>>182930

...why?

>>182936
Because.

Why else?

OH BOY ANOTHER WHY THREAD NOBODY POSTED THIS A HUNDRED TIMES BEFORE

I SURE WON'T BE HITTING IGNORE/HIDE WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE SECONDS

bouguereau was a fucking beast.

Theres a camp that say our society would have evolved into something totally different, perhaps not at all if mothers didn't hold their babies close to their hears as cavemen and such.

>>183034


True that, as well as infants will litterally die, or at least have a much higher chance of dying, if they aren't held during the first months to a year of their life. And absent parents (mothers) who leave their small kids alone, for those kids the risk of devoloping autism and other psychiatric illnesses is much higher than kids that are held normally

We simply cannot survive without the power of love, it's amazing when you think about it

So, what then happens to an adult person who is left un-touched? What happens to a person stranded in isolation (prison, island, circumstance)? Do people need to stop feeling love after a certain age, or does it just become unhealthly but not deadly?

Or not unhealthy at all? Does lack of physical/emotional affection cause disturbances?

>>183042
Have you never noticed in the English language how
Emotion is spelled E-Motion, Without emotions or access to emotions we have no reason or meaning to get emotional and when you leave emotions out of the equation it can be very hard just getting started on a project if it isn't a pressing matter.

So essentially they would be more beast than man. except they would be intelligent even when lacking emotion.
I wouldn't make any quick moves around them, lets just put it that way.

careful bro, your socio is showing

nah, but different people like different things. some like cuddling because they want to be closer to those they have love for, and some find hugging uncomfortable in more ways than 1 and prefer to be alone (think pigeon man from hey arnold). both are looking for that which makes them happier. the real question here is which of them are bullshitting themselves

Prepare your anus. Heretics everywhere.

When I was 14 I got sucked off by a 50 possibly 60 year old.

Was I abused ?
It didn't feel like it at the time.
If I was a girl and it was a 50 possibly 60 year old man, then it probably would've been rather uncomfortable. I guess.

>>183044

ah yes i know. There are many victims who do not blame their suffering on the abuser and there are many people who are not suffering at all but others are not so fortunate. Seriously thought how come every time
subjects related to this come up there is always a new story about how someone had sex with billions of women when he was 10 or how his grandpa used to masturbate with him, come up? like really what is the deal
with this website sometimes?

>>183027
Yes, with a sword he offers them, I like it. Not to actually kill each other, or at least that's what I'd think. And not more doesn't necesarrily mean any less, aren't we all equal in God's eyes?

But, if you put it like that, I will henceforth not say "Jesus was on to something", but "Jesus inspired my worldview that includes some sort of non-christian God and worshiping this God by trying to be a good person". I really have no other choice but to change it, but am still intrigued by how Jesus' message got me to find this God and the motivation to actually try and be a better person.
I hope you can share my point of view, that I would love to find a way to show this way of thinking to everyone. I kinda thought, because I could make a match for myself, that Jesus knew how to spread "the love", that showing people this God was the way to open eyes. Maybe I should just keep it to myself, then.

Thank you for your contributions, good night.

>>183027

> He means a literal otherworldly male deity that is separate from the world he created and much more worried about making sure that his followers hate the right people than about love.

How could anyone know exactly what Jesus means when he speaks of the Father? You have pointed out one possible interpretation, but many more exist. You have to remember the context in which Jesus was teaching. If you read the Old Testament, you will see how Judaism set itself apart from other religious groups by worshiping a single , masculine god. In this way, they created a society that believed itself to be chosen by a god who intervenes in history. This served as a national myth, to create an "in-group" (the Israelites) and an "outgroup" (gentiles), just as the American national myth pits its democractic, freedom-loving people against peoples portrayed as un-democratic. I think you were right in pointing out the dangers of believing such myths, but there are other levels to Judaism.

I think Jesus was a figure who had new ideas about Judaism. He challenged the authority of church leaders and acted in protest of spiritless legalism. He challenged his followers to give up their traditions and their families to find something new with him, which culminated, after his death, in their receiving of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Since his death, Jesus' teachings have been re-interpreted many times to fit new contexts. The Catholic Church, and the protestant sects that broke off from it are only part of the story of Christianity. No matter what cruel injustices have been enacted in the name of these institutions, Jesus remains an important figure in the development of western religious thinking, and I do not think his teachings should be overlooked just because you hate what has been done in his name.

>>183031

>How could anyone know exactly what Jesus means when he speaks of the Father?

It's easy: read the fucking Bible and see for yourself. It's pretty unambiguous. You could argue that the Bible in all its current versions has been warped both intentionally and accidentally by the various translations, by the cherry-picking of what books are canon and what aren't and so on, but like I said earlier ITT there are no other sources so if you argue that, you also have to concede that it's impossible even to know if Jesus even existed at all, and if he said what the bible claims he said, and in that case speculating about what he meant is about as productive as speculating about Batman's favorite Ben & Jerry's flavor.

