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


Angels in Judaism by Molly Duckbanks - Sun, 15 Mar 2015 12:12:13 EST ID:NNhsPAVk No.199425 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1426435933754.png -(805355 B, 720x563) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 805355
Are they supposed to have feelings, or are they just like mindless automatons?
53 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Sidney Supperstone - Sat, 16 May 2015 12:24:39 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.200751 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>We've all grown up with the shepherd in control of our lives. We can willfully ignore him if we choose, but we still recognise his voice. We don't recognise the voice anyone else because they have not taken the same care of us that Jesus has.

I can see you missed my point entirely. Let me spell this out for you. We only recognize a shepherd's voice if we grow up with him. If that voice was not that of Jesus, then we are not going to recognize the voice of Jesus, because we are conditioned by our life experience to respond to some other voice. If you grow up with the Buddha as your shepherd, then the voice to which you'll respond will be that of the Buddha.

It's like if the shepherd was the one who took care of the sheep, but the shepherd was ultimately just a ranch hire with no actual decision-making power over the sheep. The one who really rules the sheep is the owner of the ranch - the boss who gives orders to the shepherd. But the sheep don't respond to the real authority - they respond to the the "authority" that's been in contact with them.

Or maybe the shepherd isn't even employed by the ranch owner, he's just some homeless bum who lives in a tree that's been hanging out with the sheep, and the sheep have come to like and listen to him because he sneaks them food or whatever.
Jarvis Puckledale - Sat, 16 May 2015 18:13:12 EST ID:0BzOcSPg No.200757 Ignore Report Quick Reply
mindless automatons, just like in islam

another reason why "new testament" and most of christian legacy is a mistake, an unfitting fanfiction and should be discarded
Hannah Hevingstock - Sat, 16 May 2015 23:44:34 EST ID:WMvfZvqA No.200761 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah, but the angels of the "old testament" are vicious and furious and so unequivocally frustrated that the shit they say goes beyond what needs to be said. There's opinion involved.

Islam came after Christianity btw, so it's fanfic too.
Charlotte Durringwill - Sun, 17 May 2015 02:56:20 EST ID:0BzOcSPg No.200765 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Quran is like Old Testament is like Babylonian Myths

Meanwhile, New Testament preaches a completely different moral code and a different idea of god, further altered by Christians to the point of unrecognizable
Hannah Hevingstock - Sun, 17 May 2015 10:50:10 EST ID:WMvfZvqA No.200767 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A worthy point.

Seriously though they all came from Yezidism. Those angels definitely had feelings.

The genius of Silicon Valley: by Nicholas Hirryfeck - Sat, 16 May 2015 11:17:58 EST ID:7SP8yavL No.200746 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1431789478018.jpg -(678657 B, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 678657
Chamath Palihapitiya - Full Interview

So this was very interesting to me.
Basically Silicon Valley Venture capitalist ( Net worth US$ 1.2 billion) talking about the world as is and is becoming.

Watch the video and make up your own mind. He strikes me as the neo-yuppie type dangerously divorced from reality but also has some novel ideas and even some good ones.
The underlying thought patterns scare me though. To me he seems like the type of person that is a bit too eager to get loose from tradition / established values and:

Read this for context

could come to the conclusion that people useless to the economy or "progress" should be shunned or even worse...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Nicholas Hirryfeck - Sat, 16 May 2015 11:19:01 EST ID:7SP8yavL No.200747 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1431789541018.jpg -(463766 B, 1920x992) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 463766
I get the feeling his radical perspective and eagerness to revolutionise and progress may prove to be what so many times is, just another spin of the same old wheel.
He's big on investing in Medical science.

It's an interesting talk that touches the most modern technology, modern companies, big money, privacy, near future etc...
Nicholas Hirryfeck - Sat, 16 May 2015 11:20:24 EST ID:7SP8yavL No.200748 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I mean at one point he compares the complete loss of privacy and peoples qualms about that to the generational tension concerning rock n roll during its time.

