GamerGate - and it's continuing aftermath.

[Opus131]

But is he stupid because he doesn't tackle the problem scientifically?

[Ceph]

No, I assume that's a preexisting condition.

[Super Laydock]

Evolution: fact.
Theory of evolution: attempt at an explanation of said fact.

So basically evolution is a dogma one must accept unconditionally, and the theology is only secondary?

No! Both should not be accepted as facts.
Point is I choose to believe in the theory of evolution because I think the argument that can be made for it is well supported by verifyable facts.
Theology is a man made thing that isn't based on facts.

But fact are always fact unless/untill proven otherwise. If new evidence comes theories may change.
We know now that world isn't flat but at one point this was a given for the majority of the people in the world.
It's called progressive insight.

[Giest118]

Opus131: My point is that there is no objective morality, so the thing to do that has the greatest utility is to try to get as many people as possible to be in alignment on a system of morality that benefits as many people as possible. Our evolutionary path has given us a baseline that's worked to keep us all from murdering ourselves to death. But it's not perfect, and with our KEEN MODERN INTELLECT, we can build on it to work out the kinks and flaws that instincts would naturally have as a result of evolution's lack of quality control.

But you don't believe in evolution, so hashing out this point is probably a dumb waste of time.



There's another issue with your philosophy that I wasn't able to put my finger on until I slept on it: It's self-refuting.

A constant theme of your arguments is that you and I both have the same 'real' reason to think pedophilia (or [x] crime) is wrong. You've also given this same contention to numerous other people who've disagreed with you on a number of subjects, this sort of "you know I'm right, even if you don't admit it" idea. For convenience, I'm going to refer to this as "everyone secretly agrees with you."

But think about it: in order for you to be certain of this, it would mean that you'd need to be certain that 100% of all people are born with the same feelings on the aesthetics of morality. I could go into how or why you'd be so sure of this, but it definitely seems to be a property of your philosophy.

But let's think about a world where this is true, where everyone is born knowing that pedophilia is wrong. Wouldn't this make pedophilia impossible? No, not morally wrong (but that would also be true), but impossible. Can't happen. The experiment to prove pedophilia's existence would fail in a trillion out of a trillion trials.

This is because it would be impossible for anyone to want to molest children. 100% of all people would see and know the ugliness of it. And even if, somehow, somebody felt curious, the ugliness of it would prevent them from going through with it, because they would know for an irrefutable fact that they wouldn't enjoy it, because they would spend the entire deed being disgusted with themselves and gagging on their own sense of self-loathing with what they were doing. Child molesters clearly don't feel any of these things, or they wouldn't be child molesters. Nobody could coerce them into it either, since the one doing the coercing would be bound by the same sense of disgust.

It can't be some sort of mental disorder either, because those are things you're born with, and as we've already established, everyone is born with the same feelings on the aesthetics of morality. It can't be some sort of physiological defect, because that would mean our personalities are informed by our biology, and that's apparently bullshit, because science is for nazis.

Whatever process leads to the production of human souls in your philosophy, it clearly has quality control, because you're so certain that everyone secretly agrees with you. But if it has quality control, where do mistakes like pedophiles come from? The only possible source of this corruption would also be flaws in the production line. But if there isn't a flaw in the production line, that would mean that aberrations like pedophilia are expected, and their subsequent desire to molest children does exist, and contradicts your constant claims that everyone secretly agrees with you.

Unless, of course, you don't think everyone secretly agrees with you, in which case it's odd that you keep saying they do.

[trap15]

Hot damn this thread sure turned into sumthin'!

[Giest118]

Yeah, what the fuck was the subject of this thread again? Something about how intersectional feminism is shitty dumbness for idiot babies?

[Skykid]

Yeah, what the fuck was the subject of this thread again? Something about how intersectional feminism is shitty dumbness for idiot babies?

It was this:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/21 ... e?ref=hero

You'll want to kill yourself after watching the video. You've been warned.

[EmperorIng]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/21 ... e?ref=hero
You'll want to kill yourself after watching the video. You've been warned.

I imagine this will be enthusiastically embraced in Sweden, which coincidentally has a high rate of suicide.

