/ot/ - Otaku Tangents
This is a board for topics that don't fit on other boards, but that are still otaku/hobby related.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 2253)
BB Code
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: None
  • Maximum file size allowed is 7000 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 129474438356.jpg - (44.41KB , 336x448 , Thinker1.jpg )
2253 No. 2253 [Edit]
Ponderings general. Post things you've thought about.

It is well known that famous male solo artists and groups have a ton of groupies. Thus they can make requests like "I want five naked chicks in my hotel room after the show." and they'll get them. Does the same apply for female artists? Has Shakira ever called her manager and asked him if he could send up a horny 23 old for every orifice she possess to tap it all night long?
I wonder.
Expand all images
>> No. 2254 [Edit]
A thought process I had once:
Apparently women who give birth to a lot of sons try to fight of the testosterone with estrogen. Meaning that for every son born the chance of the next being gay increases. Does this mean that men who give birth to a lot of girls have a higher chance of lesbians?

... Wait.
>> No. 2259 [Edit]
I'd say that's in the same valley as of why female sex machines are sluts, whereas male sex machines are cool. No one cares if a male rock star fucks groupies - he's just being a rock star after all. Though if a female pop artist did the same it would probably degrade her decency to the public eye. There's probably little room for males to be successful groupies by that consequence.

I might be totally wrong, but that's just my thought on the matter.
>> No. 2262 [Edit]
File 129477178376.jpg - (44.84KB , 223x246 , Donald okay.jpg )
Think this is called the historian's phallacy. Anyhow it boggles my mind.
Take the Katrina disaster of 2006. It was known that the dam walls needed repairs; let's say they would've cost three million dollars. I guess it was an unpopular budget proposal since it didn't happen.
But then Katrina struck, breaking the dam and causing billions of dollars worth of damage to the city. Afterwards a mayor could get elected on the campaign that he was going to spend a big part of the budget to make sure that the dam got all the money it needed and be hailed for the proposal.
So paying more after the damage is done is better than paying less to avoid it altogether.
>> No. 2263 [Edit]
File 12947721901.jpg - (32.82KB , 500x280 , toradora5_17.jpg )
The idea of divine justice was invented so that people could falsely claim that we are all equal on a fundamental level.
>> No. 2265 [Edit]
You mean "fallacy." But yeah, it sounds ridiculous but that's just how humans work. I mean, when you're fixing it after the flood, it looks like you're making more of a visible effort to improve things, whereas if you fixed the dam before, people will always wonder whether the dam might not have broken even if all that money hadn't be spent (and instead spent on some other useful thing).
>> No. 2267 [Edit]
File 129477388692.jpg - (7.86KB , 294x400 , freud1.jpg )

Tell me about your mother.
>> No. 2269 [Edit]
Forgive me for copypasting my own post from an older thread, but it's still valid for this thread's topic.

You know, I think about this statement "style over substance" to myself from time to time. With something like material goods such as cars, it's a perfectly valid statement since "style/beauty" and "substance/utility" are two main elements that one should consider something before buying. But when it comes to art (I'm using this word in the general sense, I'm not implying that anime is high art or anything) that has no utilitarian purpose, just what is meant by substance?

From my experience, most people seem to think a show with substance means having depth/character development/symbolism or just a provocative theme that makes you think about life or whatever. But I don’t think that’s what substance should exactly mean for art.

Because by the very definition of the word substance, it should refer to any matter that makes up a certain thing. And even though for a t-shirt, this would be something like the fabric, art is usually much more intangible than that. So the “substance” for art should really refer to any element which makes up that art. Following this definition, the elements commonly brushed off as “style” should be on equal footing as “substance.” In short, style IS a subset of substance.

This leads me to think that the comment “style over substance” when applied as a negative criticism of visual art (movies, anime) is an invalid criticism.
>> No. 2273 [Edit]
It's kind of like how people are making a big stink about too invasive/strict airline passenger searches/regulations, but when "the next 9/11" happens those same people will cry about how the airlines didn't do enough.
>> No. 2274 [Edit]
To be fair, the vast majority of airline 'security' doesn't protect against the vast majority of airline threats.

They implemented that x-ray machine after the underwear bomber, yeah? Well, turns out that machine doesn't detect the chemicals the underwear bomber used.

They use metal detectors and such to check for guns and bombs, but, turns out, they let people with guns on all the time. [http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7848683]

So, yeah, these security measures aren't doing enough protecting, and are doing too much invasion. Plus, it's not even about security as much as it is one company (the x-ray machine producers) pushing to get more money by implementing their machines everywhere. They pretty much have a monopoly over the deal and make no qualms about enjoying it.
>> No. 2275 [Edit]
Not to mention making airport security more strict could actually be counterproductive. Because that would increase the number of false positives more than the number of true positives, and would decrease the perceived importance of warnings even further.
>> No. 2276 [Edit]
File 129478385049.jpg - (504.33KB , 900x1200 , 5a95ed5e1b9f964a5f95d028cb20dac8.jpg )
Not to mention there has been no record of 80 year old Caucasian women blowing up airplanes, yet they get pulled for random searches due to political correctness.

Which is hypocritical for me to say, because I hate being suspected of things for no reason. For example random drug tests at work. I don't do any drugs but I've refused to take one because it pisses me off that I'm guilty until proven innocent.

The world is too complicated, i'm going back inside.
>> No. 2277 [Edit]
Well, that, and, in practice, airline security only starts past the metal detectors and such.
The parking lot, the lobby, the vending machine areas; all filled with people, and all completely exempt from 'airline security'. Just walking through an airport would give you multiple prime targets that have loads of people and no security.
>> No. 2291 [Edit]
If man has invented nuclear bombs, weapons so powerful we could destroy the planet, shouldn't we go full circle and actually do it? Do any animal capable of its own demise deserve to continue living?
But maybe the fact that it hasn't happened yet shows that there's still hope for our species.
>> No. 2304 [Edit]
>Do any animal capable of its own demise deserve to continue living?