Not exactly something a sane or smart person does. And I'm assuming he has some level of intelligence being a billionaire...
Sidney Supperstone - Sat, 16 May 2015 12:15:24 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.200749 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Smart doesn't factor into it. It's a question of values. A person could be the brightest person in a particular field, but have totally different values from you, leading to conclusions that you think are idiotic.

Stephen Harper, for instance, is probably one of the smarter people in Canadian politics. Know what he uses it for? Furthering his evangelical right-wing nutter values.
Sophie Bullystun - Sat, 16 May 2015 12:39:00 EST ID:CWtos5OM No.200752 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>The genius of silicon valley
Is commercializing technology invented in government labs.

They're being elevated right now like stock brokers were in the 80s. Fuck 'em.

Kabbalah by Caroline Sivinglug - Fri, 08 May 2015 12:47:47 EST ID:wdbBwMkU No.200517 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1431103667721.png -(251601 B, 600x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 251601
I am interested in using the Kabbalah to improve my life.

Are there any books or places beginners should look into to begin the path to fulfillment claimed to be from the Kabbalah?
12 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Esther Bingerterk - Sun, 10 May 2015 12:27:29 EST ID:QGohiXkV No.200579 Report Quick Reply
I have. I enjoy Manly P. Hall's work, a lot of his lecture can be some really farfetched speculation I don't believe we descended from giants and stuff, i think that kind of occultism led to nazism, but not intentionally. I think the Thule society misunderstood Hall and Blatvatsky. And not to discredit him, but he wrote all his books on Masonry before he was a Mason, but that's not to say he's wrong about the symbolism. The Pillars are definitely a representation of the tree of life
Esther Bingerterk - Sun, 10 May 2015 12:29:17 EST ID:QGohiXkV No.200580 Report Quick Reply
The best places to look are probably Lon Milo Duquette, Carrol Poke Runyon and Manly P. Hall is okay, but the first to will describe stuff better. Manly P. Hall is more into myth than mysticism, and I don't necessarily mean 'fake' when I use the world myth.
Nicholas Fucklekark - Tue, 12 May 2015 19:22:58 EST ID:LgRiVsYQ No.200636 Ignore Report Quick Reply
check out richard dawkin
Nigel Clottingfutch - Wed, 13 May 2015 22:23:51 EST ID:QGohiXkV No.200683 Report Quick Reply
Hannah Hegglefuck - Sat, 16 May 2015 07:38:15 EST ID:IQ52R6S/ No.200740 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1431776295332.jpg -(1309047 B, 1280x853) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1309047
Fuck Kabbalah, which is an interesting Jewish religion, and chose QUABALAH which is even more interesting western magick tradition

Shadow Side by Doris Beddlesune - Sun, 10 May 2015 12:26:47 EST ID:ZeBdWVPo No.200578 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1431275207546.jpg -(43506 B, 500x665) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 43506
What would happen to me and my life once I've fully integrated the dark sides of my being?
9 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Doris Beddlesune - Tue, 12 May 2015 17:07:57 EST ID:ZeBdWVPo No.200623 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1431464877239.gif -(692616 B, 299x199) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 692616
So how do I handle these negative emotions? I mean, without the rampant sarcasm of course.
Doris Beddlesune - Tue, 12 May 2015 17:08:29 EST ID:ZeBdWVPo No.200624 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Where do I start reading Jung's works?
Lydia Pockdale - Thu, 14 May 2015 16:22:39 EST ID:2sJclTIY No.200695 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i don't know where to start. But his ideas usually come out in everything he does.

The best one is probably the red book, but it's huge and i haven't read all of it. He wrote that as if he was both jrr tolkein a psycholgist, a philosopher, and just tied together alot of things that make it feel overflowing.

you could learn alot about the functions through myers briggs, i would bet you would find alot of links to other things closer to what he wrote through there, through your understanding of the functions. You can get a better picture of what the shadow and the anima/animus would look like for each broad category or personality type.

You can read about the collective vs the individual, individuation, and the collective unconcious, in even joseph campbell, and through that he makes those ideas make alot of sense.

The ego, the persona, the shadow, and the anima/animus, and then how that makes up the self and the total personality i don't know a good single work where all that is.

But everyone of those things is in the red book.

