whatever to give context, but not to justify abuse and harmful behaviors.

refusal to empathize, or forgive due to circumstance

also, I don't entirely find her to be consistent in her treatment (I believe some of her more even-handed statements are disingenuous based on other things she says) like:

>It may feel good in the moment and scratch that “revenge” itch, but it will not save us.

followed by
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Walter Drannerson - Sat, 16 Jan 2016 04:53:04 EST ID:T2Gbm2L6 No.204758 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204756
quite frankly you are a stargazing idiot arguing against a sjw 'latinx' - it's a shitshow all round which i don't need to waste my time on either.

If you think you've made yourself clearer you haven't. All i've gained so far is that you are insisting on a binary good/bad simplistic judgement while the sjw is saying it's much more complicated. Apparently this has agitated your autism and you've gone all herpy derpy.

Bowie fucked a kid, she loved it, doesnt mean we can give rapists and pedophiles a free pass even if they are rockstars and most people will remember him for his music and public personas anyway. Deal with it - whatever 'it' is that has your knickers in a twist.
>>
Esther Blezzledale - Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:18:02 EST ID:GOROUWyq No.204760 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204750
Keep in mind that there are millions of stories about who David Bowie fucked from his onset including animals, men, women, mick jagger.

That it's not unlikely that many of those are legend because there something people are eager to here stories about.

He could have backstage at a concert he also could not have.

he was surrounded by those tales


Think & Discuss by Martha Gublingfield - Tue, 05 Jan 2016 05:48:07 EST ID:Zdw518Yx No.204653 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1451990887208.jpg -(49484B / 48.32KB, 600x462) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 49484
The problem is thus
>Children when they hit 4-5 enter into a schooling system which for the first couple of years at most their imagination is allowed to run wild and they can be creative, think for themselves almost. After that initial phase is over it is moulding time and these young people are formed and cast into whatever the higher powers that be wish.
The secondary problem to this is
>What to do about it? If you end up having children would you homeschool them? Would you bring them out of the curriculum altogether and go it alone, teaching them what you think they need to know in life, or would you just send them off to get a degree and be done with it?

Personally I would prefer to homeschool my children, I am in my late 20s and don't plan on having kids so it may never happen, but if I did I would still make sure they socialised properly. As far as the education I give them, it would be more practical as well as theoretical, but I would allow for their minds to expand in the way that is natural to the personality of that child, not what mould I can cast it into.

>Also what are your views on this entire system that has been setup and put in place? Children spend more time with other adults i.e. teachers than they do their actual parents, how fucked up is that!?
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Eliza Pittgold - Sat, 09 Jan 2016 19:31:25 EST ID:SRscS0Q7 No.204685 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I've been thinking about this a lot, so here's my post finally:

The biggest factor in a childs education is the parental factor. Rich or poor, bad school or good school, your parents are making the difference here.

>Children spend more time with other adults i.e. teachers than they do their actual parents, how fucked up is that!?
Not so weird, children have always been left in the care of others.

Thinking for yourself is a seriously important skill, and school does sort of numb that to an extent. It's all very well to say that society only has a place for mindless servitors, but there's a risk that has gone too far.
>>
Nigel Hunningville - Sat, 09 Jan 2016 20:08:20 EST ID:nmUQgXEH No.204686 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204681
>>204682

>child-like imagination

As in an imagination akin to a child's rather than an adult.

Children are creative because their brains are in a state of extreme plasticity/development, they know nothing and they have virtually no responsibilities even for themselves. That isn't to say adults can't be imaginative, I'm just explaining why so ziemany adults that are serious and uncreative could well have been the crast kid at the daycare and why if an adult was (pathologically) imaginative like a child he probably has some kind of brain damage or developmental disorder.

>>204685

>Thinking for yourself is a seriously important skill, and school does sort of numb that to an extent. It's all very well to say that society only has a place for mindless servitors, but there's a risk that has gone too far.

I disagree about school. School teaches people what is known, or at least what we think we know. I'm not really sure how children could be educated in the same amount of time (or even educated at all) if they're encouraged to question everything they're told and given alternate explanations for everything they're meant to be learning. They'd never know what's what and the learning structure would be too chaotic - it would probably all end up as an excuse for them to disrupt their own learning which is something most kids enjoy. There's a reason we reserve the more complex and theoretical information for university level education.

