Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Subject
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Rape is an equivalent crime to adultery

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 02 Jul 2018 20:02:42 EST jcTfBHx5 No.209306
File: 1530576162738.jpg -(284750B / 278.08KB, 1051x951) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Rape is an equivalent crime to adultery
On a primal psychological and biological level, rape takes away a woman's right to choose the genes of her mate while adultery takes away a man's right to choose who he provides resources for. Most women (and men for that matter) consider raping a woman to be a crime more heinous than murder. Most men consider getting stallioned as their biggest fear. In both cases, these are crimes of an evolutionary nature. It explains why women get so traumatized when they're raped, while it's just standard operating procedure for men in prison. It also explains why men typically seem to care far more about their woman cheating than vice-versa.

Rape has the added element of verbal or physical coercion, that's true. But we already have laws for that: assault and battery. We don't have a separate law for, say, coercing someone to eat a bunch of eggs. The only case in which we do this is when physical threats/violence are used to gain access to a woman's holes because deep down, we all know that is their most valuable possession. Moreover, for all intents and purposes (and in some countries in the actual letter of the law) rape is a crime that can only be perpetrated on women.

Yet look at how adultery is treated in America. It's legal in all 50 states, while rape carries not just legal punishments, but can effectively destroy your entire life if you so much as get accused of this. Consider if the roles were reverse. How would you feel if women got imprisoned for committing rape while a guy who sleeps around just has slightly more streamlined divorce proceedings? Seems silly right?

I'm not saying rape is in any way a good thing. But we need to either bring back the criminal penalties for divorce or remove the penalties for rape (while solidifying the penalties for coercion) because the way it is now simply isn't just.
43 posts and 20 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Albert Nicklebanks - Sun, 08 Jul 2018 21:30:27 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209360 Reply
>>209359
Essentially, are the majority of rapes rape for it's own ends, or rape for the purpose of inflicting trauma?

I'd be inclined to think the former, as people are more likely to be merely greedy and careless about the boundaries of others than truly sociopathic. But there's probably some concrete data on this.
>>
Thomas Hammerwater - Sun, 08 Jul 2018 23:28:44 EST ogjfl7YN No.209361 Reply
>>209360
>Essentially, are the majority of rapes rape for it's own ends, or rape for the purpose of inflicting trauma?

Well that's one set of questions, but the other is whether trauma itself is what makes rape difficult to report and get justice for.

I heard the point from Zizek that we authenticate guilt by detail, but we authenticate trauma by lack of detail. Ie, if someone calmly walks through the technical description of what happened to them, we emotionally distrust that narrative. However, if they are so overwhelmed by the experience that they can't even say what happened, there is less evidence to go on.
>>
Albert Nicklebanks - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:33:41 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209362 Reply
>>209361
>>whether trauma itself is what makes rape difficult to report and get justice for.
Possibly, and quite probably, but I'm not sure it would be the biggest contributor to the underreporting -- I imagine that would be shame, and fear that one would not be taken seriously (thus sociological rather than psychological reasons.)

Consider for how much of human history (i.e. to this day in parts of the world) the victim of rape is murdered or otherwise ostracized, and even in the west, how quickly (frequently male) police will go to the 'well what were you wearing? did you lead him on? How many drinks did you have?' angle. Women in particular are socialized to minimize the discomfort of others by taking up as little space as possible, which also certainly contributes both to their lack of being taken seriously and the belief that they won't be taken seriously, a vicious cycle.

It would probably take a very carefully designed and complex study to suss out exactly how much of the underreporting each of these factors contributes to, though.

COLLEGE

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:34:14 EST YBVc1XtN No.209081
File: 1523651654247.jpg -(642101B / 627.05KB, 1000x667) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. COLLEGE
The US is fucking its economy by putting students in debt to get useless educations.

I don't believe college is worthless, and I even think there's value in the arts and humanities. HOWEVER, at least 3/4 of the colleges in the US are bad or in low standing, so if you get anything other than a technical degree from those schools, it's literally useless.

For example, 8/24 colleges in Colorado have degrees of any value, and 20/84 colleges in Massachusetts are worthwhile.

The United States should only keep open the quarter of its schools that provide valuable degrees in the arts or humanities. The other 3/4 should be shut down, or converted to either technical or trade schools.
4 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Edward Mollytedge - Thu, 03 May 2018 09:55:24 EST MdrXzUYs No.209170 Reply
1525355724417.jpg -(76981B / 75.18KB, 500x449) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a noble cause.

That said we have a serious problem in America where most jobs require a college degree and still don't pay a living wage. Even in the stem field there are plenty of shit pay jobs. And if everyone just switched over to a stem major tomorrow all that would do is run down the wages of stem jobs. That's why silicon valley is pushing coding education so hard, because once everyone learns the basics of coding in middle school, suddenly it's not that unique of a skill.

Education should be free, anyone who works a full week should earn a living wage and rent should be illegal.
>>
Clara Turveywater - Wed, 06 Jun 2018 19:47:47 EST t87tpTXY No.209288 Reply
>>209170
>Education should be free
>Anyone who works a full week should earn a living wage
>Rent should be illegal

While we're at it...

