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
Zoroastrianism by Hannah Haddlestone - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 03:26:24 EST ID:Vz5f1vq5 No.207599 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1484468784066.gif -(617831B / 603.35KB, 320x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 617831
Yo /pss/,

What do you recommend I read if I want to know more about Zoroastrianism? Specifically orthodox but I'm open to any good material on the subject. My limitedresearch so far keeps telling me that the original holy texts are all written in a language that doesn't really translate well, so unlike other religions I can't just go and read their holy book because I've had trouble understanding which texts are the equivalent of canon. I want to get a deeper understanding than just what's in the wikipedia article, Help a dude out?
Doris Duddleman - Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:14:20 EST ID:9fQeeqWn No.207802 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1488248060335.png -(253946B / 247.99KB, 702x570) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I am also very interested in the subject. I will be monitoring this thread relentlessly.
Wesley Nenningmore - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:41:42 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207803 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Unfortunately, Zoroastrianism is a dying religion. They are actively persecuted in native Iran, and have a relatively quite tiny global population (they just opened the largest international Zoroastrian center in New York recently, and it still serves only about 1000 people.) So there is a relative poverty of english-language sources depicting what modern followers of the religion believe.

What is out there is complicated by the fact that since the discovery of Zoroastrianism it has been a source of intense fascination for the west, particularly students of religion and the occult, and a lot of those interpretations were based on earlier flawed archaeological work, yet still got built out into grand theories. Modern scholarship even questions basic ideas we have about them, like that Zoroastrianism was the true kernel of Christianity. So basically no matter what you do, you're going to get some mis-information, some mis-interpretations.

The only thing I can recommend if you're really interested is to try to take as much as possible of it in and then try to cross-reference between what you find out to try to get at the core. I also think reading even a poorly translated version of the source text will send you in a better direction than just reading interpretations. The Zend Avesta is particularly poetic and beautiful (if bogged down in the kind of very formulaic discourse you should be familiar with from other sacred source texts) and I recommend at least struggling through a bit of it: http://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/

I also found this google books general intro, dunno how good it is though: https://books.google.com/books?id=4h0SBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=reconstructionist+zoroastrianism&source=bl&ots=a3o3AeYyKz&sig=_HK5eXqQ4cVXcTSoogV22uUmN4c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid9aHQ3rPSAhUHwmMKHRzIB2kQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q=reconstructionist%20zoroastrianism&f=false

Good luck!
Ghengis Dong - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:28:37 EST ID:taL6BOqF No.207919 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The primary holy texts of Zoroastrianism are called the Gathas, the main manual of worship is the Yasna and the entirety of the religious canon is referred to as the Avesta http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/avesta-holy-book

Iranica online is an awesome source for these kinds of things and should reference a lot of other great sources. I speak Persian and am relatively familiar with the history of Zoroastrianism
Cyril Hirringlodge - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 01:29:46 EST ID:UJnj5mgn No.207922 Ignore Report Quick Reply

would you mind giving us a brief history of that outline? maybe some central tenets of the faith?
Edward Meblingham - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 15:43:58 EST ID:Vz5f1vq5 No.207944 Ignore Report Quick Reply

OP here, Thanks for the leads guys!

Anger masturbation by Ebenezer Hendlekig - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 00:56:11 EST ID:9xHHmrI5 No.207907 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1489899371727.jpg -(473997B / 462.89KB, 1170x620) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 473997
It seems like most people these days aren't looking to engage in what is classically considered a "discussion" or even a "debate". People have become so entrenched ideologically that it makes discussion and exchange of ideas all but impossible.

I don't think it's nostalgic to say that the rhetoric of this period is more polarized than it was a 5 years or even a decade ago at least in the context of American politics. When people have a difference of opinion there is no discussion there is only the reinforcement of preconceived notions and the stroking of the anger boner. People have come to enjoy the righteous anger they feel when their lighting up someone who has the "wrong" political opinion.

This sort of thing happened in the past but it was mint everyone doing it to each other all the time. Everything has devolved to the point where it's a nonstop rage masturbation fest on both sides. No one wants to learn, no one wants to admit that they might be wrong, no one wants to actually solve any problems. They just want to be right and someone else be wrong, we've all become addicted to the feeling of being righteously angry at the people we believe are "wrong".
23 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Phineas Foblingstone - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:10:32 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207940 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>we've all become addicted to the feeling of being righteously angry at the people we believe are "wrong".

Mmmmm that is some poetic philosophy right there.

Yeah, I debate people all the time. I present facts, I present logic, I keep a totally open mind, like if they present facts I was unaware of I will be prepared to change my mind. But, that pretty much never happens. I get into an argument with someone about something I know at least a bit about, they come at me with extremely simplistic opinions they've probably just taken from someone else and put zero thought into, I ask them to produce facts, they either can't or they produce false facts (debunked facts) or they produce facts I'm already aware of. And at this point it's obvious that I know more than they do and that they're not willing to learn from me, because as I gently try to change their opinions, they enter fight or flight mode, and they either fight until they feel, on the inside, that they've won, even though they've just been throttled by facts and logic, or they just walk away from the situation entirely and write me off as a cunt.

I once had to reference several laws and several historic events in the USA to a UK libertarian who insisted that discrimination based on race/religion/anything should be legal in businesses. At the end of the argument, he said to me that he learned nothing from me, but that he hopes I learned from him. He shut out his mind to the facts and history and laws I presented to him, yet expected me to accept into my heart his extremely-naive libertarian views that are backed up by nothing, and he insisted that America isn't free because we can't legally discriminate in business. He also kept insisting that business laws and private property/home ownership laws be identical. As a student of business, I think that sort of idea is absolutely crazy, yet he used his libertarian idealism to insist that I'm wrong, the USA is wrong and that he's right.

At the end of the day, I guess some of us are just logical, while most of us are just emotional. Feel me?
Lydia Pemblefuck - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 14:49:59 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207941 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yet, haven't we all (at least those of us in the US) gone through a ringer recently about how stating that you know more than the other person, even proving you know more than the other person, accomplishes nothing, and leaves one defeated while still feeling smug and with no recourse or strategy for moving forward other than reiterating that they're actually the ones who are right?