I honestly cannot understand why people think they can discuss a character in a book without having read said book. It baffles me.

>2013

>>183037
Honestly, truthfully and most sincerely, I wanted to discuss the idea of God I thought Jesus had, not Jesus himself, not the bible or the biblical God.

See, I have very poor knowledge on the bible and Jesus, but I have heard quite a few fairy tales surrounding this stuff. I honestly, truthfully and most sincerely did not know that the bible was the only source we have on Jesus, but it didn´t matter to do any research on Jesus, imo, because I didn´t want to discuss Jesus, but this idea of God that I had found with help of Jesus´ fairy tales.

I´m sorry that it baffles you, but I hope you can see how the thing baffling you was not my intention.

>>182983

WHAT!? no man, you where all like ''this only means religion'' and i was ''no man it can also mean morals'' notice how i was all like ''it could ALSO..... A-L-S-O''' ? HMMMM HMMMM!?

>>182984

Screencapping google, sidestepping discourse with semantics, and petty sarcasm?

Rich. Real rich.

>>182985

you expected something better like?

reasoning with someone who believes a contradiction is like yelling at a door for squeaking.

>>182988
My door was sticking quite badly, so I sent some serious bad vibes at it, and 6 months later it didn't stick no more; sure, naysayers will say it's because of the temp difference, but I know it was because of the bad vibes.... man....

>>182920

>I'm willing to bet that these people are rare enough to be disregarded as far as my general statements go.

I would bet against you. Once again, I speak from personal experience. The majority of game developers I have known were very dedicated - very willing to put in long hours to make the project work, for the project's sake. Only the ones who don't really care about what they're working on (minority of them) refuse to work longer than 9-5. And I haven't even known any true "indie" developers, just the ones at smaller studios. I'd imagine "indie" developers are even more dedicated than their more corporate counterparts.

The game industry is not like other industries. The people are different. The work is different. The culture is different.

>>182924

>I would bet against you. Once again, I speak from personal experience

Well I said mere hours ago that I wasn't going to put up anecdotes as evidence, so I'm going to treat your testimony the same way. I've heard a bunch of people talk about dedication, I've heard a bunch of people talk about exploitation.

>The game industry is not like other industries. The people are different.

Yeah no

>>182925

>Well I said mere hours ago that I wasn't going to put up anecdotes as evidence, so I'm going to treat your testimony the same way.

Fair enough, but understand that this is all you have to go on. We're talking about employee satisfaction here - the only possible way you can get data on that is to ask the employees for anecdotes.

>Yeah no

Okay, fine, then. I'm different, and so is the majority of everyone else in the games industry I've worked with. Happy?

Look, it's actually really simple. A lot of people in the game industry enjoy their job. They enjoy their job because they're excited about the thing they're working on - they're making cool stuff. It's very motivating. And because they enjoy their job and are very motivated, they like to work long hours and when the team needs to work overtime to get things done, they do it not because they're forced to, but because they want to see the project succeed and want to support their colleagues. Is that so difficult for you to understand?

>>182924

Excepting a handful of developers and producers virtually every game released in the last 5 years was such complete filth I find it really really hard to believe creative integrity and passion are remotely common in the games industry.

Either that or as the other anon said they're overworked and tricked into shitty contracts etc. and have the better part of the creative direction dictated to them by higher ups.

In your reply please cite some games you've worked on.

Maybe developers are just like gamers; most are amazingly shit but too clueless to realise.

I'm just gonna leave this here: http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/188671/game_developer_qualityoflife_.php

>>182874
Try a library.

>>182879
I've never seen a library with up-to-date research. But I live in a shitty country, so I don't know.

http://scholar.google.com/

>>182341

>Taoism is older than its manuscripts.

Please elaborate on this, I had always believed that it was purely based on the Tao De Ching.

>>182340
Jainism of that time seemed to be largely based on asceticism, so their non-violence was largely based towards the kingdom of life and not just humans. They carried brooms around to sweep insects from their path and refrained from boiling water as to not kill bacteria. Upon a realization they would see that they are killing plants to continue living and then practice Sallekhana (aka fasting into death).
The Sikhs were Jains who had not had this intensity of ahimsa (non-violence) and wanted to live. So after so many attacks and varying influences as >>182341 pointed out, the Khalsa appointed the 5 items a Sikh must carry (for utilitarian and symbolic purposes). They then began training and now have grown into some of the strongest group of men the world has seen. Here is a video of a small performance a few Sikhs put together to demonstrate their stoicism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RLl-p66q6Y

>>182347
How did they even know about bacteria?