I also don't think school in itself can be responsible for 'making' a child grow into someone who just blindly accepts what they're told. I think its the parents, their interactions/relationships with teachers and their predispositions that will decide that.
>>
Nigel Hunningville - Sat, 09 Jan 2016 20:48:48 EST ID:nmUQgXEH No.204688 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204686

>ziemany
>crast

many, crazy

Not sure how I managed that.
>>
Fanny Drittingridge - Sat, 11 Jun 2016 14:16:29 EST ID:W3jvW/AW No.206187 Ignore Report Quick Reply
:netjester:
>>
Fanny Drittingridge - Sat, 11 Jun 2016 14:17:20 EST ID:W3jvW/AW No.206188 Ignore Report Quick Reply


moving where? by Nigel Brabberpug - Fri, 08 Jan 2016 01:26:52 EST ID:180n1otq No.204672 Locked Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1452234412680.jpg -(327513B / 319.84KB, 964x947) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 327513
i'm thinking about moving
where should i go?

i have almost $5000 saved and don't drive
must move somewhere cheap
i live near Boston, MA now
Locked
Thread has been locked
Thread was locked by: SeVeNaD
Reason: /vroom/ or even /b/
>>
Cyril Hongertetch - Fri, 08 Jan 2016 15:32:44 EST ID:sviFT3nS No.204674 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Have /almost/ 5k
>Don't drive
Good luck m8, cities aren't cheap


Holocaust denial and the ethics of punishing those who do drag its good name through the mud by Phyllis Durrydidging - Sat, 15 Aug 2015 09:03:19 EST ID:SEnLP0yz No.202295 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1439643799907.jpg -(58636B / 57.26KB, 500x493) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 58636
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

should deniers be punished?

is it important if they are right or wrong?

is the treatment the deniers receive justified, is there actual harm caused by denial?

please keep conversation away from actual debate about the existence of the Holocaust and keep it about the ethics of creating laws to make certain points of view punishable by imprisonment
70 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Alice Smallfuck - Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:02:49 EST ID:SRscS0Q7 No.204617 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204616
>logical debate
Is not something you are interested in.

>not deriding the very act of debating against you
Calling out childish people for being childish is perfectly acceptable here, since we don't want it. Eliza didn't enter into a "logical debate", he's just speaking his mind and pointing out that he's got no source for a commonly repeated claim.

Yet that apparently threatens you so much you have to whine impotently.
>>
David Purringshaw - Fri, 01 Jan 2016 01:19:47 EST ID:nmUQgXEH No.204618 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204616

I never was intending to debate anything with you. I gave my opinion on why you were acting childish. I don't even know if you're a holocaust denying loony or if you really, really do want to make the total figures for the holocaust more accurate but fear you'll be put in jail for making such an honest historical enquiry.

Can you at least explain what you believe here? Or is it like a reflex for you to avoid posting about your own opinion because you're so used to people picking it apart? maybe because you're denying reality
>>
James Sozzleville - Sat, 02 Jan 2016 12:10:18 EST ID:Yc75Bzjn No.204629 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>202296

wow. the last time i visited this board it was filled with extremist authoritarian content. I'm happy to be back now.
>>
Lillian Divingdale - Wed, 06 Jan 2016 21:38:58 EST ID:ZA+zC/SA No.204664 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>202331 ashamed to say i could not have formulated that better myself.. well said
>>
Charles Wishtuck - Thu, 07 Jan 2016 04:33:00 EST ID:nmUQgXEH No.204665 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1452159180469.png -(121323B / 118.48KB, 500x318) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>202331

>Anyone can whip up a convincing sounding jpeg or Youtube video about nearly any bullshit
>if you're the sort of "alternative" person who learns about supposedly giant conspiracies from ideologues on the internet and disregards actual, seasoned experts on history and science .. you have a fundamental problem with your reasoning

But established "experts" are always contriving against those that are in it for the discovery and not the profit and other personal gains. Pic related.


