AnonAccount: What is it, and what does it do? - Q&A Thread
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


So.... by What is name - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 03:34:44 EST ID:EeIfVA0W No.195047 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404804884986.jpg -(6800 B, 304x164) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 6800
What is going on?

Im not sure I can even form an accurate enough question.

What? No...why?
Ugh.
There's the cliche question, "why are we here?". I guess thats as accurate as I can guess.

Does anyone know the question? Answer would be cool too.
Maybe this should have gone on b...
>>
Lydia Gadgefure - Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:42:10 EST ID:qhzTh2mi No.195049 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Inb4 "Because"

Also /b/


older generations lived it and the best is over? by Henry Bengerwill - Fri, 04 Jul 2014 12:53:50 EST ID:ZRGf/SUd No.194952 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404492830142.jpg -(206157 B, 960x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 206157
do you think growing up was overall easier or more fulfilling for babyboomers, generation x??

im a strong believer that economics ie. resources in the last century really does determine the overall wellbeing and happiness of people. so looking at todays economics, dont have to an expert to see its getting worse as the years go by. the only disadvantage i can really think of in the past generations is they didnt have internet, maybe less video entertainment.......

i always hear older folks grieving about this and that and how this todays upcoming generations get it easy and "back in the day" ect ect do you think it was harder for older generations?? are they just ignorant?

the economy is worse, the music is worse, the culture is worse, finding a job is harder, i dont see how its easier... but what do you think?>
10 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 00:39:13 EST ID:LKeG39DH No.195009 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195004
I read a post once that kinda went like this
>talking to grandad
>he proceeds to lay into me about doing shit with my life
>says he dropped out of high school
>walks into factory, immediately gets full time job
>makes bank
>asks first girl he meets to marry him
>she says yes
>starts family, all goes smooth as fuck
>mfw im 100k in college debt
>mfw no job will accept you without years of experience first
>mfw all the girls are too uptight to even talk to or ask out "to coffee"
>fuck this gay earth
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Edward Mallyway - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 06:10:24 EST ID:VOw9MW4w No.195018 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195009
You are using one guy's story with limited insight on many aspects that would be needed to paint a broad picture to derive a general rule.

Also, I'll remark that the vast majority of arguments put forward ITT work if and only if one lives in the US, perhaps more generally in the first world, which I, for instance, do not.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 09:30:11 EST ID:MaNF82cq No.195022 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195018
Ver very true, I'm assuming where you live it's more along the lines of "walk into factory, get job", etc. but remember from the other thread on pss (I think), the world is homogenizing towards western values, at least for now, which means debt based financial aid for college and jobs that require a diploma AND experience. I think its a dangerous trend for the world to be "looking forward" to living like Americans live (if that's even a thing, it seems to be from my perspective, and I've traveled to a bunch of places too.
>>
Emma Brookham - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 22:01:49 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195036 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195022
>which means debt based financial aid for college and jobs that require a diploma AND experience
Again, overgeneralizing to the point of being wrong.

I live in a country that was once behind the iron curtain. It went through the transition from communism to (roughly) western capitalism, and realigned itself from being east-oriented to west-oriented (as many other countries after the fall of the USSR did). So, yeah, it's westernization all right.

It also has state-run universities that are open to all students regardless of income (and no, they're not considered "worse", like many community colleges are in the US), are paid for from taxes, and are completely free. One can even pursue TWO subjects at the same time, and it's as free as pursuing one.
Making it paid isn't even considered, no plans to do so were ever put forward, at least, not to my knowledge.
>>
Emma Brookham - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 22:09:12 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195037 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195022
Also:
>I'm assuming where you live it's more along the lines of "walk into factory, get job"
More like, "walk into factory, get a hard as shit job that pays a tiny fraction of what a job of parallel kind would pay in the west". I make less than 400 USD a month. And you know what? It's still a fucking improvement, considering what's the situation was like before.


Condition of the Present Life-Order by Walter Picklelat - Sat, 05 Jul 2014 00:38:54 EST ID:EJv0IqyK No.194971 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1404535134984.jpg -(174187 B, 1162x752) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 174187
With the globalization of our planet there has begun a process of levelling-down of the individual which I contemplate with horror. That which has today become general to our species is always the most superficial, the most trivial, and the most indifferent of human possibilities. Yet men strive to further this levelling-down as if, in that way, the unification of mankind could be brought about.

