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


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated July 26)

Leftism and the bounds of political correctness

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 29 May 2017 19:41:21 EST esq3c4wi No.208164
File: 1496101281651.jpg -(94718B / 92.50KB, 420x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Leftism and the bounds of political correctness
Source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/29/evergreen-state-college-president-expresses-gratit/

Is there anyone here is who is on the side of the protesters here? I cannot for the life of me conjure a justification for this nonsense
47 posts and 5 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Polly Gaffingfoot - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 03:32:31 EST Ya59RsKY No.208217 Reply
>>208216
If you had bothered to respond to my question about bathrooms, I would've explained the connection (which should already be painfully obvious without needing to even state it.) That's called the Socratic method, argumentation in a circle.

>>keep this up and i too will be checking regularly. pure schadenfreude.
Until you start posting like a normal contributing /pss/ poster, with at least *some* degree of thought and pretense at dialectic before going off on shit posting tangents (which is how most posters here operate) you can guarantee I will be up your ass and harassing you every single time you post. You're disrupting the discussion I was hoping to have in this thread, even though I'm not even OP. Obviously we're not going to get that now, but if you learn your lesson, maybe eventually this thread can become not shit again (actually it was always shit, but it took quite a dive with your posts, which is saying something) and hopefully you won't do it to any other threads.
>>
Nell Hunkinwater - Tue, 06 Jun 2017 04:32:13 EST +XN4QoUK No.208218 Reply
>>208217

spiteful little prick arent you. sad. have this "discussion" you wish to have with yourself, thats really what you wanted to do. talk about going full circle.

Concision

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 30 Apr 2017 22:40:11 EST Sc8Oin8v No.208079
File: 1493606411302.jpg -(133341B / 130.22KB, 650x650) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Concision
Following the Anger Masturbation thread's theme of examining how to have better discussions, I'd like to discuss, or at least mention, concision. Often the most thoughtful posts on /pss/ are also some of the longest. I suspect that less people read them because of their length, and I imagine that this issue is worse yet when people are trying to read through a full back-and-forth in a thread. For the vast majority of you who concern yourselves with effective communication, I remind you to edit your posts down for concision when able.
9 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Phineas Drorrykane - Mon, 29 May 2017 20:42:59 EST CTxDZjmw No.208166 Reply
>>208130
Translation:
Moving forward is tough. We like to use big words to stop normies from knowing what we're saying. That seems to slow us down though.
>>
Charlotte Sagglechotch - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 10:55:08 EST tqlhDf06 No.208176 Reply
>>208166
He makes a good point. Look at chemistry, philosophy, or music theory. The use of "big words" in these fields is out of necessity, not pompousness, and this is true for many other fields of study as well. The one real problem with this specialization is, as he points out, that problems arise due to stagnation and inaccuracy when they cut themselves off too much.
>>
Phineas Nickleson - Fri, 02 Jun 2017 19:59:45 EST Ya59RsKY No.208184 Reply
1496447985384.jpg -(88174B / 86.11KB, 1000x667) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Thread on concision
Is itself very concise
Parsimony reigns

On The Nature of Evil

View Thread Reply
!oj3475yHBQ - Sat, 18 Feb 2017 02:19:24 EST drDI4Zd2 No.207739
File: 1487402364691.jpg -(637399B / 622.46KB, 709x1262) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. On The Nature of Evil
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.


Love comes from the repression of desire, Evil comes from the repression of ego. When one must repress what one considers to be his/her identity, then the personality fractures in denial, and because it goes into denial the emotional transference of the situation cannot be faced, so in place of resolution and growth one finds stagnancy. When one desires, it builds passion and want within the individual. When said desire is released, so is the passion and emotional state connected with the desire. Males desire what they want, so when they get it they loose the love they desired in the first place. Woman desire what they cannot get, so the more they desire the more they love. This is why a Woman can love everyone, while a man can love everyone for a time.