Here's an objective, undeniable fact.

Spoiler

Girls with short hair are cuter.

Oh yes. Yes.

Let's not get too carried away. If it's too short it ceases to be attractive. Above the Chin = No One Wins

[Xyga]

Here's an objective, undeniable fact.

Spoiler

Girls with short hair are cuter.

Oh yes. Yes.

Let's not get too carried away. If it's too short it ceases to be attractive. Above the Chin = No One Wins

Depends on the girl I'd say, but yeah a la garçonne is not for any face and makes guys wonder if she is 1) a lesbo 2) an attention whore.
I have a real fetish for above shoulder length straight hair brunettes.
Damn I want to post pics.

[BIL]

Actually, this thread is the viral marketing arm for the impending PC release of Giant Spacekatgal and John Walker Flynt's Revolution 60, manned by yours truly. I don't mind you guys talking about cucks or whatever though, it's cool. Just remember to punch up not down, mmkay.



ahaha yeah, those white dudes mirite?! Good one John.

[Giest118]

A: "As a feminist, I have to say, Hitler was right, we should exterminate all the jews."
B: "I disagree. Also that's terrible. Is this what feminism is now?"
A: "SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU MISOGYNIST BIGOT RACIST, FEMINISM IS ABOUT EQUALITY, EITHER AGREE WITH ME OR YOU'RE ANTI-WOMAN"

[Bananamatic]

anyone watching the Social Autopsy drama? not sure who to root for tbh but it's pretty great

[BIL]

^ aww yeah SOCIAL JUSTICE CANNIBALIZATION COMMENCE, always amusing to see.

[Durandal]

Yeah, what the fuck was the subject of this thread again? Something about how intersectional feminism is shitty dumbness for idiot babies?

It was this:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/21 ... e?ref=hero

You'll want to kill yourself after watching the video. You've been warned.

I hate generic 'upbeat' trailer music. I hate narrators which sound like they're trying to indoctrinate me. I hate using children to make a point. I hate indoctrination aimed at children. I hate 95% of the trailer having nothing to do with the actual product. I hate using boring life stories to sell something. I hate your solution failing to do something about the problem other than lining your own pockets. I hate the idea of having to offer a priced product in order to motivate women from a young age to apply for their dream job. I hate having to buy a magazine in order to reaffirm how great I am while I can achieve the same result by 1cc'ing a SHMUP on Novice Mode. I hate this generic set-up alot of Kickstarter videos use. I hate I hate I hate I hate I ha

[BIL]

Only thing I got from that trailer was an instinctive "whoa, be careful kid!" and "I hope that window pane is as strong as she supposedly is or it's gonna be Tears In Heaven time!" as she clambered up to it.

Born shitlord.

[Skykid]

Yeah, what the fuck was the subject of this thread again? Something about how intersectional feminism is shitty dumbness for idiot babies?

It was this:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/21 ... e?ref=hero

You'll want to kill yourself after watching the video. You've been warned.

I hate generic 'upbeat' trailer music. I hate narrators which sound like they're trying to indoctrinate me. I hate using children to make a point. I hate indoctrination aimed at children. I hate 95% of the trailer having nothing to do with the actual product. I hate using boring life stories to sell something. I hate your solution failing to do something about the problem other than lining your own pockets. I hate the idea of having to offer a priced product in order to motivate women from a young age to apply for their dream job. I hate having to buy a magazine in order to reaffirm how great I am while I can achieve the same result by 1cc'ing a SHMUP on Novice Mode. I hate this generic set-up alot of Kickstarter videos use. I hate I hate I hate I hate I ha

I hate that people have pledged $100,000 for it.

"Get ready for this cool new magazine for our littlest feminists..."

Mass madness I tell you.

[Squire Grooktook]

Damn I want to post pics.

Can we have a new/split topic for this.

[gct]

I don't get it... if a girl wants to be an engineer or whatever, can't she just get any other book or magazine that's already out there? Like how is the actual material going to be any different?

"An Introduction to Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics"

vs

"An Introduction to Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics - For Women!"