That may not be anger masturbation, since indeed more logical heads usually have less emotional temperaments, but it's logical masturbation still, because no discourse actually took place.

I have a thought experiment which may help clarify people's positions on this idea. Ignoring extreme cases who will not respond to anything, do you think it's the case that of most people, there is some sequence of words, actions, or evidence/'evidence' you could show to them that would eventually convince them of any idea whatsoever?

If so, then my suggestion to move away from philosophical masturbation and into genuine philosophical intercourse would be to do it scientifically. If we genuinely believe in whatever the X good thing we think to be the case that we try to convince others of is so, but there is Z amount of difference in the reaction we get from the reaction we want when we apply Y argument, then we need to stop worrying about whether we think Y contains the elements we think it should, since by the postulate of our thought experiment there is SOME value of Y that would get us the Z we want.

In plainer english: we need to stop worrying about convincing people the way WE think it is convincing to say, and try to learn to speak their cultural and ideational languages, see from their perspective, and keep continually learning and course correcting (and seriously applying the scientific method in analyzing the success of our corrections probably wouldn't be a bad idea too) so we can have genuine *dialogue* rather than increasing the volume of our *statements.*
Emma Debberfoot - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:29:23 EST ID:Am93n9Du No.207942 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490239763598.jpg -(108392B / 105.85KB, 400x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207940 How 'bout logos and pathos instead of one or the other.

Dig it very much so. Dialogues over diatribes. Maybe it'll plant seeds, meaning they wont admit the validity of some of what you were saying, but reconsider it later, and recognize some truth, then maybe gradually change their perspective. Pretty hopeful hypothetical.

Giving someone your full attention (or as close to it) and listening is important to understand where they're coming from. In time one could probably formulate better arguments that refute common tropes. It sounds selfish written that way. The intention really should be to have an enjoyable conversation that's fruitful in some way, not to win. Of course you want to prove what you believe is worthy of believing. If the belief isn't well grounded why do they/you choose to believe it?

I think we should always recognize our own ignorance, the limitations of truth from one perspective, forever seeking yet unable to ever get there. Everything said and written should have a caveat to it: this is a partial truth as I know it. So even from someone with a seemingly shitty analysis and perspective, they may have some gems to share. If you're willing to listen to them, truly. I think people are often more aware then given credit, picking up on the nuances of a situation, consciously or not, and can tell if you're really listening. If you are, maybe they'll do the same.

Active listening is a cool pratice, meaning after their statement you reiterate what they'd said, like an interviewer prompting an elaboration or focusing-in on a specific detail. The point is you verbally acknowledge what they communicated. After their reaction to your acknowledgement, such as: "yeah, that's right" (resolution), or "nah, not quite. Its blah blah blah" then they clarify and you understand better then if you'd thought you'd understood and didn't say anything. After resolution you ascert whatever it is you gotta say, they'll react to that, and if it didn't get through, listen, aknowledge, and repeat until resolution is reached, then reassert. Being so mechanical about it will probably interfer…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
John Gannergold - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:28:06 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207943 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Amen to all of that. I agree that active listening is precisely what we should be practicing if we want to get to this place. We almost do active listening now, except we are hunting in what we listen to for flaws that can become vulnerabilities, without recognizing that perhaps what we perceive as flaws represent misunderstandings or miscommunication by either us or them.

On the subject of changing how you speak to relate to people who may have different backgrounds than you: I struggled with this for a long time. For a long time I was unable to turn off high articulation and broad vocabulary when talking normally to people, and it was a huge turn off for them. I persisted because I thought, well, if I know the correct words and way to speak, and I know I am using it correctly, it's THEIR fault if they don't understand. But that's just the big problem of 'anger masturbation' down to the level of linguistics.

I realized that the purpose of speaking in a debate or discussion is not to express my identity, or demonstrate my capacity, but to actually put this idea lodged in my head into someone else's head. If the way I am transmitting that signal to them isn't getting through, then the communication isn't serving its function which is as much my responsibility as theirs. Just food for thought.
Samuel Cindlefield - Sun, 26 Mar 2017 00:37:27 EST ID:Am93n9Du No.207945 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490503047991.jpg -(497073B / 485.42KB, 800x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Blame goes all ways, yes. Still, alot of people aren't listening, and it takes reasserting to get your point across sometimes. Humor is definitely more engaging than serious academia. Mixing the two could work, but the academia side has got to be succinct and to the point, not long-winded where their eyes glaze over. Again, I don't think you should change yourself to suit someone elses tastes or comprehension. Being self-righteous or angry about it doesn't help, except like jerk off the ego. If the point is to plant a seed or to convert them to a viewpoint, it makes sense being flexible and amorphous is effective.

What do you think of a real life vigilante? by Polly Bundock - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:50:01 EST ID:MTaj+oHu No.207586 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1484365801125.png -(216720B / 211.64KB, 500x281) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 216720
First of all this vigilante would have 100% evidence proving the person he killed was a horrible person. Like pimps taking advantage of children, gang members who's destroying youth and robberies, large drug dealers(not weed), rapists, serious frauds who ruined lives...

Basically anyone with lack of respect for life.

This vigilante would not be one of those "I believe this guy is guilty so I'm going to kill him" vigilantes, but one that abides by facts and evidence. Or let's say there's 100% evidence of a murder or rape but ended up walking free and plans on killing/raping again?

Now don't get me wrong I'm against murder, but sometimes there must be an exception.

Would vigilante justice be justified?

Share your thoughts.
39 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:43:58 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207840 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Either America has a police problem, they have a crime problem, or both.
Meh, it's neither. The USA doesn't have a police brutality problem, nor does it have a crime problem. Both police brutality and crime exist in the USA, but the truth of the matter is the USA is an extremely safe and just country where you'll rarely if ever run into issues with either the police or criminals, unless of course you live in a low-income area, in which case you'll deal with both. Stay out of the bottom 10% and you'll be problem-free.

