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


Do others make one better? by Isabella Hullerken - Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:33:40 EST ID:eB1toxKQ No.196052 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1412282020655.jpg -(180087 B, 788x1050) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 180087
Do others make one better? Why and why not?
9 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Caroline Cunkinbury - Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:07:34 EST ID:Ljon3JaU No.196853 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1416766054928.png -(13282 B, 197x239) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 13282

Archie Hirryduck - Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:26:42 EST ID:x8RlX/iB No.196868 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1416882402197.jpg -(6144 B, 256x192) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 6144
HAHAHAHAHA that was a good one ty
Ian Paffingpetch - Tue, 25 Nov 2014 00:49:11 EST ID:Ljon3JaU No.196869 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oranges are, overall, a good fruit, and I bet I won't get banned for this post.
John Shakespear - Mon, 01 Dec 2014 11:53:12 EST ID:fxTkE7A6 No.196963 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Others make you, that's it. If they make you better or worse is contingent. You're in your very foundation already in relation to an other, if they make you better or worse is a matter of who they and you are, and what the current circumstances are
Shitting Clemmerstadge - Sat, 20 Dec 2014 04:07:30 EST ID:pnwQvUQ5 No.197293 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Others inhibit the emotions and free expressions the mind keeps to itself.

Homophobia - Natural or Learned? by Faggy Turveyson - Sun, 31 Aug 2014 17:26:46 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.195667 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1409520406233.jpg -(122598 B, 305x488) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 122598
Is homophobia an evolutionary trait, as in, a natural aversion or is it a learned trait?
59 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Simon Fellypog - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 07:32:55 EST ID:fFOfrqv3 No.197091 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This must be pretty common thinking amongst some people.

>WE will destroy their life
>WE will make sure they know they are a bad person
>WE (not everyone) has a problem with them
>THEY have a dysfunction because WE will make it one

Do you see a problem with this, oh Reuben?
Thomas Blythehood - Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:08:30 EST ID:QKfJn6Lg No.197195 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1418382510510.jpg -(48574 B, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 48574
im not homophobic i just hate gay people

im not scared of them in the slightest
Eliza Cesslebanks - Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:14:29 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.197200 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> i just hate gay people

That's part of the definition of homophobia, so you are a homophobic.

  • irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
Overnighter, the - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 09:31:25 EST ID:CcAJ01Mh No.197218 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1418481085712.png -(302356 B, 500x375) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 302356
Here's the thing. If it's justice, for whom? It is just us. You can only live the truth, the only truth that exists is in the end results of your actions because your words serve only to explain the occurance of your happenings. The truth that you live, and in terms of that which happens between you or others who you are directly with in life is completely relevant to you and only you, that interested parties may become aware.

So basically, to tie in the existential theme, if anyone is going to assume they have the power to reciprocate the media and denounce conversation with a proposed middle ground viewpoint that lies on their side of the argument, it seems like they themselves were steered by the media and that would explain not only their vivid memory, but their livid recollection of the instance. The state of affairs is peculiar and unequivocal, that our propositions lie with in our perception of opportunity and desirable experiences.

Nobody is going to enjoy constant harragement of personal life choices that come out in common conversation, and it sort of devoids the explorative aspects of conversation, so really, my buzz suffers in the company of any who seem intolerant of a people based on their respectful stance of personal choice. but trying to deny marriage discounts is tax gating.
Nicholas Bredgeway - Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:50:24 EST ID:vWvBiMC9 No.197277 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>my buzz suffers in the company of any who seem intolerant of a people based on their respectful stance of personal choice

Well to have a stance against something tends to mean you aren't tolerant of it. And who says sexuality is a choice? I don't think gay people choose to be gay any more than I choose to be straight.

I want to drill your buzz into the ground with my intolerance for pretentious verbosity

Sniffing our fingers after the butt by Hamilton Wublingpire - Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:18:58 EST ID:rdFBWZZk No.197252 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1418779138797.jpg -(189610 B, 685x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 189610
there is some philosophical mechanism at work behind why people have to smell their fingers after putting them in certain areas
Fucking Dozzlebed - Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:22:35 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197253 Ignore Report Quick Reply
its understanding where we came from and where we've been, as well as what we go through, and the potential we have to create in this world.
Samuel Pinderforth - Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:30:10 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.197255 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Probably just some grooming instinct. Gastrointestinal bleeds have a really awful smell. I bet some parasites do too. If an ape checks the smell of their body and finds something weird or remarkably unpleasant im assuming they at least have a better chance than an ape that doesnt to check the smell of their body to correct a potentially life threatening issue. Therefore survive long enough to reproduce.
Esther Fondledere - Thu, 18 Dec 2014 05:12:26 EST ID:IvmEmM9E No.197267 Ignore Report Quick Reply
is an hedonistic urge for a fast no-consecuence thrill
a nasty one too, so kinda perverted , like some freudian or masochian thing going there, isn't it?
also, logical consecuence.
Nigel Druckledock - Thu, 18 Dec 2014 21:02:41 EST ID:4bg94faE No.197272 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A lot of guys like to sniff womens' butts, but it barely happens the other way around.