As well as the hero, the self that's connected to history, the spirit of the times, the death of the hero, and all of his understandings about symbol.
Lydia Pockdale - Thu, 14 May 2015 16:25:30 EST ID:2sJclTIY No.200696 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Simon Hashdock - Thu, 14 May 2015 17:02:29 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.200697 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Modern Man in Search of a Soul. It's a collection of essays that provides a good introduction to his ideas.

I'm reading it now. Very interesting.

the elephant in the room by William Packlewater - Tue, 12 May 2015 19:41:09 EST ID:F6inxDpN No.200637 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1431474069392.jpg -(40193 B, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 40193
I think the elephant in the room is that not everybody sees it, that is part of the elephant in the room. Everything might not appear the same depending on who you ask so we are all living in different realities on the same planet. We see things so differently that
its almost like we aren't on the same planet most of the time. I know it all sounds as if this is just some ''wanna be wisdom crap'' that a fool might say but you see that is part of the elephant. I think that we cannot live in a stable world when everyone in it is so
far away from your version of reality that they appear like intrusions of reality itself and likewise you to them.

What is to be done about all of this?
7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Wesley Sablingstock - Wed, 13 May 2015 16:17:57 EST ID:hdoFWG50 No.200666 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Maybe you find it horrible because you've seen how badly we managed conflicts until now and how badly they can escalate.. Misunderstandings and disagreements are an everyday thing since forever though, and can be handled in a much better way.
If this is the case, you don't really want to end conflicts (no conflicts would just mean hivemind, and restriction of freedom, and fuck that), but to get rid of people responsible of handling conflicts and incapable of doing so in a peaceful way.
Nigel Hecklehark - Wed, 13 May 2015 16:44:53 EST ID:F6inxDpN No.200669 Ignore Report Quick Reply

That does make sense, Mr.666. Lets just hope that such actions work. I think that although our options seem limited we should never let the dream of a conflict-free world die. Even when all we can do are temporary solutions
Isabella Fimblestock - Wed, 13 May 2015 17:28:43 EST ID:2sJclTIY No.200671 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Who is handling them poorly and well is a conflict itself
Martha Dronningdock - Wed, 13 May 2015 17:29:52 EST ID:Zja+OtAc No.200672 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Personally I think that when we give up belief in free will, we will naturally gravitate towards being on the same side.

We'll start looking for CAUSES to blame and not PEOPLE to blame.
Hannah Brablinglan - Fri, 15 May 2015 02:30:29 EST ID:FR6cHjmN No.200711 Ignore Report Quick Reply
People are associating and organizing their social relations based off of their interests instead of proximity, in theory. So now there are these solitary figures writing on their laptops at a neighborhood bar about the beer their drinking, not socializing with anyone around them, taking selfies for a beer aficionado group with members scattered about the Earth.

Conflict is inevitable, some form of it anyways, through mediation and crisis deescalation violence is avoidable, probably not always though. Even now most people seem capable of resolving conflicts without using violence, and not because of the threat of punishment from law enforcement, as in if someone in the heat of the moment wants to do harm, they will, laws or not.

A cool idea for neighborhoods is to have a door in the fence between properties including the ones back-to-back. Of course there's a bunch of caveats for this idea to work. Some sort of neighborhood produce economy would benefit the neighbors' relationships.

Morals by Walter Nicklecocke - Sun, 26 Apr 2015 18:13:28 EST ID:CzwpJh3G No.200051 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1430086408780.jpg -(11558 B, 300x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 11558
Is morality a real thing, or is it made up?
247 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
William Biddlepit - Fri, 08 May 2015 11:30:21 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.200515 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Slight amendment to my definitions of B and
If and only if B, then no rock with the property "E cannot create it" can exist.
If and only if C, then no rock with the property "E cannot lift it" can exist.

I think I could do still better, but that should get the point across. And either way, my point regarding reductio ad absurdum is made. If you still don't believe me, go to /math/ and ask them.
Oliver Drottingsan - Fri, 08 May 2015 22:42:33 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.200541 Ignore Report Quick Reply

an reductio ad absurdem is an argument by contradiction

but every argument from contradiction isn't a reductio ad absurdem.

