Racism is just a byproduct of herd mentality. When the white herd looks at the black herd and vice versa they feel what is comparable to two alien civilizations meeting. By sectioning themselves off into genre and category the herd limits itself, becoming trapped in a state wherein it no longer takes in new information and stagnates.
There is no need to war on racism and bigotry, as it cannot progress into the future. Justice must only be reserved for times of truly dire consequence.
Support judgement of the individual situation at hand. Investigate assumptions based on categorization. Be free, /his/. Be free.
I wish I could upvote this more than once :)
Because as we all know, genetics aren't real and black civilization is totally equal to white civilization.
Oh wait. That's fantasy land. This is Earth.
>>679889
You need to get over the generalized opinions. You know what invalidates your argument? The fact that there are plenty of ignorant people in all walks of life. Or that there are plenty of people all across the world of every race, ideology and creed that possess a thousand times more information than you and I.
Pick up a book and stop bein such a fuckin stupid cunt.
Is it just me, or has very little philosophical ground been made since the latter half of the 20th Century? What famous philosophers of the likes of Descartes, Plato, Nietzsche, Locke, etc. can be named since 1950? Has humanity reached a philosophical dead end? What "new" thoughts are there to be had?
>What famous philosophers of the likes of Descartes, Plato, Nietzsche, Locke, etc. can be named since 1950?
Honestly, philosophy since the 50's has been a Jewish circle-jerk.
>>679627
Quentin Meillasoux
>>679627
feminist theory and fat acceptance.
The BLM movement is the Renaissance of western culture
I truly feel that it hindered the South's economy by making them overly reliant on agriculture, cotton in particular. They could have become more industrialized like the North if they didn't support slavery, and when the public turned against the idea of slavery, it caused the Civil War, the war with the most American casualties.
>>679477
The South would've been reliant on agriculture no matter what. The year-round factory work required for an industrialized economy was unviable in most of the South prior to air conditioning because it was just too fucking hot and humid.
>>679477
Slavery wasn't the mistake, it was, as you said, being too reliant on agriculture. Slavery would've actually died out on its own had the south opened factories and diversified its economy.
Once again, the abolition of slavery was because of an ignorant north not understanding how anything outside their little industrialized cities works, and thinks it can apply its rules and methods to the world at large. Not that this is specifically unique to yankee culture, but it seems to happen a lot with them, especially in how America is being led even today.
>>679508
Fuck human rights, amirite? xD
So this author (a Muslim) contends Jesus was actually more bloodthirsty than Mohammed. But I'm confused. Wasn't Jesus an Essene?
Was Jesus an Essene, or a Zealot?
>>679276
First of all, the Essenes weren't the "zealots". Zealots were a different group entirely from the Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees, and never achieved the prominence of the others, although they became (in)famous during their actions in the siege of Jerusalem.
While it's impossible to fully reconstruct what any historical Jesus was like, at the very least the positions ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels are more akin to Pharisee positions than any of the other 3 sects mentioned.
>>679288
I know the Essenes weren't Zealots, but the author of that book contends Jesus was a Zealot.
I don't know if they were necessarily Pharisee positions per se, unless the Essenes rejected the oral law.
>>679288
can you gimme a tl;dr of the sects? I don't remember catholic school getting into it at all.
This an article on the Orthodox Christian understanding of God's people, if you're interested: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith9285
The following are some points I wrote up in response to the idea that Judaism is a continuation of the Hebrew Covenant.
1. The Law is not a matter of moral goodness in itself (if it were, then Jews would advocate gentiles following it, as opposed to just the Noahide Law), it is a religious pledge like monastic vows, except made by a people instead of a person.
2. The Jews themselves have a specific mission from God, to be a beacon for the gentiles until God's kingdom is established (Isaiah 60:3).
3. The Law is not a discipline or calling unto itself (if it were, then Orthodox Jews would embrace gentiles converting, which they seldom do unless matrimony is involved). I contend therefore it has a specific teleos in accord with 2; after 2 is accomplished, the Law no longer has a function.