Also love the comments, stuff like "imagine a world where a girl doesn't have to be sexy to be successful". Sounds like people who are bitter they aren't sexy, but don't have the skills to make up for it either.

[Skykid]

I don't get it... if a girl wants to be an engineer or whatever, can't she just get any other book or magazine that's already out there? Like how is the actual material going to be any different?

"An Introduction to Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics"

vs

"An Introduction to Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics - For Women!"

Also love the comments, stuff like "imagine a world where a girl doesn't have to be sexy to be successful". Sounds like people who are bitter they aren't sexy, but don't have the skills to make up for it either.

What I want to know is why they keep using the word 'fierce' in relation to girls - is that popular in the west currently?

I only remember that gay Barbie kid using the term as a positive, I didn't realise it was part of the feminist power lexicon. Kind of a scary descriptor, all told.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

There's already engineering sets for girls:

http://www.goldieblox.com/

More:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlMiSkpajCQ

[Opus131]

Here, let me explain what is happening:

[Opus131]

Whatever process leads to the production of human souls in your philosophy, it clearly has quality control

Which is pretty much what every single religion in the world has said. There is a human nature, which is made in the "image" of God, or whatever, and then there are individual human beings, which are so many relative (and thus fragmentary or "fallen" if you will) manifestations of said archetype, which exists in an undivided state at the level of the formal, in the Platonic sense of the word.

Basically, human beings are mere possibilities of a human archetype of a divine origin, and a possibility can be a lot of things, even something that violates the nature of the archetype in question. But since there is an archetype, and since there is a fundamental human nature, we can most certainly generalize about what human beings are capable of knowing, in principle if not always in fact.

[Bananamatic]

What I want to know is why they keep using the word 'fierce' in relation to girls - is that popular in the west currently?

i've only ever heard that from "body positive" people

[Giest118]

Which is pretty much what every single religion in the world has said. There is a human nature, which is made in the "image" of God, or whatever, and then there are individual human beings, which are so many relative (and thus fragmentary or "fallen" if you will) manifestations of said archetype, which exists in an undivided state at the level of the formal, in the Platonic sense of the word.

Basically, human beings are mere possibilities of a human archetype of a divine origin, and a possibility can be a lot of things, even something that violates the nature of the archetype in question. But since there is an archetype, and since there is a fundamental human nature, we can most certainly generalize about what human beings are capable of knowing, in principle if not always in fact.

Well, we took a while to get here. I think you and I probably have a similar idea of what human nature is; the difference is that I attribute it to being the result of our evolutionary history, while you ascribe it to being an archetype of divine origin. This is just a funny observation, not a refutation.


So if I understand: there is a correct, 'divine' archetype for humanity, but humans aren't themselves divine, so they're capable of deviating from it because they're flawed. So my next question is, how are you certain that your morality isn't, itself, a deviation from the divine archetype? Did some flawed human tell you so? If you say that someone changing their gender is damaging, and I say it isn't, how do you know that your perspective is the correct one? Is it because a majority of humans throughout history had the same opinion on the matter? Aren't those humans just as flawed, and therefore just as susceptible to deviation from the divine archetype?

You can say that you 'know' something is damaging in the same way that you 'know' that something is beautiful, but that doesn't really answer the question. One person might 'know' that Beethoven's music is beautiful, and another person might 'know' that it's overrated horseshit. You can say that you know the latter is wrong because you know the former is true, but then we enter an uncomfortable space where these things could be just your opinions, and you've decided to elevate them in your mind to divine status because reasons.

[Opus131]

You can say that you 'know' something is damaging in the same way that you 'know' that something is beautiful, but that doesn't really answer the question. One person might 'know' that Beethoven's music is beautiful, and another person might 'know' that it's overrated horseshit. You can say that you know the latter is wrong because you know the former is true, but then we enter an uncomfortable space where these things could be just your opinions, and you've decided to elevate them in your mind to divine status because reasons.