Are we all slaves to something? by Oliver Pedgesork - Sat, 06 Dec 2014 17:14:12 EST ID:nMa1Ua6F No.197059 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1417904052026.png -(521673 B, 200x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 521673
Slaves are seen as something that have no choice to do what they want to do but instead have to do what the master wants them to do. But its not that simple for me because the slave is following the orders of the master because he wants to follow the orders, since the master will execute him if he will not.

I fear that the same is true to all of us, we are being motivated to do things because the result of not doing it is something that we do not want. So it its very hard to see in any clear way who are slaves and who are not.
10 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Graham Drerringdetch - Thu, 11 Dec 2014 20:49:38 EST ID:zx4i2bJL No.197178 Ignore Report Quick Reply
In Thomas Ligotti's The Conspiracy Against the Human Race he paints humanity as nothing more then puppets controlled by the will to live.
Simon Billingbury - Fri, 12 Dec 2014 03:59:25 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.197189 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Our biological impulses meant to propagate the species and maintain homeostasis for as long as possible

everything chasing that chemical response, pavlov to your own vice
Fucking Dozzlebed - Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:34:20 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197256 Ignore Report Quick Reply
you ask whos in charge.

really though hegel was right.

the master isn't completely in control, but has never had the ultimate breaking moment where he has had to admit to himself he's a slave to anything.

The master is essentially the human, or the part of the human that isn't in the fall or hasn't been shattered.

I think of the master in hegel like griffith in berserk.
Nigel Babblesetch - Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:42:47 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.197259 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You think you're in control when you tell yourself "Ill have this food instead of this food" but its really your brain sending impulses to you that make you want what you want.
Fucking Dozzlebed - Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:41:03 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197264 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1418859663458.gif -(250601 B, 100x70) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 250601
what if your brain is you though

Judas died for your sins by Phineas Crirringpet - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 23:19:28 EST ID:WwmWzCjE No.197227 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1418530768504.jpg -(58889 B, 480x380) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 58889
  1. Judas caused the crucifixion of Jesus.

2. The crucifixion of Jesus saved your soul.

Therefore Judas caused the salvation of your soul.

Judas is burning in hell so we don't have to. He will suffer eternal torment and it is because of his actions that we won't.
12 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Augustus Fancocke - Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:00:21 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197247 Ignore Report Quick Reply
well isn't apart of the bible that it was known jesus would die before he did, and that through his sacrifice man would be redeemed and that was the reason he was made man in the first place.

They show god reacting to things all the time, god tested jobe because of a bet with satan. That showed the nature of the outcome of something in the universe being a meaningful or informative object for god.

Then he wanted to find a way to redeem man from sin, through something. Jesus was apart of that.

Did god originally even want adam and eve to multiply before they left the garden, we know he didn't want them to eat the fruit which they did.

its probably convuluted because he created man the universe in his own image, so its supposed to realize itself, and that's going to be a long and contradictory process.
Augustus Fancocke - Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:06:45 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197248 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i guess what i'm saying is when creating and caretaking a world its bound to get convulted.

Just look at every mythos we've created.

Look at george lucas and star wars. He kept going back and looking over it and trying to change things, have the time for the most minute reason to offset one thing that was cuasing this thing here that conflicted with what was happening here.

maybe the world was too one way for a long period of time and it needed to be another simply because of that.

There are plenty of reasons that it would get convulted, when initially it was a small contained garden.
Hamilton Bummlewot - Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:14:05 EST ID:nhLsZOhD No.197250 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Muslims believe Judas was the one who got crucified and Jesus ascended into heaven.
Henry Nennerhood - Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:44:56 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.197251 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i really like girard's conception of the crucifixion as a way for christ to break the cycle of the scapegoating mechanism and how he ties it in to the understanding of the kingdom of God

the entire time i spent reading girard, who genuinely believes we live in apocalyptic times - i couldn't help but see parallels between this thought and more secular, critical conceptions of history - for example, zizek also believes we live in apocalyptic times. the weird thing is that girard doesn't believe in a literal second coming, but in the establishment of the reign of God as the end of the mimesis of violence, and zizek believes that what can happen is communism, which is essentially the end of political conflict over resources through the communization of property. neither believes the future is assured - girard believes we will either choose the kingdom of God at a critical juncture or we will choose what he calls the kingdom of satan, or the perpetuation of civilization through violence and scapegoating, and zizek believes we will either find a way to create communism (if you dig into less than nothing it becomes apparent he genuinely believes real communism is possible, though if you just watch his youtube vids you'll not get that impression) or capitalism will just become one long catastrophe after another

what's really intriguing about girard is what he thinks is christian and christianity is sometimes commonly thought of as anti-religion or anti-faith, especially the enlightenment. most theologians and some philosophers think of girard as an oddball and very conservative, but i think girard's theology is essentially the theological equivalent of hegel in that there's a right wing, stupid interpretation, and a left wing way to take girard beyond girard and theologians simply haven't caught up to the significance of his thoughts yet.