On the subject of food:
Everyone eats food, and what one observes as to the favorite food of snakes is that they prefer to eat when their prey is most afraid. If the prey cannot think past their own emotions, they become overwhelmed by instinctual fear and can be easily lead into a trap. Traps are designed t…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
5 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Betsy Begglemork - Wed, 08 Mar 2017 05:38:15 EST hvs4h/ox No.207849 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.

When people say get a grip, or reach for the brass ring, or reach for anything.

attachment, recognition leading to cognition, inference in the position of deference.

Tao vs the abyss or nothingness. Being in a void.

Hanuman, Sun Wukong, fighting to be able to validate that he can do what he does do.

That is love and desire. From a position of desire even with the possibility of being fooled with the concept of a chain or a balance we can understand how we would exist in these circumstances.

But that would be conscious thought or the struggle to lead the life one wants and the way to find satisfaction in the life one has.

Kind of like the position of the ego when it finds itself having to explain why it is happy or why it would be.
>>
Jarvis Blinnerspear - Fri, 19 May 2017 23:48:26 EST U9scTQrw No.208155 Reply
The eye that sees evil is evil.

Philosophical anime

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:44:49 EST 54PBc7Id No.205314
File: 1457981089298.jpg -(7241B / 7.07KB, 300x168) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Philosophical anime
Anybody got any philosophically deep anime recommendations?
47 posts and 10 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Walter Shakewill - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:58:36 EST 54PBc7Id No.207966 Reply
>>207878
Gurren Lagann was quite a tale. It had many twists and turns, many true moral dilemmas. It was very well-done. Truly, Kill La Kill pales in comparison to TTGL in terms of philosophy, but Kill La Kill was fun in it's own way; the director was really showing off his animation and just having fun satiring the shonen community. Truly a show for stoners.

I recently re-watched Shin Sekai Yori (From the New World). What a fantastic show. What makes it especially fantastic is that the protagonist slowly learns the true nature of her village, the last bastion of civilization, is a totalitarian/fascist community, and at first she fights against this, thinking her society wrong for slaying innocents and such, yet as she grows and experiences more of the chaotic nature of life, she eventually realizes that this totalitarian/fascist way of life is truly the only way to survive. This anime truly flips morality on it's head and shows that what we consider just and right is merely reflective of how humanity is doing, and that as humanity declines, so must our rights as individuals in favor of the majority, because civilization must survive over the individual.

And then you've got fucking movies like Snow Piercer where, when faced with a dilemma between old-school morality and the utter survival of the human race, the hero chooses old-school morality and damns humanity to death merely for not living up to his standards of justice. In choosing between one young and innocent boy sacrificing himself to a life of torture for the sake of keeping society alive, the protagonist opts to save the boy and allow humanity as a whole to crumble and die.
>>
Jarvis Blinnerspear - Fri, 19 May 2017 23:46:35 EST U9scTQrw No.208154 Reply
>>205314
In my opinion, none of them are "philosophically deep" because that's not their purpose, and in comparison to actual philosophical works (which are all books), they're all horribly shallow. That goes for anime and manga.

But, Berserk draws heavily from Nietzsche and from western media that drew from Nietzsche. Vagabond has some neat concepts of course based on Musashi. Akira is a little Nietzsche inspired. Eden: It's An Endless World tries to establish connections to Gnosticism. That's all I can think of at the moment.
>>
Ian Bliddlefoot - Sat, 20 May 2017 15:11:56 EST ChAktkJf No.208156 Reply
>>208154
it's disappointing how after all the moral social and philosophical ranting the ending lesson of Eden was just "lol have hope things will get better if you have hope". He really sort of gave up halfway through, perhaps earlier. I don't think that guy had any idea what he wanted to do with that series to begin with., he just liked robots killing each other and spewing ideology and quotes he doesn't fully understand. the gnostic stuff seemed more like window dressing to me, like how evangelion uses it. dude's got talent but no focus.

frankfurt school

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 05 Mar 2017 19:09:16 EST ypqGZf3j No.207836
File: 1488758956835.jpg -(76895B / 75.09KB, 776x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. frankfurt school
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?
90 posts and 11 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.