>Access to medical treatment should be free - US healthcare is double what most other developed countries pay, and yet all other developed countries provide healthcare as a human right
>Loans should be regulated and required by law to be interest-free, as Lybia had made things before we destroyed their country
>Universal Basic Income - all the money goes to the rich, and the wealth gap continues to widen - redistribute the money to the poor masses

And to the prototypical conservative or neoliberal, who would ask, "where is the money going to come from?"...

The DoD's own investigative branch found that $24,000,000,000,000 (trillion) went missing from the US in 2015, enough money to provide all of the shit outlined above for over a decade. Add to that that most of our tax dollars go to crooked subsidies (corn, sugar, oil) and war companies, who encourage genocide in countries like Yemen, and it's clear that the money is available.
>>
Basil Dennerfoot - Wed, 06 Jun 2018 20:11:15 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209291 Reply
>>209288
Add to that the fact that money is a made up human contrivance for coordinating behavior and it's clear. We throw away more food than needed by people starving. We have more unsold houses than homeless people. If we don't even have the capability to feed, clothe, and shelter ourselves, then what is the point of all this excess? The illusory promises of capitalism are slowly killing the planet.

Are we at a turning point?

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 29 Apr 2018 17:50:52 EST 4YtPS+TM No.209151
File: 1525038652283.jpg -(72194B / 70.50KB, 633x758) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Are we at a turning point?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxv-W4r91LQ&t
11 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Phineas Wittingfuck - Wed, 09 May 2018 15:47:58 EST Irsa/pK4 No.209190 Reply
>>209186
yeah dude, and if kids have more time to run around in general then they will definitely stil be able to find and meet other kids and form friendships.

when kids are herded together, it reduces the incentive to be sociable, hence technology addiction and all thr stupid habits that go with it.

A number of the coolest motherfuckers in history were home schooled. Kierkegaard for example grew up learning from his dad just looking and walking around Copenhagen.
>>
Betsy Chankinhood - Sat, 12 May 2018 22:32:55 EST 9Tl5h2ty No.209210 Reply
>>209190
Also the worst of the inept assholes tend to be homeschooled. If your parents are cool and they homeschool you, then fine, but if they are assholes and homeschool you, you dont get the chance of being that one kid in the family who left the westboro baptist church.

Compassion

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:54:41 EST f7VKYGuq No.208552
File: 1512003281885.jpg -(157533B / 153.84KB, 780x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Compassion
Rejecting any and all forms of transgenderism is an act of compassion.

If a person announces they are going to kill themselves, the compassionate action is NOT to allow them to continue. The compassionate action is to prevent them and help them no longer humor that idea. The same for trans individuals. Hormones are a direct assault on one's genetics. That is a slow form a suicide.
Mental illness is to be treated and compassionately guided.
76 posts and 8 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Molly Drusslechare - Fri, 18 May 2018 11:27:35 EST V8N/5kWg No.209216 Reply
>>209215
>Fucking closet fags. The whole lotta those alt-right neonazi wankers.
Yeah it's no secret anymore just how much of the far right mindset is motivated by sexual pathology.

cuties, gays, stallionoldry, interracial sex, BBC, pimps, MGTOW, PUAs, alpha/beta mentality, obsessing over testosterone levels, fear that soybeans will steal your masculinity, arguing about the age of consent, obsessing over little anime girls, pedo pizza party conspiracies...

It sure is ""suspicious"" how so much of the political animus of these people seems to always come back to weird sexual hangups.
>>
William Donderkidge - Sat, 26 May 2018 01:33:52 EST ogjfl7YN No.209222 Reply
>>209216
Well, how else would you be able to recruit horny teenage retards who can't get laid?
>>
Eliza Mirringshit - Mon, 04 Jun 2018 18:27:06 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209280 Reply
>>209275
Hey man, as if it weren't obvious enough that you are trying to troll every thread in this board like the immigrant 4skin scum you are, did you really have to post a variation of the same pic in every one?

It's low energy and depressingly pathetic. Are you low t? I assume so because otherwise your smooth brain would realize that saying "X Ys are Xs now" (femi nazis are nazis now) is so circular it's tautological. Maybe if you weren't such a beta you could see how weak your reasoning is. Plz stay out of the way of the chads actually running the world k thnx bye.

Holism Fractalism

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 01 Jun 2018 11:28:45 EST pEHNHTp/ No.209257
File: 1527866925305.jpg -(465583B / 454.67KB, 2153x1136) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Holism Fractalism
**i. Introduction**
I tried to make a link elsewhere between Lambda Calculus and computational thinking and what that means in regards to our existence. This triangulation led to Philosophical Lambda (a personal interpretation of Lambda Calculus with regards to existence). Philosophical Lambda is supposed to be a system like Lambda Calculus but a bit informal and with different symbols; but with similar principles behind everything and with SETS! Its purpose is mainly to illustrate an idea and so its a bit superficial.