What? I'm confused. What exactly is the line of logic there that justifies that organisms capable of destroying themselves (and perhaps, their environment as well) should not be allowed to live?

I mean, in the absence of natural predators or other death causes (excluding natural death), any herbivore species could overpopulate themselves and overgraze on the greenery, leading to the destruction of themselves and their habitat. So does that mean animals like rabbits, cows, etc. shouldn't be allowed to exist? I certainly don't think so.
>> No. 2308 [Edit]
There's no direct logic I admit and what you're saying about overpopulation is certainly true. Difference between us and them is that we have invented new things instead of just tugging along like an animal species would.
>> No. 2424 [Edit]
I wonder what it's like to work in or own a scam business. Not necessarily a scam, but you're trying to sucker idiots into buying something they don't need instead of trying to provide a good product or service. What do they think as they go to work in the morning?
>> No. 2425 [Edit]
They don't care, they think it's just a job, without any guilt, shame or other discomfort.
>> No. 2426 [Edit]
>trying to sucker idiots into buying something they don't need
thats probably like 90% of businesses.
I knew this kid who set up a scam website as a fake music management company or something like that. he was quite open about it and he wanted to show me. I dont know if he was successful with it.

sometimes I think about setting up a scam website. but I can never figure out how to launder the money so it cant be traced to me.
>> No. 2653 [Edit]
File 129590763963.jpg - (235.92KB , 1240x868 , 1d1866fd850eeaa07b41adaf80154fbf.jpg )
I'm convinced I am not an individual.
Many people exist on Earth who look the way I do, capable of the same things I can, interested in the same I'm into, carry the same values I have, flawed in the same way I am. If I (heavenforbid!) died, nothing irreplaceable would be lost -- perhaps it would cause pain to those who knew me, but from humanity's point of view, it's nothing, because everyone else would survive, and they are me, despite the superficial and unessential differences.
That's why I'm not afraid of death.
>> No. 2654 [Edit]
Hell, on a universal scale EVERYONE on Earth could die, all that is and ever will be could be gone, and it would make absolutely no difference.
>> No. 2657 [Edit]
I have thought about it and realized that there is a "heaven" when you die. When you die, you fall unconscious for a few moments before your brain itself dies. During that period, you will basically be in a dream state for a (relative) eternity.
>> No. 2659 [Edit]

This is plausible in my opinion, anyone here who has done lucid dreaming would likely know that you can make the dream last far longer than it does--it's not time, but perceived time. With enough practice or your brain being under enough pressure I don't find it too far of a stretch that it could go on indefinitely.Although I would find living eternally to become a "hell" after so long, I think you'd extinguish things to do and get bored and gradually lose your mind, or since its a dream you might be able to make yourself forget about things you've done and do things over again to stay entertained.
>> No. 2660 [Edit]
File 129592387895.png - (272.35KB , 600x600 , okuu.png )
>since its a dream you might be able to make yourself forget about things you've done and do things over again to stay entertained

This is what would probably happen. Eventually your mind would create a new world for you to live in with your memory wiped clean. In fact, it could be what you are in right now
>> No. 2663 [Edit]
File 129595350159.jpg - (40.17KB , 420x560 , m-night-shyamalan-062310.jpg )
Hire that man!
>> No. 2765 [Edit]
I know we have a variety of lifestyles here, which prompts me to wonder: who here would trade lifestyles with another?

For example, we have some NEETs, some college students, some freeters, and some full-time workers. I kinda get the feeling that a lot of us (including me) would want to trade lifestyles with someone if only because they forget (or underestimate) the problems of the lifestyle.

I guess it's just a testament to how there are positives and negatives to any lifestyle, and a depressed person will focus on the negatives of their current situation and idolize the positives of some other situation, no matter what the specifics are.
>> No. 2972 [Edit]
File 129699046012.jpg - (76.30KB , 347x500 , Goat goat.jpg )
I wonder if it would be possible to have a civilized society like today but to keep mortality at, say, 19th century levels. I think western society has distanced itself from death too much. People are able to grow way too old and I think that if there was an actual chance of you dying tomorrow a lot of people would focus on more imporant things in their life. Westerners who visit African countries are surprised by how happy people seem to be. If you live closer to death you live closer to life as well.
But I guess the first thing on the agenda of any community would be to improve medicine/ kill predators/ deal with whatever's killing people. Just wondering if it would be possible.
>> No. 2974 [Edit]
Somehow I'd much rather have this thread go to oblivion and these individual ponderings get their own threads, so we could spark some decent discussion.
>> No. 2975 [Edit]
Just what are the "important things" in life, anyways? Is there such a thing?

But in any case, even if mortality rates were higher, with all our material wealth, it'd be hard for people to not be distracted. One change I foresee resulting from your hypothetical case that I'd very much like is society having to make adults out of children a lot faster. Hopefully, that'd mean a radical change in our education system, with the numbers of years of mandatory school reduced and none of this "college degree is mandatory" bullshit.
>> No. 2976 [Edit]
File 129703808197.png - (26.69KB , 635x480 , Azumanga in a nutshell.png )
Important things could be anything really. The things people would stop caring about is where it's at. The thought that the guy who owns the most stuff when he dies wins for example. We all know that's not the case, but it would become much clearer to us if the average life span was about 40-50 years.
>> No. 2977 [Edit]
>The thought that the guy who owns the most stuff when he dies wins for example

If that's what you mean, then no, I don't think so. That certainly wasn't the case for people back in the 19th century, so I don't see why it would be now. I don't think it will really matter how long our lifespans are since most people tend not to care for the consequences of their actions until the very end.
>> No. 3126 [Edit]
File 129761779042.jpg - (87.27KB , 1280x720 , [Ayako]_Dyson_-_'Cause_I'm_The_Biggest_F.jpg )
I'm pretty sure people have asked this question before, so why not?