All that stuff in the news about police brutality is bullshit. I spent an entire year researching every police brutality incident I saw in liberal news, and I realized and verified that every story was false, except for like 2. Like, there was a case of a flash-bang grenade frying a baby. That's undoubtedly brutality. But then I'd see countless cases of the cops man-handling a violent black perp and all the blacks would scream BRUTALITY! or a video would surface of a black man escaping resisting arrest and then getting shot, and BLM and so on and so forth would screech BRUTALITY!

Long story short, do the research on any given police brutality case and there's a 90% chance the victim was asking for it.

But there were also some mishaps. For instance, at one point, the cops gunned down a little kid, and no one got in trouble. Why? Well, the kid was aiming an airsoft AK47 at the police when he was shot, and the AK47 was modified to look real, as in all the safety features, like the orange nozzel, were taken away from the gun to make it look like a real AK. Mind you, the person who reported the child said that the gun appeared fake, however the dispatcher never mentioned the 'looked fake' part to the police being dispatched so they were told, 'Black kid is running around with a gun' and they gunned him down on sight pretty much because he aimed the gun at the police. That's just unfortunate is what that is, but I mean again, the fake gun in the incident was modified to appear real, which is illegal and extremly stupid.
Graham Fonnerfuck - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 12:09:25 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207842 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> I spent an entire year researching every police brutality incident I saw in liberal news

Oh really? You convinced me. Some random the future immigrant must know his shit so much better than actual staticians and sociologists.
Alice Charringwater - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:10:38 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207845 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You're also making the pretty gross assumption that every single incident of 'police brutality' was reported and made it into the national media enough for you to be able to turn up information about it with a google search. For your argument to be credible, I would need evidence that you have investigated and run statistical analyses on all complaints about police conduct in every jurisdiction in the country. And you didn't, so that angle holds no water.
Rebecca Hammerworth - Wed, 08 Mar 2017 16:09:34 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.207853 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>The USA doesn't have a police brutality problem, nor does it have a crime problem.

Can you say that with a straight face?

>Both police brutality and crime exist in the USA, but the truth of the matter is the USA is an extremely safe and just country where you'll rarely if ever run into issues with either the police or criminals, unless of course you live in a low-income area, in which case you'll deal with both. Stay out of the bottom 10% and you'll be problem-free.

I know the US is really patchy like that, we got places comparable to the Nordics in civility and wealth and also real rundown places where the US state's rule don't really extend. Averaged statistically however the US perform poorly compared to general European countries when it comes to murder, cop brutality and etc. Also poorly on a number of unrelated statistics like child mortality wtf

As a first-world country it's in the low percentile. That's a fact. Not to mention systematic racism which is rampant in the backwaters and some city centers.

>Long story short, do the research on any given police brutality case and there's a 90% chance the victim was asking for it.
>the victim was asking for it.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Nell Shakewater - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 05:06:38 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207938 Ignore Report Quick Reply
people percieve things by a ceaseless narrative that denies other ceasless narratives.

They take advantage of subjects in public, that look different, seem different, or feel alienated.

Some people have enough public will power, to be confident and never taken advantage of.

Others do not, and when asked rhetorical "deductive" devices, that assume guilt. Human beings often find themselves asking why, especially when they typically get that as a predictive pattern.

It's done because cops often rotate based on the worst ideas of lowest common denominator suggestions that are often complaint based.

Imagine working. Now imagine you keep getting intrepreted a certain way. Then people talk, you are now having to look out and live by a certain reaction that is public. When you become at peace in a heidegarian sense with the idea of your own death, and you are in a place of minimal consequence you can break that treatment after many occasions.

Eventually the number of occasions outweighs the tendency of that public push.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Family by Caroline Nossleshaw - Wed, 08 Mar 2017 10:30:15 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207850 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1488987015842.jpg -(47743B / 46.62KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 47743
What's up with family? What's up with heritage?
These things mean literally nothing to me, yet I notice so many people championing these things. Why do they do this?
Family is a group of people you share genetics with, who you have no choice of selecting, and heritage is people/events that have happened long in the past that you may be connected to genetically.
I don't understand the point in being proud of your heritage; you had nothing to do with it. I don't understand the point of being proud of your family; they're not you, nor are they people you've chosen to have in your life. And I don't understand the point of loving people simply because you share a genetic bond; there's nothing special about my genetics or anyone's genetics, really.

So what's up with this stuff? Why is it so significant to people?
6 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cyril Hirringlodge - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 02:04:34 EST ID:UJnj5mgn No.207924 Ignore Report Quick Reply
these things are vehicles by which the ever insatiable ego can puff itself up even further

>not only am I amazing, but so is my entire ancestral line, because i come from the best land of all lands, ha ha i am best!
Frederick Driblingtack - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:32:06 EST ID:TZEgBuHq No.207927 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>What's up with family?

Without your family you wouldn't exist or you'd be dead, assuming you weren't rescued by some third party

>What's up with heritage?

Your culture is what your ancestors have been building for years and years, and there's a lot of value that comes with the cultures we're lucky enough to inherit. You're basically asking what the value of culture is. Heritage is accumulated culture across time and generations.

>These things mean literally nothing to me, yet I notice so many people championing these things. Why do they do this?

Because they know that without the human beings in their inner circle, which in most cases has the family at the center, and their culture, they would be swimming in an ocean of chaos and death that they wouldn't be able to deal with at all. The alternative is being born in the wilderness alone and freezing to death immediately or being eaten by something.

>I don't understand the point in being proud of your heritage

Your ancestors produced societies (and survived successfully pre-agriculture, which is in some ways even more remarkable) that allowed their genes to propagate over hundreds of years, which is pretty much a miracle in its unlikelihood, not to mention all the benefits of culture that you benefit from. Without these things you wouldn't have a history, which would mean you wouldn't have any foundation to build the future on, you wouldn't have art, you wouldn't be able to read these words or have any conception of what words are, etc.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Sidney Bimmlestitch - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:49:00 EST ID:p5PWfvYz No.207931 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>you are the product of thousands of years of natural selection.
Natural selection isn't a process . Its closer to the lack of a process. Its fairer to say "you are whats left over after thousands of years of natural selection."
Not trying to be a dick just autism
Frederick Driblingtack - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:57:38 EST ID:TZEgBuHq No.207932 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I see what you're saying I think. Basically life just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and we're what stuck because it worked well enough.
David Pickdock - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:04:27 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207933 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's still a process. Process doesn't necessarily imply intention or thought. The reactions of chemistry are described as processes, and occur as an entropic breakdown in the same way that evolution does, yet are still fantastically complex and multi-staged enough to be described as 'processes.'