If you're agrument can't clearly show that the opposite is true, it's not a reductio ad absurdem.

You haven't showed that the opposite is true, by simply showing a contradiction in what you are arguing against.
Oliver Drottingsan - Fri, 08 May 2015 22:44:31 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.200542 Ignore Report Quick Reply
you don't need help.

What you do need to realize, is that it cannot be a reductio ad absurdem, if you're own argument is logically absurd.

And if you don't show the opposite of what you are arguing against is true, in the most explicit manner with no contradictions.

That's why its an argument based on extremes.
Oliver Drottingsan - Fri, 08 May 2015 23:10:25 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.200543 Ignore Report Quick Reply
this "argument" is an old riddle that is supposed to be a conundrum.

You aren't showing any incosistency with the idea, you're showing how the idea logically would result in something that is meant to be puzzling, for you to be in that state of mind.

That's what this was concoted for.

You aren't supposed to work your way out of it, you are supposed to reach a dead end.

If you tried to use this as a way to rule out an omnipotent god on the basis of the law of non contradiction.

You would be ignoring that all the contradictions are internal, within are concepts.

There is nothing externally absurd about a omnipotent being beaing able to alter reality, altering reality in ways that are contradictory of one another from one state to the next.

You're not supposed to be able to understand it, and that's what the idea is trying to accomplish.
Synthetic !ryBONGJej. - Sat, 09 May 2015 19:54:54 EST ID:QGohiXkV No.200572 Report Quick Reply
It's made up. Thanks Aristotle.

Why are social medias so self fixating? by Nell Greenfield - Sun, 03 May 2015 16:46:14 EST ID:hUYuVU2y No.200423 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1430685974125.gif -(2090938 B, 350x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2090938
Is it because we have these new options of communicating with people?
What makes people wanna post pictures of their goddamn breakfast?
16 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ian Murdbury - Thu, 07 May 2015 13:24:40 EST ID:EW/VF/ht No.200498 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1431019480469.gif -(950517 B, 500x281) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 950517
I believe that the self fixation of social media is related mostly to the fact that people are trying to promote their own interests across a large crowd of people in hopes of finding people with similar interests as well as for seeking social approval. Finding gratification in knowing that people are interested or support the same activities that you hold in value to yourself. Having a large variety of attention from a large group of peers that all think and live differently can help promote a person's self esteem and lifestyle.

"If all these people who all live differently and think differently can all agree simultaneously that my activity is interesting or entertaining to them, it proves that my interests are of value to others which encourages me to continue living the lifestyle I am living publicly."

Internet happens to be the most convenient outlet to allow people to gather large groups of people and discuss personal interests and lifestyles, where the population online is much larger and spread out, it allows a person to more or less have a large group of people who are interested in their activities despite it not being the majority.

It's a bit egocentric and somewhat superficial, but it allows people to feel more comfortable in their lifestyle and personal opinions when there are a group of voices who agree.
Thomas Gassletork - Thu, 07 May 2015 16:08:41 EST ID:hdoFWG50 No.200500 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I really doubt all the people with a need to socialise are starved enough that they resort only to using FB as well

Some people are just shy, or awkward, in real life, and on social media it's just easier to take your time and know people superficially.
These people without social media could just become hermits, but the distance provided by the media allows them to make a little step, which is better than no step at all.
I think everything we do is learned: if you never learned how to effectively socialize IRL, and you're too embarrassed to fumble in public, social media is a better option than never learning at all.

I wasn't talking much about the selfie-taking part of the userbase, although I think some of them are shy too, in the sense that maybe they just aren't used to make the first move, so they post some bait in the form of pictures so that other people make the first move.

>If anything its destroying what was a more physical social community.

I think you have that backwards: it already was a less physical social community, the success of facebook is proof of that.
I don't think you realize how many people would surrender to a life without anyone, or without anyone with whom they shared their real selves. Not everyone is motivated by desperation, some are paralyzed by it.