If I put one dyson fan in front of another dyson fan, if each dyson fan could claim to magnify wind up to 15x, does that mean that two dyson fans put together could magnify wind up to 225x the 'normal' speed of wind?
>> No. 3128 [Edit]
Sorry, but no. That video of the balloon obstacle course proved that.
>> No. 3129 [Edit]
For the wind to accelerate another 15x when it gets to the second fan it would require the second fan to have a power the double of the first fan. As it is, the first fan accelerates the wind up to 15x times and when it crosses the second fan it simply has no effect as the wind is already travelling at the speed the fan would accelerate it. Is this correct?
>> No. 3198 [Edit]
File 12978011491.jpg - (1.06MB , 1600x1200 , 30 glasses school_uniform sky thighhighs.jpg )
Thighhighs and miniskirts look awfully skanky on 3d women.
>> No. 3199 [Edit]
Almost all "sexy-cute" outfits in anime would make real women look like sluts.
>> No. 3200 [Edit]
I've never once seen a 3D woman wearing Thighhighs, They don't seem to sell them in normal stores and only get used for slutty halloween costumes and such from the looks of it.
>> No. 3201 [Edit]
File 129780459535.jpg - (760.75KB , 800x1200 , sexy-c77-winter-comiket-cosplay-088.jpg )
I would say it's more common in Japan. There were a lot of talks here because little girls would go to school wearing skirts and it was too nasty and revealing and what not, so they gradually banned it. Today's women don't use skirts and you can't really use thigh highs without skirts. Western women prefer trousers, leggings or very long dresses. If they wear a skirt they usually have something beneath.
>> No. 3279 [Edit]
File 129803849552.jpg - (126.41KB , 639x1100 , 7357e759ebe7e41794df05249d19f316 rider.jpg )
I realized it's a waste of time, effort and hard disk space to save images from Danbooru. When I'll be needing a certain picture, they will probably still have it, and I have better chances at finding it with their search than on my computer.
>> No. 3342 [Edit]
File 129831308071.jpg - (71.79KB , 440x458 , thor_heimdall_comic_book_image_01.jpg )
There's been a shitstorm brewing over the fact that Heimdall in the Thor movie is being played by a black guy. People are bitching because viking gods were white and having a black actor makes no sense; especially Heimdall since his name meant "the whitest of gods".
The reason is of course marketing; they want more black people to go see the movie. The comic explanation is that Marvel's Asgardians are actually aliens who honor warriors all over the Earth, not just vikings. So there's really no reason for the bitching. The ones who still bitch are stormfronts and trolls.

But what would happen if a black character was played by a white guy instead? Wouldn't that be the same thing? Of course it wouldn't. The racist shitstorm would be so huge that the movie would definitely flop. No studio would dare.
So why doesn't it work both ways?
I think it's because white people are already such a majority in entertainment and advertisement that it's become a standard. Giving other ethnicities white character roles is fair game but whenever the opposite happens whites are seen as greedy racist hogs since we already have so many roles.

I find racism fascinating. It touches upon so many aspects of how we as humans work and think. It's illogical as fuck too.
>> No. 3344 [Edit]
But what if you want quick access and have a select pool of pictures that suit your fancy that can be unrelated?
>> No. 3353 [Edit]
I find it pretty funny that after centuries of exploiting other minorities, most normal white people are trying so hard as to not appear racist while a lot of non-white people don't seem to give a fuck about saying racist remarks.

>It's illogical as fuck too.

Is it actually illogical? Although I don't condone racism, it seems pretty logical to me why we would display such behaviour. Humans are social organisms and there's always a fierce divide between insiders and outsiders. If you think about it on a general basis, it's much easier/comfortable to comprehend the world in black and white than as a shade.
>> No. 3363 [Edit]
If we treated all races 'truly equally', social inequalities may take longer to address than if we temporarily had a policy of 'reverse racism' or positive discrimination.
>> No. 3367 [Edit]
I certainly don't think it's fair to discriminate based on race, because generalizations obviously don't account for everyone. However, I think it's pretty lame and shallow to pretend that everyone is the same. I think races are inclined to certain strengths and weaknesses. I believe the same to be true for gender.
>> No. 3368 [Edit]
so thats why you believe women shouldnt be allowed to vote? you'll have to expand on that otherwise I dont think I can take anything you say seriously and I doubt you know anything about race either.
>> No. 3369 [Edit]
Re-read his post.
>> No. 3370 [Edit]
I don't believe that men and women have the same sets of innate abilities. Having the right to vote is not a direct measure of your usefulness or quality as a human being. Or do you think that is the case?
>> No. 3371 [Edit]
you said that it isnt right to discriminate "because generalizations obviously don't account for everyone". wouldnt that apply to women as well? even if women are worse at voting (I dont know why you would think this is true) you have to admit there are a lot of women that are better at voting compared to the least capable men.
>> No. 3372 [Edit]
Everything I say is a generalization, and only applicable to a perfect-world model. I take it for granted sometimes that this is self-evident.

If everyone saw it like I did, I don't think it'd be a big deal for women not to have the right to vote. However, I probably wouldn't see it in the neutral way I do if they never got the right. You can't indefinitely dissect these things until you come to one truth. The best that anyone can do is make an inaccurate generalization, and no matter what it may be, you're going to be wrong on some level. Picking a fight over it is silly.
>> No. 3479 [Edit]
Haven't you heard about the Avatar movie
shitstorm? It pretty much went over the same way except the entire cast was white instead of 'ethnic' and it was directed by >>2663 this guy so it would've sucked either way.
>> No. 3601 [Edit]
If liking dickgirls is gay, then liking cuntboys is totally straight, isn't it?
>> No. 3604 [Edit]
Logically, yes. But liking dickgirls isn't gay.
Depends on the partner really. As long as female and male genitals are interacting with each other, that's considered straight sex.
>> No. 3628 [Edit]
File 129932300476.jpg - (157.75KB , 430x486 , 629245f3cf2f67e7ef5dea89752f517d.jpg )
Should you brush your teeth before or after eating?
>> No. 3632 [Edit]
after dude
you do it before and the food taste weird
>> No. 3633 [Edit]
This, but even more importantly, if you brush then eat you're cleaning already-clean teeth and then getting food all over them. It's like taking a shower then going for a swim in a septic tank.
>> No. 3638 [Edit]
yes women can

It's analogous to the 'one drop' racial rule in the US that if you have ANY black ancestry you're black.