Not trying to be a dick but just autisming harder.

frankfurt school by Priscilla Gaddlefat - Sun, 05 Mar 2017 19:09:16 EST ID:ypqGZf3j No.207836 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1488758956835.jpg -(76895B / 75.09KB, 776x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 76895
is it safe to say that no one who believes in "cultural marxism" and points to the frankfurt school as some spooky bohemian grove type of thing where a bunch of jews gathered to decide the fate of the world has actually read this thing?
42 posts and 9 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Walter Conkinnit - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 05:21:01 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207903 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Let me guess. You are a poor poor American grown on philosophically poor soil. Read some real books brother!
Cyril Murdcocke - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:16:04 EST ID:jYcEvk8u No.207904 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Like what?
Walter Conkinnit - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 18:56:00 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207905 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Basic introductions to philosophy are always good places to start. Even if it's stuff you already know, it's always good to have refreshers. Also, intro books are also excellent references when you're having a discussion.
Oliver Dirrywidge - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 23:53:25 EST ID:jYcEvk8u No.207906 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I meant more things that would be relevant in a discussion about post-modernism and the like
Nicholas Worthingridge - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 10:14:51 EST ID:CMVbW7K1 No.207908 Ignore Report Quick Reply
postmodernism is a broad umbrella term for various theories.
One place to start is Ferdinand de Saussur, his semiotic triangle and structuralism. Its important to remember that postmodern philosophy, or perhaps better said, philosophy in the postmodern era proceeds from the point that we are unable to ever really know or really contact anything truly, which is a departure from modernism which held that truth was attainable through modern methods (rationality, science etc).
But there are many other starting points. You could even start with Marx or Nietzsche or looking at Art. Also you could start getting a basic grasp of some of the concepts used within postmodernist philosophy such as deconstruction (Derrida) which is more or less the same thing as deterritorialisation (Deleuze). People can spend years studying this stuff, its not something you learn fully by reading one book or another, even with a basic understanding alot of the stuff can seem confusing.

you could also look for a lecture on youtube, fe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we6cwmzhbBE.

"Ethics" by Polly Cezzlestock - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 18:49:27 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.207869 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1489189767598.jpg -(494515B / 482.92KB, 1152x1600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 494515
So, CRISPR is coming into its own. If you don't know about this new gene-engineering technique, then check this link:


Essentially it's a rehash of a natural system found in protists that's now used to make targeted and precise edits in any genome the user wants. It's revolutionizing genetical biology world-wide, but the research into its obvious health implications is stymied by so called ethics in most of the first world.

So I'd like to discuss ethics and science. I'm just not talking about CRISPR, but general modern miracles of science that's hampered by old-world thinking like surrogacy, embryonic stem-cell research or replacement of mitochondria in fertilized cells Which can heal an inherited, rare and lethal decease but is outlawed in most of the world because courts decided the resulting child ends up with "three parents", even though the child only share mitochondrial DNA with the donor.

Now obviously I'm on the liberal side of the debate here, but I wanna know what /pss/ think about these new technologies. Should we play "god" in order to save/improve lives, or is there a thin red line Humanity shouldn't cross? Are these ethical concerns really grounds for outlawing certain possible techniques, or are these ethics remnants of a world where life was the realm of religion?
Frederick Chezzlewick - Sat, 11 Mar 2017 15:20:44 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207871 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ignoring personal experiences due to a nephew dying at the age of 7 from a genetic disease, fucking hell yeah we need to play God.

We will need all the tools we can get to ensure that humanity will survive the coming 10,000 years and won't end up as a bunch of fossils.
Cyril Gadgekeg - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:13:33 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207900 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Speaking as one that was born with a unique and extremely rare disease, yes. Yes, let's "play god". It's one thing to only give this tech to the elites so they can change their DNA to make them into supreme geniuses and everyone else becomes a slave caste.

It's another thing to cure disease. Imagine reversing down syndrome and these one's can actually lead a life of greater potential.

Only people that disagree with such a thing are religious goobers and or people that have no idea what it's like to live with an illness.

David Pakman recently with Matthew Liao on this very subject: http://philtech.io/class-blog/2016/11/the-crispr-future-might-be-a-little-blurred/ (not the interview. it's currently for members atm. )

The idea of being cured yet having religious morons taking that cure away from me and others infuriates me. It's like those moral turds that go against assisted suicide when someone is dying from terminal cancer. Who are these people? Where did they get their nerve?

Fuck your ethics! Give me the goods, doc!

Philosophical anime by Simon Blackshaw - Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:44:49 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205314 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1457981089298.jpg -(7241B / 7.07KB, 300x168) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 7241
Anybody got any philosophically deep anime recommendations?
42 posts and 8 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ian Willerridge - Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:37:28 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207728 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You can see the world in a grain of sand. An adult, even one knowledgeable on philosophy, could watch a philosophically dense anime and still get nothing out of it, or find the philosophy it articulates to be facile. At the same time they could interpret a more childish show that isn't explicitly philosophical through a philosophical lens that produces a result that's much more complex and nuanced than what they began with or what they could've gotten from the other show.

The purpose of the show is to be watched and enjoyed. Anyone who is going to get something philosophical out of a show it going to do so because they are bringing a desire and a philosophical analytical capacity to the table in the first place. In a very meaningful sense, the philosophy they draw out of the show is something that exists within them, and the particulars of the show, whether they are able to be interpreted philosophically explicitly or only implicitly are mostly only mental touchstones to get that internal philosophy to emerge.