The link between Lambda Calculus and existentialism was made through Descartes’ cogito

**ii. Cogito**

In cogito, Descartes states, “I think, therefore I am.” Thus, tying his ability to think logically to his existence. Meaning that thinking, including the ability to doubt, is used by Descartes as proof of existence. Or rather, proof of certainty. Descartes can doubt or trivialize everything as inessential except for the ability to think. He seeks to establish certainty with this line of thinking.

I would also say that playing music is a form of proving your existence. And dancing. And drawing. But thinking proves existence in a more intellectually-stimulating kind of way.

I’m going to interweave prose (these words here) with symbols that carry within them the logic behind prose (philosophical lambda (ΦΛ)). Thus, “I think, therefore I am” can be said in symbolic logic as:

I think → I am (If I think, then I am)

Since we can frame it in formal logic, we can also frame it in Philosophical Lambda. This is the portal we use to connect everything.

When Descartes reached the conclusion “I am,” he basically said “I can doubt everything and anything except that I am.” Again, trying to reach certainty.

Let’s dip our toes in some of that Philosophical Lambda with introducing sets.

Let’s create a set of what is “I”:

I = [culture, language, race, sex, gender, arms, legs, torso, brain, thought….etc]????

We can say that “I” is a set that is composed of our culture, our language, our race, our sex, our gender, our body parts, out thoughts, etc.

Descartes said that we can remove everything from inside that set except for thought, since “I” only exist as a thought. Thus:

I = [thought(thinking)]
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Better alternative

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 08 May 2018 21:23:25 EST Irsa/pK4 No.209180
File: 1525829005146.jpg -(19154B / 18.71KB, 189x267) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Better alternative
Its evident that anyone who initiates themselves into contemporary United States politics will effectively have no self-agency at all. Notice how Bernard Sanders was brought down and how the obstensively bright Elizabeth Warren is simply ignored and it goes without saying the Republican party is a perverse cabal.

So how can anyone be expected to have confidence in new leadership branded by either group when these impressionable, and desperate, folks must submit to party lines without deviation?

There remains nothing inspiring at all to be witnessed in contemporary United States politics. I have the impression whatever faceless dipshits either party would round up for the next cycle effectively have zero testicles.

My point is, they’re coming for us again, so what exactly gives them any credit whatsoever c o m p a r e d t o a new party, possibly a coalition of defectors, who would be capable of ushering in some delicious innovation?

I presume its been attempted before, even so given the current state of things, they have simply not done it right.
14 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Thomas Blambleham - Sat, 12 May 2018 14:36:58 EST Irsa/pK4 No.209208 Reply
1526150218750.jpg -(69380B / 67.75KB, 500x454) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209207
You may be correct though many people need food right now.

Government subsidies can establish agricultural practices like you have described.

Indeed we wont need hillbilly farmers anymore if greenhouse projects are established. In fact, such farms may become public institutions.

However, its necessary to have people take care of and raise the crops. If the general public is so inclined, there may be no difficulty finding people willing to participate.
>>
Phineas Summerfeg - Sat, 12 May 2018 22:14:11 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209209 Reply
1526177651067.jpg -(151037B / 147.50KB, 1080x578) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209208
So many of the problems we have in the world today wouldn't exist if we had superior technology. Many of the things we fervently debate are made completely irrelevant by certain technologies, and most people don't seem to deny this point. So my question is, why don't people just focus on increasing the rate of technological progress as the most expedient political philosophy in general?
For example, why debate endlessly between capitalism and communism when we all know that post-scarcity manufacturing would make both obsolete and most people seem to agree it is possible and imminent?

It's like being fervently committed to a side in horses vs mules for moving carriages when you already know Benz is in the workshop putting together the first automobile. Why isn't everyone able to see the writing on the wall, say 'fuck horses AND mules' and go see if Benz needs a hand?
>>
Esther Hengerhidge - Sun, 13 May 2018 02:39:34 EST Irsa/pK4 No.209211 Reply
1526193574041.jpg -(251521B / 245.63KB, 914x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209209
You are correct. However we must consider the consequences of such progress.
For one, we must consider the finitude of certain resources. Oil us an example of a soon to be extinct resource. So what then of essentials like food?

This is why comprehensive studies and reviews are necessary of topography, seasons, and weather patterns. The public may participate if they can. Communal farming can be made possible on a grand scale with technological advancement, and our common man can be employed at such farms to maintain, grow, and harvest. However, this would require subsidies, which is undeniably possible provided the public is enabled and Monsanto does not interfere.

Politic Board

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 04 Mar 2018 10:10:22 EST pq+VuhoO No.208893
File: 1520176222269.jpg -(17989B / 17.57KB, 470x264) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Politic Board
Havent been on here in years? Anyone know what happened to /pol/?
37 posts and 6 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:06:29 EST SGCbMw+u No.209142 Reply
>>209140
Yeah cus a bunch of retards from /pol/ came here. Like /pol/ was literally where we quarantined the commies and politically active/politically retarded children, but then Spunky just haaaaad to start secretly banning literally every right-wing poster on /pol/ like a fascist dick, and then some of them went crying to 4-chin saying ‘hey let’s go to 420chan pol and troll these alt-left fascists that keep banning right-wing thought’ and then /pol/ became the worst cesspool it’s ever been and was deleted. And now the entire 420chan now has to deal with the faggots usually contained in /pol/ and they’re going to /pss/ and /b/ and shit.
>>
Hugh Sushshit - Wed, 02 May 2018 16:36:09 EST 4+oWREai No.209166 Reply
What really happened was people that go to sad-chan found this website and simply posted the vile they tend to post elsewhere. That vile isn't welcome here, so the bans were more than justified. The posts, over 90% of the time, went into the quackery and race baiting garbage you'd expect from orange-chan.