Here, if it's ANYTHING non-gender normative/heteronormative it makes you 'gay'
>> No. 3640 [Edit]
The thing is, there are times when you can feel a film of plaque or something that is 'nasty' to you, and you would want to remove that first so you don't eat it - so I'd say brush before in that case. I normally brush twice a day, if that. But there have been times when I've brushed multiple times per day.

Set up paypal accounts and bank accounts (maybe more accurately, debit accounts) behind proxies in a public place, use fake identities or use "overseas" (aka foreign) banks to store your shit in.
>> No. 3642 [Edit]
After, because then you clear out the crap that's left there from the meal you just ate. And because >>3632
>> No. 3692 [Edit]
Wouldn't a country be more prosperous if it gave free internet and housing? Maybe not housing, but ISP's are pretty much uniform in quality, so a state-funded, decent ISP option would be nice. And housing would be okay as long as it was based on the total income of a household.

I would give 60% of my income in taxes if I could live in a country like that, as oppose to paying a small amount of taxes, getting nothing from society, and spending the rest of my income on my housing and food like I am now.
>> No. 3705 [Edit]
Conventional Knowledge says that this makes people lazy and that anything the state can do, the free market can do better.

There have been proponents of a 'basic budget' in many countries however, where every citizen would receive enough money to take care of the necesseties. I've heard that Brazil might want to to try it in the near future.
Don't think that includes housing though, what with real estate being one of the most valuable commodities just about everywhere you'd want to live.

As for prosperity, I dunno. The question is whether the new contributions of dedicated smart innovators that are currently stuck trying to support themselves can outweigh the lost contributions of the people who wouldn't do any work if their basic needs were taken care of. And you'd also have to consider that the lack of basic needs can sometimes drive people to innovate.

An interesting question which I believe has a complex answer.
>> No. 3706 [Edit]
Also: the quality of ISPs depends on the country and how densely populated it is. I hear some horror stories about certain places in America where the only offering is bad and overpriced.
>> No. 4149 [Edit]
Isn't it odd when fiction deals with the future (or the past), it's usually assumed the world would change only superficially, and people therein won't at all; they'll look, feel, act and -most of all- live about the same way as today, no matter how much their environment differs from ours. The computer might have a holographic screen, but still runs Photoshop; the car floats, but still used the same way as a car today; the people might dress differently, but still recognizable as humans.
>> No. 4150 [Edit]
True, but it is hard for one to think outside of the paradigm one's used to. I've never found it to be glaringly distracting or anything since basic human nature has changed very little.
>> No. 4162 [Edit]
>there are times when you can feel a film of plaque or something that is 'nasty' to you, and you would want to remove that first so you don't eat it

why whouldnt you eat your own plaque? you wouldnt even notice it.
>> No. 4167 [Edit]
Thats not plaque. Thats just food covering your teeth. If you didn't brush your teeth for a few days, you get this white stinky stuff covering your teeth. Thats real plaque, a thin film of bacteria living inside food and shit.
>> No. 4441 [Edit]
Why does it seem like space/spaceship combat is less popular in anime than in western sci-fi?
>> No. 4444 [Edit]
Because Japan has giant robots instead.
>> No. 4446 [Edit]
spaceships are static, geometric objects which aren't really suited to hand-drawn animation
>> No. 4485 [Edit]
anime is a lot more broad a form than western science fiction. that's like asking why theres a sci fi ghetto in western tv
>> No. 4508 [Edit]
Well, I was implying sci-fi anime, not all anime. But the answers make sense.
>> No. 4510 [Edit]
The local primary school is having another marathon in the park near my house. I can see the kids running around the park from my balcony, running around a course set up with 'witch's hats'.

I sort of want to explode around the whole course and shout "THATS how you do it!" after blazing past every disgruntled, frustrated little kid on the field. But I won't. Not only is it retarded, the teachers will probably shout at me and shoo me off. Then they'll make me stand in the naughty corner for an hour.
>> No. 4521 [Edit]
Otaku are like monks and waifu are like gods.
>> No. 4540 [Edit]
In the car with my dad he told me another ‘prison story’..

He went to prison when he got caught trying to leave Vietnam. Anyway, the prison he went to was basically just this huge dirt-floor room with 500 barely-clothed sweaty guys in it. There was barely any free space. Gangsters, ‘military criminals’ such as conscientious objectors and spies and people who got caught while escaping from the country were all tossed into the huge room and everyone had to sleep in a criss-cross pattern where you’d lie your head on some guy’s legs and another guy would lie his head on yours.

Some of the gangsters carried a lone chopstick. People tried their best not to get on their bad side, or to insult/piss one of the off. If they didn’t like you, they’d come up to you when you were sleeping, place the tip of the chopstick at the thin part of your skull near your temples, then ram it in.
>> No. 4541 [Edit]
Well that's... inventive.
>> No. 4553 [Edit]
File 130120609649.jpg - (81.90KB , 500x341 , model 500.jpg )
I have a fondness for mid-to-mid-late-century technology. Not sure why. Right now I want to have a Model 500 rotary dial phone in my room. I found one but I need to get the person who has it another phone to replace it. Still waiting on that deal.