4. The Law is expressly juridical. Trying to abstract it completely from its juridical context makes it untenable.
cont
>>679226
5. If the Law *were* still in effect, and Judaism today were truly the heir of the Lord's covenant, then it would still entail the punishments of the Law. It will be argued that the punishments and trials for transgression of the Law cannot be effected until the Temple is rebuilt, but this is an innovated position: the Law was still enforced. The Temple never tried transgressors of the Law, and in fact you didn't need to be a priest to sit on the Sanhedrin, and none of the Sanhedrin were priests after the destruction of the Second Temple. The Destruction of the Second Temple did not terminate juridical enforcement of the Law, the Law only ceased to be enforced with the abolition of the Sanhedrin. The end of the Sanhedrin is the de facto end of the Law.
6. Orthodox Jewish treatment of the Law has an abundance of lawyers, but no Sanhedrin, no judges to make rulings. If there were definitive interpretations given by God that the lawyers were mere guardians of, this would be workable, but the lawyers do not (for the most part) present interpretations of the Law passed down by God, they innovate their own. Therefore their interpretations cannot be said to hold any authority whatsoever, which especially incriminates their splitting hairs.
7. The Lord does not say that the Law will be forever in Deuteronomy 4:40, he says the land (or the earth) will be given unto his people forever (the Jews were selected as his beacon for their meekness). Israel is the Church, and the meek shall inherit the earth (Psalm 37:11). Israel is the Body of Christ, Christ himself is the new covenant (Isaiah 42:6).
cont
>>679229
8. The most influential rabbi of all time, Rabbi Akiva, referred to as the Sage of All Sages, shaped Judaism as we know it today. But how can this man be considered remotely wise when he declared Bar Kokhbar, a bloodthirsty maniac, the Messiah? Rabbi Akiva was (and is) enormously influential, and his backing of Bar Kokhbar might have ultimately brought about the end of the Law in the juridical sense. On what authority is this man considered almost supernaturally wise? And if he is not very wise, then doesn't that through into question his entire understanding of Judaism? Isn't it a bit strange that the man who instigated Judaism as we know today, was so connected with the termination of classical Judaism?
9. Akiva's conception of Judaism is totally at odds with the holiness of the Law. He made Judaism into something which evolved. Does God hand down a Law that needs to be improved upon by humans? The hair splitting is defended as a sign of reverence for God's Law, but an "evolving" understanding is not reverence, reverence would be maintaining the precise understanding Moses had.
10. Jeremiah 31:33 is not talking about writing the old covenant on hearts, it says, this is the covenant God *will* make. So it's not just a difference in where the Law is written, it is a brand new covenant. Jeremiah 3:16 says they will no longer remember the Ark of the Covenant. Not just that they won't need it, but that they will completely forget about it, and that is shall *not be done anymore*.
FINIS
>>679229
>he Law *were* still in effect, and Judaism today were truly the heir of the Lord's covenant, then it would still entail the punishments of the Law. It will be argued that the punishments and trials for transgression of the Law cannot be effected until the Temple is rebuilt, but this is an innovated position: the Law was still enforced. The Temple never tried transgressors of the Law, and in fact you didn't need to be a priest to sit on the Sanhedrin, and none of the Sanhedrin were priests after the destruction of the Second Temple. The Destruction of the Second Temple did not term
why is the end of the sanhendrin the end of jewish law? according to jewish law you only need, i think, three rabbis present to try a case
Is European history over? With the fall of communism and the acceptance of democracy by all Western European states, could there ever be another continent wide war in Europe? Pic not related
This is current or future affairs, not history.
>>679024
No, the western world is falling and not many seem to notice or care. The backward muslims can't wait for it though.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/10/empire200610
>>679024
Why is your definition of history contingent on there being a continent wide war?
Post the worst history memes you know
>Islamic Iberia was a fantastic place
>France cant fight
>Whites stole the african slaves
>Muslims invented everything
>Dark ages
>Samurais better than modern special forces
"racist theorics of the 19th century are pseudo scientists"
>>678724
But they are. It got BTFO by actual genetic research as phenotype is not the only expression of genotype.
>>678724
Great start there /pol/
Why since the beginning of history the main source of slaves in the world were black people? Why?
>>678369
That's not really true at all.