On tropical plantations and fishing villages of the far north, the films of the great capitals are thrown on the screen. People dress alike. The conventionalities of daily intercourse are cosmopolitan; the same dances, the same types of thought, and the same catchwords (a compost derived from the Enlightenment, from Anglo-Saxon positivism, and from theological tradition) are making their way all over the world.

At world congresses the same levelling-down is furthered by those who, instead of aspiring to promote communication between heterogenous entities, want unification upon a common basis in religion (or lack thereof) and philosophy. The races of man interbreed. The historical civilizations and cultures become detached from their roots, and are merged in the technico-economic world, fused into the universal vacant intellectualism of today.

When will this nightmare stop, when can we stop becoming mere cogs in the machine of society and truly become ourselves? Is this viewpoint wrong? We look down on those who differ from our Kardashian-western perspective as backwards and ignorant, but are we really any better? We laugh at the Andaman islanders for throwing spears at us.

I want to believe that society can change from solely being concerned with delivering bread and tv to the masses, to furthering each person by allowing them to realize themselves. Rather than force them into a slot so they can chase the "American Dream" and be good little drones, we should promote real substance in people.

Everyone agrees that something is "wrong" with the society, and it isn't just the Republicans or Democrats causing the problems. I believe it is this disgusting globalization and materialism that is present everywhere, including this board. What are your thoughts? How can we …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
21 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 00:30:12 EST ID:XVcImQPV No.195007 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195003
Quit taking things so personally bun. I'm saying people act perhaps worse than before since we have so many "restrictions" on our behaviors set by well-rounded decent individuals and such. It may not be overtly violent, but it sure is outright annoying.

And I've literally only posted the picture and post of my gods twice on 420chan, once on pss when I made them and once on spooky. It's a thought experiment im conducting with a friend. And I don't read minds, I've literally never said that.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 00:31:23 EST ID:XVcImQPV No.195008 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1404621083063.jpg -(1433994 B, 3264x2448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1433994
>>195007
Bub*
>>
Frederick Sonkinstone - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 08:20:32 EST ID:qhzTh2mi No.195020 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195006
>hurhur, you haev a smarr pen0r and you pee urself because I am smrt
And you're done.
>>
David Cricklefetch - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 15:03:35 EST ID:iKiIyFsH No.195031 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>195020

Just getting started sweetheart
>>
Shitting Hegglehood - Sun, 06 Jul 2014 21:17:58 EST ID:Lhp1yiVw No.195034 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194971
you view globalization as a horrible thing, but should you live in the neighborhood of traditional islam people who would start a jihad on your neighborhood, or cannibals, or people of some culture that force you to defeat a bear with a broomstick to be accepted into the community and not be eaten by the bear, you would rather level down those traditions and culture in favor of some great common values such as safety and human lives and whatnot.
>allowing them to realize themselves
except any person who is too dangerous or annoying or unproductive to fit in ~your~ american dream.

that's how it works.


Painless assisted suicide should be legal for anyone by Archie Gindlefork - Fri, 06 Jun 2014 11:45:05 EST ID:IGKMm2X9 No.194139 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402069505957.jpg -(424550 B, 1037x1555) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 424550
I really feel that society should not force people to stay alive, or make those who wish to cease to exist resort to potentially painful, failure-prone methods of suicide.

Some people seem to not be meant for this life. Not everyone can take joy in it, and some who have had that ability have had that taken away.
14 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Whitey Sattingmut - Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:08:31 EST ID:nBPGFvqe No.194384 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194305

>Curable

What if it isn't?
>>
Walter Hinkinnag - Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:26:55 EST ID:mRtXcFPt No.194385 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194305

I've been wanting to die on and off for years and years. Please cure me.
>>
morahdin - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 23:01:35 EST ID:WLFN9U4x No.194893 Ignore Report Quick Reply
if this was allowed i dont think it should be a same day thing, you should have to talk with some one who would try to talk you out of it. with that thay would try to help you get thou what it is that made you want to. then you if you still want to go thou with it you should have to w8 for 30-60 day to get your affairs in order and tell you your loved one why your doing it so thay can have closure.
>>
Ian Bumblemidging - Thu, 03 Jul 2014 01:54:40 EST ID:kUi61RvX No.194903 Report Quick Reply
If I state:

