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


penis pump

Declawed Cat by Lillian Nickleford - Fri, 15 Jan 2016 08:00:17 EST ID:R/0Rzm3R No.204748 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1452862817648.jpg -(100496B / 98.14KB, 640x409) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 100496
Scenario: you believe morally that declawing a cat is wrong because it's torturous to the animal, but rescue a cat that is only declawed because you don't want your furniture scratched.

Is there something wrong in not considering other (clawed) cats that also face the possibility of death if they're not rescued?

I know you're still saving a life but it seems hypocritical that you benefit because you want something but only after another person makes the morally wrong (from your perspective) decision.

12 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Lillian Tillingstock - Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:53:48 EST ID:LGsyDkxn No.204950 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I know. I lean towards your manner of thinking but either way it seems weird.

Either way, the cat in question was adopted by a different family.

I got a dog instead.
Samuel Gunningford - Fri, 29 Jan 2016 15:58:43 EST ID:diPMU97y No.204952 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Why not a chicken... Is it because they aren't "real"
Nell Tootson - Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:21:22 EST ID:mOolPcpK No.204955 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I've had many cats in my life and I never got any of them declawed. It's morally wrong. It's just like if someone got their arms and legs amputated against their will. It's torturous to the animal and in my opinion in humane and unethical.
Fuck Nengermine - Fri, 29 Jan 2016 21:32:49 EST ID:wwj6NBm6 No.204957 Ignore Report Quick Reply
its similar to eating meat only if the animal is already dead before buying the meat
Reuben Blippercocke - Sat, 30 Jan 2016 10:14:19 EST ID:k5mSodoT No.204959 Ignore Report Quick Reply

But it's also considered wrong to withhold love from a mutilated animal because it's mutilated, just as it's wrong to kick a family member to the curb if they lose a limb.

Philosophy: Where to begin? by Clara Tootfield - Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:47:27 EST ID:fVlTVK3v No.204814 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1453420047857.jpg -(163875B / 160.03KB, 635x648) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 163875
So many great minds wrote about their philosophies over the years. I want to get educated on that but I don't really know where to begin.

Should I go back to the Greeks, go to Sartre, Camus, or what else? Where do I start? There are so many big names thrown around out there. I really don't know what book(s) to start with (taking into consideration I have no prior background to reading such things).

If that helps at all: My mindset right now is that life is futile, has no purpose and we're as insignificant as can be.

Yet reading further on that might just get me even more depressed.

Thanks a bunch in advance guys!
34 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cedric Senningchedge - Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:58:32 EST ID:gZp8oZJw No.204933 Ignore Report Quick Reply
are you quoting Netjester now?
Eugene Lightwill - Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:32:16 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.204938 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Just because proof of them doing that work that satisfies your criteria doesn't exist, that doesn't mean they didn't do it.

What about people who play music but don't release it to the public? Are they not musicians? What are they if they're not musicians?
A WIzard - Thu, 28 Jan 2016 02:15:50 EST ID:/qIPrPet No.204940 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I am finally high enough to understand what That Wizard just said... He's fucking right. That might work. Hmm, better weed than I thought this was.
Rebecca Bravingshaw - Thu, 28 Jan 2016 06:36:59 EST ID:gZp8oZJw No.204941 Ignore Report Quick Reply
im saying there should be proof. In modern terms this means publishing something.
nb. cos ffs
Albert Blackwater - Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:13:16 EST ID:KX0Y5Ap4 No.204947 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It was just Dino dude taking dino dump!

How come some people are better than others in video games? by Angus Clunnerware - Fri, 13 Nov 2015 05:49:01 EST ID:ayxphSq/ No.204056 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1447411741644.jpg -(37932B / 37.04KB, 540x340) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 37932
There are many types of video games. So, can a video game ever be used as a reference to somebody's good ability/skill?

For example if somebody gets better and better in a video game, is he learning something other than how to be good in that game?
Basil Blythebury - Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:32:38 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.204058 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Video games are good for you. They're like exercising your brain. Some games are a walk in the park, other games are like a 7's rugby match. The brain is a muscle, too. It's not unknown that gamers have both better coordination at operating machinery as well as have better multitasking skills. Gaming requires a lot of brain power and it can also be very fast-paced, making it easier for you to cope with fast-paced situations in real life.