I want to have a Wang Labs VS minicomputer. I found one in an abandoned building near my house and took it to a friend's house to fix it up. His stepdad threw it out without telling anyone and we're pretty pissed at him for that. It wasn't running anything though.

Someday I fear that an entire room in my house will have a switchboard, those giant tape drives, some monochrome green screen terminals and black, white, and red Model 500 phones all over the place. Maybe some faux wood paneling.
>> No. 4647 [Edit]
How comes some rather insignificant historical figures are so popular in Japan? The best example would probably be Marie Antoinette. She's reffered to in tenths of anime/manga/VNs and yet she seems like a rather insignificant person to me. Of course, she's a perfect example of a ruler who has no idea what's going on in his/her country (well, she didn't exactly rule France, but still) but that's not what she seems to be know for in Japan.

There are lots of other characters like this, too. Sid Vicious comes to mind. Guy seems to be reffered to in every music anime/manga out there. In DMC he's portrayed as a saint protecting punk rockers, and in Beck he appears in company of musicians such as Lennon, Dylan, Hendrix and Freddie. Reffered to in some others as well (Nana comes to mind). Why? Come on, this guy couldn't even playh his goddamn instrument.

Shrodinger's cat sort of counts, too.
>> No. 4651 [Edit]
I want to have sex.

I want to do the old in and out.

I want to have sex!!
>> No. 4653 [Edit]
Then go to a prostitute. Nobody's stopping you.
>> No. 4654 [Edit]
I don't want to screw any old girl!
>> No. 4655 [Edit]
It was kind of a joke in DMC.
>> No. 4656 [Edit]

read the last comment.

I don't know if it's true ,but it is sombering. No Yuu~chan to give me a second shot if shit goes down in the real world ;_;
>> No. 4658 [Edit]
ken-sama was real? R.I.P
>> No. 4659 [Edit]
Marie Antoinette may not be the most important historical figure but she's pretty damn famous. I'd be more surprised if they didn't know about her.
>> No. 4660 [Edit]
Marie Antoinette is used in the West all the time as a classic example of the vain, cruel queen. So I don't get how that's surprising they would use it in Japan, too. Maybe they don't have any prominent historical women figures who fit the bill quite as well.

Too bad for Marie Antoinette; in reality she wasn't all that bad. Even that famous "let them eat cake" quote is falsely attributed to her. But when you have a revolution going it's no time to let unpopular foreign-born royalty off the hook.
>> No. 4661 [Edit]
Also, adding to my post >>4659, it makes sense that they know about certain lesser-known historical figures. For example, it kind of makes sense that Japanese would have heard of Jean Henri Fabre the famous entomologist considering that Japan has a lot more insect species (i think?) and pretty much every Japanese kid has gone insect hunting before.

Personally, I rather like it when I see mentions of the more obscure historical figures in media.
>> No. 4662 [Edit]
>ken-sama was real? R.I.P

I seriously doubt that blog is real.
>> No. 4665 [Edit]

Well, I still consider it to be strange. Yeah, she's well recognized pretty much everywhere but I hardly see any other historical figures in anime/manga and she appears somewhere all the time. Also, as far as I can see, Japanese use her as a sterotypical rich ignorant who looks down upon thee poor.

One other example I recalled is Brute/Brutus. I mean seriously Japan, leave them alone.


>Too bad for Marie Antoinette; in reality she wasn't all that bad.

Yeah, I vaguely recall hearing something like that years ago in history class. Well, word of mouth spreads fast. There are countless other examples. Let's stick to France - for example Napoleon wasn't short at all (British propaganda). But maybe it's better to be remembered as an evil queen than to be forgotten like all those before her. Then again, getting decapitated must've sucked.
>> No. 4666 [Edit]
Brutus? You talking about the one who betrayed Julius Caesar or some other obscure Brutus?
>> No. 4667 [Edit]

Yep, the 'Et tu, Brute?' one.
>> No. 4671 [Edit]
How the hell is he supposed to be obscure? He was in Shakespeare's famous play and he did kill one of history's most famous men. I'm pretty sure more people have heard of him than say, Pompey or Crassus. Are you just thinking that he's obscure because you think the Japanese wouldn't know much about history other than their own or...?

I know obscurity is relative to culture and your personal experiences, but when I think of obscure historical figures, I think of people like Emile Berliner or Mary Mallon (typhoid mary). Hell, I was surprised that Legend of the Strongest Man even mentioned Ernest Seton.
>> No. 4672 [Edit]

Compared to tenths of people he is somewhat obscure. I'm not sure whether I can recall anyone reffering to Caesar himself but I could name three cases where Brutus was mentioned off the top of my head.

We could also debate whether he really is more known than Marie Antoinette. Then again I never used the word 'obscure'; I just questioned their historical significance.

But let's leave those two and Shrodinger (I'm not sure whether I've heard about, say, Heisenberg even once in anime - well, maybe once in Index and I'm not too sure about that) aside for now. But what about Sid? I wouldn't say he's THAT known. Many people know who he was, sure, but to mention him alongside guys like Hendrix and Lennon? No matter how you look at it, it is weird. I just wonder where it comes from.

And yes, I think Japanese have rather limited knowledge about European history. I have no idea what their educational program looks like but that's what I would expect. And it's a normal thing to be perfectly honest - every country cares about it's own history first and foremost. Unless their history classes are split into two subjects (i.e. Japanese history and world history) like they SHOULD be (to my dismay they are not around here and in most other European countries) I doubt they know that much about this subject.