"As of the time of this writing 07/02/2014, I am of sound mind, and sound body. This fact can be attested to by friends, acquaintances, and doctors: M. Bradley, R.Reilly, F. Smithbeck, O. Levens. I do declare that should my body lapse into such a state from which my physicians so determine that I am unable to make remarkable recovery from, I direct my caretakers to watch over my wellness of being with such instructions: please aid and hasten my death in a merciful, respectful way, with as little pain as can be reasonably be expected for my situation.
>>
Jarvis Duggleville - Thu, 03 Jul 2014 02:15:33 EST ID:ljQSkHpH No.194905 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I do not want the government mixed up in suicide for people experiencing psychological difficulties. I support terminal cases, though, on a case-by-case basis. Something else I could consider supporting would be people who have, say, lost all their limbs, or lost multiple senses. But not depression, it is too frickin common and too misunderstood. I am a depressed person myself and I have suicidal thoughts as of this moment, but it is something that I plan on doing alone, without aid. I think that suicide is a desperate, final act and it's right that it should not be an easy thing to do.


On Mind by Jarvis Ningershaw - Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:12:49 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.194411 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402891969486.jpg -(346598 B, 1528x1525) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 346598
I was thinking today, about the motions of the clouds and of the highly complex motion of all the winds together that create the network of weather systems on the Earth that make our particular habitable earth what it is. It came to mind that nothing separates such complexity from the complexity of our minds. After all, it is also through some mysterious clockwork that our minds have gained self awareness. And, after all, what separates our minds, from the rest of the mysterious network that is our planet, except for the fact of self awareness? What separates the mind of the planet from the mind of man? What makes it so we can safely assume that our mind is a mind, and that the mind of the planet is not a mind, but rather, just a random assortment of unmeaningful processes? My argument is, self awareness. Or perhaps just awareness. It is the mind that lends awareness. Mind, I argue, is self awareness, and I would also argue that mind is not only the most pervasive element of existence, but that mind is all there is. What do you think?
100 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hamilton Cugglemin - Sat, 28 Jun 2014 04:49:25 EST ID:P3JlUK+P No.194769 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194768

yes. there can be no word to describe how the world really is, because once you name it or describe it, it becomes a concept in our minds.

so the only way to see truly is not to think, but to experience - without categorising what we experience. maybe babies, before they develop a Gestalt (your "mnemonic device the brain creates to create and organize sensory data") sense of the world, experience something closer to reality than we normally do. i also think that the purpose of meditation (to cease mental chatter) brings us closer to that state.
>>
Jack Grandshit - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 04:24:58 EST ID:WTFM3vGj No.194873 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If order to have a productive discussion on this topic, we must share ideas, not argue.
>>
Hamilton Trotridge - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 04:26:48 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.194874 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194873

arguing is a kind of sharing ideas
>>
Jack Grandshit - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 08:53:16 EST ID:WTFM3vGj No.194880 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194874

Earlier in this thread, people were arguing about who's right, and who's wrong.
>>
Emma Mopperstock - Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:40:24 EST ID:kUi61RvX No.194882 Report Quick Reply
>>194874
>arguing is a kind of sharing ideas
I agree. Argument/debate is one of the most interesting ways to share and discuss viewpoints in a lively way.
>>194880
>Earlier in this thread, people were arguing about who's right, and who's wrong.
Some "debate" is just the verbal equivalent of monkeys throwing poop, though.


That is: the quality of argument/debate on 420chan varies pretty greatly


Gonzo by Charlotte Summerput - Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:03:56 EST ID:GVcumqZg No.194705 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1403809436544.jpg -(22320 B, 256x177) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 22320
I can't remember where I heard this but I once heard gonzo journalism had some sort of philosophy as a writing style, I think. It's some kind of philosophy.
Anyone know what I'm talking about? It's bugged me for awhile because I don't get it
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Caroline Wupperfune - Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:14:37 EST ID:gNyY+Voh No.194789 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"Philosophy" is a very bastardized word, it's sometimes employed to mean nothing much more than "state of mind", a way to do things, or a three-words "witty" sentence that's supposed to make you think about the-universe-and-stuff. If you read the word used with a "a" or a possessive before, like "my philosophy is...", that's generally the case. It doesn't have anything to do with actual academic philosophy nor serious thought.
>>
Henry Greenworth - Sun, 29 Jun 2014 19:16:07 EST ID:Lhp1yiVw No.194798 Ignore Report Quick Reply
yeah, most of "my philosophy is..." actually means "my style is..." or "my opinion is..."
that said, philosophers who can spend their life getting an idea and writing lengthy books about it without getting bored aren't that much better that the layman whose 'philosophy' is to look the bright side, enjoy life, be positive, etc. english textbook crap.