Take, for example, Star Wars. In itself, it's relatively philosophically primitive. It's basically no more complex than
>>"You're evil! I'm good! You're alone! I have friends! You want power! I want peace! I win because I'm more ethical than you!"
And yet people have read into it and between it's lines all kinds of grandiose philosophical musings. And Star Wars is made for kids. So my basic point is that all philosophies about entertainment media are created by the people who are experiencing them regardless of how explicit their actual philosophical content is, and so you shouldn't dismiss the philosophy that emerges from a property based on whatever baked in explicit attitude it has or what its target demographic is.
Augustus Sarrynuck - Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:46:50 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207730 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That's one way to see it, another way to see it is that Goku relates to people through struggle.

Yes that's a very broad metaphor. But it's very specifically highlighted by patterns of loss that articulate a broader story, that Dragonball not citing a philosophy but making one.

You can think about it as the exact opposite of candide. Goku's naiviety is not proven wrong, but rather transforms itself along and others along the way. While in turn others transform it.

You can think of it as directly related to journey to the west and hanuman and rama's myth. I can't comment on it specifically but Monkey represents the mind ape and the mountain he is in represents his heart or his home, while his journey or the monk in this case bulma represents compassion or his heart in the world.

It's like everything the mind has gone through. The metaphor in battle of the gods was essentially. Goku is not the opposite of the "monsters" he faces. Similar to Journey to the west, he is also the other. That's why he talks to them uniquely. They usually end up joining the calvacade or journey. That there is something to do while we are here that isn't self destructive.

Even when Goku fights Buu, he recognizes that. When Uub comes back that represents that full circle journey. In a sense Goku's the point in spirtuality that accomplishes in regardless of what is written in stone.

He is intensely focused on Vegeta and Uub out of love. In a deep sense he is trying to convince them of that.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Charlotte Serrybire - Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:07:37 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207732 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> An adult, even one knowledgeable on philosophy, could watch a philosophically dense anime and still get nothing out of it
Sure, but that's not likely to happen.

>At the same time they could interpret a more childish show that isn't explicitly philosophical through a philosophical lens that produces a result that's much more complex and nuanced than what they began with or what they could've gotten from the other show.
I suppose so, but it's not terribly philosophical the way shonen anime clearly adheres to a singular thread of philosophy through the course of hundreds of episodes.

I mean you're talking idealisms and not realisms here. You're not wrong, but still, immature anime is extremely one-sided in terms of philosophy, and is actually pretty extremely dogmatic and all the characters and the plot just follow along this dogma.

Like, here's a real-world example. Immature anime is like talking about communism and only ever mentioning the idealistic and good qualities of communism, where as a mature anime is like talking about communism and not only talking about its merits but also it's flaws and its real-world historic application. Be as idealistic about learning as you want, one piece of content is filled with information while the other is filled with a singular strand of thought stretched out 100 episodes.

>In a very meaningful sense, the philosophy they draw out of the show is something that exists within them.
Idk man, that's like saying that philosophy drawn out of a philosophy book is something that exists within the reader. I'd argue that it's new to them and it's being handed/shown to them. Same goes for philosophical anime.

>Star Wars
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Blackie-Chan - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 05:07:40 EST ID:P5jbTK9T No.207878 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489568860003.gif -(1967831B / 1.88MB, 500x281) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Why has nobody posted about Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann?

It has Plato's Cave parallels, the Will to Power, an Ubermensch AND an Ubermensch successor, morally ambiguous decisions, inspiring and hot-blooded speeches, awesome art, music, and characters.
Its a show that is almost impossible to NOT be inspired by due to its insistence that determination, fighting spirit, and love can win against any threat and break and bonds that humans may have.
What's not to like?
Lydia Sinkintane - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:51:48 EST ID:upgdBNHk No.207889 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489690308193.jpg -(103698B / 101.27KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Revy doesn't care about anything. She's a nihilist.

"Oh, that must be exhausting."

Meditation by Phoebe Goodforth - Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:45:31 EST ID:/XQxUE3u No.204775 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1453218331804.jpg -(552057B / 539.12KB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 552057
Hey guys I'm just starting to learn how to meditate. So far I can go up to 3 minutes and after that I can't focus any longer. But, I'd say I'm starting off good.

How many of you here meditate on a daily basis? In what way does it help you? What is your favorite type of meditation?

I'm learning sleep meditation and zen. I want to broaden my horizons and love myself again. With this meditation I hope to achieve a higher level of being and be able to like myself and have a positive outlook on life.
116 posts and 12 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Wesley Clurringkat - Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:16:39 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207792 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If you want to learn how to meditate and you dont want the philosophical baggage that comes with it, I recommend learning how to meditate from Sam Harris. It's very basic and has no mantras to chant or dogmas to holdfast. The rules are very lax so anyone can learn and do well at it. Like anything else, it takes practice.
Nell Windlegold - Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:34:38 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207793 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Sam Harris

I haven't delved in his work on meditation, but I know that Sam Harris knows his shit. Thumbs up for your post mate.
Ian Husslewill - Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:45:38 EST ID:/XQxUE3u No.207796 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i'll look into his readings. i wouldn't mind all the philosophy though. thats just something else that can broaden my horizons and make me grow as a person.
Fucking Chevingworth - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:15:05 EST ID:3c2Sor75 No.207808 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I've been having great meditation sessions lately. I'm able to go for longer periods of time in a meditative state. On the average I can meditate for about 10 minutes until I open my eyes.

I'm able to go deeper. Lately theirs been a few times where when I'd be meditating in a chair on my back porch, I feel like I'm somewhere else. One time I thought I was at the beach and I could feel the sand under my feet. Then, I would feel myself going somewhere else. I felt like after thinking I was on the beach, I am in my driveway. Then I snap out of it. Crazy stuff.
Henry Tootdale - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 12:41:19 EST ID:qurAhmpk No.207855 Ignore Report Quick Reply
How is everyone's meditation going? I'm doing good. more and more often I can feel the benefits of meditation seeping through my daily life which I'm happy about. I still have those experiences of feeling like I'm somewhere else and not in my house when I meditate. Good stuff right there :)

On The Nature of Evil by The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Sat, 18 Feb 2017 02:19:24 EST ID:drDI4Zd2 No.207739 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1487402364691.jpg -(637399B / 622.46KB, 709x1262) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 637399
Evil is something that is misunderstood, because it is something that does not see itself. Evil does not see itself because of the nature of ego… Let us say that there is a man, who passes a homeless person on the street, whom he gives money to. The nature of ego is such that the man does not give the homeless man money because he believes what he is doing is morally righteous, but because he has become addicted to the pleasure received from the concept of doing good.