You also forget how much social media makes the "friendship pool" larger, leading to people having more chances to find people more like them, without the limits of having to settle to what's in your immediate vicinity.
That could also be the reason why people post so much unimportant shit about themselves, maybe they just want to meet other people that are into the same weird shit they're into. Everything is more fun when shared. Except pooping, I guess.
Fucking Pundlefoot - Thu, 07 May 2015 20:47:23 EST ID:vWvBiMC9 No.200502 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Well I wouldn't really expect my opinion to be particularly popular on /pss/ board let alone an alternative image board but I'm mostly just indifferent to social media. And I've had and have 'online friends' too and some of them have been pretty important to me especially the ones I've met up with and formed lasting friendships with. But meeting any of them in person definitely 'grew' the relationship and added something that wasn't previously there, even if the majority of our interaction continues to be online. There are other problems with online relationships as well in that without body language, personal experiences et al there is a definite lack of 'realness' to a given relationship and I think it can safely be said that if such interactions predominate a persons socialisation then they're probably not experiencing a healthy social life and probably have some sort(s) of social issues (ASD, aspergers, etc.)

>I think everything we do is learned: if you never learned how to effectively socialize IRL, and you're too embarrassed to fumble in public, social media is a better option than never learning at all.

Nature and nurture and all that, but a person with poor social skills would have had to learn to adapt in order to be successful socially. In these cases it can be argued that a minority of the population are capable of not making this developmental step because of the convenience of social media, internet etc.

>I think you have that backwards: it already was a less physical social community, the success of facebook is proof of that.

This is senseless. The only thing this is proof of is that Facebook and the concepts of social media are clearly appealing to most people for whatever reason and that's likely convenience. And convenience + habit should never be taken as an indication that something is beneficial since it often means the opposite, ie. Western obesity epidemic: we unconsciously enjoy and desire so many foods that are so terrible for us because in a state of less abundance they would have been a luxury that could mean life or death - but these days its just convenient to eat what you f…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Trainwreak - Fri, 08 May 2015 01:09:00 EST ID:GMzEIJjU No.200509 Ignore Report Quick Reply
We're a social species and we enjoy getting constant positive reinforcement from others. When you have a lot of followers on twitter or instagram and you get a bunch of likes/favorites on something, it makes you feel significant and that others like you. It also allows people who don't have many friends in real life to feel like they actually matter because they can sit at home on their computer and get constant reinforcement from others.
Shit Drungerville - Fri, 08 May 2015 04:25:36 EST ID:hdoFWG50 No.200511 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>a person with poor social skills would have had to learn to adapt in order to be successful socially

Or just give up on being socially successful and not adapt at all. In these cases social media is very useful, and for the people that need to learn the most. Why not have them grow, instead of wallowing in desperation?

You see social media as a substitute, I see it as a first step. After they get a little capable there, after they see that there actually can exist people who like them, or respect them, at least virtually, maybe they'll build enough confidence to start to socially adapt better IRL too. And without social media maybe they never would have gotten there.
I mean think about this: without social media, two people with these difficulties could never have met in the past, because they wouldn't have had any way or courage to meet each other. Now new possibilities of love open up.

>in which case social media gives people the flexibility to socialise when they want to and again its the whole convenience thing.

Which I see nothing wrong with. If anything, busy people are less isolated this way.

Again, just like with fatty food, social media is an auxiliary part, and meant to be used as such, it can't substitute your whole social diet. Some people misuse it like that, but that's their mistake, convenience has no fault, nor does habit.

Im surrounded by retards by Reuben Gendertin - Tue, 05 May 2015 16:17:42 EST ID:/sB4Jsus No.200465 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1430857062198.jpg -(32593 B, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 32593
Guys I live in upstate NY like the rural 315 shit and people here are so fucked in the head it scares me. Every here is an illiterate retard and every single person I met either goes through "special programs" or gets welfare/ssi/whatever.

Everyone here pretends to be a hardcore hillbilly. They all get big loud trucks, wear the baseball cap, and listen to country music. Then it gets weird, they turn from redneck to wigger in seconds. I see hardcore rednecks that talk about nothing but fishing and walking through the woods, then the next day I see them blaring rap music, wearing flat brim hats, and pretending they are from the city. EVeryone here talks like a cowboy and listens to country music and shit, but then later on they'll be like "swag swag swag I'm black" then claim to "hate jolly african-americans" the next day.