Doing your duty by Frederick Blythecocke - Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:15:48 EST ID:sviFT3nS No.203411 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1444083348724.jpg -(11125B / 10.86KB, 252x166) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 11125
>Rob Kardashian died of cancer
>People I know go "that's karma for the OJ Simpson trial"

Do people really hold grudges against another PERSON for their JOB? Can you not separate a person from their duty?

What do you think, /pss/? If a person does a wrong thing because that was his duty, is he a bad person in general?


Let's look at examples:
Lawyer defends an obviously guilty man
Cop sees kid smoking weed in the street and arrests him
Army man has orders to launch missile into house with "suspected terrorists" in it
Surgeon performs life-saving emergency surgery on child rapist after the raper tried raping a little girl and was almost beaten to death by girl's dad

(Assume that these people can't just simply QUIT their jobs and get hired elsewhere on a whim; this is 2009, full recession mode)
12 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
A Wizard - Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:20:29 EST ID:K2C3c/Hm No.203591 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1445023229439.jpg -(17281B / 16.88KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>203572


xD Thanks. I try sometimes.
>>
Archie Dorrynad - Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:19:08 EST ID:vxRHUQB6 No.204631 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Order-followers are MORE responsible because they are actually doing the wrong action.
>>
David Midgenen - Sat, 02 Jan 2016 19:56:15 EST ID:JQnDFS+M No.204632 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203510

How can one be sure to completely understand the actions and the reasons of oneself and ones fellow men?

If not, then how can actions be defining at all?
>>
George Crallernitch - Sat, 02 Jan 2016 23:36:23 EST ID:fm1S8rNj No.204634 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204631
Wrong by whose standards?
>>
Thomas Deshhood - Tue, 05 Jan 2016 01:48:45 EST ID:tWfK4cIm No.204651 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1451976525607.png -(1041952B / 1017.53KB, 1366x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
It's a crossroads between one's own notion of self-worth and their ideals/beliefs. From what I can tell, it's just another extension of our need to survive and the fear, adrenaline, drive, etc that may come with that.

One assigns duty toward some particular focus or goal (if one has been conceived), then that individual fragments and abstracts that duty to collect the materials needed to solidify the root goal of survival. That can be so abstract to include destructive or creative elements. I've known plenty of people in business and the work force who carry a cold outlook on other humans because they are committed to their own survival, or their family's survival, etc. because '[They] don't care, [they've] got bills to pay and mouths to feed.'

Duty to me is like a physical extension of one's personality and the life they think they ought to lead to best utilize themselves in their own situation (whether that be for one's self, others, religious devotion, lack of, and so on).

>>204632

I suppose that brings us to the sort of solipsistic idiosyncratic nature of everything. I always think in metaphor of a feedback loop that gets decorated with a new coat of paint every so often. Everything's basically all the 'same stuff,' but it's constantly being reconstructed due to all the varying vantage points. A constant repackaging and flourishing of the utterance of some past signal; much like the evolution of music (or any activity, really). As we see and digest information to regurgitate it in our own way, we are constantly modulating any signal we get our hands on (whether it is simply shared with one's self in the mind or outside in the physical realm) because we can not be identical to any other possible thing at any given time. It always comes out different but it is never-the-less still rooted in the same input signal that throws it into motion.

But I mean, that's just one possibility. I don't really know shit.
Sorry for the rambling! :)


The human problem by Kerflap !HUZ.4c6SGE - Tue, 29 Dec 2015 09:09:12 EST ID:JkpVLUo4 No.204588 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1451398152286.jpg -(372015B / 363.30KB, 1680x1050) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 372015
We never want to face our problems and learn from them.
We would rather act like we were better, or like we didn't deserve it, or like we are hopeless; when in all seriousness were just so young that when something happened right in front of us and we couldn't do anything, we were too slow, too weak, too hopeless.
And so, when we became adults, something bigger, something that kids look up to, we image ourselves on these moments.
You can choose one way or another:
the way you think is easiest is the way you will feel worst with
the way you think is hardest is the way you will feel better with