So because we had a political board with the same exact tagname from orange-chan, it often tended towards attracting their ilk and then they would spill over to the rest of the site. It was attracting alt-right/lite nutjobs; They didn't like getting banned so they took out their grief on the rest of the site.
>>
Charles Pellersodging - Wed, 02 May 2018 17:09:26 EST kon48sdM No.209167 Reply
>>209166
Yeah, as has been said many times ITT, faggots from 4chan and cripplechan mistakenly believe that all chan's will put up with their shit.

Most people don't actually have the kind of cognitive dissonance required to waste hours on end watching anime, playing video games and beating it to traps and tentacle porn while at the same time believing they have some moral conservative high ground.

I never let it get to me though. It's awful rich being called a "degenerate" for being bi and doing drugs by someone who never went to college, lives with their parents at age 25, masturbates 5 times a day and pisses in bottles.

"In a real fourth Reich you'll be the first to go" and all that.

dont hurt me

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:13:03 EST cR5+dCK2 No.209072
File: 1523488383497.jpg -(8916B / 8.71KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. dont hurt me
what is love?

I am kind of stuck with what I interpreted as a Nietzschean conception of Love. So basically in terms of determinate desire and full mutual power over the other.

Where am exploring right now but its hard to find anything is the phenomenology of love. What also would be interesting is a kind of history of love where one could see how malleable the conception is
3 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Phineas Dipperway - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:07:15 EST T1mjyx/4 No.209121 Reply
>>209112
there so many way to approach that shit. When I said power over the other its kind of one determines the others identity and ditto. how this happens no clue.

Think anybody this deep into philosophy to answer such a question is either anti social, dilluted by self imposed philosophcial dogma or doesnt think its worth exploring cuz its derivable from implicit statments from other philosophers
>>
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:20:02 EST SGCbMw+u No.209148 Reply
>>209072
OP, I think the issue with love is I think a lot of people love wrong. Plain and simple. They’re too stupid and too trapped within societal expectation to love properly. Hell, the vast majority of people who ‘loved’ me in my life all loved out of fear and selfishness. I didn’t care for it. Love stemming from fear and selfishness is disgusting. I only take part in love that stems from passion and altruism. And I’ve never been happier or more romantically/sexually active. And yes, I have multiple partners. I don’t care, and neither do they, because we’re not afraid nor selfish toward one another.
>>
Cornelius Subblepet - Sun, 29 Apr 2018 22:03:49 EST brei4qhw No.209153 Reply
>>209072
I think we could pare down the scope of debate if you would specify what kind of love we are talking about. As I'm sure you know the Greeks had several words for love;
are we talking about eros? Erotic, sexual love? (It seems so from the general discussion)
are we talking about philiae? Companionate love?
Or are we talking about love in a more abstract, universal sense? Like agape?

The only thing the different feelings have in common is the quality of the emotion they bring up, so to really analyze their causes and effects I think we need to specify particular types.

Am I wrong to be pissed off about reductionism in rhetoric?

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:17:38 EST VhdWon+z No.209054
File: 1523326658031.png -(249250B / 243.41KB, 500x491) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Am I wrong to be pissed off about reductionism in rhetoric?
Can- can I just through this out here while I'm baked enough to do so.

Am I an asshole for getting legitimately intellectually pissed off when I see some fucking reductionist bullshit either in Political news or otherwise?

I ultimately understand that from a "ethical" standpoint I should let people believe "that which they wish to" but when it's so fucking stupid and either morally or factually too simplistic or out of context or talking cross purposes or using logical fallacies or literally any god dam thing any rational person can think of.

Am I WRONG for getting actually "annoyed" on an intellectual level, not a personal one? I've studied, I'm read, I'm in college, I've suffered the bullshit of academia, I've been in this since BEFORE 2016. So- am- am I wrong to be insulted?
5 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Henry Blorringway - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:09:57 EST KdSY7mf7 No.209103 Reply
>>209088
OP means 'sophistry' when he says 'reductionism.' He does explain what's wrong with sophists, which everyone should already know.
>>
Jack Nattingsutch - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:41:38 EST VhdWon+z No.209105 Reply
>>209088
I did.

>>209103
Ish. Sophistry- as I understand it, implies that the argument is plausible. I have no issues with arguments that can be described as "incomplete" what I do, more specifically, have issues with are arguments which begin with an overly simplistic understanding of the subject matter (read: literally anything) and then proceed through the argument.
>>
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:15:09 EST SGCbMw+u No.209146 Reply
>>209105
OP, the less info and the less complexity used to argue something, the less logical it is. Reductionism always leads to greater illogic, always. Ever heard of Occam’s Razor? It’s ugly and everyone abuses it to win arguments.