this is like the third or fourth time on this board i've mentioned girard.

if you're a pro-revolutionary and not some vulgar empiricist who is willing to read interesting things, i definitely recommend taking a look into girard. especially if you're christian. it'll turn christianity on its head, and opens a window for it…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Fucking Dozzlebed - Tue, 16 Dec 2014 23:24:15 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197254 Ignore Report Quick Reply
does he break the cycle by offering himself up as the ultimate scape goat or taking all the hate.

like when you complete the cycle it's done?

Holes in economic thought and theory by Nell Brabblehood - Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:41:21 EST ID:cojBGgl6 No.196088 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1412556081494.png -(299089 B, 500x375) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 299089
It just feels as if we're missing a general perspective on economics that we once used to have. This is the thread to post facts, theories, figures, and philosophies of important economic thinkers in the past that we may not be paying attention to today.

For instance, whatever happened to the first law of Adam Smith's 'five variations in pecuniary compensation resulting from the variations from the employments themselves'? That first law was that we compensate the wages of laborers and the profits of stock based on the general dirtiness or uncleanliness of the profession or employment, respectively. We clearly do not follow that reasoning today, many professions that are unwholesome or generally unpleasant are under compensated based on this economic line of thought.

There is another Smithian line of thought, while a bit more sociological and less economical, may have some contribution the varying degrees of payment and credibility certain educational institutions have today: "Whatever forces a certain number of students to any college or university, independent of the merit or reputation of the teachers, tends more or less to diminish the necessity of that merit or reputation".

We see that, partially, in how easy it is these days to receive their lectures online through coursera or a similar site. Why then, do colleges and universities still get paid so much for their tuition? If I didn't know any better I would say the educational problem Adam Smith outlined right there in that single phrase is enough to warrant some attention. Instead of valuing WHAT people are being taught, we value moreso WHERE they are being taught it. Self-education, however, can in some cases be even moreso efficacious than taught education.
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nell Brabblehood - Sun, 05 Oct 2014 23:52:48 EST ID:cojBGgl6 No.196091 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This answer, although perhaps fine, does not placate my qualms about the current wages of labor, which are being skewed towards indolent white collar professions.

But regardless, I thank you for the answer.
Whitey Seddlefetch - Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:26:47 EST ID:fy6lFxwv No.197127 Ignore Report Quick Reply
In regards to Adam Smith...

If the gains in manufacturing are geometrical in regards to the part of the product that resolves itself into wages and sometimes efficiencies are kept secret between manufacturers because clandestine or profitable, then if the factory owners are making a larger profit or getting better paid on their sales, how would the factory workers ever find out, especially if their unions are effectively discouraged?

How is this any different today? Isn't it even more applicable today?
Polly Bindlewater - Tue, 09 Dec 2014 18:58:45 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.197128 Ignore Report Quick Reply
In regards to this question:
>We see that, partially, in how easy it is these days to receive their lectures online through coursera or a similar site. Why then, do colleges and universities still get paid so much for their tuition?
I can answer from my perspective, at least.
I study biomedical science, specifically in the realm of neuroscience. There is a lot of information out there in terms of neuroscience, and yes a coursera course could easily make me high intelligent in terms of understanding the theory of science.
But science is dualistic in nature, there are theory and practice elements that are both equally essential for a successful career. Now certain jobs necessitate certain elements more than others, like low level techs need lots of practice, while high level scientists need to focus on theory and direct the practice. But you cannot negelect the practice aspect of science. And quite frankly, you cannot get that simply watching a protocol preformed on line or studying a lecture or protocol on coursera. You need to have somebody walk you through it to learn about all the subtle nuances of operating certain equipment or learning certain techniques. There are thing that must be taught in person.

But to bring this back into perspective of the thread topic, even despite this an academic researcher with years of experience and publications still makes jack-shit compared to a person with similar qualification level in a different field. And probably works much harder than them too. Just the nature of the beast. For instance a high level engineer makes a lot more than a scientist because an engineer works on a project that goes to market. Very rarely do scientific studies culminate in an medical intervention that is marketible. Like for instance, I study nutrition fats effect on the brain, I can't sell fat as a medicine, as I am not a grocer on the side.