Since there is no set topic ITT and we can just talk about whatever I could also rant about how South American history is a topic commonly completely omitted in many countries (again, I'm not speaking strictly from personal experience - I also talked about it with some guy from Germany and he said that they talked about Che for like two lessons and that was basically it). 99% of my knowledge about all those revolutions is stuff I've researched on my own and believe me, I don't know much at all. And don't even mention Africa - aside from the Moroccan Crisis and some basic knowledge about the decolonization of Africa I know absolutely nothing.
>> No. 4674 [Edit]
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the average Japanese wouldn't know much about World history but I think people like Antoinette and Brutus are just one of those figures that you just hear about regardless of whether you're from the East or the West because they've appeared in famous books or hollywood movies, which are released worldwide.

Of course, I don't really have much to backup this statement other than the fact that I'm Asian and both my parents have heard of those two figures yet they wouldn't know about Charlemagne or the Battle of the Hastings.
>> No. 4846 [Edit]
In ancient Athens, if the plaintiff in a court case didn't win at least a certain percentage of the jury's votes (not a majority, just a certain fraction) he had to pay a fine to the defendant. This rule was made to cut down on the number of frivolous and vicious lawsuits people filed.

So why the hell don't we have any laws like that?
>> No. 4854 [Edit]
Because that would be intelligent.
>> No. 5189 [Edit]
my PC is in the shop due to hardware issues beyond my capabilities. i'm using my PS3 to post and it occurs to me how much my life has come to revolve around the computer and internet.

one computerless week out of 3-plus years since my last computer mishap is not so bad, but i almost want to say it feels a little claustrophobic. i'm glad i didn't completely consolidate my hobbies onto the PC, at least. re-watching Black Lagoon again is better than staring at the wall, after all.

i know there was a thread about this somewhere but i couldn't find it, sorry. browsing with a controller is a pain...
>> No. 5190 [Edit]
My computer matters a lot to me too. If it broke I have no idea what I would do until it's fixed, since the only time I go without it is when I'm sleeping
>> No. 5192 [Edit]
Not having a computer is okay. Not having money to actually pay for internet is worse. It feels like you're cut off from the world, that a part of you is missing. How useless my computer was without that ethernet connection, it was really awful. You just can't connect through any means. Not your 360/PS3, not your PSP/DS, not your phone. Nothing.
>> No. 5193 [Edit]
This is offset by living in a city, or by neighbors who leave their connection unprotected.
>> No. 5268 [Edit]
I fear that I have some kind of mental disability that no one's telling me about. I've been trying to think of a way to finally determine how right or wrong I am without having to ask.
Also, I know someone with a mental disability (just a notch short of full blown retard). I've often wondered if he knows that he's got mental problems and how he'd handle it if I were to manage to convince him that he does.
>> No. 5269 [Edit]
No one likes being told they have a disability unless they already know and want to use it as an excuse.
>> No. 5271 [Edit]
Lately I have been having a lot of difficulty expressing my thoughts and feelings into words. I also have a great deal of trouble communicating in real life as well. When I try and form sentences into words it takes me quite a while and they usually end up being incoherent, I think it's because I hardly ever talk to anybody online or off, I've forgotten a lot, and my vocabulary is becoming worse and worse. I think my brain is rotting, I feel trapped in my own mind at times, and I don't know what to do.
>> No. 5272 [Edit]
I know how you feel. Communicating in any "real time" way makes me nervous because I can't put my thoughts into words fast enough
>> No. 5275 [Edit]
I have just as much trouble when writing, even more so than I do speaking. I'm not even good at structuring my sentences anymore. I think I should start reading more, even reading an encyclopedia might prove beneficial to me.
>> No. 5276 [Edit]
I was in the same place as you a while back, I was doing a Japanese immersion environment and ended up forgetting a good deal of my English vocabulary and structure and ended up being terrible at two languages. It eventually got to the point where I would sit in on a lecture and not be able to understand anything that was being said. I suggest reading books out loud, it might feel silly but it really helped me get my English comprehension and speaking skills back.
>> No. 5277 [Edit]
What books did you read? I've been searching for a good novel to read.
>> No. 5278 [Edit]

I may very well be in the earlier stages of this, I used to be able to talk to people fine I just didn't like them, but now I can't really express my thoughts in words. I can if I type them out, but not in words.
>> No. 5282 [Edit]
File David_Foster_Wallace_-_Infinite_Jest_v2_0.pdf - (4.73MB , David Foster Wallace - Infinite Jest v2_0.pdf )

I've been reading Infinite Jest by David Wallace. I don't consider it a particularly good book, but it uses a good deal of dense vocabulary which has really been helping me get my reading and speaking skills back.
>> No. 5287 [Edit]
You have to have read every book ever written to understand Infinite Jest.
>> No. 5289 [Edit]
File 130273158988.jpg - (42.94KB , 572x286 , monaco-yacht-1.jpg )
>For the super-rich it would combine the delights of Monaco with untrammelled access to the ports of the world - as well as bragging rights as to owning the world's most expensive personal yacht.

British designers have produced plans for a floating replica of the principality named Streets Of Monaco which features scaled-down versions of its famous landmarks including the Monte Carlo racetrack.

>The 500ft-long boat - expected to cost up to £700million - also boasts miniatures of the famed Monte Carlo Casino, Hotel de Paris, Cafe de Paris, La Rascasse, the Loews Hotel as well as swimming pools and tennis courts
>> No. 5290 [Edit]
File 130273163377.jpg - (46.07KB , 572x286 , monaco-yacht-2.jpg )
Yes, that is a waterfall
>> No. 5292 [Edit]
File 130273175278.jpg - (35.78KB , 572x286 , monaco-yacht-4.jpg )
And here's a bedroom.