Discuss.
7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Shit Drunkinhall - Fri, 01 Jan 2016 05:21:34 EST ID:ahJfQ3XW No.204621 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204620
A more ideal reality?
I guess that makes sense.
But why did the problems exist in the first place? Why is imperfection the default?
>>
Shit Drunkinhall - Fri, 01 Jan 2016 05:23:26 EST ID:ahJfQ3XW No.204622 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204620
And what I mean by the running in circles bit is that, though the problem is solved, the fact that it can at any time be UNsolved means it is a constant, persistent threat. The precariousness of existing this way is unacceptable.
>>
Shit Drunkinhall - Fri, 01 Jan 2016 05:42:56 EST ID:ahJfQ3XW No.204625 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204622
Maybe resolving all conflicts and contradictions until there no longer are any (so there would be no outside force to destabilize any of the "agreements" already reached)? Is that the point?
But why did contradictions and conflicts exist in the first place? If something caused that to happen, then can it be caused again through some mechanism that is extrinsic to our understanding of physical causality? Unless it's literally always been this way.

Man I'm so confused
>>
Shit Drunkinhall - Fri, 01 Jan 2016 06:01:32 EST ID:ahJfQ3XW No.204626 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204621
And that is assuming an objective "ideal" which I can't prove exists but I believe to.
Sorry for spamming u OP
I often think and talk in fragments like this
>>
Kerflap !HUZ.4c6SGE - Sun, 03 Jan 2016 01:53:24 EST ID:JkpVLUo4 No.204635 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204626

The point behind learning from your problems is digesting them as an avoidable thing, and when not avoided, and manageable thing. That's not to say everything is avoidable but everything can be managed unless you are tied up and being held against your will. Once you begin to realize that problems are a good thing for human development you can begin to change yourself. The change you wish to see in the world needs to be reflected by the mass majority of the population but that means you need to be the change you wish to see the world become. if you or someone else makes a mistake then think about it. Think about why it happened. Think about how you could have handled it better, and remember to think back to this situation in the future if it happens again. Also realize that without your faults you cant enjoy your positives, without displeasure we cant feel pleasure. It's a perceptual thing to me; would you rather just accept you made an error and beat yourself up over it or forget it and act like its either never going to happen again or it will inevitably happen again creating a cycle of self destructive thoughts or actions, or would you rather take everything good and bad as a lesson of life and experience life in the full beauty it is. Do not distance yourself from your emotions, but think mechanical. You don't want to be a sociopath but you may want to take some tips from one.


A few things: by Samuel Nullerfuck - Fri, 25 Dec 2015 01:33:44 EST ID:dDfmtX5x No.204548 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1451025224869.jpg -(112088B / 109.46KB, 592x591) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 112088
1) Feminism at its core is simply the idea that women are people, not just defined by their 'womanhood,' whatever that might be conceived to be.

Yes there are a lot of 'feminists' who have all sorts of crazy ideas, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the core truth most of these people are trying to get everyone to acknowledge.

2) Pure capitalism isn't good for flesh and blood human beings. Pure capitalism is essentially a nihilistic philosophy, with no ultimate values except abstract numerical ones. Sure, individual pure capitalists are seeking worldly power just like the rest, but the economic system they seek power through only gives them abstract power. The fact that the whole real earthen world can actually be effectively organized and run by a fully abstract numerical system is astonishing, when you think about it, but also explains why everything humans do nowadays is so stupid and fucked up-- pretty much the complete opposite of how anyone would sketch out a functional and basically happy community of human beings.

There's nothing particularly wrong with capitalism balanced with something close to true democracy, by the way. Seems like a decent arrangement could be made.

3) There are a lot of problems with the human world, and there are endless specific things we need to change, fix, and work on getting better at. But the multiplier of all these problems is out of control population. The only peaceful way into the future is if most women in the world decide of their own accord to have at most one natural born child. We will also need to carefully consider how to reorganize society around a condensing population. Endless expansion always leads to collapse. Could be war, could be pandemic, whatever. Sounds boring to me.

4) You know next to nothing. You are a human being. You are a baby in this universe. You've just been born, you're about to die, and you know nothing for sure. Yes of course I know this applies to me too.