One issue I have with today's economy is the skewing of the ratio how much owners and corporates of companies make in relation to their workers. There have always been the rich, the affluent, and if you own a company you deserve a nice piece of the pie. But its crazy how much more CEO's make these days,…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Simon Billingbury - Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:43:10 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.197208 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I agree with OP and especially his last statement
self education is the best education, school education is binging and purging info into a paper and receiving a bill for it
Simon Billingbury - Fri, 12 Dec 2014 14:46:15 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.197209 Ignore Report Quick Reply
See, you have a predisposed notion that is enforced in society
> a degree means you know what youre doing
which couldnt be farther from the truth
every job Ive had requiring my degree didn't have me use a fraction of the information and Im more or less hired for going away from the mainstream taught line of thinking
You still have to be trained after you get your degree, and if you're in college as I, profs can peddal garbage all day and/or not even do their job and laugh at you all the way to the bank

Ask The (Rabbinic) Jew anything by Chaim Danzinger !9w2wnnkzlE - Mon, 03 Nov 2014 15:05:56 EST ID:JOw2NrbS No.196496 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1415045156457.png -(258195 B, 700x516) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 258195
What is perplexing you, my masters?
37 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jack Bullerputch - Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:25:26 EST ID:F5bJ0hNq No.196629 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>has eye-witness testimony of millions of people
You have resorted to completely bullshitting now

It claims millions of people saw sometihng, but doesn't have their testimony.
Sophie Bravingspear - Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:28:55 EST ID:v5vFtcEt No.196637 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Has to do with conditions brought on by the spirituality of Jews as a nation. This has to do with why in those whose open miracles would happen, as well as the phenomenon of prophecy.
Special pleading followed by a non sequitur.
You basically said: "Here, accept the privileged spirituality of Jews because I need it to further advance my argument, and then assume it somehow answers your question."
>Because the Bible, specifically the Sinai event, has eye-witness testimony of millions of people as well as the authenticity of the preservation of those testimonies.
If we accepted your criteria, that would also make the New Testament, the Quran, the Vedas, and the Book of Mormon true. And since they can't be true at the same time, it means the criterion is useless (because its use disproves itself by proving too much to be viable).
From a falsehood, everything follows, as they used to say.
Sophie Gamblemetch - Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:13:01 EST ID:zyZY8F+M No.196639 Ignore Report Quick Reply
why dont your acept jesus?
Cedric Binderbeck - Tue, 09 Dec 2014 20:11:37 EST ID:oAO73+Si No.197130 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Are there sex practices prohibited to Jews with their own spouses?
Simon Billingbury - Fri, 12 Dec 2014 04:13:29 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.197193 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Why has your race of people doubled in income in the last 50 years?
Why are your relatives adopting banking systems that was similar to the corruption and downfall of post WW1 Germany?

Equality and the wage gap by Cedric Binderbeck - Wed, 10 Dec 2014 02:00:33 EST ID:oAO73+Si No.197132 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1418194833515.jpg -(137193 B, 800x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 137193
The average American Jew makes twice as much money as the average American non-Jew, in America.

>The Jewish community in America has gone from a lower class minority, with most studies putting upwards of 80% as manual factory laborers prior to World War I and with the majority of fields barred to them,[14] to the consistent richest or second richest ethnicity in America for the past 40 years in terms of average annual salary, with extremely high concentrations in academia and other fields, and today have the highest per capita income of any ethnic group in the United States, at around double the average income of non-Jewish Americans.[15][16][17]


This is a wage gap TWICE as big as the supposed "75 cents for every dollar" that women are said to make.

If the wage gap between men and women should be closed, should the wage gap between Jews and gentiles be closed as well? Why or why not?

pic unrelated
1 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cedric Binderbeck - Wed, 10 Dec 2014 02:29:23 EST ID:oAO73+Si No.197134 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>Usually this is understood from WITHIN a given profession.

I don't believe this would yield consistent results from profession to profession.

If a male surgeon makes $1 for every 75 cents a female surgeon makes, that doesn't seem like it would imply that a male janitor makes $1 for every 75 cents a female janitor makes. And there are a lot more jobs than surgeon and janitor.

I really find it very hard to believe that anyone took all the jobs and compared them and a 3:4 ratio was what they came up with after averaging them all together. That seems incredibly far-fetched, doesn't it?

Even if they did do that, it still leaves room for huge outliers.
William Fashlick - Wed, 10 Dec 2014 02:29:56 EST ID:sL4yUvl0 No.197135 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That pic is way too intense for the argument I was making wow. Anyway to make a (probably bad) summary of Slezkine, Jews and other Mercurial Peoples (Slezkine's term, read it as nomadic, mercantile, and idea based as opposed to [Appollonian] deeply rooted to the land, there are all kinds of examples of these peoples) acted as the sort of rule-of-the-exception. In order for the Appollonian societies to function, it needed to transgress its own rituals and cultural mores that constitute its existence, so there was a dualistic relationship developed in which there were these people who were both insiders and outsiders, able to walk along the interstices of the laws of that society. Take, for example, the forbidden-yet-necessary case of various forms of money-changing where the jews were villified for working with capital but really Europe depended on it to even support the institutions that could villify capital and, hypocritically, jews. Slezkine has this whole thing where he essentializes sets of values for Mercurians vs Appollonians and that's kind of suspect. Anyway, nb for double post.
Phineas Hammerville - Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:22:45 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.197164 Ignore Report Quick Reply

