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


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
4 branches of government by Lydia Drublingcocke - Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:38:27 EST ID:ffaKH0UR No.206950 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1475350707763.gif -(2090821B / 1.99MB, 318x241) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2090821
We all know the "3 branches of government" (executive, legislative, judicial) having checks and balances sounds good in theory, but in practice is pretty ineffective. Moreover, it results in the common people having little say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>all labels are simply metaphors

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

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

is this like plato and his forms?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

ignored for trolling

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

>I'd be okay with [child] nudity

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Bible Exegesis by Doris Wallyhig - Fri, 19 Aug 2016 01:39:52 EST ID:PRdisgsJ No.206567 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1471585192021.png -(121079B / 118.24KB, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 121079
So I read this bible passage in a book, and I can't put my finger on what it means

It's from Mark 7:24-29

24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.[a] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

I take it to be that even if you don't feed the 'dogs' they're still hungry and rummaging for food, so you shouldn't judge who is worthier of food or whatever
24 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Augustus Murdforth - Sun, 28 Aug 2016 17:34:36 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.206648 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Thank you fool i am the previous poster who had the gatekeeper exegesis.

I think what you are saying is spot on. Except the role of the free gatekeeper, as that of a guy working the panama canal and opening and closing the damn as a faciliatory and health based measure. In a wide open reality once the doubt or the thing that realizes that what ever it is that eludes us that we try to express and is intangible that we may reduce in reference to the symbol reality. Is not real or that our lives our a lie, is also the dread turning suicide tempting recongition that in reality most people try to kill the candide or the naief. That's why i also respect your posts as the fool. For the fool is one who exists by an intellectual grasping of what plato and the wisemen consider the shadow, or the part of the reality that can actually change. And he does that out of optimism yet has seen the most bitter realities.

Jesus was the naif, but he was also the artist but he had the tale inverted in that he believed he would do a great thing and that people were special, and his entire life he was aware he was protected and sheltered. This means unlike candide he did go into reality with fear. For the only secular reality about believing you are of god in some way in this context is that another sphere of influence might kill you.

When in reality Jesus is someone who saw a vision that he was going along trying to explain. Not unakin to the reality of strawberry fields. A reality expressed by an artist after having lived a more worldy life, that is both new and somehow related to a time before in this case child hood.

That's the reality of the guy in the changing space, yet there is something that he is claiming is so as well, but if he were to go and make the rounds putting his idea out into the constellationshe could easily be shown by a scholarly figure to not be smart or wise, gullible. So this point he is trying to prove in mark that he is an intellectual.

This is the one point in his vision that he can accept not every one is living by the reality that is going on in there imaginations or there heads, even though they have that reality as lived. But he only realized by seeing she was not controlled by it, which we get to understand by seeing this in iconagraphy(or a symbol revealing a symbol) she was not controlled by the stakes or implications which her fear raised.

Even though the secular reality jesus is running from is fear from though stakes. That's why in essence this is the moment they write down as the point in the faith where he accepted the people that. Because he at this point is still in order trying tell something to the world or do something to it, and it is doing something to him. But he sees in essence this can happen because this person is not controlled by the reality of their existentialities. That is exactly though why jesus is here seeking refuge, so this is an inspiration to him but it's also potentially belittling because that's the same thing he is encountering with the pharises that these issues do matter and our of relevance. But the resolution being in that she is not an opposing external existential opposite or other. Their relationship wasn't defined by there philosophical/existential/cutlural or political conflict that was in the bigger picture. Even though that is the reality that ends up killing jesus, socrates, martin luther king. This is that moment where his faith goes wait a minute i can see that i can accept this other cutural location into my faith.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Augustus Murdforth - Sun, 28 Aug 2016 18:13:38 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.206649 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I guess what i am saying is what restored jesus's naivety was not the reason in which ended up struggling with, that his intellectual entanglements were bogged down in as seemingly broken dreams or dissapointed thesises against a reality of antithesis, was not logic. But was outwardly a postive experience which contradicted the outward realities certainty in image. He technically had a one on one interaction with a character that contradicted every defined thing the world had in hostility or opposition. But this didn't take away the outward reality of these hostilities and oppositions.

It just somehow freed him intellectually from that. You say it was through rationality that let them have sovereignty over the culturally defined. And i agree that this is the space they could exist. But Jesus's mind didn't get there by a rational interaction, nor did it have to do with the rationality of the other speaker at least not in what reconciled him.

Not what reconciled the hostilities he was experiencing that led him to this retreat, yet this is the voice that speaks the healing part.