Other than that, I mean I've played video games my entire life and I must say I'm extremely good at them. I can pick up a game and be incredibly good at it in just a couple hours. I've even been in a few competitions and kicked some ass, albeit I've never won, but then again I'm a casual gamer, I don't take winning or losing seriously, I just play for sport.
Albert Sumbleville - Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:51:56 EST ID:OsvonYaC No.204092 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>For example if somebody gets better and better in a video game, is he learning something other than how to be good in that game?
Potentially. There are games like Spacechem or Infinifactory that are all about process engineering, I daresay you'd be better at it after finishing than when you started.

But I don't know if you can gauge how good somebody is at a real skill based on their video game ability, since the environments are so different.
Eliza Fosslekare - Sun, 15 Nov 2015 18:17:04 EST ID:nmUQgXEH No.204100 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't really see what a video game is going to teach you outside of maybe seeing small improvements to short-term risk v reward, reflexes etc. and given the nature of why we enjoy video games and how they would "improve" our brains the advantage is probably proportional to the amount of ADD-rewired reward pathways you have.
I do have one - Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:14:19 EST ID:ZKLesuj0 No.204943 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1454008459084.png -(466626B / 455.69KB, 542x458) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Samuel Gunningford - Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:05:58 EST ID:diPMU97y No.204953 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Aliens didn't steal the dinosaurs

Why be negative? by Augustus Buzzham - Mon, 25 Jan 2016 08:50:59 EST ID:9ui5LSL8 No.204858 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1453729859814.png -(1725134B / 1.65MB, 1200x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1725134
Today everyone, including me, aeems to have had a bad start to their day. All my co workers are acging and sick, my friend had their friend kill themselves, and I cant help but wonder why this bothers people. The way I've always seen things as having both a good amd a bad side no matter what it is and i always nust look at the good. Why do other people seem to have issues with doing this? Its such a simple change of mindset to me and i cant understand why it isnt the norm.

Why do people focus on the negative side of the coin instead of the positive? Why do people ignore the possability of the law of attraction?
Charlotte Pickshaw - Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:59:12 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.204867 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OP, it's a complicated answer, but I have a simple POV on the subject that I think you'll enjoy.

First-world humans suffer from Affluenza. Now, psychologists like to laugh about the word 'affluenza' because they've never used it, but it's something we in the business world have been using since the 80's, not that I was alive in the 80's. You see, the concept of affluenza is that first-worlders have so few problems that they create their own problems.

Freemium Isnt Free, an epic episode of South Park, Satan discusses with Stan how Dopamine controls a lot of human behavior and about how in a world where we can get instant gratification for almost everything, suddenly our dopamine is in over-dose levels. And because of this, your average first-worlder has a dopamine imbalance where little problems look like big problems because big problems don't exist anymore. See, I used to be that way, so negative, so upset with the world, and this was because I couldn't see the good around me, I just saw so much bad. But then I almost died, and in that entire year that I was dying, I changed. I realized there is so much suffering in this world, and your average American is 100% ignorant of it even though they know it exists. They know it exists, but they can't see it, it doesn't effect them, so they entirely ignore it.

OP, everything does have a good side. Truly everything. Hitler was a monster, but now he's a lesson, a lesson for future generations to never forget so as to create a better world. I almost died, and yet today I look back at those times of immense suffering with joy because I see it as nothing more than a test that I survived and grew from.
Charlotte Pickshaw - Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:05:48 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.204869 Ignore Report Quick Reply
And you know what else, OP?
So many people are obsessed with Utilitarianism, but they entirely ignore Negative Utilitarianism.

See, in Utilitarianism, the focus is increasing things; increasing production, increasing happiness, increasing whatever. The fatal flaw with this philosophy, however, is ignorance of the opposite; ignorance of the 'bad' effects of 'good' decisions, ignorance of costs of these increases. A Utilitarian is obsessed with revenue (earning money) but they are confused, and they think it equates to profits (keeping money) because they don't understand what a cost is (loss of money).

Negative Utilitarians focus on the costs of everything. They focus on how to lessen burdens and how to lessen costs. But mind you, that philosophy has it's flaws, too; ignoring revenue.