there is no male-female wage gap WITHIN professions, otherwise, the businesses would only hire females, saving themselves 25% on their labor costs

the 3:4 wage gap comes from taking all working females and all working males and comparing their annual earnings without controlling for any variables.
Simon Billingbury - Fri, 12 Dec 2014 04:02:15 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.197190 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>If the wage gap between men and women should be closed,
There is no wage gap, it is a muyth
If you only put the effort into thinking about it relating to race as much as you could have put into researching its validity
Im trying not to be condescending but more trying to steer you along a better path for seeking information of knowledge
Simon Billingbury - Fri, 12 Dec 2014 04:06:02 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.197191 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is a result of people taking statistics (generalizations) and applying to a individual scenario, this cannot be done, they are separate and one cannot prove the other
its a A to C with no B

I think OP is getting at, if there was a supposed gap in earnings and discrimination (false) and we were to, write it into legislation (law student here trying to conceptualize that and working economically..) then why shouldnt every wage gap be closed from races.
Then people of height, as shorter people get paid less.
Oh, lets do income of different businesses too, even if you compete.
Oh wait.

"Strict adherence to the Abrahamic faiths is incompatible with a funcitional modern society" by Nigger Pockman - Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:14:07 EST ID:oAO73+Si No.196915 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1417205647802.jpg -(297383 B, 1440x1050) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 297383
Do you agree?
28 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Caroline Seckleforth - Sat, 29 Nov 2014 05:20:54 EST ID:YQwq3Vw5 No.196950 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also, it occurs to me that it is not just Christians who like to cherry pick from the Old Testament. OP cherry-picked a couple of lines from Deuteronomy to make a point, and I doubt he considers himself to be a Christian.

Doris Sedgebatch - Sat, 29 Nov 2014 10:33:48 EST ID:8BQbnIjV No.196951 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>If the Bible is the word of God or divinely inspired, then to say that God's laws had to be tailored to what his followers found acceptable at the time is ludicrous
Not really, considering they were God's chosen people. From their point of view, he was just telling them they were right all along.
Shit Cozzledale - Wed, 03 Dec 2014 22:00:26 EST ID:5NX7kavu No.197004 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also worth noting that modern christians (and society at large really) don't understand what the writers of the old testament were actually referring to when they discussed homosexuality. Most ancient Semetic cultures (Jews, Arabs, etc) recognized the existence of "third-genders" (trans, passive gays, masculine lesbians) and considered them a distinct gender apart from "man" or "woman". The homosexuality discussed in the old testament referred to "men" lying with "men" (ie two cis gendered males fucking eachother) as this was seen as promiscuous and a form of excess, hence degenerate in their eyes. Somewhere along the way this Semetic view of homosexuality was synthesized with the traditional European view of it (where the passive partner was considered homosexual, and the penetrator straight) and the modern definition of the act/term took shape.

IDK though, Christian anarchists seem pretty cool and I wouldn't mind living amongst them. I was actually just thinking about Jesus, "prosperity" christianity, and the 'cleansing of the temple' (Jesus bullwhipping capitalists in a synagogue for counting money when they should've been praying) earlier today and I was thinking how Jesus's execution could be interpreted from a perspective of historical materialism. There were a lot of prophets and fringe cults active in the Roman empire at the time of Jesus but most didn't suffer the level of suppression that early christians did. Proto-socialist movements began to gain traction in the empire around this time and the upper classes were fearful of a proletarian revolution (the Roman senate sending death squads to murder the Gracchi brothers and their followers is a good historical example). Jesus being executed for threatening the economic hegemony of the ruling classes seems more plausible than than his being executed for claiming to be a "messiah".

Anyways I think Christians like Tolstoy and Muslims like Shariati are pretty cool for the most part.

That was too much to type from a phone, fuck.
Molly Dummlespear - Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:09:58 EST ID:vS8+qKFH No.197010 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sure, if you define a "functional modern society" to be one that isn't compatible with Abrahamic faiths... What the fuck is a "functional" modern society? Shit question.
Charlotte Dorryridge - Mon, 08 Dec 2014 05:59:44 EST ID:HEJ7y7Ow No.197113 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Zizek's description of The Event as a thing which retroactively is its own cause or defines the conditions which had determined the event as leading to it is what Jesus of Nazareth was - at least within the schema of historical materialism.

I would caution against anachronisms like suggesting Jesus drove capitalists out of the temple. While capitalist relations existed here and there in antiquity, they were minor and almost completely swallowed up by the imperial social relations dominantin that day, only later to be replaced by feudal, and then capitalist relations. But history is never so clear cut. Things are messy and disjointed, the lines between these modes and the particulars and times blurry.