whenever people reply to a longer post here, there are those who read one or two lines, yellowtext it and reply to that specific line without trying to get the point of the whole post (which is obviously complex enough to require a long post, and can't be fit into any one line of the post). some even go as far as stopping after every grammar mistake in every word.
others just read the whole post without stopping, or maybe the whole thread. these people usually understand more of the posters message, sometimes even taking sides with them, however they may not notice mistakes or contradictions that sentence-by-sentence readers do.
(please reflect here - do you have some answers already? or did you not yet stop to see if i'm just rambling bullshit?)
in case of essays, books or a bunch of books, the line may get so long that sentence-by-sentence/idea-by-idea readers will get absolutely lost and feel like reading the ramble of a madman, while people who don't stop might just have believed all the nonsense without checking up on it.

and so, every great philosopher or philosophy (with an accordingly huge and complex line of ideas to check) has defenders/fans who are unable to properly defend and support it, and attackers/haters who can't see the simplest points and just shittalk about "some sentence on some page" (just look at all the bible quotes). some people try to explain and clarify such works, and quite often end up in the same shoes, or totally ruining it.

i don't think academic philosophy is that useful, it hasn't come up with a good solution to stop my laptop being slow or making people like me post less crap. neither did sciences or religion answer why i should go to work tomorrow and give a damn about anything at all. 'objective' journalism hasn't been faring to…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Nell Fonderville - Sun, 29 Jun 2014 21:40:39 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.194804 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194798

>i don't think academic philosophy is that useful, it hasn't come up with a good solution to stop my laptop being slow or making people like me post less crap

i disagree, the process of academic philosophy led to the scientific method, to the principles of democracy, and so on

basically every good idea owes some of its nature to the philosophical discourse in which the theorizer was educated. philosophy will never lose its usefulness, just look at what has happened in the 50-60 years since we started disrespecting it. Irrationality and anti-intellectualism is on the rise just about everywhere, but its worse than before. It used to be that people felt that even though they weren't intelligent or learned enough for philosophy, it doesnt matter because its too abstract for their lives. They were wrong, but this is a respectable opinion born of experience.

Nowadays on the otherhand we have people who are so narcissistic that they believe they are ABOVE philosophy, and that all the work of deep thinking that humanity has done for thousands of years is worth nothing to "an independent mind".

Now logic is looked at with scorn. When you point out the irrationality of a common person's argument, they believe that you are playing semantic games with them. People have lost the humility to accept that what they are saying might not make sense.

It's a goddamn tragedy
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 30 Jun 2014 00:08:03 EST ID:i6AHkpOb No.194807 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194798
>in case of essays, books or a bunch of books, the line may get so long that sentence-by-sentence/idea-by-idea readers will get absolutely lost and feel like reading the ramble of a madman, while people who don't stop might just have believed all the nonsense without checking up on it.

I find you really have to be in the right mood to successfully read a philosophy and be able to undertake dissecting its actual meaning while reading it, usually when people are at their most comfortable. That's why arguments here on /pss/, when. Given a day or two between a certain level of argumentative posts, tend to be more civil and accepting of ideas, whereas a spitfire yellow texting argument can devolve into pure semantic buffoonery really fast. It's just the excitement I suppose.
>>
Jarvis Musslenire - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 21:54:28 EST ID:Lhp1yiVw No.194860 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194804
> is -that- useful
my point with the whole paragraph was that nothing is much more useful than other stuff. i see a lot of people specialize in something, be it a language teacher, plumber, chemist, researcher, doctor, engineer, mom, policeman, lawyer, whatever, they always get a huge perspective on how 'extraordinary' and 'invaluable' that something is to human society, and how we couldn't live without kids learning English in school, mom cooking tasty food, epidemics being prevented, evil companies stopped doing whatever they want, water pipes being kept clean, the human mind kept exercised, washing your teeth twice a day, not eating tuttu-runipaa-nedar oils and fats to prevent nail cancer, and supporting people who lost a leg and an eye but not an arm. that's all so very unusually and a-lot-more-than-anything-else important.
philosophy is useful. i usually defend that, and shoo these edgy new arrogant science-fans away. science is useful, but not that much either. neither would do much good if no one grew plants on the field. or if the sun decided to black out.

i think most of the things one can see is necessary for the whole hive to operate, except some forms of entertainment, luxury, and fashion.

>>194807
yeah, and then also there are personal limits. it can be quite hard to pass your thoughts to paper accurately, and for others to read and undertand them accurately. some people are smarter than others and may not be understood by the less smart - but since there is no 'foolproof' way of telling if someone is writing nonsense or you are the fool who can't grasp it, there is always resistance.