Anyway the reason I posted this is that it's the first time I've doubted the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I mean making a billion dollar yacht that looks like a golf course miniature of the tax haven you hide your money in? Mildly distasteful
>> No. 5293 [Edit]
Nice boat.
>> No. 5297 [Edit]
they were planning onmaking some huge ass ship that sailed globally as a cruise ship and was half a mile long. I guess its like that. they planned on having an airport built on the top of the ship....
>> No. 5317 [Edit]
File 130275108344.jpg - (108.36KB , 600x490 , Largest-Cruise-Ship-Oasis-Of-The-Sea.jpg )
Was it this?
>> No. 5343 [Edit]

>it's the first time I've doubted the philosophy of Ayn Rand

I think it's somewhat strange that someone on /tc/ would be this fond of Rand. Whenever someone mentions her I just say that even if your wrap it in tin-foil capitalism will remain capitalism. I think her philosophy is a great example of how some pathos and sugar coating can make bad ideas sound wonderful. I have to admit that her PR talents were through the roof.

But that's just my opinion I guess.

Also, inb4 this ships sinks on it's maiden voyage. Reading about it today of all days is quite a coincidence.
>> No. 5346 [Edit]
I used to somewhat believe in Rand's ideas. Then I realized that I was poor and unmotivated. I just think the whole thing conflicts with everything I believe in.

No Objectivist would be caught dead with a waifu.

This is really, really late, but I've always thought that Sid Vicious epitomizes late-70's British punk rock. He just didn't give a fuck, and that's why he was so popular. Most normal people don't even know what instrument he tried to play. It still is astounding how off-hand some references are. Not in terms of obscurity, but simply because they come out of left field more often than not.
>> No. 5347 [Edit]

>I've always thought that Sid Vicious epitomizes late-70's British punk rock.

Well, that much is obvious and pretty much indisputable. But again, it doesn't explain how the heck does a guy like him get listed alongside Lennon, Hendrix, Dylan.

On a side note, Cobain also appeared in that dream. Obviously he doesn't belong there either but AT LEAST he was a musician. Can't even say that much about Sid.


There's something else I wanted to get off my chest for a while. In anime closing your eyes while washing your hair is pretty much always reffered to as childish and made fun of. I do that, too. Well, e-enjoy getting shampoo in your eyes you meanies! ... Actually, now that I think about it there was a girl who laughed at me for the same reason. She said it was 'cute' or something. Again, better safe than sorry.

Closing-eyes-while-washing-your-hair master race reports in!
>> No. 5348 [Edit]
>Closing-eyes-while-washing-your-hair master race reports in!

Aye aye, reporting in!
>> No. 5349 [Edit]
I do it too, and I don't open them until I am absolutely sure there's no soap left that could come down on my eyes
>> No. 5352 [Edit]
im facing a very big dillemma. it is quite real, and physical.

on monday, i take a 12 hour train ride out to Broken Hill for a mining field trip. the hotel booking goes until thursday night, and on friday morning we all take the train back to central. except theres one problem.

all the bookings for the train out of broken hill on friday are already taken.

so i think i will have to book the trip on saturday. which means i will spend one night in the freezing desert unless i can figure something out pronto. im very scared some local teenagers might slit my throat in the middle of the night or something- this is especially because im asian and broken hill is, i assume, a completely white community who have never seen my kind before.

i think maybe there is an evening train going to central, if there is such a train i can sleep on the train and avoid being sideended in the desert in an unfamiliar location.

but then again... hoboing it up in a country town sounds awfully, well, cool. itd be an interesting experience and i'd have an awesome story to tell. in a life where everything is just a flatline of one boring day after another, an interesting experience could be fun to look back on, even if it was not a pleasant one.
>> No. 5354 [Edit]
File 130292688137.gif - (128.15KB , 510x441 , buster_keaton-14615.gif )
Today Google celebrates Charlie Chaplin's 122nd birthday.

However, I can't be the only one who finds Charlie Chaplin incredibly overrated. In fact, if I had to compare him to comedians of his time, Buster Keaton is miles away funnier to me. This guy did all of his stuns and had incredible dexterity. In a way maybe he was more modern then Chaplin was. Although, Keaton plays a physical comedy and Chaplin a visual one. People, especially young, have to know. When I mention Buster Keaton, no one knows who he was.
>> No. 5379 [Edit]
File 130293664656.jpg - (299.87KB , 1600x1152 , annex-chaplin-charlie-limelight_nrfpt_04.jpg )

>When I mention Buster Keaton, no one knows who he was.
Well I do; even if just for "Steamboat Bill, Jr." on wich I do believe he was fantastic and still can't figure out how he didn't end up quadriplegic for. As you said, his plots were mostly action comedy alone; so his main appeal was just the charm of his apparent inanity: the complete lack of facial expression, troughout both the most extreme action and what should be the most emotional moments; but not in a poker-face way, but in a see-through way. He was likeable because he looked sincere, inocent and harmless.

>I can't be the only one who finds Charlie Chaplin incredibly overrated.
Chaplin could be hilarious as well, but he had the plus of an almost frontal social critique, beautifully disguised as comedy, wich I think is one of the strongest reasons why many people still highly appreciate his work. Chaplin was also a true intellectual artist: an aestheticist, (let's not say a philosopher, ok, but) a deep thinker and a poet, deeply concerned by the perennial yet beautiful drama of human misery; my favourite movie of him is not mute, does not have Charlotte on it and is not even a (pure) comedy: it is "Limelight", whose ubertragic realistic plot and absolutely brilliant monologues, made me shed some of the most sincere tears I've ever known... and on wich he share a brilliant scene with the very one Buster Keaton.