Strangely, we're not totally in the dark. Language does work, somehow. We can understand some things, a little.
24 posts and 7 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Matilda Semmlebudge - Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:42:23 EST ID:yGcx3rkn No.204598 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204594

>>walls of text

Hey, I resemble that remark! I haven't seen this other thread. I just popped in on my lunch break the other day and saw this one at the top, without much time to browse further.

I'd be interested to read if you can link it, I don't see it on the first couple pages. I've already stated that I'm kind of riding the line with feminism, and it makes me uncomfortable when people hate on it; I won't even watch TheAmazingAtheist or Thunderf00t on youtube, they rubbed me the wrong way the first time.

I'm not totally against feminism, but I can understand why people are fatigued by it, given all the bad examples running around. It changes so much from generation to generation, and even many feminists now can't agree on the same goals, so is it really protected by its textbook definition if nobody acknowledges it? It seems impossible to convince those who are against the dreaded F-word to consider the good aspects of it, so I'm just done with putting that label out there before someone gets to talk to me. I bring up my ex because she started out as one of the cool ones, but got progressively more and more SJW while doing nothing with her life to back up her high-and-mighty claims. I put up with it and tried to see things her way, but after it was all over, I was able to relax a bit and step back for a look at the bigger picture.
>>
Augustus Nicklebury - Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:13:31 EST ID:SRscS0Q7 No.204600 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204598
>I'd be interested to read if you can link it,
I am doing you a MASSIVE favour by declining your request. The whole thing is the same two guys whining about feminism over and over, while refusing to admit the slightest fault (of which they make many)
>>
Graham Bluffingsatch - Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:29:37 EST ID:nmUQgXEH No.204603 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204580
> is a good way to feel superior to people you don't know, who are more successful than you;

Its the like the leftist version of conservatives saying people aren't godly or 'righteous' enough or whatever
>>
Graham Bluffingsatch - Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:33:18 EST ID:nmUQgXEH No.204604 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204594

The difference is the people arguing and sharing their opinions in this thread seem to be doing it with logic and reason. The other thread was full of monologues that just ignored criticism and didn't make any sense. I was honestly amazed when I saw those IDs involved making serious posts in other threads with the same language etc. pretty much confirming they were just really ignorant when I originally assumed they must have been trolls.
>>
Hedda Pushshit - Wed, 30 Dec 2015 00:09:58 EST ID:lPLz/e1I No.204605 Ignore Report Quick Reply
seriously can we stop now

this shit belongs on /pol/, feminism is not a philosophy

anti-feminism is not a philosophy

none of these threads discuss philosophy at all, + we already have one of these threads one page back.

for the love of this board, move to fucking /pol/


I shall pose a question: by Fucking Pungerline - Wed, 07 Oct 2015 18:57:24 EST ID:IOqwZ5YA No.203450 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1444258644410.jpg -(90190B / 88.08KB, 960x640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 90190
does the world exist outside the mind?
just a question

pic unrelated.
40 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Phineas Turveyshit - Sun, 20 Dec 2015 19:45:55 EST ID:JQnDFS+M No.204528 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204527

>the Universe is an order of things

No. 'Order' as a concept is entirely human in its origin. We apply order to the Universe in order to understand it. We think we see hierarchies and classifications, but those are merely mental crutches to help us survive in a chaotic but somewhat predictable world. Take cells for example, their 'orderly' machinery is in fact a carefully concerted chaos, and depend on the mostly random movement of individual proteins and molecules for anything to happen.

Scientifically, a completely ordered universe would be entirely uniform. In other words the exact same energy constant everywhere.


>This leads us down two avenues of thought: Either the universe gets created inside your mind, or you must believe that an omnipresent God (the required consciousness) generated the order of an external universe.

If the universe is actually 'orderly' it would be ordered with or without us. It require no consciousness at all. From my perspective you're anthropocentric in your view of this, consciousness has no magical ability to 'assign' or 'create' order to anything. It merely detect and predict patterns that are already there.
>>
Clara Fillerled - Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:44:02 EST ID:fm1S8rNj No.204529 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204528
>No. 'Order' as a concept is entirely human in its origin

Correct. It's origins lie in the human mind, to be more specific. That's sort of been my point all along.