Yet this is the moment that expresses the philosophical reconcillation of what came in the old testament and what came in the new. What explained the reality of the difference.

No longer bogged down by the prexisting prejudices, while still feeling the philosophical answer to his fear. That is naive yet experienced. The threat or the invasiveness that leads to the doubt that he can not really exist in the way of subjective thought that is threatened by the definition that still exists in the world as soon as this interaction is over.

The gate keeping is no longer existing in the situatedness of the world, at least not in the way that he had to go to the capitols and argue it, which he did in the pretense, that it is in the eyes of those people, the people. Something happened that technically breaks the gate, or broke his gate. That is meant to be a teaching about that very subject.

In normal reality is it saying hey if you best me in argument, then you make it into the kingdom.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Sun, 28 Aug 2016 23:02:08 EST ID:G2LMnx/t No.206650 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think the notion that Jesus was naive enough to be trapped within his subjectivity in context to his own religion, contradicts the reconciliation exhibited in the passage. Assuredly your interpretation is undeniably plausible, but it runs counter to the attitudes of the far majority of intellectuals in history; possessing enough dissociation from their host culture as to be able to operate separately from it. For example, without such mental disconnect Socraties would not have been able to operate outside rhetoric, but become enamored in it.

Without the dissociative perspective, the lack of naivety, there is nothing preventing Jesus from behaving like a fundamentalist, and he would not posses the mental capacity needed to advance psychologically, or reconcile with the woman. In my opinion the view that the reconciliation was that of Jesus regaining his naivety, implies a reconciliation not of two aware individuals of different faiths, but of a justification for Jesus to regress into the blind faith of his childhood. This does not agree with both the process of mental development and the image of the intellectual giants, and thus comes across as a justification for blind faith in the religious structure which the passage comes from, Christianity, which is wholly ironic because Jesus was not Christian, but a Jew.

Personally I am unable to believe that the role of gatekeeper can be achieved without this dissociation from culture, the lack of naivety, but I cannot deny that a version of Jesus who lacks this awareness is possible, and would explain his lack of foresight in anticipating the structure of the cult which followed him.
Hamilton Trotcocke - Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:13:14 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.206653 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I just can't explain how he got that by the his gate breaking.
Charles Chinkinmark - Mon, 05 Sep 2016 16:14:47 EST ID:mAhcXddI No.206705 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Mark is not based on Q and this story is likely apocryphal considering how unlikely it was that Jesus had much to do with gentiles and how well it fits Mark's theology.

For starters, if you're going to argue biblical exegesis, you should consult the original text and use a more literal translation than the NIV (though in this case it isn't important). Fortunately, there are free interlinear bibles online:

Anyway, you're overthinking things. The woman is a gentile (Hellénis/Hellén literally means Greek, but is more or less synonymous with the word gentile in the New Testament), and asks Jesus to heal her daughter. Jesus says that the children (jews) have first dibs, because you can't throw their food (Christ) to the dogs (gentiles). She reminds him that the dogs still eat leftovers from the children and calls him "Kyrie" (Lord, or sir), which is a good enough answer for him. The emphasis of this story is not on what the dogs need, but whether they deserve it, being dogs. Thus, she says "even" to remind Jesus that the dogs nonetheless share in the meal, even if it's just scraps.

The KJV uses "yet", which carries basically the same meaning. If you want to be technical, the kai in Mark 7:28 functions as an emphatic particle, which don't have an exact equivalent in English, so really any of these work: yet, even, also, but. "Even" just sounds a bit more modern.
That being said, you shouldn't compare the KJV with modern translations like this because they are not based on the same New Testament text.

"Anyone who is not a theist is an atheist" by Martha Lightshit - Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:24:33 EST ID:h1VT+4G5 No.206402 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1469737473683.jpg -(58270B / 56.90KB, 480x640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 58270
Is this true?
86 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nigel Clirrylutch - Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:30:40 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206612 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>theism is a form of theism in that the atheist BELIEVES that nothing beyond the depths of his possible perception exists

Did you learn that retarded shit coming out of your mouth in Sunday school?
Hugh Driblingnat - Wed, 24 Aug 2016 01:48:18 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.206613 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Dude no one is going to take you seriously if you can't spell 6th grade level words properly. Clearly you distrust education so much because you never got any...the ignorant always fear the informed.
Edward Mazzlepork - Wed, 24 Aug 2016 04:28:00 EST ID:SjHOMJsR No.206616 Ignore Report Quick Reply
How is believing "that nothing beyond the depths of his possible perception exists" a form of theism? Theism is a category of beliefs that involve deities, not just any ontological perspective. Atheism is a synonym for non-theism. Some atheists are empiricists too, but they're by no means the same thing. Atheists can believe in invisible ghosts, aether, love, all kinds of imperceptible things, as long as they're not deities.