They're all pathetic; the Utilitarians, the Negative Utilitarians. If you want to be a True Utilitarian and a true philosopher, you must analyze revenue and cost, not just one or the other. And that is the problem with people; they cannot fathom analyzing both revenue and cost. If a news story says, 'Look at how much we lost!' the public instantly assumes that nothing was gained. Yet no such thing exists; nothing is 100% costs, nothing is 100% revenue, just as nothing is 100% good or bad, beneficial or hurtful. Life isn't black/white, and life isn't gray, life is a wild rainbow of colors and ideas, and the vast majority of it will never be understood by the average person who's simply not advanced enough (mentally) to grasp these concepts. They think good and evil are real things; they do not understand that good and evil simply depend on where you're standing.

The Fool's Thoery of Morality, Freewill, and Self by The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:08:10 EST ID:0q89Kd+Q No.202223 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1439262490325.png -(666200B / 650.59KB, 437x668) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 666200
All living things along any scale of self-awareness or lack thereof, are ultimately driven by the pursuit of pleasure and the fleeing of displeasure.

From a purely animistic-evolutionary perspective, this would make complete sense, for if all life naturally follows what is pleasurable, than evolution would instill pleasurable feed-back in response to factors which contributed to the survival of a given species.

The most obvious examples for the majority of life forms would be the basic necessitates of food and sex. every life-form must eat to survive, and reproduce to continue the species, so it makes utter sense that if life naturally pursues what it finds pleasurable, that evolutionary forces would instill the pursuit of such pleasure in the necessities of living.

However, with creatures of increasing self-awareness this dynamic of pleasure-seeking becomes more complex do to the nature of a beings' choice interacting with its environment.

Tomas Hobbes was correct when he postulated that what one find pleasurable we find moral, and what we find displeasurable we find immoral. However his explanation is not explained aside from the statement itself, and leads one to assume a dichotomy of morals and motives, between a complete lack of free-will, or absolute freewill.

The extremes of the age old debate goes like this; if what we find pleasurable we naturally pursue, and what we find pleasurable is what is moral, than morality is a universal objective thing, and free-will does not exist, for all choices and morals are ultimately dictated by environment. The chemistry of the brain would be considered part of this environment, and as environment dictates what is pleasurable or displeasurable, that which we pursue or flee, free-will is therefore a delusion.

The other end of the argument is the opposite, that an individual can choose what is pleasurable, and therefore choose what is moral, thus free-will is real, and morality is ultimately a universal subjective of self. There is no objective universal morality because we can choose to alter our environment, and therefore our own brain, necessitating a change in morality.

Modern psychoanalysis has finally gotten to the point where we are willing to admit that we can choose to change our own environment and thus change our brain-chemistry, changing ourselves.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
426 posts and 86 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
TX Dog - Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:28:48 EST ID:t8lq0BoQ No.204703 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1452540528305.jpg -(377967B / 369.11KB, 552x736) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Thank you for your courteous and descriptive response.

Well, Fool, despite all the shit talkin and contrarianism, you achieved what most set out to do, and that is create an entertaining and informative thread. A lot of people had very wise and helpful things for you. It gave me a lot to think about and inspired some ideas of my own. Thanks, bro. I would have liked to participate more, but I had to get money to reconnect my internet, visit family outside the US, and i was even incarcerated during the course of this thread.

I will explain this, like you, i have some things that i have to do as well,for mankind. if i dont do them, they will weigh me down, as they have been for quite some time. The truth is meant to be revealed, yes, but the intention is important as well. The consequences and ramifications must also be considered.Ya gotta give it to them, gentle, earnestly. This might not make sense, but i have what i need from the internet, for now......
Best of luck to you, man, I expect to see you in another form somewhere else on the Net.
Cornelius Wissleridge - Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:45:33 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.204776 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What is this, Ghost in the Shell? (original motion picture by Yasuhiro Nightow)

The Fool is a dope dude. Yet, sadly, like many great philosophers that come and go on this board, they were drowned in bullshit. This board cannot handle philosophers like The Fool, philosophers unafraid of putting their philosophy out in the open and trying to start a dialogue with others. As much as we all want to converse with him, this board is infested with rats that just eat and shit all over our philosophy with their own vermin philosophy that's scared and weak.