God should be VAC b&

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 06 Feb 2018 12:54:26 EST xc7CY0zb No.208664
File: 1517939666716.jpg -(152017B / 148.45KB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. God should be VAC b&
God is a concept that defies logic and language.
30 posts and 6 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
William Hebbletid - Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:53:10 EST 8gq7GAVV No.209131 Reply
>>209130
>alue claim about the goodness of home, food, and drink

No you fucking retard. That's not a value claim. That's simply a physical necessity of your biological existence. You need a safe clean place to sleep, clean yourself and expel waste for your health, and you need food and drink to continue your existence. There is nothing to discuss on those points, they are cold hard biological facts.
You can go say "yeah but let's discuss the value claim on food and drink and sleep, but that's fucking bullshit because without it you fucking die a horrible death.

You have got a point on the second one, but it's only a slight point. Following dreams does require some philosophical thought on value, meaning etc. in a universe that lacks these. But you still don't need religion for any of those.
>>
Lydia Hecklekick - Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:33:28 EST bz58Upde No.209132 Reply
>>209131
Jesus why do you have to be so vitriolic. Here's my advice to you; stop doing a bunch of coke before you log onto /pss./ Pack exactly one marijuana, put it to your lips, ignite, and inhale before you post again.

>>That's not a value claim.
Yes, it is. I'm sorry this degenerated into Philo 101 but actually it's you who should be sorry so not really. It might be an extremely basic value claim that almost everyone would readily assent to without any argument, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a value claim. Did you never learn to analyze which parts of a philosophical statement are claims? (Have you never even been in an actual philosophy class? It's ok I won't tell.) If I were a nihilist, I would argue that it is an unwarranted leap to claim that you can ascribe 'goodness' to things that are intrinsically meaningless and only lengthen the amount of time you suffer before dying. And if those statements weren't philosophical value claims and I said that, you would literally have no recourse to defend your opinion. So you better damn well hope they are value claims!

If you want to follow this idea to a deeper level (and I don't mean you, because you will sperg out on some minor misplaced turn of phrase and never actually engage the substance of my comments, but I mean anyone else who may be reading) you could say that sentient (not sapient) life itself must make a value claim even in order to maintain biological existence. What I mean is, a cell maintains homeostasis completely instinctually...instinctual isn't even the right word as it doesn't really have discrete behaviors, it just exists and its various organelles operate. So it does not need to have the opinion that it is 'good' for it to continue eating to survive.
But, as soon as something has a brain stem big enough to coordinate complex behaviors and select between them, every living organism on earth must, at a fundamental, pre-verbal level, assent to the idea that it's daily quest for food is 'good'; it's neuronal pathways balance and coordinate desires and output from different brain regions to select the food seeking behavior over others. But it doesn't always happen this way. Sometimes, for various reasons, an animal will refuse to eat and starve. Even without making a claim about animal consciousness, we can say that the neuronal pathways of the animal in question altered their philosophical opinion about the value of food, thus even for animals these aren't just 'cold hard biological facts;' the idea that food is good, that life is good, is something that the information processing capacity of life constantly weighs out, and occasionally rejects. It's not a given, there's nothing intrinsic about life that says it *has* to seek survival (many organisms fundamentally fail to survive) so the claim that survival or any of the things necessary to it is a given that doesn't constitute a value claim is false.

>>does require some philosophical thought on value, meaning etc. in a universe that lacks these. But you still don't need religion for any of those.
To say that something has value and meaning we have to reach into the branch of philosophy that is metaphysics. We cannot get it from physics (using these terms in their Platonic distinctions.) And we're back to my earlier claim that you ignored that 'religion is metaphysics for the masses.' All religions are watered down metaphysical ideologies pre-packaged for mass consumption. Now that doesn't mean they are all equally valid or good, and the vast majority of them aren't. But if you say religion is useless as such, then you're basically saying metaphysical thinking is useless as such, which means you can only be a logically atomistic materialistic reductionist or else a nihilist, as all other philosophical stances become incoherent without metaphysics or are forced to hide their metaphysics in different places and claim that's not what it is.

Everything you are saying is in defense of some bullshit you claimed earlier which was clearly indefensible, and you were just hoping it wouldn't come up and you wouldn't actually have to defend it by chesting up and acting goofy. Essentially in order for us to be talking about the same thing and for you to win this argument you have to prove both that you don't use metaph…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:09:50 EST SGCbMw+u No.209144 Reply
>OP thinks humans are rational
There’s the giant hole in your argument, OP. Humans just believe whatever the fuck they want to believe.