I will say that beyond the anachronisms we can genuinely say that Jesus was a pro-revolutionary of his time - his intense criticism of the wealthy and the authority whichhe accepted and demonstrated among the poor - and among others who were jot poor, for example the tax collectors and rich young man that were interested in following him. This disruption of order and challenge to the power of Rome and the Sanhedrin, who were no doubt in the upper echelons of the class structure of the time was precisely the reason why he was executed.

What I've said so far doesn't require faith to believe, but when you take that leap the overwhelming genius of his actions and beauty of the contradictions of it allnis staggering. The creator being, infinite and eternal, Being itself becomes the particular, the King of everything becomes a poor revolutionary, who overcomes the gulf between creator and creation while simultaneously starting a process which is an initial break with the violence of the world that will continue to grow into the complete abolition of violent power.

Then again I've been reading a lot of Hegel, Zizek, and Rene Girard so none of this shit peobably makes a bit of sense to anyone

Philsosophy should be taught in primary (aka elementary) school by Angus Handerham - Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:25:53 EST ID:mKxE8yJc No.196870 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1416896753547.jpg -(72397 B, 800x560) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 72397
46 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nicholas Chandlesadge - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 00:13:53 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197088 Ignore Report Quick Reply
yeah you claimed that, but an instance of a teacher being understood by students who have more exposure to teachers and class taking, and educational excerise in general completing there tasks, says nothing about the cognitive ability of a younger child.

People still believe that in our later teens we open up critical thinking and mental ordering in our brains, and especially the part that has to do with list making and organizing. And they use this to explain the teaching of college, based around crossreferencing and recongizing ideas as apart of different cannons or lists.

Yeah that idea is a big part of shit these days, and it to has its problems.

But nobody believes that we open up new parts of our brain by age alone, in the way you describe, at least not exactly and in especially in a big consenus way.

The educational theory now is that you have acess to all parts of your brain generally and you develop and expand them as you get older.

Cognition of concepts, abstracts, concrete data, analytical, synthetic, memorization, storing data are all going on, and you develop each as you go sometimes in intertwining fashion.

We don't usually believe one age has an impossiblity to deal with or access a part of their brain, but people might believe that as you get older you are more developed in an area because thats maturation and people do still believe in that.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Barnaby Chesslefoot - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:22:16 EST ID:MDEj4Nkl No.197092 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Holy fuck is your M .O. to simply spam whenever anybody contradcits you?
Eugene Berringmetch - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:39:54 EST ID:SKpv0XYc No.197094 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>however the examples you list don't hold to this day.
You mean the experiments? You mean the behavior of the children changed from that time? You mean that the experiments with levers, train tracks, cups and water etc. suddenly no longer show any consistency anymore?
>Bloom's taxonomy does presnet a model for cognitive development because its explicitly about how we cognitively learn. And the steps of mastery of knowledge and information, and guess what concepts.
>Thats why its more relevant to this topic.
>The entirety of the steps of blooms taxonomy that encompass all fields of knowledge because there our methods of acquistion, comphrension, reception and manifestation of those fields are encommpassed with in it.
>This theory points out that the entire hiearchy is able to be reached by any student including k-6. But they access it varying degrees and varying levels.
The point is, Bloom's taxonomy pertains to educational objectives. If we made teaching a 6-year old child the concept of leverage, as per the aforementioned example, an objective, would it be possible to teach an average child apply the concept in practice?
Empirical evidence suggests not.
>The incident itself doesn't prove egotism because it doesn't prove that this is the child's agency, which is required for egotism. You could say the child is self centered, because they are centering the story and world around themselves by happenstance.
Once again, you seem to misunderstand what I said. I spoke of *egocentrism* during childhood, not *egotism* - and it makes a world of difference. *Egocentrism* as a outlook on things provoked by an undeveloped, or still developing Theory of Mind.
>People still believe that in our later teens we open up critical thinking and mental ordering in our brains, and especially the part that has to do with list making and organizing. And they use this to explain the teaching of college, based around crossreferencing and recongizing ideas as apart of different cannons or lists.
>Yeah that idea is a big part of shit these days, and it to has its problems.
>But nobody believes that we open up new parts of our brain by age alone, in the way you describe, at least not exactly and in especially in a big consenus way.
>The educational theory now is that you have acess to all parts of your brain generally and you develop and expand them as you get older.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Hannah Gusslebore - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 22:32:03 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197110 Ignore Report Quick Reply
no people don't believe that from six to ten you open up the possibility of thinking conceptually because of those experiments.

empircal evidence doesn't suggest that, your intepretation of that evidence suggests that. The situation you provided in no way demonstrates that only by the age of ten students are able to think of concepts.

Blooms taxonomy applies to education at all levels. Its a description of how we learn, with the purpose of being used to engage those levels of learning. The level of learning concepts and application of concepts is apart of that education in as a whole standing in bloom's taxonomy.