What's bizarre is why people would believe in anything that can't be experienced, especially when the idea was communicated by other people who, by their own admission/definition, don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Edward Mazzlepork - Wed, 24 Aug 2016 04:34:23 EST ID:SjHOMJsR No.206617 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> Science is a method of problem solving
No, science = modeling. Those models can be applied to solving problems, that's engineering.

The rest of your post = tinfoil.
Hugh Driblingnat - Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:42:52 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.206622 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Gonna nitpick you here. In general people don't believe in things that can't be experienced, religious and spiritual ideas emerge from experiences and our attempts to explain and understand them.
On the other hand, science induces us to accept all sorts of things that are impossible for us to directly experience. I don't think we should equate our ability to experience something and its ontological validity.

Balanced Reading? by Hamilton Cishgold - Sun, 21 Aug 2016 01:32:15 EST ID:2vYnAsTI No.206587 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1471757535935.jpg -(135860B / 132.68KB, 1200x803) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 135860
I find when I seek out books to read and philosophers to study I gravitate towards those that hold ideas I ALREADY agree with, but there is no rationality behind my beliefs, simply what FEELS right and I know (think) this is flawed so what is the best way to properly study all sides of an argument? Is there a compendium of books/beliefs/philosphers that directly contrast? Is this is even sane to think? Why should I give time to philosophies I deem to be worthless?
Edward Neshlitch - Sun, 21 Aug 2016 11:10:50 EST ID:Tvwyv8LO No.206588 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I suppose what feels familiar and reinforces your beliefs is easier and less challenging to read and study. Might as well say you might've created a comfort zone of philosophical ideas that you like to study, a comfort zone that you now hesitate to challenge whether because it challenges your own mindset or you have reached some sort of philosophical limit you aren't bothered about crossing. As in you might've reached a point you feel like you know enough and want to study more of what you already know and wanna go more into detail.

So I'd say if you're still really interested in philosophy, look for new readings with a fresh and open mind, as if you really know nothing of philosophy. Challenge yourself to study new ideas on a fresh canvas and don't judge or compare them to the ideas you already know until you've finished the book.
Shitting Cravingkan - Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:23:39 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206590 Ignore Report Quick Reply
As my philosophy teacher suggested to people asking the same question, just try to find some kind of "introduction into philosophy" book.
Ebenezer Drosslekod - Sun, 21 Aug 2016 17:55:48 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.206591 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You're welcome.

depth psychology by Cyril Sillerridge - Thu, 11 Aug 2016 06:14:53 EST ID:WyaFltj9 No.206506 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1470910493752.gif -(2093779B / 2.00MB, 337x255) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2093779
alright folks
you ever find yourself getting weird puzzled looks because all you can do is point out all the worlds unconscious activity?
i like studying the unconscious. who /unconcious/ here
Hamilton Bunshit - Sat, 13 Aug 2016 17:03:58 EST ID:pct8Tk5P No.206516 Ignore Report Quick Reply
what do you mean by "point out all the worlds unconscious activity?"
Oliver Boffingwell - Sat, 13 Aug 2016 20:29:37 EST ID:DSiCeS1e No.206517 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"its windy"
Martin Danningkeck - Sat, 13 Aug 2016 22:30:06 EST ID:OoTYAE4u No.206518 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I've actually studied my own unconscious mind for a while. Dreams are the gateway into the unconscious. If someone where to tell you the events of their dream you could figure our what there everyday normal fears, issues, memories, it's insane what can be discovered through dreams. This was how I was able to overcome my extreme paranoia of everyday normal situations and people. I had dream for years of people trying to kill me, many other horrors, and would wake up still paranoid, unsure of what was real at this point. My dreams were so vivid. It was also through this I learned how to manipulate the world around me.

But yea, so uhhh, what about it?
Jack Gizzletot - Sun, 14 Aug 2016 17:02:16 EST ID:wCmfRi04 No.206520 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The entire Freudian hypothesis is horseshit.
Honestly, Dianetics is a better model of the way the mind works.

Dream Analysis in particular is a load of shit. It's like people who get deeply into divination-- it's a trap, it's giving over your mental faculties to random bullshit, letting a bunch of cards or sticks make all your decisions.
Simon Sublingmidging - Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:48:50 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.206533 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1471348130576.jpg -(18436B / 18.00KB, 366x380) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
you're trolling us right?

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