Everyone here is a fucking retard. They are all inconsiderate with loud barking dogs. I live in a neighborhood with like 8 or 9 houses and my neighbors get roosters and dogs that all wake me up before the sun even comes up.

All my neighbors hate me and I never see anything but redneck stereotypes here. But they are weird about it. it's like that show Squidbillies but it just never fucking ends.
8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Shitting Henningdale - Wed, 06 May 2015 15:14:37 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.200484 Ignore Report Quick Reply
the stoics would have
Lydia Fuzzleseck - Thu, 07 May 2015 03:58:51 EST ID:vWvBiMC9 No.200490 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Oh you like x?
>that means unlike me you must be close-minded

well done
Thomas Gassletork - Thu, 07 May 2015 05:31:38 EST ID:hdoFWG50 No.200491 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>"I like x" is equal to say "I'll only ever like x"

Sure thing, bud.
Sidney Gumbledock - Thu, 07 May 2015 07:15:21 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.200493 Ignore Report Quick Reply

you definitely missed the point

but yeah, go ahead, believe that non-new yorkers are the reason your life is unsatisfying
Charles Sinningworth - Thu, 07 May 2015 11:51:45 EST ID:USgViPKT No.200497 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>The only place ill find likeminded individuals is in NYC

Then move to NYC. If you can't afford it, move to White Plains and visit NYC on the weekends.

Do you agree with this guy? by Reuben Dregglebag - Wed, 06 May 2015 08:54:37 EST ID:F6inxDpN No.200481 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1430916877601.jpg -(17207 B, 233x399) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 17207

He explained narcissism and i wondered if he were ironically narcissistic. Turns out he is narcissistic and when he came to terms to that he turned into a full fledged psychologist as he tried to
create a more of a understanding of narcissism. His lectures are a little bit weird and his students can be a little disrupting. Still its amazing to hear his thoughts. He appears like a nice guy actually.

Free will time by John Dringerstudge - Tue, 14 Apr 2015 01:29:48 EST ID:aTc1bpOi No.199781 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1428989388874.jpg -(10149 B, 192x146) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 10149
is the concept of free will a necessary illusion?
68 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Isabella Foffingdad - Sun, 03 May 2015 20:23:01 EST ID:DntI9V66 No.200429 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You're saying that being held to human normative moral standards NECESSARILY follows from having free will. You're begigng the question.

Good point about underestimating pigs, and I don't mean to say there's a 1:1 correlation between unpredictablity and freedom.
Fanny Fuckingshaw - Sun, 03 May 2015 20:31:08 EST ID:USgViPKT No.200430 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>You're saying that being held to human normative moral standards NECESSARILY follows from having free will. You're begigng the question.

That's not begging the question.
Isabella Foffingdad - Mon, 04 May 2015 08:51:14 EST ID:DntI9V66 No.200436 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yes it is. You're assuming a conclusion:

>If you consider a rat to have "free will", then the rat is morally responsible for his actions.
And again:
> I'm not going to hold a pig morally responsible for what it does.

You're assuming that being morally culpable necessarily follows from having free will. It doesn't. Those are distinct phenomena. Morality can exist without free will, and free will doesn't imply being morally responsible.
Fanny Fuckingshaw - Mon, 04 May 2015 12:42:22 EST ID:USgViPKT No.200440 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Oh, okay. Thanks for spelling it out.

But does this mean that we can have free will yet have zero moral responsibility?
Whitey Crandlechatch - Tue, 05 May 2015 20:01:16 EST ID:DntI9V66 No.200470 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>But does this mean that we can have free will yet have zero moral responsibility?
I think so.

I think "free will" is basically how we experience the chaotic dynamics of the self-referential machine that is our brain. So the question is, "do you have influence over what that chaotic system does?" I reject spooky/metaphysical explanations of the self, so the only definition of "you" that's coherent is: your thoughts, your brain, your body, even your environment to some extent (no, I don't believe in telekenesis). It's all you, and you *are* influencing the outcome of reality. You can call it an illusion, and I can't really disagree -- as long as you call everything else an illusion. Green, truth, cats and galaxies are all illusions.

