Welcome to the "Questions that don't deserve their own thread" thread!
To start us off, I'm breaking the rule and none of you can stop me.
Is there a name for the train of thought that leads to someone mirroring another person or coming up with a new personality based on someone else in an attempt to find the happiness that they believe that person has obtained through their actions?
>>846661
Tulpa or Waifuism.
My question is: Did Charlemagne have access to peppercorns?
>>846661
Some tend to call it chameleoning. Where you change your personality wildly depending on the person you're talking to. Otherwise I don't see much an issue with trying to have some determinism in what your identity is.
It gets associated with people who have certain disorders like BPD or ADHD,
Does truth exist?
>>846711
I don't know if we can rightfully say.
If I murder a woman, then save the life of another woman, do the two actions cancel each other out?
>>846749
No? You would have to put a woman in a situation where she will get murdered and save the life of another to get that leveled out. Murdering and giving life are the opposites, not saving.
>>846711
This is actually something that I want to ask about. The brain in a jar thought experiment leads me to conclude that the only truth is that there is no truth. But clearly that is a paradoxical statement! How do I resolve this. I know an objective truth is 99% impossible because without knowing everything we cannot know anything but I should be able to find fault in my own logic then. I probably just haven't thought about it enough.
>>846749
Depends on your definition of "cancel each other out" they do not cancel each other out in terms of consequences. Maybe some fanciful definition of morality which you choose to subscribe too
>>846661
Is the essential divide between pre-Reformation Churches and Protestantism that the former holds scriptures as a facet of sacred tradition, and the latter holds sacred tradition as subservient to scripture?
>>846697
>Did Charlemagne have access to peppercorns?
Very possible, south india used to trade pepper and ivory extensively with rome during its height, though there is no way it ever matched the volume during the late republic early to mid Empire trade, the access and goods transport still remained and there is evidence of european coins being found in the old ports of nelcynda and tyndis.
>>846790
Yes actually. As someone who's family converted from Presbeterianism to Orthodox Catholocism, I can say that basically this is the divide and what the two disagree on. It's basically what I had to have drilled into my head at a young age because I didn't get it.
Protestants are more likely to believe what the bible says and draw their conclusions from that, while Catholics are more likely to have a tradition or some older knowledge of WHY the scripture was written and by whom.
>>846790
It's cultural and racial.
Catholicism is for latinos and Filipinos while Othrodox is for Balks and Slavs.
>>846661
Objectively, which is superior Titties or Ass?
>>846711
no, only current interpretations of reality according to our time and region
>>846749
murdering one automatically means saving another? is it on the eyes of the law or morally/philosophically?
>>846804
nice answer, though most Catholics know dont know shit about the scriptures
my question is
>pic related
BFs or BFFs?
>>846816
>humanities
>Objectively
get out lad
>>846816
Ass is superior since it is closer to the sex organ.
Titties are a meme, they are fake asses.
>>846817
Most Catholics don't now shit about the scriptures because they listen to their priest over their bible. The priest is the one in charge of knowing and understanding the scriptures. They can always just ask the priest about something and he can quote the scripture and what it means for them. Bibles are not even really needed for catholics if you aren't clergy.
>>846816
Face and figure. T&A is for apes who can't see the forest for the trees.
>>846817
Damn, what's wrong with that nigga's scrotum?
>>846813
This is really a stupid explanation and I wish people would stop offering it, but I'm too tired to go into why.
Why do the Abrahamic religions hate each other?
>>846817
In a moral sense.
Can I quantify a life like that?
The hypothetical situation is a woman who is murdered.Then the murderer goes out of their way to save another woman from certain death.
Are you obligated to save people?
If not, then clearly this murderer has done nothing wrong, since the lives are now in balance
[spoiler];^))))))))))[/spoiler]
>>846827
dis nigga knows
you don't want someone with a 10/10 body but a face that looks like its been whacked by a 2x4 a couple times.