If Muslims were White

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 04 Apr 2017 09:40:56 EST 54PBc7Id No.207974
File: 1491313256272.jpg -(65536B / 64.00KB, 645x484) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. If Muslims were White
100% serious question, this is about how society responds to race.

How would the conversation about Muslims change if they weren't mostly brown, but instead mostly white?
Like, what if the 9/11 guys were white, and all these people fighting in the ME were white, all the people bombing India and Malaysia were white, all the people who were banned by Trump were white? What if the people wearing Burqas that were being banned were all white?
How would people react? What would they say?
49 posts and 8 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Jenny Dungerspear - Mon, 08 May 2017 08:32:51 EST 54PBc7Id No.208126 Reply
>>208097
So kind of you, Syn, to tell both of us to stop fighting when this jagoff just came up to me austistically screeching while I was actively discussion philosophy.
Just lump me, the one philosophizing, in with the "GO BACK TO 4SKIN" thread derailers.

Game of Thrones

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:02:01 EST 54PBc7Id No.207967
File: 1491228121844.jpg -(824344B / 805.02KB, 1400x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Game of Thrones
Let's talk about a subject everyone can understand; Game of Thrones.
Who your favorite GoT characters are, in my opinion, says a lot about who you are as a person.

Of course, my favorite character by far is Cersei Lannister. She truly deserves the Iron Throne. I originally loved Robert Baratheon, Ed Stark and Drogo, but they all died on me very quickly. Now, after all 6 seasons, I have to say that Cersei is truly an amazing character. I also loved Ramsay Bolton very much, as he was the sort of Hannibal Lecter of Westeros. His antics often ended with me proclaiming aloud, 'Oh Ramsay.'
>>
Walter Shakewill - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 10:05:26 EST 54PBc7Id No.207968 Reply
To tackle this subject from a philosophical point of view, I guess it's just impressive to see how much willpower Cersei has. Cersei is definitely a fearless hedonist with more emotional strength than any of the other characters. She never makes half-hearted moves, and she never tells the truth. Truly, she is a warrior woman like Robert Barathion, only Robert was a warrior on the battlefield while Cersei is a warrior at politics, a titan behind closed-doors.
>>
Walter Donningforth - Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:38:31 EST KvXjjDsO No.208006 Reply
My favorite philosophical meaning is between Ned stark and vaerys before ned stark's eventual beheading. Where vaerys tries to explain his understanding of this as preternaturally related to his time in a theatrical troupe. And how he understands power and the realm the same way.
>>
Ian Blythestock - Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:42:27 EST Z08uqMmD No.208011 Reply
My favorite character is Tyrion. I guess I find him relateable since I'm more of a behind the scenes type of leader, but he's pragmatic, a tactician, and takes the lead when he has to make difficult decisions for what he believes is the correct reasons.

Cersei is definitely a boss and a half and I have alot of respect for her "no half-measures" approach.

I liked Jon Snow alot in the books, but I feel like he's not been done justice in the show. He's a warrior baptized in fire, never groomed for leadership but assumed it because he was needed, rejecting tradition in favor of survival.

I guess that's what truly connects all of them for me, they were unassuming, thrust into great trials that challenged their lives, and rose above the adversity more powerful and defiant in the face of death.

They are all true survivors.

Danaerys is too emotional for me with her decision making. Which contradicts me support of Jon Snow since he ruined his well entrenched position vs the Bolton's to save his brother, but it's his brother ya know? I mean, I can let that slide. It'd be hard to watch a little sibling be massacred in front of you and doing nothing about it.