>We apply order to the Universe in order to understand it.

We create the order, and use it to construct the universe in our minds, to be more specific.

>We think we see hierarchies and classifications,

Without heirarchies and classifications, what is there? Noise? Chaos? How can you say there's a "you" or a "me" or a universe of any kind at all, if there's nothing but chaotic randomness?

>If the universe is actually 'orderly' it would be ordered with or without us.

How so? God mode: you can't use human terms. That would require an "us" to define it.
>>
Phineas Turveyshit - Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:02:07 EST ID:JQnDFS+M No.204531 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204529

>Correct. It's origins lie in the human mind, to be more specific. That's sort of been my point all along.

Ah. I got a bit confused as you seemed to claim it was both our creation and inherent in the universe.

>We create the order, and use it to construct the universe in our minds, to be more specific.

I'd rather say we create a representation of the objective universe. What we see is heavily modified for our consciousness to extract useful information. Most of the noise is filtered out(for example we only see a tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum. If we saw it all we'd be effectively blinded by noise).

>Without heirarchies and classifications, what is there? Noise? Chaos? How can you say there's a "you" or a "me" or a universe of any kind at all, if there's nothing but chaotic randomness?

There are rules and patterns to chaos. They are simple, but give rise to extremely complex structures and systems within said chaos. Emergence in other words. Take for example an ant-hill. We could see it as one organism, but its complexity and structure arises from the simple actions and decisions of individual ants. There is no central agency in it, but the chaos is concerted by simple rules such as pheromone tracks.

>How so? God mode: you can't use human terms. That would require an "us" to define it.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Martha Dammleville - Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:38:21 EST ID:fm1S8rNj No.204532 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204531
>Ah. I got a bit confused as you seemed to claim it was both our creation and inherent in the universe.

Yes, it is. A creation inside the mind.

>I meant if the universe was inherently ordered,

Right, and so how is it ordered, do you think? By the Quark or by the Adam? By the black hole? Maybe it's just a bunch of Newtons? Nobody can say how the universe is ordered, but you're very sure that consciousness has nothing to do with it.

>There are rules and patterns to chaos.

All of these rules are concepts, and your mind changes the patterns that it sees in the noise according to the rules. "Our" universe looks vastly different than it did less than a thousand years ago. The universe in your mind looks vastly different now than it did since you were 3. Did the universe change, or did your mind?

>They are simple, but give rise to extremely complex structures
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
David Wuddlefoot - Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:56:05 EST ID:g4zZSa5p No.204569 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203450
Yes, but not your interpretation of it, and you are only capable of interacting with your interpretation of the world.


LaVeyan Satanism by Ernest Blackwater - Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:14:53 EST ID:eLG+wmms No.203839 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1446207293635.png -(23174B / 22.63KB, 203x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 23174
Call me edgy if you like, but I've started to look into (and appreciate) LaVeyan or Modern Satanism.
Funnily enough I was only reading up on it as I was designing a mask for Halloween and wanted to add some symbols onto it.

First up, LaVeyan Satanism is an atheist belief system, so to call it a religion would be incorrect as Satanists don't believe in the supernatural. Baphomet (creepy goat headed dude) is nothing but a symbol of our carnal selves. Unlike most religions who abhor this, Satanists just accept it and move on. They believe we are nothing but animals, but not only that that because of our "philosophical developments" that we've developed an ego over other creatures on this earth, and such we are to be regarded as the most vicious and degenerate of all the creatures.

It's very much the anti-thesis to Christianity (and quite possibly Buddhism), but with a clear absence in the supernatural of any kind.
Where many religions deplore materialism, Satanism encourages it, but only if it betters yourself and those that you care about, otherwise it is a waste of the worldly resources. Following this train of thought Satanists are natural epicurists; drink, drugs, sex and all those that exist in this earth to make oneself happy, why not use it to its fullest? "Cursed are the gazers toward a richer life beyond the grave, for they shall perish amidst plenty"

Satanism is intrinsically equal. Feminism does not need to exist as true satanists see each others as animals. LBGT doesn't exist either, as Satanists see love in a purist form of "union" in which gender does not exist.