Objective truth. Does it exist in reality? by Sidney Blathercocke - Sun, 22 Jun 2014 12:08:58 EST ID:pTnrq//f No.194557 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1403453338412.jpg -(178454 B, 775x619) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 178454
Im leaning towards no but still on the fence.

Present your arguments and try to convince me one way or the other.

PSm not talking about math and logic (systems invented by humans in order to describe reality) im asking about the natural world.
21 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 29 Jun 2014 07:38:21 EST ID:dgQekpPI No.194786 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194785
Well that ties in with the idea that consciousness is a spectrum of experiential qualia, not simply you have it or you don't.


And synchronicities are less the local world revolving around the one having the synch, as much as that individual has tuned into reality in a harmonious way.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Sun, 29 Jun 2014 07:39:25 EST ID:dgQekpPI No.194787 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194786
Harmonious and beneficial way*
>>
Whitey Blackhood - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 03:37:37 EST ID:C6QsteKY No.194839 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194786
>Well that ties in with the idea that consciousness is a spectrum of experiential qualia, not simply you have it or you don't.
Or each animal could have degree's of qualia. It is after all a reasonable intelligent animal. Perhaps different animals have different quantities of qualia no matter how big or small.
>>
John Clodgebury - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 05:31:53 EST ID:dy+9g9py No.194840 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194786

Yeah I see synchronicities as simply a different beat to which you rock your experience. A catchier beat, I guess. Then some people idolize them and go crazy, but one doesn't necessarily follow the other..


>>194839

I would agree. Only humans though, when faced to someone with a bigger degree of qualia, start to idolize it and call it a God, or absolute. Bigger doesn't even mean necessarily better, since such a creature could be so different as to be completely oblivious to things which we take notice of.. Like humans and viruses. In their perspective, they could make a God sick.
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 07:16:00 EST ID:W3v00mT+ No.194841 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194840
>>194840
Well since they are essentially meaningful "coincidences" I could see how people would go crazy over them, but once they are ubiquitous enough in ones life they become the norm and thusly a bit comforting that reality is still going down the accustomed path.

I would disagree aboot the "bigger" quale experiencer, a vast enough consciousness, such as the posited mind of a galaxy or such, well it wouldn't be better per say but it might have more ability of will, or that of a planet with life running its "brain" or "synapses" might have the sort of understanding of the whole of the issues of the world. I'm not saying these things are the way things are most definitely, but if they were such things, vast minds of their own, accessing them and communicating with them might and probably would prove beneficial. If we could even understand them that is. So yes your last point is relevant to my post, in that our individual problems might seem trivial in the way that a obstacle in the path of an individual ant to us seems insignificant, at least compared to the plight of the entire planet.

Another thing to be aware of, is that once the Earth is covered in a singular global AI system, it might associate itself with a Gaian Mind whether it's there or not, effectively creating one itself, again, whether or not one is already there. Is a merging or combining possible if both exist? Well, if you've ever had a SO you might know you develop a type of connection that would be said to be not far off from a low level telepathy, though I'm sure a more appropriate definition exists surely. Who's to say the same couldn't happen with a global AI and a planetary mind?


I have no idea how a galactic mind would fathom though, tbh. It could work by using life bearing planets as synapse nodes, but beyond that I don't have any current speculations.


Oh Behave 2 by Barnaby Fapperwater - Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:56:30 EST ID:iKiIyFsH No.194775 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1403999790244.jpg -(36418 B, 600x251) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 36418
wikked is right, people should be allowed to have their opinions heard.
But Jericho sounds like he needs to chill out...

>I swear to fucking god I will mod this shitheap for 8 hours a day drunk.