>>846822
Hahaha bruh, that fucking 16th century argument against Catholicism, you fucking dumbass haha.
>>846822
I know, I was afraid of saying it and get a shitty catholic vs Protestantism argument going, but youre pretty on point
>The priest is the one in charge of knowing and understanding the scriptures
yeah and thats basically how the church ruled for centuries but Catholics are too retarded to realize it and still follow the church blindly
>shitty argument started
>>846836
Their religion was written by many different people all with different ideas of what their god meant to them and who their god was. Because of this their religion is really broad spread and has many different interpretations. People having different interpretations of an important thing is bound to lead to some of them hating each other.
>>846843
Why would I argue against Catholicism when I'm catholic?
Here's your reply.
>>846837
are you baiting?
of course you cant nigger, nothing is balanced in no pov, he just decided he felt like murdering one time and then felt like being a good boy
>>846855
Intellectual honesty.
>>846711
Truth is what our colleagues let us get away with.
Also, literally what the fuck, captcha?
My question is "why is this board so shit?"
Why are people bothered by homosexuals? Why be bothered by something that has always existed?
>>846765
brain in a jar tells us that we can't trust something. It doesn't say anything about whether there is what to trust - an objective reality. If there is existence, than there is truth. Sure, we may not have credible access to it. So the whole question seems a bit odd to me. By definition there is existence, and so bu definition there is truth. The real question is how we go about figuring it out.
>>847138
Taught by indoctrination to hate and fear people who are different.
Either that or being molested as a child, that will fuck your brain up also.
>>847194
>Taught by indoctrination to hate and fear people who are different.
But why fear anything in it's base form? Like why fear all Arabs or anything of the sort for that matter. Anything that has existed for all of history for that matter.
>Either that or being molested as a child, that will fuck your brain up also.
Yes but I was assuming the non-molested mentally healthy people in the question.
>>847138
It's not homosexuality, i.e. the sexual orientation. It's the homosexual act. If a heterosexual person commits homosexual acts, it will also be a sin. God forbids it. Christians don't want you to go to hell.
>>847208
Sexuality is a deeply personal issue that touched directly on identity and social position ("fag", "virgin") especially during puberty development so reactions to it are keenly felt and make lifelong impressions in the person.
>>847221
I think the root issue is psychological and religious proscriptions about it are justifications after the fact. Religions are developed by codifying existing human behaviors. Ideas like "sin" and "hell" are tools to induce changes of behavior by appealing to human psychology. Similarly the phrase "love the sinner" is an appeal to basic human empathy.
>>847068
Trolls make the same topic everyday.
>>847138
>Why are people bothered by homosexuals?
The Hebrew Bible. Nowhere else in the ancient world do you find laws against faggotry.
>Why be bothered by something that has always existed?
Appeal to nature. Murder, pedophilia, etc. 'always existed' too, but that's not a reason not to be bothered by those.
What if I told you a subconscious distaste for men having sex with men 'always existed' too, and found its way in the Hebrew Bible?
>>847279
>What if I told you a subconscious distaste for men having sex with men 'always existed' too, and found its way in the Hebrew Bible?
OOOH now there's a thought. So yes indeed, hate for homosexuality has always been a subconscious thing. But if indeed it is part of the subconscious then why does it not appeal to the subconscious of some? It appeals to individual subconscious, but not to the global subconscious?
>>846711
this question is grammatically wrong, and is the kind of question that this guy called wittgenstein argued against in his "investigations". He says that questions like these look like real legitimate philosophical problems but they're not. He would say that "truth" is not the kind of word that is allowed to be used in the "does x exist" language game. So normally we say things like "do dinosaurs exist?" "do dodo's exist?" "do elephants exist" "do ghosts exist".
and with the word truth, well that's used in many other language 'games' (games in this context means a the huge set of things that we *do* with language - think "play", or use), like "tell me the truth!", or "is it true that the moon is made of cheese?" or "it's monday? true", etc etc. We don't normally use the word "truth" in the "does x exist" game.