Egotism and egocentrism could have semantical differences, but possibly being observed to orient the world around one's self, is different if its concious or unconciously done. The instance you described with a phrase, might not be either but one thats observable in the opinion of someonelse. If its not concious self centering, then its not ego centric or egotistical. It's self centered.

if you agree then you would understand, that not being able to complete certain tasks or apply certain concepts, isn't enough to generalize that they can't access conceptual thinking and have no conceptual or abstract thought.

Once again that's you coming up with what that instance would be if the child weren't a child and already had access to the knowledge you have, that's a failure on the testers part, if he soaks up that instance as proof of his concept of children he has made a similar mistake to thinking that, the six year old not understanding weight distrubition is proof of that conceptual thought doesn't begin until the age of ten. That child uses that as an example because thats the scope of his world at that time, and his concept of how the world works.

In affect he could have thought perhaps because he is in the same place as this child, that both of their parents are in the same place with each other. It could have had everything to do with the existence of the other child being there.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Hannah Gusslebore - Sun, 07 Dec 2014 22:36:30 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197111 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i may fatigue a cheer leader

Dissappointment by Ernest Waffingnig - Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:47:12 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197016 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1417765632055.jpg -(53393 B, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 53393
what does it mean to be dissapointed?

and also what does it mean for the expectation that was disspointed.

If one has come to learn something to be one way, and then they are dissapointed what does that mean, if you have a thesis about things and it meets its anti thesis, do they cancel each other out?

Is this what disspointment is, or is it something else. People often go through feeling mistaken about whatever they were dissapointed in or from if they are disspointed. And others go onto regard dissapointment as a set back but may not regard whatever understanding they have as mistaken.

Just in general what does it mean to be dissappointed?
11 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Simon Chummlebire - Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:54:50 EST ID:T/Kmx8GG No.197028 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Would you throw away a bucket that has always worked but has a problem now, or would you try to remedy it.

It depends how much time and effort it would take to repair the bucket. If it impinges on other shit I have to do, I have to ask myself if I'm willing to sacrifice that or to just get a new one.

>yeah but you can not get the answers by the nature of the persons response on clarification, and leave it up to more trust and more time to see if that trust pans out, to see if that expanation is right.

It's your job to make sure the explanation is right, or if he's bullshitting you. You have to find some way to have a definite proof, definite enough for you anyway, and to make that person give you that proof. You have to set the terms, you can't leave that part to him.
If you can't trust the person anymore, you have to replace them. It's not gonna be the same, but we have relationships for utilitaristic personal reasons, even if that reason is as apparently trivial as "I just like to be around them", or "I just like to watch them do their thing". If you can't trust that person, you can risk that lack of trust poisoning you, or you can cut your losses and go on, look somewhere else to get what they gave to you, in some way or form. Or you have to sacrifice the satisfaction of that need of yours in order not to sacrifice satisfying other needs. Like if I like to fuck someone but I'm not sure if they'll steal from me or not, sooner or later I'll have to make a choice.

>There has to be some state for that specific quality in an existential crisis. A philosophical description of it, with perspective about it that won't narrow it to fit a particular conclusion.

Being lost? Left wandering? Something along those lines, I think. The dark night of the soul, maybe. Getting lost doesn't narrow it, when you're lost you can go anywhere, so it fits I think.
Shitting Shakebanks - Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:00:58 EST ID:MDEj4Nkl No.197029 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Can dictionary threads go to /lit/ or something
Frederick Bannermore - Fri, 05 Dec 2014 23:58:12 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197040 Ignore Report Quick Reply
These are helpful, thanks man.

I think it might be lost.
Frederick Bannermore - Sat, 06 Dec 2014 01:36:30 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197041 Ignore Report Quick Reply
this could literally be applied to anything, if there is a word for it. I don't know why you would tie dissapointment into that, as a fresh dig, unless you assume the massess don't know or aren't familar with it. Which i assure everybody is, i gurantee you dissapointment is an essential feature to the average joe's vocabulary.

Just as Kierkegaard or heidaggar discuss anxiety as a concept. Just as many philosophers combine a psyhcolgical state with a philsophical reading, for a better concept and a fuller understanding, i was looking for philosophy on dissapointment.

Go penetrate yourself.
Emma Basslehock - Sat, 13 Dec 2014 09:40:32 EST ID:CcAJ01Mh No.197219 Ignore Report Quick Reply
ffs, just deconstruct the word. it's diss-appointed so it's like if you're thinking u get that swag new job and instead you walk up the stairs and get whip cream cock slapped off a few steps. It's like joining a new group of friends and being their bitch for a little while. It's that bitch mode you get in when your new electronic gets doused and you find out you can't fix it. It's that oh man, i should've prepared for this but really, i feel like most of the time i get dissapointed i've been misdirecting my upset towards justifying it's denial. There's like a half and half good and bad there so they cancel out. Basically ime it's when you anticipate one thing and then you have like double the wait time so you feel strained to focus after a little bit, but sometimes you need that focus, so you get a little upset, and yeah, maybe it works maybe not. but you added an extra s in disappointment

Methods of determining "function" by Barnaby Niddlebat - Sun, 16 Nov 2014 20:21:05 EST ID:vS8+qKFH No.196727 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1416187265222.png -(268974 B, 684x883) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 268974
So Aristotle basically says that the function of something = the distinctive feature of that thing, or the thing that that thing does that no other thing does. When you think about it with tools it works. Very well.