Zoroastrianism

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 15 Jan 2017 03:26:24 EST Vz5f1vq5 No.207599
File: 1484468784066.gif -(617831B / 603.35KB, 320x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Zoroastrianism
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?
7 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Ghengis Dong - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:20:08 EST mQSzo9rp No.207952 Reply
1490761208047.jpg -(16427B / 16.04KB, 236x238) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207950
>Did you get all that info from the site you linked?

Yup. But when I read over my post, I notice a couple necessary revisions and poorly worded parts which irk the shit out of me:

"Old Avesta" is not a historical term, but commonly refers to the original Gathas.

Our oldest manuscripts that reference them come from Hellenic Era scholars.

During the Arsacid, Seleucid ,and Parthian Empires (reign varied throughout the region, but roughly 3rd century BC to 3rd century AD), long periods of foreign rule and strife led to movements which attempted to reclaim/revive the heritage of the Achaemenid Empire (pre-Hellenic Persia) and its holy texts (the gathas).

The Sasanian Empire rising in the 3rd century AD would enforce a strict codified form of the religion which venerated these texts, the gathas, still preserved in archaic old -Persian from centuries prior (sometimes referred to itself as the old-Avesta).

In addition they would compile the bulk of the "Yasna", hymns and rituals deemed canon, which includes practices developed in the later Parthian period (hence why it differs linguistically and has been informally referred to as the "young-avesta")

Much of this literature would be lost during the muslim conquest of Persia, and later rediscovered by medieval and (eventually) modern scholars, further adding to the confusion.

Sorry it's a lot of information to condense. I swear my next post will actually cover the teachings and practices laid out in these texts. Philology just gets me hard I guess
>>
Ghengis Dong - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 14:46:48 EST taL6BOqF No.207969 Reply
1491245208202.jpg -(11210B / 10.95KB, 267x188) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>207952
Kay I'll begin with an examination of the original gathas:

In these verses Zoroaster gives devotion to Ahura-Mazda. The supreme being. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ahura-mazda

"Some of the words spoken of Ahura Mazdā (aka: Ohrmuzd) in the Avesta have echoes in Vedic celebrations of Mitra and Varuṇa. In one evidently archaic verse (Y. 41.3) his worshippers say to him, “We establish Thee as the god possessing good supernatural power (maya-), zealous, accompanied by aša,” while in the Gāthās Zoroaster hails him as “all-seeing” (Y. 45.4) and “seeing afar” (Y. 33.13), the one “whom none deceives” (Y. 43.6). The prophet also speaks of him as “clad in hardest stone” i.e. the sky (Y. 30.5), although he also uses terms which suggest an anthropomorphic concept, in keeping with general Indo-Iranian religious tradition, e.g. “the tongue of Thy mouth” (Y. 31.3, cf. Y. 28.11), “the hand with which Thou holdest. . .” (Y. 43.4). Zoroaster gave a wholly new dimension to his worship, however, by hailing him as the one uncreated God (Y. 30.3, 45.2), wholly wise, benevolent and good, Creator as well as upholder of aša

aša is Truth and is the highest virtue. It is counterposed by "drug" (sometimes "druj") the Lie. All evil stems from deception. Just as Mazda is the uncreated manifestation of truth and virtue he has an uncreated counterpart or 'twin' in the form of Angra Mainyu (aka: Ahriman).

"This is the Hostile Spirit, Angra Mainyu. Zoroastrian tradition (e.g., Bundahišn 1.3) states plainly what is adumbrated in the Gāthās, that Ahura Mazdā became the Creator (Av. Dadvah, Dātār, Pahl. Dādār)—this being his constant appellation—to destroy Angra Mainyu, and so to achieve a universe that was wholly good. In one Gathic verse he is said to have achieved creation by his “thought” (Y. 31.11), but elsewhere his instrument is said to have been his Holy or Bounteous Spirit, Spənta Mainyu"