I don't care if you ban me for saying what I think, its vibes that you give off that make this place a quote on quote "shithead"
16 posts and 7 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Samuel Worthingford - Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:55:53 EST ID:iKiIyFsH No.194830 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1404179753563.gif -(1113726 B, 212x159) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1113726
THE POWER OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH BITCHES!!
>>
Beatrice Sunderwun - Mon, 30 Jun 2014 23:33:57 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.194835 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194821
Well, if I have any complaint, its the misrepresentation of anyone by anyone. And I notice this seems to originate from anyone who seems to dismiss anything that is not scientifically verifiable, which is really silly considering a) we're on 420 chan, b) philosophical discussion involves a hell of a whole lot that is not scientifically verifiable c) scientific verification does not equal truth, and d) this way of thinking really bars a lot of good discussion from taking place, because those threads are just invaded by tons of people who have nothing to say about the subject, and only enter the discussion to attack it. There are lots of people who can have rational, intelligent, insightful, and civilized discussion about the kind of things Kocoayellow likes to talk about, like the Gaian mind, past lives, quantum animism, or the kinds of visions he was describing. I think it needs to be remembered that everything we say is for the sake of argument. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong. If you have nothing constructive to add to a thread, stay out of it. If you'd like to enter into the argument with a disagreeing viewpoint, you have to take the time to understand the argument you're arguing against. I mean, at least that's what I do. Any subject of philosophy is bound to be connected to a great deal of history and involves the research of a great many disparate fields. And that's why, particularly, I call the camp inclined to justify their scorn on a lack of scientific evidence the cancer of this board, because they more than anyone stifle all thought that doesn't fall in line with their assumptions, and with the greatest vehemence. You take disagreeing viewpoints too personally, and I don't understand why. I assume its a kind of insecurity.
>>
wikked !triP.nUFag - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 00:09:43 EST ID:kUi61RvX No.194837 Report Quick Reply
The warning was prompted by complaints brought up against Ky. However, after reading through the board a bit, I thought it would be good & fair to make a general request of all users.

I thought I was pretty clear when I said (paraphrasing) "a ban is too harsh for someone who seems to be contributing in good faith."
>>
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Tue, 01 Jul 2014 07:28:56 EST ID:/EImBiT/ No.194842 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194828
Naw that was an imposter on /spooky/ and /tinfoil/, there was a shitshow on /420/ too but it was mostly damage control at that point, making sure no one else was trying to use my tripcode that someone leaked. I was never banned meself though.
>>
Walter Hingerfere - Thu, 03 Jul 2014 17:11:35 EST ID:5gWCyL0T No.194933 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194842
too bad. we all wish it had been.


Oh Behave by wikked !triP.nUFag - Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:29:31 EST ID:J+7vqnz/ No.194626 Locked Report Reply Quick Reply
1403645371465.jpg -(97566 B, 463x413) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 97566
It has come to the moderators' attention that some people are dominating discussions and not allowing other people's opinions and ideas to flourish. /pss/ is a board where, more than any other board on the site (I think) a diverse set of ideas and opinions should be respected. We rely on each you, to a certain degree, to self-moderate your own output. A moderator's toolbox includes warnings, deletions, and bans. Deletions and bans seem overly harsh for someone who is contributing in good faith, but being overbearing. Warnings only apply to specific posts, not general behavior, and so are not a good way to communicate about general behavior. This is a warning about general behavior. Thanks.
Locked
Thread has been locked
Thread was locked by: wikked
Reason: .
>>
Jericho !.iRAtomic2 - Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:07:50 EST ID:JIHjEkA3 No.194679 Report Quick Reply
>>194626
Let me clarify what Wik said for the rest of you:

Previously, you needed minimal moderation. Now, you apparently need some moderation, and a few of our mods are going to help with that. But if you don't shape the fuck up, I swear to fucking god I will mod this shitheap for 8 hours a day drunk.
>>
wikked !triP.nUFag - Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:27:55 EST ID:kUi61RvX No.194809 Report Quick Reply
unstickying. things have been going pretty well. thanks.
>>
Isabella Diblingway - Mon, 30 Jun 2014 04:09:20 EST ID:0oJHaoGE No.194813 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194809
<3


Why is Phil included in this board? by Hugh Hanningcheck - Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:26:00 EST ID:WL4/i0g9 No.194430 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1403018760976.jpg -(60149 B, 466x466) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 60149
Philosophy is not a Social Science at all.

It's not a Science.

It's what we call ideas when there's not enough evidence to call it a Science. Back in Ancient Greece, everything was philosophy. Then we did some science to the thoughts, and we got Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Psychology, Sociology etc.

Not trying to shit on Philosophy, it's interesting, but it's not a Social Science.
8 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
bobhughes - Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:06:33 EST ID:kuQbBV3z No.194451 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194430
i get what you mean, i think... it's just a completely different thought process and method of observing than the sciences..
>>
Oliver Blicklekudge - Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:43:57 EST ID:nBPGFvqe No.194466 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194444

>Why do you need to include this part? Just to be a prick?

I saw it there and leaned in close to my computer monitor. My eyes grew wide and my mouth contorted into a grotesque half-grin as I saw that pronunciation guide. I realized to my delight that I couldn't even be sure that the fool could even say "philosophy", considering he didn't even know word's meaning.