He says the thing a human does that nothing else does is "rational thought". So therefore the function of a human being is think rationally.

Any other interesting arguments surrounding the determination of functionality?

By the way I'm not saying that I think humans necessarily do have a function at all, it's just interesting. Pic unrelated, I think...
46 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Shit Chonnerwill - Thu, 04 Dec 2014 02:16:59 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197008 Ignore Report Quick Reply
once again it would be a purpose

not the purpose

which i would say

and everyone else would as well

they would have to

if something has the potential purpose and it is used that way that object had that purpose.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Isabella Pesslechid - Thu, 04 Dec 2014 06:36:27 EST ID:T/Kmx8GG No.197009 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>But it was self fufilling, he chose to narrow it, not because he was trapped, but because he trapped, himself in that for his own convenience because that was the course he sought.

Well yeah. I didn't mean the object traps you, I meant you can forget it was you who trapped yourself. This happens more easily if you search for approval, as seeing people trapping themselves in the same way by the same thing gives the illusion it's the thing that traps.
That's why I think asking questions like these seem like a recipe for deluding yourself: you already know your own take, why not just follow that? The trap is gonna come from you either way.
Of course you can also just treat other people's answers as inspiration to navigate within yourself.
It just seems people seldom do it with this conscious purpose, and more as a way to put themselves in the role of the victim, rather than the creator, in a more publicly convincing way.
Emma Drinnerchadge - Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:08:27 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.197011 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>so you are implying the object was never actually used?
no, that's obviously not what i'm saying, why are you pretending to be retarded?

we dont really seem to disagree, you say that an object has multiple purposes, anything it can be used for is a purpose the object possesses. I think this is awkward as all hell, and very much at odds with how people normally use the word purpose, but I'm not going to say that its wrong because its basically equivalent to my point which is that subjects define the purpose of objects.

>You can't broaden your definition of purpose, to be something outside of imbued or destined to be

this is confusing phrasing, if i understand you correctly, you are implying that I am the one who wants the definition of purpose to be something metaphysical like destiny or "imbuing"? I am trying to do away with those concepts and say that purpose is just whatever the subject plans to achieve by interacting with an object.

your post is incredibly redundant man, use some editing, did you really need all those single line statements to repeat your point over and over. I agree with almost everything you are saying

the only place there is friction is that I think most people do not use purpose in the way that you are using it, most people believe purpose IS something imbued by a creator, it IS "limiting" or whatever else you are saying. so you are arguing with the wrong person when you try to tell me that I am using a narrow definition of purpose, I am using the one people colloquially use
Shit Chonnerwill - Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:16:19 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197012 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm saying that because I posted something and you responded with that still wouldn't be the objects purpose but rather something in your mind, if you found a use for the object. And i'm trying to make a rhetorical point that despite whatever worldviews their may be or the populist rankings of the different ideas of purpose. Wouldn't the object still be used despite us insisting on all of it in some way. Thats what i'm asking by stressing the question.

I know you didn't say that practically, but i'm attempting to suggest that its practical use in this instance, implies a philsophical purpose, because of the object's potential being activated in a certain way.

On the second point.

you said it would have nothing to do with the object, if this were the case. I'm pointing out that a person finding a use within an object isn't necessarily them defining the purpose in a majority way. Despite them recognizing for themselves because of their intepretation of it. Ala, Its not used for a hammer it IS a hammer.

Its true that its only equipment because the human recognized it as such, but purpose also includes if that potential was there to be harnessed.

Thats why the object itself can be said to have purpose.

I don't know if you really understand repetition or your just thinking this is an opporutnity for criticism, so i won't go in to any long winded expanation. Suffice to say a pattern with repetition can enhance the meaning or it can stall it. I don't really think elaboration, is redundancy even when it can seem redundant.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Shit Chonnerwill - Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:24:55 EST ID:F5RtLyIS No.197013 Ignore Report Quick Reply
People putting themselves in that role can equate to them making a case for why they actually were treated that way.

Hence their desire for you to see them as such through the public eye.

yes if you search for approval you may get trapped.

But on the other hand we seek validation as well, and those two things can become blurred.

I think at times people are trapped in a sense, because they are trying not to be and they are.

On the other hand i think people have those rationales that narrow and expand the boundaries to suit a given suspicion and we trap ourselves. And at times we may want it that way.

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