TX Dog, you make it sound like you and him are out on a mission, like a Bodhisattva. I used to think of myself as a Bodhisattva, but then I realized that the Bodhisattva mentality is just pretentious; it's impossible to say whether or not your work in this world makes the world a better place, objectively. I used to love the idea of teaching philosophy and enlightening the world, but then I realized that humanity simply isn't interested in enlightenment, and enlightenment/enlightening others is just another way of killing time until death just the same as all other walks of life. I'm no pessimist, nor am I a cynic, but I am an ancient Cynic like Diogenes, and I never try to anthropomorphise my existence by adding untrue meaning to it.
Hamilton Dollerford - Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:36:24 EST ID:sLTUfuFf No.204778 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My philosophy has in its truths every thing contains it's own contradiction and this doesn't negate it but it can complicate it when seeking to be understood.

The irony effect Diogenes himself was anthropomorphized as a dog.
To say whether the meaning or not is untrue depends upon equating true to realistic or idealistic
But even then Diogenes became a legend even I his own time, and people experinces him through that elevated nature.
The dog became and ideal by exhibiting virtue by refusing to not reflect the grittier cynical aspects of life
Cornelius Wissleridge - Tue, 19 Jan 2016 13:09:04 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.204779 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, in my opinion, that's the difference between the true cynics and the pessimists. Pessimists turned Cynicism into an off-shoot of pessimism (contemporary cynicism) where as the true cynic did not pine over suffering but instead walked over it. Yes, I do not pine over my own or others' suffering, I just walk over them and try to fix them when I can, and if I can't, then whatever, there's always more to life.

contemporary philosophy is loaded with pessimism, in my opinion. Accepting suffering and hardship has become taboo, it feels. "Not all of us have the privilege of not being offended by this subject" and all that jazz.
TX Dog - Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:06:19 EST ID:hGyuk28u No.204801 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1453331179450.jpg -(206384B / 201.55KB, 1024x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Ghost in the Shell has Cerberi??As a Fan, I'm surprised....
(its just a pic from google,don't know from where)
Ill tell you what, The Fool definitely made some good, unique points about many things. These gems were somewhat hidden by an avalanche of inexorable truths that many of us already knew. And i think the Over-articulation ruffled a lot of feathers too, people gave Herman Melville a lot of shit about how he wrote, Moby Dicks still a good book.

Had to look up "Bodhisattva." Man, everyone has some kind of Nirvana. You'll go crazy if you don't Relax every now n then, but it doesn't seem like Americans have this problem, quite the opposite, and what this thread is really about.

Pessimists, cynics. "These things wont change" Well with that attitude they sure wont, i think y'all know that. But heres the more important viewpoint: In these times, its possible to reveal truths on a global scale due to the World Wide Web.

Did y'all notice that the Fool left many questions unanswered, primarily questions posed by me and Light? I feel like i understand why, though. If you're truths aren't appreciated in a certain place, why continue to spread them? They'll eventually get there anyway, that's the nature of truth.... Maybe he feels a sense of paranoia that someone will run off with his material and stamp their name on it, such is the peril of posting on a place like this.

But...I think the truths are more important than who found them or is spreading them.... Ill drop just a few more for good measure.....: sorry if they're already known to you....

>A good portion of the Founding Fathers were either atheist or agnostic (due to escaping the tyrannical theocracies in Europe, yet America Identifies as a "Christian" nation.
>America is young as fuck in as far as civilizations go, in comparison to many eastern civs, goin back thousands of years and we are in fact, a nation of immigrants
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>Wow OP, do you often post drunk?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been coming to 420chan for years.

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


Justice, Revenge, Forgiveness by Martha Cheddledock - Wed, 13 Jan 2016 03:47:10 EST ID:DSADnNlo No.204734 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1452674830827.jpg -(30101B / 29.40KB, 745x447) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 30101

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

refusal to empathize, or forgive due to circumstance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

he was surrounded by those tales

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

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

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

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

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

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

>child-like imagination

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

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


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

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

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


many, crazy

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

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

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

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

should deniers be punished?

is it important if they are right or wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<<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.