Philosophers

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:06:00 EST jxB3eYCC No.209080
File: 1523639160033.jpg -(92333B / 90.17KB, 750x833) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Philosophers
Straight up, I’m sick of people quoting the same few philosophers 24/7. Like I’m in several debate groups and right now the only thing they’re willing to talk about is Stirner as if he’s the only good philosopher. I came in with some Gaddafi quotes and ideas and nobody has any interest in that, because nobody popular references Gaddafi or his philosophical work. Sup with that? You guys got any obscure philosophers you love?
3 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Nathaniel Shakelock - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:39:29 EST /tjfruPD No.209090 Reply
1523813969846.jpg -(145595B / 142.18KB, 960x735) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209080
John Cowper Powys seems pretty neat. Such as The Complex Vision (although I've barely delved into it) https://archive.org/details/complexvision00powy . Also works about Phenomenology, particularly from Merleau-Ponty https://archive.org/details/TheStructureOfBehaviour, but is that really that obscure though? I was introduced to Phenomenology through The Spell of the Sensuous https://archive.org/details/AbramTheSpellOfTheSensuousPerceptionAndLanguageInAMoreThanHumanWorld, an ecological philosophical book. Some of those ideas are opening up into a kinda new field of study and practice of ecopsychology, which has some philosophical underpinnings.

>>209087
Obscure to most. What you're ignoring is that dialogue did occur between thinkers of that time and within niche fields, influencing others even outside that dialogue. Besides, popularity doesn't determine validity.
>>
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:02:54 EST SGCbMw+u No.209141 Reply
>>209087
Lol wow dude, you’re actually arguing against reading philosophy that isn’t mainstream, and you’ve even got stupid reasoning backing it up.
Good job. You’re one of the idiots who constantly repeat the same bullshit as everyone else with no ability to think freely.

Race: Harris, Pinker, Murray et al vs. Klein, Turkheimer, Harden et al

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 20 Apr 2018 02:04:12 EST GM3Biux6 No.209133
File: 1524204252461.jpg -(173373B / 169.31KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Race: Harris, Pinker,  Murray et al vs. Klein, Turkheimer, Harden et al
I'm going to start this out with a call to extreme discretion when it comes to the subject matter, its underlying data, and its implications. I would prefer those who are genetic reductionists- or even more troublesome 'racial' essentialists, and those who are environmental reductionists to reconsider posting here. Here is a timeline, just to give some context (the timeline, or the he-said:she-said drama, is not what is important here, but it's necessary to get it out of the way first).
>September 1994:
Murray and Herrnstein publish The Bell Curve; Hernnstein dies shortly thereafter
>April 2017:
Harris interviews Murray on Harris' Waking Up podcast, in an episode titled 'Forbidden Knowledge'. One of the topics discussed was the lack of due diligence practiced by some critics of The Bell Curve
>May 2017:
Turkheimer, Harden, and Nisbett release an OpEd on Vox titled 'Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ' and subheaded 'Podcaster and author Sam Harris is the latest to fall for it', critical of the podcast between Harris and Murray
>March 2018:
Klein releases an article on Vox titled 'Sam Harris, Charles Murray, and the allure of race science', and subheaded 'This is not “forbidden knowledge.” It is America’s most ancient justification for bigotry and racial inequality'
>April 2018:
Harris discusses with Klein on Harris' Waking Up podcast, in an episode titled 'Identity & Honesty'
>Peppered throughout this debacle
Pinker peppered his support for Harris
>Topics for discussion:
What did Harris, Murray, and/or Pinker get right?
What did Harris, Murray, and/or Pinker get wrong?
What did Harris, Murray, and/or Pinker neglect to mention that would have aided his/their claims?
What did Harris, Murray, and/or Pinker omit that would have detrimented his/their claims?
What did Klein and/or Turkheimer, Harden, and Nisbett get right?
What did Klein and/or Turkheimer, Harden, and Nisbett get wrong?
What didKlein and/or Turkheimer, Harden, and Nisbett neglect to mention that would have aided his/their claims?
What did Klein and/or Turkheimer, Harden, and Nisbett omit that would have detrimented his/their claims?
1 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Lillian Hacklekod - Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:53:04 EST bz58Upde No.209135 Reply
1/3 of the threads on the front page of this board are about race. Enough.
>>
Charlotte Nungershaw - Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:56:06 EST GM3Biux6 No.209136 Reply
1524275766471.jpg -(29475B / 28.78KB, 640x255) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209134
Excellent points. I'll highlight what I thought was germane to your post:
>1 world who believes all things should be known regardless of how such knowledge is used. And another world of people who believe ideas should be repressed if they are used unethically.

Harris seems to come from the tradition of English Liberalism/The Enlightenment (Mills et al.) Get the data first, sift out what is junk, analyze it, form models upon it, and test the models against each other and reality. Then and only then may moral frameworks be set up from all that (a la The Moral Landscape).

Klein, on the other hand, has a moral basis in mind when it comes to data accumulation, data analysis, and data dissemination. To him, it seems worth it due to the incendiary nature of the subject matter, but people such as Harris (and myself for that matter) are flabbergasted. How could Klein et al morally dismiss or dampen knowledge on a subject without sufficient knowledge from it? And how could he get sufficient knowledge of it if he morally dismisses or dampens key components?