"That will show the little philistine", I said out loud, drool dripping from my lips. My jaw clenched as I carefully held my cursor over the lines, taking special care not to exclude anything from the glorious blue bars that formed around these words of power.

My jaw clenched with as I saw the pronunciation guide transferred to the 420chan text box. Looking over to make sure I had copied everything I needed, I scarcely could contain my laughter as I clicked "submit post".

I got up to pour myself a celebratory glass of whiskey and sat back at my desk, sipping leisurely as I basked in my intellectual superiority and imagined the crushed heart of the fool who dared to question philosophy, the discipline in which I discovered the true superiority of my intellect.

PS:

No bump! No bump, I say!
>>
Esther Clillerford - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:01:07 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.194468 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194466
Sounds about right.
>>
Archie Pockshaw - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:52 EST ID:efYeYQjn No.194487 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194430

>It's what we call ideas when there's not enough evidence to call it a Science.

philosophy is not necessarily a Science, but this is so retarded that you couldn't possibly know why, and therefore you're wrong even though you are "right"
>>
Whitey Werryham - Tue, 24 Jun 2014 02:20:07 EST ID:vCbJur1/ No.194621 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it is when you think of it as a history of ideas


Simply the best? by Wesley Hassleville - Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:25:42 EST ID:d0vLb9yI No.194421 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402957542593.jpg -(7403 B, 259x194) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 7403
I have a burning question, who, in your subjective opinion is the most morally good individual to grace the earth?
Define good however you like, but I mean in the most general sense with traits like compassion, selflessness, unconditional love etc
Also it can be a person you know personally but you'll have to follow it up with a rad story about why that person is the shit.

I just find it difficult to decide, all the individuals through the ages looked up to for being supremely good tend to have a very unappealing side to them eg;
Ghandi was racist, Mother Teresa was obsessed with suffering in order to get her closer to God, the Dalai Lama preaches living without greed, letting go of the material things in life as a Buddhist but he rolls around the world like some kind of rockstar, no doubt 5 star hotel accommodated.
>>
Ian Sattingferk - Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:32:54 EST ID:nBPGFvqe No.194424 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1402972374341.jpg -(73739 B, 1533x949) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 73739
I think it is very possible that the best individual to grace the earth may not even be famous or well-known at all. Imagine a forgotten hero from some time in these thousands upon thousands of years that we've been around.

They could have been the greatest, most ethical person ever, but, having never achieved fame, were forgotten from all knowledge. Perhaps they took no pains to ensure that their greatness would be remembered, and so it isn't.

Dear hero: If you were ever out there...this one's for you.
>>
Walter Honeyshaw - Tue, 17 Jun 2014 03:45:41 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.194426 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Maybe Jesus if all the "I'm god" shit was made up by other people and not him.

I don't think being famous and being a good person go hand in hand very often.

I guess off the top of my head without thinking about it too much, St. Francis of Assisi would be my answer.
>>
Walter Pingerkudging - Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:07:29 EST ID:3JSz7e5h No.194573 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1403471249845.jpg -(37745 B, 464x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 37745
it is very difficult yes but i think this is atleast one of the morally better politicians http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20243493
>>
Esther Nandernedge - Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:11:26 EST ID:oOb8DiPm No.194827 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194421
Ive read this shit before on another board I swear..you envy saints we get it


afflicted by a disease by elohelcatz - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 03:33:04 EST ID:wmsthOV+ No.194213 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402299184227.png -(86982 B, 502x460) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 86982
just....what?
honestly I got over the whole religion debates a while ago, there are far more important debates to be had, ones that would resolve the issue of organized religion altogether (education et al)
but whatever, I want to explore a few questions if anyone's down
everyone says "if it works for them, if it comforts them, just let them be, they're not hurting anyone" the same can be said of drug addicts, and the reality of both instances is quite different. not only does Christianity ruin a person's nature and their potential paths and goals in life, but their indoctrination hurts the collective, hurts humanity. Christianity is anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, homophobic, misogynistic, it encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils, is based on fear, it depreciates the natural world, the list goes on. obviously it's as harmful as any disease and the analogy is just.
I think opinions on the modern impact of Christianity can be summed up into three views by outsider observers:
1- it's not harmful to anyone
2- it's harmful to the individual, not the collective
3- it's harmful to the individual and the collective
84 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Nell Drarringsot - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:28:34 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.194490 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194489
Also, the belief in deities that intervene in earthly matters necessitates the belief in the immaterial world acting upon the material world, which stands in direct conflict with, like, all of science. So YES, it could be called an opposite end of an axis (although religiosity is not the only thing that's in there).
>>
Sidney Greenforth - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:56:35 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.194493 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194480
>it will no longer distract people from real issues

i'm not sure if you mean to imply this or not, but what seems implied here is that religiosity precludes skepticism, either in the individual, or on a macro level. that if skepticism were to replace religiosity, you think the real issues would be tackled, our problems in our world might be fixed. this is connected with what i said about religion being a fetish.