This phenomenon is both what the ego is, and a state of psychosis which when fully manifested results in a psychopathic personality. It is a feed-back loop of emotion and want which is self-perpetuating. At the route of this phenomenon is the repression of an emotional state so great, that it becomes the defining memory of the individuals’ personality. Usually this state of Psychosis is triggered by the most extreme acts: rape, murder, and torture. Because these acts become what the host ego identifies with, the identifying ego naturally seeks to perpetuate itself through a repetition and justification of these acts. As such a bruised ego comes from an opinion of a thing that contradicts the validity of this reality. This is why if you judge a murderer you will likely be murdered, not because you deserve it, but because the ego of the murderer cannot stand to face what it sees as a contradiction to it’s being. Thus the bad always blames the good for its own nature, and so the good becomes a receptacle of sin for others.

Because society represses what is seen as immoral, and it is these immoral acts that define the personality of psychotics, the psychopath cannot truly be who they are in regular society, and therefore must seek out the experiences which they believe define them.

But this leaves the question to be answered as how to and why a person would identify him/herself with things that are considered emotionally negative in the first place. The answer to this is simple, that psychosis is a defense mechanism, which reverses a negative situation into a positive one so that the individual does not go insane. A murderer gains pleasure from a murder in order to protect ones sanity, a rapist identifies himself with rape and so rapes, a rape victim snaps and enjoys the experience so she does not loose her mind, a torture victim becomes masochistic, while the torturer becomes sadistic.

As a result of this process one observes that the psychotic personality consists of multiple levels of ego that exist in denial of each other, but are used by the emotional feedback loop of seeking an identity, to justify the foundational experience of the psychosis. Because the layers of ego that are not of the foundational reality contradict said reality, they cannot exists along side it, and so the psychotic can truly deny their foundation, and believe that they deny it, yet do everything they can to reenact the foundational experience.

In other words, the psychotic is stuck in a loop of self-justification used to perpetuate something so negative it has become a positive and foundational aspect of the hosts’ psychology.

To all those who do not suffer yet do, I am real. Your medicine is on its way. The self-justification you have been seeking is at hand, for I will never give up until we understand each other, when you are no longer judged, and the cycle of violence will end. I forgive you.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Priscilla Claydock - Sat, 18 Feb 2017 16:22:51 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207743 Ignore Report Quick Reply
As always an interesting if bloated read, Fool. A thing worth considering is that what constitutes psychosis isn't ontologically primitive. As you have identified, the morality of a culture is arbitrary. If we were a violent culture that glorified murder, 'psychotics' would be people who abhorred violence and could not control those feelings to the point that they acted out in a way that disrupted society.

The basic point being that psychosis can result whenever the ego is repressed in a way that pushes it beyond its coping point, and that egos will always vary with the values of the normative culture in one direction or another by some amount. So indeed every culture includes certain contradictions, but what is at issue in psychosis is that, while most people are able to cognitively manage the contradictions in their society, for some people the tension is so great that they have a fundamental break in their perception of reality and thereafter are no longer able to manage the difference between their internal state and the social consensus. And thus begin to act out.

So the psychotic cycle is not produced directly by the contradictions of culture, as you claim. That cultures have contradictions is inevitable, and the great mass working through those contradictions in small ways is what actually causes cultural evolution. But when a biological difference that causes one to either have reduced capacity to modulate stress, a reduced capacity to perceive the difference between the world of your imaginings and the external world, or biological drive that is greatly enhanced over the norm that results in a desire contrary to culture, or all these things together, then the person in question is no longer able to manage the contradiction in a constructive way and instead disconnects and begins to respond in a maladaptive and potentially destructive way. At the very least in that if their behavior becomes extreme enough society will try to force them into compliance.

I think it's dangerous to ascribe too much ontological validity to the cycle of validating psychotic reasoning. The best course of action for people who have extreme drives is to sublimate that energy to construc…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Sat, 18 Feb 2017 16:44:32 EST ID:q3sMRx7h No.207744 Ignore Report Quick Reply
That was a fantastic response.
Hedda Buzzfuck - Sat, 18 Feb 2017 20:20:27 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207745 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Thnx m8.
Nicholas Pockdale - Sat, 18 Feb 2017 22:18:35 EST ID:7xOxbFjC No.207746 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Lord of the flies
Betsy Begglemork - Wed, 08 Mar 2017 05:38:15 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207849 Ignore Report Quick Reply
continue your series on morality and pleasure.

I remember the old ones and see how some things have developed here and wow.

That is great work.

I still contend that while this description is one i believe. That while technically it robs you of your identity and free willing sanity, so that willing and santity become harder even if it's not chained to a violent ritual, but instead lets say flicking the lights on and off ten times every time. This defense mechanism is for the severest shocks and a traumas the human soul goes through. Fighting your way back to a wholeness and reconciling and accepting and loving yourself in the new condition are powerful tools. That lead to new life out of a condition that seems broken.

the idea of male love the desire or the chase and tied to the concept of lack and attainment and female love or the unattainable.

also relates to the structure or the loop invovled in trauma. Or the difference between conscious thought and perhaps non critical non self asserted or out of what is control thought.

That's why one might struggle against psychosis but it's also why one might keep their sanity. Which is essence.