>>182347

> Please elaborate on this, I had always believed that it was purely based on the Tao De Ching.

Not much to say. The Dao De Jing is the earliest written source dealing directly with Daoism, we can at best make educated guesses of what came before.

However, philosophical systems are never made up by one person in their lifetime. There are enough Daoist elements in other ancient chinese systems like Confucianism to suggest that the Dao De Jing grew out of an older tradition of folk beliefs. This agrees with the (lately quite popular) theory that Laozi ("old man") was a pen name under which the adherents of a certain school of thought collected their teachings. In the period where the Dao De Jing emerged, several other philosophers were also coming up with their own systems, and these all show great similarities: they may well have been drinking from the same well. Daoist elements also come up frequently in Chinese tales and myths (though it's hard to tell whether the story or the daoism came first). Lastly, remember that what is today called the Dao De Jing was heavily edited throughout the 2500 years of its existence; some passages were clearly edited or added later.

>>182348
addendum: the official version of Daoism, the one which became popular at the courts of several dynasties, was indeed based on the Dao De Jing. Over time though, this courtly Daoism was melded with Zen Buddhism (plenty of similarities there) and chinese folk religion, so that what you see in China today has little outward resemblance with the core Dao.

Hi everyone, OP here. Well, I'm still working on putting everything together, and it'll be a while before it's finished completely, but the introduction is live at this address:

https://sites.google.com/site/introductiontoworldreligions/home

I aim to have the first section on Christianity completed in the next week or two.

Please feel free to offer any comments or criticisms. It's not going to be perfect or anything, but I figured I may as well give it a shot.

We as humans tend to anthropomorphise animals because we have no other frame of reference.

>Recently it seems we are beginning to believe they have more emotions, but I get the impression that this is not just based in scientific discoveries (such as similarities found in neuroscience), but more in cultural beliefs about morality and rights of life in general.

I hate to be so blunt about it but you're simply wrong. A lot of our scientific research on animals have led us to believe that they have more emotions. Our cultural attitudes on animals feeling has only gone in accordance with the scientific discoveries. Hell, ask anyone with a pet is animals are simply living flesh and not something more.

>>182899

>A lot of our scientific research on animals have led us to believe that they have more emotions.

I am not denying this at all. I am talking about the perspective that we as a society have on the rights (to life) of animals, not what scientists know. There certainly are many people who think that the way animals experience life is far removed from how we experience it (and that this excuses the way we treat animals as a product rather than fellow sentient being). When it seems to me it is more logical to think that it is in fact very similar to the way we do.

>Our cultural attitudes on animals feeling has only gone in accordance with the scientific discoveries.

This however I am not so certain about. Regardless, my question is not about emotions specifically, but about their experiences in general. The problem being that we have only very limited means to infer what it is like for them to have experiences and animals having emotions is one of the few ways that we can actually relate to them in some way.

To use a different perspective, people generally don't think that humans with significantly reduced or no emotions are any less worthy of living. So having emotions or not actually isn't all that relevant, other than that it allows us to sympathize with them.

>Hell, ask anyone with a pet is animals are simply living flesh and not something more.

...

>>182900

>To use a different perspective, people generally don't think that humans with significantly reduced or no emotions are any less worthy of living.

People generally don't recognize that humans with significantly reduced or no emotions exist.

I think that animals have subjective experiences, or Qualia. There's no reason to assume otherwise. I have no idea if the brain is a filter, receiver, creator or whatever of consciousness, but physical properties of the brain are tightly linked to it. I kill cockroaches and ants, because I don't think they have Qualia. Why? Because they're so simple compared to rats or pigs or humans or other animals with Qualia.

I agree with OP that we should treat other animals as we treat humans in regard to the ability to have experiences (which is EVERYTHING). Sure, humans and other animals have many differences, but pain is pain, fear is fear and denying that makes you the worst kind of person. I have more respect for people without morals towards humans and animals alike, otherwise they're either ignorant, lying to themselves about animal Qualia, or just lying to other humans about their human-related morals.

I love how there are so many threads about Qualia recently on /pss/. I, too, started researching Qualia seriously last month. One advice is to write down any ideas you have about it and think them through very carefully, it's easy to get confused and to postpone thinking about Qualia until you forget what you wanted to think of.

>>182875
That could refer to any number of things. Condom maybe, or possibly public indecent exposure.

>California

>10. Straight (Gay)

yeah what.

>>182878
Or rainbow-colored raincoats with pictures of My Little Pony characters on them.

There are more blacks in the South than anywhere else in the US, by far.

>>182788
yeah, i live in mexico and whent to chile and brazil when i was at collage, on the 3 countries there is still a shithole of homophobia and racism even in the capitals... not saying is a living nigthmere, but not as open minded as the turist sector media make balieve.