the master-signifier can determine a fetish. the master-signifier can any number of things, democracy, traditionalist harmony, liberation, love or God, or even reason. for the active anti-theist, religion prevents them as a political subject from realizing their ultimate desire. which could be any number of things - a harmonious liberal democratic order, a radical order, something return to a traditionalist order, maybe something technocratic.

>Isn't that enough?

yeah. as such, it's been real. see ya in another thread
>>
Nell Drarringsot - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 23:13:33 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.194495 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194493
>i'm not sure if you mean to imply this or not, but what seems implied here is that religiosity precludes skepticism, either in the individual, or on a macro level.
Well, holding statements to be true without an proof even if they are inconsistent with themselves is kind of the opposite of scepticism.

>hat if skepticism were to replace religiosity, you think the real issues would be tackled, our problems in our world might be fixed
To a larger degree than they are now, at least.

>the master-signifier can determine a fetish. the master-signifier can any number of things, democracy, traditionalist harmony, liberation, love or God, or even reason. for the active anti-theist, religion prevents them as a political subject from realizing their ultimate desire. which could be any number of things - a harmonious liberal democratic order, a radical order, something return to a traditionalist order, maybe something technocratic.
Oh, right. Zizek/Lacan. I should've known.

In any case, first, I'll get on board with Chomsky's criticism of postmodern theories like these by saying that its contents are (usually) either obviousnesses enveloped in obfuscating language or straight-up bullshit (as would be the case with most of what Lacan wrote).

>for the active anti-theist, religion prevents them as a political subject from realizing their ultimate desire. which could be any number of things - a harmonious liberal democratic order, a radical order, something return to a traditionalist order, maybe something technocratic.
True to the point of being obvious as well as meaningless, the only purpose this statement seems to serve is to reduce antitheism to a personal sentiment regarding social position and conveniently dismiss well, everything else about it.
>>
Sidney Greenforth - Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:27:12 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.194544 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194495
>true to the point of being obvious

but is it? is this ultimate desire really thwarted by religion? supernatural belief didn't stop the neolithic revolution, religion didn't halt the emergence of feudal society, didn't halt bourgeois society, and there are differing theologies within most of the major religions that encourage any number of political coordinates.

my question to you is, what evidence do you have of this obvious truth?
>>
Jack Fuffingdock - Sat, 21 Jun 2014 17:21:14 EST ID:ardh95AY No.194547 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194544
>but is it? is this ultimate desire really thwarted by religion? supernatural belief didn't stop the neolithic revolution, religion didn't halt the emergence of feudal society, didn't halt bourgeois society, and there are differing theologies within most of the major religions that encourage any number of political coordinates.
And yet, the Library of Alexandria burned because of a religious conviction. And yet, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" has been shunned by the Church, slowing progress in astrology for years to come, Galileo was bullied into shutting up, Giordano Bruno was burned to death...
Even today, churches in various parts of the Christian world burn with hate towards scientific progress, Imams in their Mosques throw bolts at social progress, saintly men in Hindu India actively push for the promotion of "traditional medicine" as a vaild form of disease treatment etc.

I'm not saying that religiosity acted as a switch that turns off *all* capacity for rational thought. I am saying, though, that it did slow the progress of science.
>my question to you is, what evidence do you have of this obvious truth?
It's impossible to prove that a supernatural belief in isolation hampers the progress of rationality (other than that what I consider obvious, which is that holding an unsupported and unjustified statement to be true is inherently irrational), because no purely supernatural belief (that is, a belief that concerns ony supernatural and does not concern the material world in any way) occurs in isolation (to my knowldedge, at least). Noone really believes in deities for shits and giggles - I've yet to see a religious belief that didn't have some kind of interpretation attached, and these interpretations are by their nature unscientific because they stem from conviction, and not from an available body of evidence.

I agree with Dakins (which, surprisingly to some, doesn't happen all that often) in his opposition to NOMA. Religious statements are indistinguishable from any other statements concerning unfalsifiable theories, and should be treated exactly as the rest of them - by placing them in the realm of "unknow…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


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