The first of Ahura Mazdā’s creative acts was to emanate the six great Beings known from the tradition as the Aməša Spəntas ("ahuras" or Spirits in the original gathas). These along with Spənta Mainyu make 7 divine entities but it's not strictly speaking polytheistic

"The relationship of Ahura Mazdā to the six Aməša Spəntas is again a subtle one, and its closeness is expressed metaphorically by the prophet when he calls Ahura Mazdā the father of Aša and of Vohu Manah... but it is conveyed even more vividly by his addressing Ahura Mazdā now [sic] as “Thou,” now (when he conceives of him together with one or more of the Aməša Spəntas)

The cosmogony is preserved in later Pahlavi texts:
"He (Mazda)first shaped his creations in a spiritual (mēnōg) state, in the form of “bright, white fire” (Bundahišn 1.44). The creations remained in this state for 3,000 years. In the meantime Ahriman made his demonic creatures out of darkness. He then attacked the luminous world. Finally, the two spirits made a treaty (paymānag) to wage war for a limited period of time (a speculative duration of 9,000 or 12,000 years is given) in a well-defined arena: the world. The three stages in the cosmic drama were the (material) creation (bundahišn), which began with the treaty; the mixture (gumēzišn) of good and evil; and the separation (wizārišn) of evil from good. The last stage, however, was to fall outside historical time."

"The period of (material) creation, also to last 3,000 years, began after the treaty, when Mazda recited the Ahunwar (Av. Ahuna Vairiia) prayer, revealing to Ahriman his ultimate defeat and causing him to fall back into the darkness in a stupor, which lasted for the entire period of the creation. During this time Ohrmazd fashioned his creations in material (gētīg) form, by celebrating a “spiritual yasna” (Bundahišn 3.23). He placed each creation under the protection of one of the seven Amahraspands (Av. Aməša Spənta). First he created the sky (protected by Šahrewar, Av. Xšaθra Vairiia), which enclosed the world like the shell of an egg (cf. Bailey, pp. 135-36). The second creation was water (protected by Hordād, Av. Haurvatāt), which filled the lower half of the “egg.” The third creation, earth (protected by Spandārmad, Av. Spənta Ārmaiti), shaped like a flat disk, floated on the primeval waters. On it stood the fourth, fifth, and sixth creations, respectively the single plant or tree (protected by Amurdād; Av. Amərətāt), the uniquely cr…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Ghengis Dong - Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:04:31 EST taL6BOqF No.207971 Reply
>>207969
sorry for so many problems with the characters/accents. When the thread is expanded it reads as normal.

nb

"Ethics"

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

http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-crispr-cas9

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 d4DXKOh3 No.207871 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 4+oWREai No.207900 Reply
>>207869
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!
>>
Nathaniel Trotstock - Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:34:27 EST USA6SDn7 No.207956 Reply
Being afraid of "playing god" is for people haunted by spooks.

CRISPR everyone up, fam.

Family

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 08 Mar 2017 10:30:15 EST 54PBc7Id No.207850
File: 1488987015842.jpg -(47743B / 46.62KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Family
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?
9 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Frederick Driblingtack - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:57:38 EST TZEgBuHq No.207932 Reply
>>207931

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 Ya59RsKY No.207933 Reply
>>207931
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 enthusiasming harder.
>>
Isabella Brucklespear - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:00:54 EST uRNFOzYS No.207954 Reply
>>207931
I disagree with you too, but not for David's reasons. I think that natural selection can seem like "a lack of a process" in that randomness has a huge effect on it, however on an evolutionary scale, myriad traits have substantial effects on the results of selection. Not trying to be a dick just aiming for max autis

What do you think of a real life vigilante?

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:50:01 EST MTaj+oHu No.207586
File: 1484365801125.png -(216720B / 211.64KB, 500x281) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. What do you think of a real life vigilante?
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.
41 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Alice Charringwater - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:10:38 EST Ya59RsKY No.207845 Reply
>>207840
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 YXMsMuFM No.207853 Reply
>>207840

>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.

