How can anyone doubt evolution after looking at the historical evidence?!
>>1350854
They don't, generally speaking the people who doubt it have almost no exposure to the real evidence, just a handful of cherry-picked cases chosen by creationists to make evilution look implausible.
Chick tract thread?
Chick tract thread.
>>1350857
Agreed.
https://www.chick.com/m/reading/tracts/readtract.asp?stk=1041
>IF YOU KNEW WHAT MYSTERY IS YOU WOULD NOT REGARD IT AS "GOOD", OR ALLURING.
>MYSTERY IS OCCULT, BUT ITS OCCULTNESS IS NOT ITS ESSENCE; MYSTERY IS CONCEALED, BUT ITS CONCEALMENT IS NOT WHAT DEFINES IT.
>THE ESSENCE OF MYSTERY IS CORRUPTION OF THE SOUL; WHAT DEFINES MYSTERY IS THE CHIMERIZATION OF BODY, MIND, AND SPIRIT.
Just what in the world did he mean by this?
chimerisation is probably a reference to plato's thee-parted soul, with the chimera representing desire
basically he's resurrecting the meme that novelty is bad and that everything should be the same in line with strict notions of virtue
plato unironically believed that children should only ever play the same games
>>1349506
Literally "don't question anything" the philosophy
>>1350109
???
Is the Khazar Origin theory true? Are Jews just jumped-up T*rks?
Most modern Jews are descendants of Khazars, yes.
Even more modern Jews are descendants of Jews who were expelled from Palestine, though.
You can be descended from two different peoples.
>>1349481
No, modern Ashkenazim look the way they do because they interbred with white Europeans for 1000 years, not because some steppe tribesmen called themselves jews for a couple decades.
what is the main basis of this theory?
Post history's baddest bitches. I'll start: St Olga of Kiev.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_of_Flanders
Why use crossbowmen over archers?
Easier to train
>>1348494
They're easier to train.
>>1348494
No need for training,or not as much at least
How do you derive an ought from an is?
You don't.
You can't derive ought-nots from an is though
>>1348310
*can derive
The moment you realize that in order to get "is", you need certain "oughts".
For example, in order to find out correct information about what "is" in the universe, you "ought" to use the scientific method.
TL:DR Hume was wrong.
Were they authentic or was it just some huxters trying to make a quick buck?
>>1348056
Actually, they were only 6ft 6", people were really small back then.
>>1348064
How tall were they? 5ft 4"?
>>1348074
The two guys? 4ft "3
I work at a consulting firm that assists manufactures in designing machined to make their products. We take the end product, brake it down into components and figure out how to make each part than make the tools to make that part. Than make tools to turn parts into products. It could be biscuits, power line insulators or carburettors, we do anything.
In a slow period a few weeks ago all us tech types met up in the conference room and the boss gave us a task.
Build HMS Victory at a green field site. No legacy tools or equipment. Just wood, wool, pitch, hemp, iron ore, copper ore, lead and tin.
He than handed us the ships guide book, the RN Handbook of Seamanship and the full set of plans.
We broke the ship down into parts. Sails, spars, masts, rigging, details, minor hull and major hull.
We than took each part and figured out how it was made then what tools it took.
We than worked on making the tools and so on down to what could be made with hands,teeth and fire alone.
We failed.
At every turn we found that we needed blacksmith tongs.
You can't make tongs without tongs.
You can manipulate the bloom with green sticks and hammer it with a rock but you can't punch the hole for the rivet without tongs.
Making tongs by casting copper can't work either. Copper conducts heat too well and softens before you can start hammering the bloom.
We went into the workshop and started mucking about with iron.
We managed to make an iron bar with just charcoal, iron ore and two rocks.
We bent it into a set of BBQ tongs but when it cooled it was brittle. We tried again with six different styles of tempering and the one piece tongs where either too brittle and snapped or too inflexible to be used.
Another job making a factory to make LED lights came I and the Victory project was shelved.
There is a legend that the first tongs where given to man by the gods. I'm sort of believing that.
>>1346809
did you try punching the hole with a pump/cord drill?
>>1346809
kek
>We were idiots, so the gods must have given mankind tongs.
>>1346809
>your boss makes you build a 19th century warship
Your boss is based as fuck.
Where do I start?
>also general cool /his/ approved photos bread.
>>1345744
start with the greeks
>>1345744
>Where do I start?
Start with myth. Not even joking. Read Mesopotamian myth.
Start with Gilgamesh.
Read it with this in mind - myth's are not just stories they are reflections of the times. Reading some of the earliest myths can give you an insight to some one the earliest thoughts about theology, existence and the meaning of life.
itt:
1. State a philosophical work or philosopher (his work in general) that best demonstrates what virtue is in your opinion (e.g. Seneca's letters). Theological writing will also be valid.
2. State a literary work or author (his writing in general) that best demonstrates what virtue is in your opinion. Could be poetry, novel, short story etc.
3. A historical figue who demonstrates it in his way of life.
Anything ancient to contemporary. Feel free to elaborate on why you made your choice if you wish. Interpret the term "virtue" as loosely or strictly as you find convenient.
Bonus: a film, or filmmaker in general
Example:
1. Aristotle's Ethics
2. Rudyard Kipling
3. Fabius Maximus
Bonus: Werner Herzog
Diogenes
1. Tractartus Logico-philosophicus
2. George Orwell
3. Pedro II of Brazil
>>1344710
f-for all three senpai?
History meme thread
history meme threads need more quality polandball
When you see this guy what is the first thing that comes into mind?
Clean your face, nigger, you're a general officer.
>>1347117
Someone who lost a war.
>>1347117
Ignore Hitler, take Moscow
What did Ubisoft mean by this?
>>1357899
Do you mean, why did Ubisoft make their Karl Marx a pacifist while the real Karl Marx advocated the violent overthrow of capitalism?
My guess is that, due to Socialism currently shedding the negative image it got in the West from the Cold War, portraying Marxism (and thus Marx) positively is becoming more popular. On the other hand, the less savory bits of Marxism--the advocacy of violence as a means of bringing about the necessary changes for creating Communism--remains less than savory for modern leftists. As a result, Ubisoft likely wanted to portray their Marx as a pacifist so that they can continue portraying Marx positively without having to deal with the awkward bit where he advised murdering capitalists and taking their property.
>>1357899
Marx is the Muhammad of Socialism. Anything he could have said or done that we would consider wrong or bad is either ignored or denied by his adherents, while simultaniously condemning anyone who disagrees with their dogma.
>we want to include this historical character
>but that historical character was a dickweed
>we'll just pretend he wasn't
Tell me about the Kalash people.
Iranian ethnic group living in the mountains of Anatolia, Northern Iraq, and Iran
Saladin was one
They're currently fighting for independence in a few places but nobody wants to give up clay despite having wildly incompatible cultures
>>1356456
They're in Pakistan too.
Wait, Saladin was one? Wasn't he Kurdish?
>>1356440
Descendants of Alexander's army, mostly converted to Pisslam by now sadly but there are still a handful of valleys that keep the old Hellenic faith.
Why don't philosophers create a system of ethics purely based on logic without any feelings or subjective inclinations? Wouldn't that ultimately solve the field of ethics?
Yeah utilitarianism is great, now please step into the torture both because your suffering gains more pleasure from our enjoyment than the pain it costs you
The word you're looking for is "utilitarianism", and that should tell you exactly why this is a horrible idea.
>>1355665
Because that doesn't make any sense. The axioms that ethics are based on are by their nature subjective and based on feelings.