>>678375
It was. And the most horrifying thing is.
ITT: The Germanic Peoples
Early Middle Ages Power Rankings:
>High
Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Friscians. Heptarchy Masterace.
Franks
Norsemen and their Norman and Rus offspring
>Middle
Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Lombards
>Low
All others
Guess the language
Skēp end Hrusse: Skēp ne hebend wulle sah hrusse
ān tēhend habig wagen, end ān berend mikile hlast, end ān berend mann.
Skēp sagde at hrusse: mīn hearte sēre mik, sehend mann drēbend hrusse.
Hrusse sagde: hēre, skēp! Unser herten sēre uns sehend hit:
Mann, fade, make wulle ab skēp warme klāþe fore sik. End skēp ne habe wulle.
Þat herid skēp flāh at felþ.
>>678299
Old English
>>678285
>Norman
They spoke a Romance language, they were not Germanic.
They were regarded as French until the 100 Years War.
> For atheists: why do you think that god doesn't exist?
> For theists: why do you think that god exists?
I'm a panentheist. Reality and its principles are the proof
>>677877
Why yes?
Comparative analysis of philosophies and religions.
Also, use the capital G. It's simple grammar.
>For people on 4chan: why do you have this thread everyday?
what explains the fact that today australia is a rich, wealthy, militarily strong first world country, despite the fact that it is esentially a giant wasteland island in the middle of the ocean inhabited by the worst of the worst british convicts?
disclaimer: i'm not making this thread on /pol/ because i don't want "muh white supremacy" as an explanation. i want to know what actually happened for australia to become what it is today.
Usually colonies where the natives are (mostly) wiped out are easily able to replicate the societies that they originated from.
On the other hand, places like India and Africa where the native people are the vast majority and already have their own institutions, cultures, languages, economies, ideologies, etc, aren't going to adopt Western civilization overnight and so they end up struggling to keep up.
Settlers in Australia didn't have to give up their whole culture to adopt a more successful one, they just had to recreate what the knew at home. Even convicts were already familiar with the civilization they came from, so it wasn't really an impossible task.
As for agriculture, I'm pretty sure Australia is well suited for cattle ranching, they were just never introduced before colonisation. Besides, the tiny population density doesn't really require huge tracts of fertile land.
I'm talking out my ass here though, I don't know anything about Australia.
>>677687
>the worst of the worst british convicts
Not really. Australia was more an experiment in rehabilitation for people who committed the heinous crime of stealing a piece of cloth, or reading a book that was banned, shit like that
The gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic text not included in the new testament. It is essentially just 114 jesus quotes one after another. Many of the quotes can be found in the books of the new testament. There are some that are found only in Thomas, and they are odd, and most likely require cultural context lost to historians.
I propose a challenge to the historians, philosophers, shitposters, and theologians of /his/: I will post weird Jesus quotes from Thomas and you will tell me their true meaning. As Jesus is quoted at the beginning of Thomas "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."
Your first quote is Thomas 7
"Lucky is the lion that the human eats, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human the lion will eat, and the lion will still become human."
Ill post another after a while.
Very interesting indeed.
The lion and the Man (probably) sheer representations of our self. The lion represents our animalistic urges while the Man represents rationality. The rest can pieced together by a 12yr old.
>>677518
But why would the lion (urges) still become human (logic)?
>>677531
Maybe humanity is part logic and part savage vice?
Would a medieval-level society be able to kill a dragon?
>>677294
>hasn't read Beowulf
Retard
>>677294
Hard to kill something that doesn't exist.
HWAET!
EU aside, what was the most successful attemp at unifyng Europe?
>>677185
Rome
Charlemagne?
Napoleon?
Hitler?
Is sex not always submission for the woman? And thus humiliating for her.
Sex for men is always "conquering", meaning someone must have lost (i.e. the woman). I don't think this is socially constructed though, but the most natural power relationship between humans.
Can any self-respecting woman really ever allow herself to get fucked?
There's only one woman I know who feels this way and I've been married to her for 30 years.
>>676696
Not for gay sex :^)
Wrong on all counts, friendo. Maybe actually have sex with a woman before speculating wildly.