I can't remember which philosophy asserts it but, a kind of knowing is related in this philosophy as the noose, or the idea of the concious collecting or grabbing something.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Psychoanalysis by Phyllis Goodman - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:41:04 EST ID:cpwKmCz1 No.207810 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1488339664504.jpg -(79804B / 77.93KB, 843x917) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 79804
So I first learned of Lacan and the enduring legacy of that wacky cokester Freud from my well-read friend who is incidentally also a Stalinist, since fringe opinions come in clusters. Now I'm reading more Lacan and Freud, and some Deleuze & Guattari, for a grad seminar on critical theory (so it's from a literary/cultural standpoint rather than a clinical interest). This is the kind of spooky shit I like to study, esoteric and abstract and more about asking questions than getting answers. Who's got opinions? Anyone been analyzed?
Nell Sabblefitch - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:25:47 EST ID:jYcEvk8u No.207812 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>top left
>repress death drive


Hand-picked for the position by Joseph Stalin in 1926, Blokhin led a company of executioners that performed and supervised numerous mass executions during Stalin's reign, mostly during the Great Purge and World War II.[2] He is recorded as having executed tens of thousands of prisoners by his own hand, including his killing of about 7,000 Polish prisoners of war during the Katyn massacre in spring 1940,[2][3] making him the most prolific official executioner and mass murderer in recorded world history.[2][4] Forced into retirement following the death of Stalin, Blokhin died in 1955, officially reported as a suicide.

I don't know anything about Lacan, though Zizek talks about him a lot. I've only read a bit of Frued and some Jung. What's Lacan's deal? I remember Hegel is relevant somehow.
Phyllis Goodman - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 01:15:07 EST ID:cpwKmCz1 No.207813 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>taking abstruse theoretical concept at face-value
>as though a drive has anything to do with anyone else's gratification but the subject's
>entirely ignoring historical and material conditions, to include the imperative to rapidly industrialize an agrarian backwater, in the interregnum between a civil war where most major global powers intervened on the side of the ousted regime, and an imminent fascist invasion


Advocating for a return to what he claimed to be Freud's most fundamental discoveries about the unconscious, Lacan was about two major things, in the readings I've done: desire is predicated on lack, and the unconscious is structured like a language. Rather than Freud's ego/superego/id distinction, Lacan drew the major distinctions as between an Imaginary order (found in the mirror: imagery, falseness, narcissism and self-concept), the Symbolic Order (where language facilitates the ascendancy of Law and Structure), and the Real (not reality, but beyond language and unassailable by analysis, and hence unattainable). The desire–lack thing is where Hegel comes in handy, and I'm woefully behind on my Hegel, but it seems to be about a complex of recognition and a displacement of desirability involving an inscrutable Other: you desire to be desired by the Other, who is very much like Freud's mother figure.

Lacan's also got a pretty nifty tripartite distinction of mental illness, distinguished by reactions to the Symbolic castration (cf. Freud's phallic stuff): the resentful neurotic, the Law-fixated pervert, and the paranoid psychotic. I was told that as soon as you start learning about these categories, you annoyingly start diagnosing yours and everyone else's behaviors in their terms. And just wait til you get to the pseudo-algebra, now there's where you can really blow your systematizing and totalizing load. Jouissance!
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 06:27:19 EST ID:3OceFGwp No.207824 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I am extremely suspicious of Lacan. In short, I do not believe that behind the curtain there is anything of theoretical value. Positivist dullards like Alan Sokal have said this about almost every postwar French thinker, but let me try to make the case that unlike Jean Baudrillard or Gilles Deleuze, who were entirely capable of lucid prose and whose occasional difficulty is a stylistic choice, Lacan's density is an intellectual smokescreen, expressly designed to disguise his fraudulence.
Watch this video of him reading Proust, or for that matter any of his public lecturing: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mImbHxmMmdE

What's impossible to miss is how affected and grandiloquent his speaking manner is. I've attended my share of lectures given by professors with a taste for theatricality, but Lacan's affective display extends to almost every dimension of his public personality, down to his outrageously foppish cravates and silk shirts. That he possessed an electrifying manner is not just my opinion, as Elisabeth Roudinesco was inspired to argent revelry in describing him as "[a] sorcerer without magic, a guru without hypnosis, a prophet without god." Even more significantly she noted that "students had the impression that the master was speaking... in a coded message secretly addressed to them alone."

The fact of his virtuosic charisma leads me to believe that Lagan was a malignant narcissist, whose entire intellectual career was a sophisticated strategy to win him praise and adulation. Consider: Nietszche's prose is soaring and possessed of a brilliant wit, while Nietzsche the man was entirely ineffectual and forgettable. This is the way you'd expect it to be; the artist is dwarfed in stature by his work. Lacan is just the opposite. In person he was magnetic, while his writing is unbelievably turgid, almost unreadable. Why is that? When you realize the essential fraudulence of Lacan's personality and oeuvre, it becomes obvious. His writing was intentionally obscurantist so as to allow him to keep the con going. In another time and place he may have ended up a cult leader, but it so happens he became a French psychoanalyst instead.

In fact, the army of discip…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Hamilton Desslespear - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 20:05:33 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207847 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I always felt like I was being too pretentious for not liking Lacan simply because of how overblown and pretentious *he* is. I always kinda assumed that there just was something 'behind the curtain' that I just hadn't read or wasn't getting. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Tue, 07 Mar 2017 04:35:02 EST ID:3OceFGwp No.207848 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Lacan thrived, even depended, on that uncertainty. When the charismatic narcissist begins speaking he wins over some in an instant, while a few see through him just as quickly. The larger fraction of the audience, though, remains uncommitted, and it is by vigorous exercise of charisma that he convinces them to suspend their disbelief -- "perhaps I just don't understand it, perhaps I'm a philistine; perhaps he really does have it figured out."

The Decline of The West by Edward Ducklecocke - Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:21:07 EST ID:fk7xMmwU No.207331 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1480432867070.jpg -(37129B / 36.26KB, 263x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 37129
I'm in the process of reading pic related and I've been interested in the idea that the West is in terminal decline and will soon collapse for a while now and I'm fairly convinced that The West is basically done. What do you guys think?
47 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Reuben Blatherway - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 09:54:38 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207826 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, you just agreed with me that rights are in fact a social construct that we've spelled out, so you're right, this will go nowhere because we're in complete agreement.
Reuben Blatherway - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 09:55:50 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207827 Ignore Report Quick Reply
There's something you said that's an entire enigma to me, though.
>philosophical absolutes
What the hell is that?
Eugene Goodham - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:54:26 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207832 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I said it was a social construct that is based on philosophical absolutes, which is why its content isn't arbitrary. But please, go ahead and use the tactic you always use, of making assumptions about what someone else is saying and then getting butt hurt when they say what they're saying doesn't match your made up definitions.