This goes right back to the Peterson-Harris debate, where Harris deconstructed Peterson's true:correct dichotomy through various scenarios (e.g. the cheating spouse). Klein, however, seems to be even more devious than Peterson. Instead of ceding ground that these models may be correct, but not 'true', he waffles back and forth on whether or not they are correct and in which areas they may be correct or erroneous.
>>
Charlotte Nungershaw - Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:57:26 EST GM3Biux6 No.209137 Reply
>>209135
WADR, I checked each and every page on this board before making this post, and none of the threads seemed to be discussing this topic cogently, especially through the lens of Harris et al vs Klein et al nobump

this cunt

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:37:13 EST XRtggDpr No.208623
File: 1516876633072.jpg -(5723B / 5.59KB, 256x162) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. this cunt
so Jordan Peterson has recently been interviewed on britains channel 4 by Cathy Newman and there has been a substantial reaction to it. Peterson's fanboys are all claiming his victory as if this interview was a major debate. I'm going to try and summarise it so that we can all critique the ideas as much as we want and give our opinions, discuss etc. There was a thread about this on /b/ but I thought i'd move the topic here to /pss/. btw here s a link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
the yellowtext below is jordans answers


Newman: you've said men need to grow up, why?
>because theres nothing good about it and men are left useless and miserable if they dont take responsibility over their lives.
A crisis of masculinity, what do you do about it?
>you tell them to grow up and take responsibility, live a life worth living
the majority of your listeners is male?
>yes apparently. Men have something to offer and set the world straight.
what's gone wrong then?
> all sorts of things, men never receive encouragement. Men are starving for my message,

[2:30] does it bother you that 80% of your audience is male
>no, it's just the way it is.
whats in it for women then?
> well men are their partners so they have an interest in men's well-being.
so you're saying women have a duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity?
>depends if they want competent men and partners. If you don't want that you want a partner you can dominate.

[3:45] so women want to dominate is that what youre saying?
>no i'm saying women will settle for a weak partner who have had impaired relationships with men
do you think alot of women are doing this?
>I think a substantial minority of women do that and it's very bad for them
how can you say that? maybe women want that, it's a vast generalisation
>I'm a clinical psychologist
So you've done the research and its shows women are unhappy dominating men?
>I didnt say they were unhappy, i said it was a bad long term solution, it might make them happy in the short term.

[5:00] it seems to alot of women that they are still being dominated
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
225 posts and 44 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Fuck Drevingdore - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 04:34:20 EST Nwy2IF3I No.209074 Reply
1523522060553.jpg -(51343B / 50.14KB, 540x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209070
>That's not meaning, you retard.
2018 and people calling anyone with a different point of view a retard. Philosophy has come a long way hasn't it.

>That's just math and physics combining into "the easiest and most effective way how to stack bricks."
If you take everything at face value you would reach this conclusion but it is very ignorant to argue that this is all that is happening. The Egyptians built pyramids to honor their dead and 1 pyramid was for 1 person. The idea was that bigger pyramids would be for people who were revered greatly in life and the gods would be appeased by that. So lets not take this pyramid building at face value because its full of meaning too.
>>
Wesley Hunkinfuck - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 04:52:42 EST ogjfl7YN No.209075 Reply
>>209074
>lets not take this pyramid building at face value because its full of meaning too
>The Egyptians built pyramids to honor their dead

And the Aztecs built them as temples or palaces or any number of things. The point is not that those cultures had no reason for building them. The point is that that reason is disconnected from them being built in a pyramidal shape. A monument for the dead doesn't necessitate it be in the shape of a pyramid. However, if you want to stack big stones with only slaves and ropes, it'll be easiest and strongest if you do it in pyramid.

>that this is all that is happening.
I'm not saying that it's all that is happening. My point is that in saying "both cultures built pyramids therefor pyramids must have intrinsic meaning" is conflating meaning with the practical limitations of physics. I'm sure if Ancient Egyptians had modern construction equipment, they would have built something very different to honour their dead.
>>
Matilda Nubblestuck - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:50:44 EST /KXzHYRx No.209078 Reply
>>209071
Most people are ignorant of the sapient/sentient distinction so I was using sentient as a catch all. However, I don't know if I entirely agree with your premise.

I think, in order to colonize space, a sentient computerized fungus would need to understand the 'meaning' of existence about as well as we do if it was indeed colonizing by means of starship rather than some natural process. It would need to be aware of what it was any why to understand that it needed to get off world, at least as minimally as we do.

And I mean, by the definition of an alien intelligence much, much more sapient than we are, we might hardly seem more aware of our surroundings and the meaning of our own existence than even an ordinary fungus...

>>209073
>>of course there's going to be semantics
Well there's a difference between discussions on meaning have a semantic component and hiding behind mere semantics.

The two "mutually exclusive" statements you quote are by two different people, so the whole segment is irrelevant.

Anyway, you are conflating different definitions of the term 'meaning' which is why I think you are coming across problems. For example you are conflating the 'meaning' of meaning which is 'the sense of a term' where sun = bright fusion ball, and the 'meaning' of meaning which is 'the purpose or function of a thing' where sun = God.

My basic point is that while alien life certainly won't have exactly the same interpretations of what meaning means and what means what as we do, there will still be a need for 'meaning' in order to categorize their existence, and in broad strokes a lot of the things will be the same. Many of them will live around giant exploding fusion balls. Many of them will in their primitive stages conflate the idea of a unified sustaining ball of fired with a unified organizing external consciousness, and the influence of this idea will stretch far into their futures.