Satanists encourages philosophy and science. Satanic sins include stupidity, lack of perspective and herd conformity.

That all said and done, while a fascinating religion (seriously considering buying the satanic bible just to read more) it's also a rather harsh view on the world. Literally, quotes from the satanic bible: "Cursed are the poor in spirit for they shall be spat upon" "Cursed are the weak for they shall inherit the yoke". Also satanists believe in an eye for an eye, just vengeance is revered. They believe in total destruction of your fo…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
43 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
OP - Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:35:50 EST ID:2J8HIkD4 No.204488 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1450193750662.gif -(282158B / 275.54KB, 200x90) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
OP here, wow alot of feedback, really appreciate most of it, others not really, but this is a chan so what do I expect.

I'll reiterate: I am an agnostic. I personally see all formed religions, especially those that believe in deities, as farcical but I am open to the social constructs that they convey.
For example, I would not believe in Jesus but I would respect the symbolism and meaning that was based around him.

Which is why Satanism stood out to me in that regard. It is the anti-thesis to Christianity, one might suspect that such a philosophy would be chaotic (some might argue it is) but it's rather whole and formed. I was expecting sacrifice and evil but instead I got some quite wholesome values, which surprised me. You need to understand that I come from a once very christian country (ireland) where christian values are still intrinsic in daily life.

Satanism is flawed, but I believe it is no more flawed than any other religion. A lot of you attempted in vain to point that out to me, even though I pointed it out in the OP. It is a cruel (some might argue valid!), edgy and unforgiving way of looking at life. But it's a perspective none the less, which is my key point. I've yet to find something that stands as an antithesis to a religion that is so formed as satanism.
>>
OP - Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:03:03 EST ID:2J8HIkD4 No.204489 Ignore Report Quick Reply
..Now to respond to some posters.

>>203880
After some thought I unreasonably bashed you Thelema guy, I retract my mean words. I did not really get any philosophy from Thelema as I felt like it was too hidden behind a madman's cipher to be of any use, but that's not to say some might get sense from it. If you are reading this, I hope you know I wished I continued the discussion in a better light.

>>203980
Some really interesting info here, thanks bud. I especially liked the Buddhists taking the left hand path as a form of enlightenment, this is something I will save in the memory banks.

>>204113
Err.. you're talking as if i'm not aware of this? Infact I implicitly stated this in the OP? Who's the retarded faggot, the person who can't read or me bothering to respond to you? I wonder.

>>204232
Get outta here netjester!

>>204289
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
George Sankinridge - Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:54:48 EST ID:YWsNrW+/ No.204493 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>204448
Well that's a belief I share with thelemites and that's what Leveyan Satanists don't believe.
>>
Jarvis Pittfuck - Wed, 16 Dec 2015 03:42:50 EST ID:RWORJU8H No.204494 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>"When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them."
It touches on this later, where it says as long as no harm would come to you, obviously it would not be revenge.
Absolute destruction if able.
>>
Doris Buzzforth - Sat, 26 Dec 2015 12:30:20 EST ID:Gfn/sqf1 No.204562 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>203839
>it's also a rather harsh view on the world. Literally, quotes from the satanic bible: "Cursed are the poor in spirit for they shall be spat upon" "Cursed are the weak for they shall inherit the yoke".

This isn't a harsh stance. LaVey was stating observations in the Book of Satan chapter V. He noticed that the world always tends to work out this way, with people at some point getting their just deserts or "reaping what they sow." The poor in spirit will be spat upon, because that is literally what happens. The weak shall inherit the yoke, because they lack the ability to collect themselves and become responsible for their own advance. Satanists are neutral on these things (usually) and just accept them as how the world works.

>Also satanists believe in an eye for an eye, just vengeance is revered.
Yes we do but this also means different things to different people. We don't think you should run out and murder someone for embarrassing you at the office christmas party.

>They believe in total destruction of your foes with little to no mercy.
This is a metaphor. What some of the interviews with LaVey or Gillmore on youtube. They talk about what this actually means.

>I don't agree with those philosophies as I feel they're inherently self destructive.
You don't understand how we apply them then.


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