So what whitt says is this not a genuine philosophical probelm. It just looks like one. All that's happeneing is an improper use of the word "truth". you are using truth outside is place in the language.
Do colours speak?
Does sand growl?
Does hello growl?
what witt is saying is that your post is just like the above questions. it is an improper use of the words. and so it doesn't need to be answered. all you must do is recognize that you're using the word incorrectly (i.e. in the wrong language game), and the problem ceases to exist.
>>846749
no
>>846816
they are both mere representations of the pure ( Y ) platonic form. both tits and ass only look good because they represent what's truly attractive, and that is the patonic form of two rounds meeting with a Y. in the breasts it's clevage, in the ass it's the buttcrack. both the boobies and ass, although they look good and similar, are only attractive because they represent what is truly attractive - the platonic ( Y ) form
>>847287
>But if indeed it is part of the subconscious then why does it not appeal to the subconscious of some?
Conceivably, it could be collective and overcome through cultural conditioning or being some sort of homosexual yourself.
Perhaps there was a time when sucking dick in America wasn't seen as an achievement.
Besides, anal sex can hurt you, transmits STDs, there's shit involved, etc. so it would make sense from an evolutionary perspective to have 'something' against certain sexual practices.
Then again researchers claim animals do partake in male-on-male anal sex, but for example their anus and rectum might be different in proportion, it may be rare, etc. perhaps it's less risky for them.
>>847322
It isn't less risky.
Men have lower rectums far more conditioned to anal sex than women. Less risk of anal tear, prolapse, etc.
This is because fucking dudes in the ass was how you showed dominance in quite a few ancient cultures.
>>846749
the two women arent interchangeable retard, its not like swapping items that are the same price
>>847365
What if they're twins who up until that point have had exactly the same experiences and effect on the world?
>>847373
Maybe companionship during periods of captivity.
>>847383
Still two separate human beings.
t. a twin
>>847387
Modern prisons tell me that this isn't really the case. I get the feeling that most lesbian sex is probably forced when in captivity.
>>847397
That's hot.
>>847436
I know it's an obviously but is there really no way other than luckily fall ass backwards into a career where you can write, even if it's something as grounded as journalism?
Why are there so many Donald Trump supporters on /pol/ who basically just want to watch the world burn, and sort of basically admit they just like the controversy he causes? The same type of people that want a race war, ww3, kill all muslims, etc. Are they just immature little kids who have nothing to lose because they don't have wives or kids, and have given up on the world?
>>846661
who's on the right side of this image?
>>849511
Looks like Oswald Mosley.
>>849062
>Are they just immature little kids who have nothing to lose because they don't have wives or kids, and have given up on the world?
Correct.
Test
>>849062
It seems like his success is largely from his flippancy and shamelessness in the face of any criticism. He just pushes back harder and doesn't give a damn, that somehow resonates with people instead of coming off as arrogance.
With this in mind, I wonder if it's a symptom of the desires that modern egoism gives a person. He seems to me, a paragon of Stirnerian horseshit. We, and our collective values as a society are his food.
>>849511
It's Oswald Mosley
>>849062
> kill all Muslims
Why is that a bad thing?
>>849062
Why do you give a shit about /pol/'s opinion when he got over 7.5 million of popular vote total so far?
Did /pol/ recently grow into a state bigger than Washington, somehow? Will you blame his victory on a section of Chinese cartoon forum? If you don't like the situation, shouldn't you worry more about the big picture?
He is winning despite the media, and his own party, going after him. Once you're in the White House you will have entire world powers to wrestle with.
With that in mind, is it really that surprising that the man who gives the least amount of fucks in history since Max Stirner is liked in general - and by those who happen to despise his critics a lot in particular?
Patton said it best:
>When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.
>have given up on the world?
You seem under the impression that they love him because they stopped believing. Nay, I say they love him because they started believing.
Anyway, you can find /pol/'s opinion @ >>>/pol/