>>ants have symbolic comunication
Animal communication is distinct from language. That's just a basic fact you should know and can look up. The key difference is that humans can invent new signs and signals, whereas all other animals have a fixed number of signs they can use, so they aren't arbitrarily symbolic and generative. Conflating the intelligence of ants and humans doesn't get you out of this bind either. You should study Hofstadter's system of categorizing the intelligence of systems by their level of recursiveness.

As a simple example, a toilet is an intelligent system. It 'knows' how much water it has in it, and maintains an internal equilibrium in order to keep that water level within a consistent range. A single cell is an intelligent system; it manages an internal environment to maintain homeostasis against an external environment. But we can measure just how much less information processing capacity a toilet or worm has than a cat or a human, in surprisingly precise terms. That they all may be classed as intelligent systems, yet that we are the only one of them has ever harped on about 'meaning' is unremarkable. We are the only one that talks about anything; yet they all have, for their own purposes and within their own scope, a utility for 'meaning.' The 'meaning of life' for a human may be to struggle to comprehend life as a limited biological organism containing an unlimited infinite subjective interiority in a constant search for meaning, and the 'meaning of life' for a toilet may be to fill with water to get shit in, and there's no contradiction in that.

>>Can the colony have a concept of meaning that the individual ant does not?
It expresses a deeper meaning while having a shallower consciousness of it. The individual ant has sensation, pain, hunger, excitement, so it has a, very small, interior sense of its own life. There is 'something it is to be like' an ant. Yet the ant has no idea what it's really doing or why. It doesn't know why it makes the tunnels, it doesn't know why it carries the larvae, and it definitely doesn't understand that without all the other ants working together, it couldn't survive at all.
So in that sense it knows less than the colony, which has all kinds of knowledge -- it is reactive the geographic and climatic conditions, it is capable of responding…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Bush Say's He Is An "Exception" To The Law.

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 02 Apr 2018 17:23:10 EST LahQAHJd No.209002
File: 1522704190158.jpg -(144714B / 141.32KB, 805x448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Bush Say's He Is An "Exception" To The Law.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3603.htm

Obey the law and keep Bush off the Illinois ballot, say state Libertarians

06/03/03: (LP) Illinois should obey its ballot access laws -- and keep President George W. Bush off the 2004 ballot.

So said the Libertarian Party of Illinois, after Republicans revealed that they would not nominate their 2004 presidential candidate until seven days after the Illinois deadline for certifying candidates for the November ballot.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has requested that the Illinois State Board of Elections ignore the law, and place President Bush's name on the ballot anyway.

"The Republican Party needs to abide by the same rule of law as everyone else," said Illinois LP Executive Director Jeff Trigg. "You can be sure if the tables were turned -- and it was the Libertarians nominating their presidential candidate seven days after the deadline -- they wouldn't lift a finger to help us stay on the ballot."

The Republican Party will nominate its presidential candidate -- almost certain to be incumbent George W. Bush, who faces no significant opposition and has already announced he will seek re-election -- at its national convention on September 3, 2004. That's 61 days before the November 2 general election.

However, Illinois state election law requires presidential candidates to be certified at least 67 days prior to the general election.

In response, the RNC has asked the State Board of Elections (SBE) to grant them an "exception" to the law. The board said it would consider the request at an upcoming meeting after getting a legal opinion from Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

But Libertarians said the State Board of Elections does not have the authority to grant exemptions -- and thus arbitrarily decide which political parties must follow the law.

At a press conference in the State Capitol Press Room in Springfield on May 19, Trigg said the only way Bush can qualify for the ballot is if the Illinois General Assembly changes the law.

"The SBE should not have the authority to arbitrarily change deadlines in the election laws to accommodate any candidate," he said. "Anything short of legislation passing through the General Assembly to solve this problem is blatantly wrong."

Noting that Libertarian candidates have been kept off the ballot in the past because of restrictive ballot access laws, Trigg said the law should be enforced equally.

"Libertarians don't believe President Bush should be kept off the Illinois ballot because of a technicality, any more than they believe their own candidates should suffer the same fate," he said. "But the fact is that Libertarian and other candidates have been taken off the ballot on technicalities -- and the Republican Party needs to abide by the same rule of law as everyone else."

If the SBE does grant Bush an exemption to the law, it will merely prove that Illinois has a "double standard," said Trigg.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Phoebe Bindlepodge - Tue, 03 Apr 2018 11:19:00 EST wb7Rwj19 No.209012 Reply
>>209002
Dunno why you’re posting news from 2003 but Trump definitely does the same thing.
In fact his lawyers’ defense in the Zervos case was literally “he’s the president so he can’t face charges”. Despite the legal precedent set by many other presidents.
>>
William Parryfield - Wed, 04 Apr 2018 12:29:56 EST qofsR6ta No.209020 Reply
>>209002
In the U.S narcism is virtue. This is well reflected in these institutional loopholes.

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.