Philosophical absolutes are a priori principles. They are absolute because they are not contingent on other phenomena like a posteriori principles. This is a very subtle and abstruse concept which I'm sure you will try to misunderstand, but what I am suggesting is that fundamental conceptions of rights, like 'the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' emerge from a priori facts about what it means to be a sapient, subjective consciousness. Life is important because we are organisms, liberty is important because we have self-awareness over our own conditions, the freedom to pursue happiness is important because our internal subjectivity produces vast diversity that no one definition of happiness can fit.

My point being that a sapient beings rights aren't random, or arbitrary, or generated purely by consensus. They may be protected or agreed upon by a group reaching consensus, but they emerge from the properties of sapient beings a priori and are merely recognized after the fact a posteriori, in the same way that a group of scientists may have to get together and reach a consensus to publish a paper that declares a new scientific law, but the law already existed as an inherent aspect of reality and was merely waiting to be discovered.

To provide a counter-example to show why rights aren't purely consensus based, imagine a society that by consensus determines everyone has the right to throw people in the volcano. For a long time this might continue, simply because everyone believes that it is so, but eventually there would be someone who would refuse. After a long enough time, someone might refuse loudly enough that someone else heard them before they got chucked in, and people reflecting on their refusal would cause discussion of the event to spread. People would eventually begin to question why the consensus was reach…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:47:52 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207841 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'd love to educate you more on this subject, but I don't converse with mother fuckers who are so rude as to randomly insult the person they're conversing with. I'm just going to leave you with the proof that I'm correct. I enjoyed our talks until you ruined it. Goodbye.
Alice Charringwater - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:27:02 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207846 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>use the tactic you always use, of making assumptions about what someone else is saying and then getting butt hurt when they say what they're saying doesn't match your made up definitions

Well at least I called it ahead of time. As usual, you make inflammatory claims but aren't willing to hang in for the inevitable consequences, and act like you won by harping about definitions.

That the crappy editors at wikipedia equate rights with norms is utterly misleading, and if you actually follow the reference for their use of it you will see that the person copying the textbook made the same error you made regarding the difference between the a priori origins or rights and the fact that we must agree on recognition of them, in understanding the line in the Stanford Encyclopedia.

If a norm is a prescriptive statement about the world of the format 'things ought to be this way,' then either all norms are culturally relative (there are no universal 'ought to's) or some norms arrive from universal ethical principles and some arise from culturally contingent ethical principles. The social structure which enforces the recognition of a right is necessarily a norm, because each culture would enforce rights differently. But precisely what I am saying is that the 'universal, inalienable' rights are not norms, because they are not an 'ought to' we have to enforce but an 'is' that is intrinsic to reality, which is the opposite of what a norm is. Alternatively, one would have to argue that all morality is relative, in which case once again a morality that includes universal, rather than normative conceptions of rights is equally as valid as one that doesn't.

So if you want to actually engage in discussion, defend your links. You told me that I was actually saying the opposite of what I was saying and demanded to know 'what the hell' I was talking about, but apparently me prophetically saying you would be too 'butt hurt' to actually respond was so offensive that you don't want to respond or defend your statements. Imagine that. Once again 54P, I would suggest if you're going to make strong statements, at least have the…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

If the Bible is the word of God by Nigel Gerryshit - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:43:35 EST ID:oxJMfop8 No.201897 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1438037015710.jpg -(240556B / 234.92KB, 489x725) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 240556
why the fuck doesn't it have anything in it like

  1. Genetics and how all that shit works

2. The laws of physics

3. How to build an environmentally friendly engine

4. How to cure cancer

5. How to prevent the bubonic plague?

I'm serious.

Why didn't God just include all that stuff?
69 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Reuben Blatherway - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 10:20:59 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207829 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'd agree with you if Jesus wasn't also in the Quran.
That being said, the Quran was written 400 years after the Bible, so, technically Jesus could be made-up.
But I think in reality Jesus is like Beowulf. He was just some dude, and one day legends about him spread, and then they become larger than life by all means, to the point where all the stories surrounding him might as well be fake.
Esther Grimfield - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:13:47 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207830 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The assumption lies with those that treat the Bible apart from all other myths of its day. Richard Carrier will eventuall cause a snowball effect which will pull away the shroud of obvious biases to allow people to finally understand the obviousness of it all.

Jesus being in the Quran just means that one work of lit took from another wlrk of lit to give itself more merits.

It could be that Jesus was just some dude that snowballed into what it is today but there is good evidence otherwise.
Esther Grimfield - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:24:03 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207831 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I recommend looking up Richard Carriers lectures. The Jesus myth people donated him to see if there is any merit to the idea. Think of it as the zeitgeist film but researched by a legitimate ancient historian phd. He changed his mind and realized that there is merit to the ideas. An example, cult of Romulus even had a passion play and its dated older than christianity.
Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:36:14 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207839 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Whether Jesus was real or not doesn't matter. I know the stories surrounding Jesus are mostly if not totally false, so, who cares? Teaching lessons via myth is just a normal part of history.
Nigel Sondlespear - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 13:25:02 EST ID:4+oWREai No.207844 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It matters when the alternative is believed as historical fact. Christianity rests on the idea that this all happened in reality to give itself credibility. It matters in the social and political and even psychological sense. It also matters in a scholarly sense. It hampers scholarship to give credence to a thing that does not deserve any and only given throughg enerations of assumptions which carries over from its inception thousands of years ago.

Some atheists argue believers are in some ways victimized by these beliefs that has a strong hold over our government policy making and ways in which societys behaves. I think there is a very good argument to be made that if they are victims then it would ethical to offer help.

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