Well, "knowing" implies certainty by definition. What you are asking is how i can prove it to others. And the truth is i can't. All i can do is appeal to the intelligence of other human beings. If you want to go ahead and believe that the opinion of some 13 years old girl who likes the Spice Girls more than Beethoven carries greater or at least equal weight to those us who claim Beethoven is superior after years of experience in studying or listening to music go ahead, but don't be surprised if some of us end up having a very low opinion of your intelligence. And the same applies to those who argue for the legitimacy of pedophilia, who are quite clearly and evidently deranged to any right thinking person.

Ultimately, i think the issue is with rationalism. The idea that we ought to examine everything "rationally" eventually translated to the idea nothing is true unless one can provide "evidence" for it, whether physical evidence or one derived from discursive reasoning. To me, this inaugurated the death of human intelligence, for some things can be understood by the mind directly whether they can be rationally explained or not, and other minds can be made to see the same truths without relying on rational means, hence, why ancient wisdom was often communicated indirectly or elliptically, using things like myth, symbolism, or direct oral instruction the true essence of which could not entirely be captured in writing (and it was only when the existence of a given oral tradition was threatened that the attempt was made).

[Squire Grooktook]

It's based on faith. If you're a spiritual/religious person, you put faith in the idea that there is a transcendental quality driving or inherent in good/selfless actions which is "better" then selfish actions. You cannot prove it or know it for sure, you just have faith (if it's what you believe).

The phrase "God is Love" is a very meaningful one partly because it can also be reversed into "Love is God". Not only does it profess the belief in a benevolent absolute or a fundamentally positive reality, but it also affirms a belief that human beings have a divine spark of transcendence in them through their ability to love. But that concept of transcendent love is one that is also based on faith, and cannot be proven.

You can try to prove things like that logically but IMO you can't. Philosophy can never really prove anything but ones own existence etc., or at least, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. In the end, all spiritual ideals are based on varying degrees of faith.


I do profess I have faith in the above concepts, although I differ from Opus in that I can only believe in the presence of these transcendental qualities in beings. Art is totally subjective because only people are capable of love, not inanimate collections of sound waves or visual stimuli. Without the ability to love or think, they are simply "neutral" (like any rock or piece of mundane matter) and have no inherent value of their own. They can only hope to obtain value/worth in the heart of an individual, with whom they may or may not resonate with, but without the individual they are nothing.

I don't want to debate anyone, I just wanted to clarify some concepts, as I understand them.

[Opus131]

It's based on faith.

Not if by faith we mean a blind and sterile acceptance of things. Faith is not the only possible alternative to physical or discursive evidence. I don't think Beethoven is greater than Britney Spears because of "faith". Much like i don't think pedophilia is wrong because of "faith".

I mean, come on, you can't even prove existence (and by existence i don't mean existence of anything but existence as such, which in itself is purely metaphysical) using purely rational or scientific means. Are we now to think of the universe or reality itself to be a mere subjective fantasy, that one accepts on "faith"?

In the ancient world, at least if we limit ourselves in the west, there was another intellectual faculty that was recognized aside for reason, which was referred to as "Nous". In Christianity, the word "faith" is used indiscriminately to express either Nous or some kind of bond by trust, which is where part of the confusion stems. When St. Paul speaks of "faith", he is almost always talking about Nous. But mind you that faith as understood in the second sense was still based on some kind of visceral precognition of the objective reality one was to realize within himself by means of Nous. A good analogy for instance is how most people have "faith" in the fact Bach is a genius without knowing a single thing about his music, putting their trust in some kind of precognition of an objective reality they perceive intuitively but still feel or sense on some level. In a sense, Christians sought to stress the "internal" aspect of knowledge and wisdom and strove to avoid any external "intellectualizing" of the faith, precisely to protect this wisdom from the profanation of an intelligence that had already become too "rationalistic". This doesn't mean there is no knowledge involved in Christianity, for even if we limit ourselves to "love", which to me is nothing other than a direct taste of the divine (and not just an intellectual realization of it), that still implies knowledge of some kind.

[Squire Grooktook]

Ok

Can I have my short haired girls thread now.

[Opus131]

By all means, though your assertion that art is purely "subjective" still triggers me, so expect more trolling in that direction.

[Squire Grooktook]

so expect more trolling in that direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmmZdq5 ... be&t=7m36s