As for morality, unless you have some spooky ideas, it's clearly a biological or sociological thing. That's not to say it's meaningless, and I happen to think my culture in particular (western civ) has the best version of morality.

A pig might be held morally culpable to other pigs. IDK, I'm not a pig sociologist. I'm pretty sure there are social animals other than human that punish bad behavior, though. That might be considered their morality. It's different from our morality.

Is free-will a good thing? by Isabella Blickledock - Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:45:28 EST ID:db+Jm1HV No.200123 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1430358328465.jpg -(9165 B, 198x254) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 9165
Assuming for a second that free-will exists, is it good? If evil exists because we were given free-will, is that a necessary trade? Should we want this fee-will if it means that it brings evil?
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Hugh Bropperfoot - Tue, 05 May 2015 10:35:55 EST ID:9Ihx/+E/ No.200461 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Depends which one is real, free-will guy. If evil comes only from free-will than I'd rather not have it. If good comes only from free will then it's a good thing by definition.
Martin Criddlenag - Tue, 05 May 2015 11:00:28 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.200462 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yet another free will thread?
Phyllis Handlegold - Tue, 05 May 2015 11:54:27 EST ID:hdoFWG50 No.200463 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The thought that free will is bad is only borne out of our habit to blame people.
People make decisions of all kinds, so if you assume free will exists, you got to admit that men freely choose to do everything because of it, both good and bad decisions.
Cedric Hoblingban - Tue, 05 May 2015 12:40:16 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.200464 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>Restriction of free will is evil


>Not a kind of bliss I want, what boring creatures we'd exist as.

if "everyone is ignorant of" it, then you wouldn't think it was boring. you would think its just as exciting as you currently think it is.

because thats actually how things are, you dont have free will
Phineas Claygold - Tue, 05 May 2015 18:24:41 EST ID:USgViPKT No.200467 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Assuming for a second that free-will exists

Would that mean we could have two options, and pick the one we strongly believe is going to lead to a terrible outcome as compared to the other one?

Reintroduction of the death penalty. by Charles Clittingspear - Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:27:59 EST ID:LlssjEU/ No.199613 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1427034479434.jpg -(47622 B, 430x475) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 47622
So I'm in Australia, a country that has had the death penalty banned since 2010. Now ai know the statistics on how much incarceration costs per year in my country, the history of capital punishment and such.

My question is, do you believe that the threat of death is a decent deterrent from major crime?

I'm personally sure it isn't but but with only having access to a handful of people who have been to jail for severe violent crimes my inquiries are pretty shallow as far as numbers go.

So do you think that on an instictual level the threat of death is greater when social context is taken out?

Of course if you would also like to argue the moral and/or social aslect of for or against capital punishment please do.

it waz a toss up whether to put this in /law/, but I'm more interested in the psychological aspect as legally it's non existent in my country
52 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Samuel Drecklehore - Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:58:37 EST ID:USgViPKT No.200139 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>It's perfectly possible to be 100% sane and do terrible things.

I'm not really sure about that. It makes me think about the definition of "sanity".
Lydia Bundleworth - Fri, 01 May 2015 10:43:31 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.200142 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>The presence of the urge to hurt others or oneself should be considered by society to be a disease or a symptom of a disease.

Pretty much everyone has a disease, then...
John Gollerbanks - Fri, 01 May 2015 14:57:43 EST ID:S+WVkC32 No.200148 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's probably worth pointing out that you existence today can be credited to people doing terrible things to other people. Nature selected for homocidal traits, because tribes have always competed against each other.

With that in mind, it's a defect as far as modern society is concerned, but it's also hardwired into us.
Eliza Ginkinpetch - Tue, 05 May 2015 04:15:35 EST ID:L+CEhnjb No.200459 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't know much about the death penalty but how in the everliving fuck can keeping someone alive for years cost less than just shooting them?

I guess if they are enslaved and made to work they make more money that it costs to maintain them. Is that it?
Martin Criddlenag - Tue, 05 May 2015 04:31:32 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.200460 Ignore Report Quick Reply

read the thread

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