Now that's an interestingly typical American angle. It's ok for the police to act brutally if the perp was being a total asshole in your eyes? Remember, the police is supposed to uphold the law and justice, not dish out what is deserved.

> 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
>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 extremely stupid.

Yes, really idiotic, but it's telling that you imply support to the police's actions in this anecdotal case. It was a little kid ffs. The fact that your police were capable of just shooting him down should scream out to you the kind of dangerous threat-mentality that exist among the police in America.

I'll give you another anecdotal case: I saw a documentary about American police and in one of their ops they were swatting some guy they were sure were selling drugs. They came in in full military gear, with a military grade armored car the district had bought from the army, smashing windows and shit. What they got was 1.5 grams of weed. They found nothing else but a brick-shitting family and their weed-smoking son. Who got 800$ seized btw because they still suspected the house was a drug hive.

Now sure, the son might've well been selling weed and being smart about it, but Jesus Christ. They can just do that, smash windows and doors and seize cash on a mere suspicion? Land of the Free riiiight?
>>
Nell Shakewater - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 05:06:38 EST hvs4h/ox No.207938 Reply
>>207828
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.

Now imagine that "public" is the entire town or actual public. Not a building or a school.

Now take the police officer who operates by the idea that people would complain the way a white suburban neighborhood would, regardless of if he's racist. Then sees your hair sees you are black, sees condensation on windows. He literally assumes that as the likely result.

He also believes he can read body language.

All in all when he's on camera he looks like he has a james bond complex and the entire situation was a person who was completely un preprared and prepared in a way that was completely unreasonable.

Out of expectations that fit a pattern that hasn't been concrete in the location he is actually in.

Psychoanalysis

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:41:04 EST cpwKmCz1 No.207810
File: 1488339664504.jpg -(79804B / 77.93KB, 843x917) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Psychoanalysis
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?
2 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 06:27:19 EST 3OceFGwp No.207824 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 disciples and epigones that surrounded him in his later years has much of the appearance of a nascent cult, ended only by his death; when Lacan began to suffer extended aphasic episodes as a result of his deteriorating mental faculties, some students attempted to interpret his silence through the lens of his theory.
>>
Hamilton Desslespear - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 20:05:33 EST Ya59RsKY No.207847 Reply
>>207824
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 3OceFGwp No.207848 Reply
>>207847
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

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:21:07 EST fk7xMmwU No.207331
File: 1480432867070.jpg -(37129B / 36.26KB, 263x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. The Decline of The West
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?
49 posts and 6 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Eugene Goodham - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:54:26 EST Ya59RsKY No.207832 Reply
>>207826
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 reached in the first place, and the whole thing would unravel, because the 'right' was not built on any kind of reasonable foundation that stems form the needs of subjective being, and is in fact contrary to a more fundamental, actual right. It might take centuries, especially if the right has a religious justification, but eventually the rights a society offers will progress in the direction of these kind of basic, universal rights (the long arc of justice.) And it almost never goes in the opposite direction, where a society that once offered people say, the right of freedom of movement, to rescind that right, and if it does it almost always leads to a societal collapse. If the social contract were truly arbitrary, we wouldn't expect it to have these properties, we would instead expect societies to have completely random compositions of rights, and for there to be no consistent pattern in their adoption and removal.
>>
Alice Charringwater - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:27:02 EST Ya59RsKY No.207846 Reply
>>207841
>>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 courage to back them up, instead of running away every time someone actually pushes back with a reasoned argument.

If the Bible is the word of God

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:43:35 EST oxJMfop8 No.201897
File: 1438037015710.jpg -(240556B / 234.92KB, 489x725) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. If the Bible is the word of God
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?
70 posts and 5 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Esther Grimfield - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:24:03 EST 4+oWREai No.207831 Reply
>>207829
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 54PBc7Id No.207839 Reply
>>207831
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 4+oWREai No.207844 Reply
>>207839
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.

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