Now, to save this from being a crappy version of the Chaplin VS Keaton gay debate on Bertolucci's "The Dreamers", I would add that if we're going to be fair with mute cinema old masters, I simply have to bow at Fritz Lang and his "Metropolis".
>> No. 5384 [Edit]
>> No. 7770 [Edit]
File 130694827263.jpg - (449.66KB , 1280x960 , Minitokyo_Anime_Wallpapers_Ragnarok_Online%5B56349.jpg )
Why do MMORPGs have grinding? Why do these imaginary worlds have to contain both violence and work?
>> No. 7771 [Edit]
Keeps you playing longer, simply.
>> No. 7772 [Edit]
I don't play MMORPGs but I assume there aren't any set 'end' goals for most of them correct? Just endless quests to accomplish. Otherwise once a player would finish the game by beating the final quest or whatever, he would leave. Less subscribers =/= less money for the company.
>> No. 7773 [Edit]
The final goal in most mmos is PvP and waiting for the devs to release new shit to do. I would love an MMO that just gives you a world where people could do whatever. Archeage looks like it might be that, but I don't want to get too excited since it will probably be bad like every other mmo
>> No. 7774 [Edit]
oops, I meant less subscribers = less money
>> No. 7787 [Edit]
File 130696530329.png - (141.75KB , 770x2759 , MMORPGs by Whynne.png )
>> No. 7791 [Edit]
its funny because this is happening in /vg/ right now
>> No. 7894 [Edit]
I kinda don't feel like typing the thought process that lead to this conclusion but let me say this: babysitters are the cancer of society (well, it's not exactly their fault, they exist solely because there are people willing to hire them so maybe I should say 'bad parents are the cancer of society' but that much is obvious).

If parents don't even want to upbring their own goddamn children why did they decide to have them in the first place? Oh, that's right, they didn't really want them but it's normal to get married and start a family. Works for billions of people, why shouldn't it work for you? And if you're single past certain age people will give you weird looks at first, then gossip that there must be something wrong with you, then they'll...

Wow, that rant was unintentional. But yeah, fuck babysitters and fuck people who hire them and don't even spend time with their children... Know what, just fuck society in general. Can't believe that we (as species) are still this retarded after millions of years of evolution.
>> No. 7899 [Edit]
In sci-fi, artificial humans tend to be pictured as scary and evil.
But I would love to write a story where they are actually more friendly and virtous than baselines.
>> No. 7901 [Edit]
By that same line of thought fuck teachers and fuck doctors. Parents should be doing that shit for their kids or they shouldn't have had them in the first place.
>> No. 7903 [Edit]

That's quite a stretch bro. If everyone was born with degree in medicine life would be much easier.
>> No. 7916 [Edit]
File 13072528352.jpg - (17.60KB , 260x260 , 35455778-260x260-0-0_Fundex+Games+What+s+In+Ned+s+.jpg )
My parents didn't want to have me, but god damn, did they learn to like it. If I am to respect them for only one thing (which is likely) it is that they made an effort to raise me. Never had a babysitter. Did have a lot of time with my dear grandmother, and she became the biggest influence on me for sure. Which is good.

I can just imagine, though, the countless families with parents too wrapped up in their country clubbing, drug abuse, party scenes or "careers" to raise a child. Child ends up thinking of themselves as a burden, unwanted, and uncared for. ALL BAD BEHAVIOUR CHILDREN ALMOST ALWAYS EXHIBIT COMES FROM THIS SITUATION, NO MATTER THE DURATION OR THE IMPACT. I seriously have no fucking idea why nobody can figure this out after spending millions in pediatrics and psychology studies. Parent does not actively parent. Child is exposed to media more often. Child is exposed to stupid skanky babysitter getting paid to rack up a phone bill. Child is exposed to stupid western cartoons where acting obnoxiously is accepted, encouraged and a form of entertainment. Child imitates that gun battle he saw on cable. Child imitates skanky babysitter. Child imitates stupid cartoons and their obnoxious grotesque characters. These will impact the child in the immediate future and in the duration of his life. Child becomes irresponsible obnoxious adult. Has children. Repeats.

I mean, seriously. They have friggin playsets where you can make edible worms and boogers. How do they think this will affect the development of kids?

Crass idiots.
>> No. 7917 [Edit]
Its unlikely, but reading /so/, if I do happen to have/become responsible for children I vow to raise them properly so they'll become healthy, respectable and above all happy people.
>> No. 7918 [Edit]
>> No. 7919 [Edit]

You know there ARE single parents out there who have to work and can't watch over their kids all the time. Even some married couples both have to work full time to support their children. I've never heard personally of parents who hire a babysitter out of parental laziness, but god damn fuck them.
>> No. 7922 [Edit]

>You know there ARE single parents out there who have to work and can't watch over their kids all the time.

That's another case altogether but you do have a point. The thing is, in most cases (99%?) single parents are in some way responsible for being single. I don't think I need to elaborate on this.


In remaining ones, where there can be no doubt they are not at fault (say, their partner died) it's perfectly understandable and I won't condemn any of them (actually, taking their situation in consideration their behavior is commendable).

>Even some married couples both have to work full time to support their children.

Can't afford raising children = don't have them. It's no rocket science, really.

>I've never heard personally of parents who hire a babysitter out of parental laziness, but god damn fuck them.

I ranted like this because I read an article about a 'free woman' who doesn't do jack's shit at home, doesn't work and apparently doesn't give a shit about her child. And the author (another retarded feminist) praised her. All of my rage. That's why this rant happened. Normally I'm level-headed but there are some things I can't stand, too. So I sort of utilized this thread to vent my frustration (well, I didn't know somebody is gonna bump it so soon). I apologize, that was stupid.

Back on topic. I'm one of the very few people around here who doesn't mind that there are women out there who want to work and don't want to touch any home appliances. I am probably biased since I feel I've been crushed by traditional gender roles and I can sympathize with other people who feel bad because of them, no matter if they're male or female. The thing is feminists are more pressured to fit a mold than your average stay-at-home wife. I can't fucking believe there are people out there who are this blind and this retarded.

But that's not even worst of it. The thing that makes me want to go and murder some feminist propagandists is the fact that they don't really want equality, nor do they like it. This time I won't rant about the traditional examples, though. They don't want equality in their relationships. Overall, some 90% of them want strong alpha males and would not tolerate role reversal at all. Just go find some articles about their stance on stay-at-home husbands. I'd link you to some but I'd feel the urge to look through them and I'm not sure I could take it right now.

If you're like me here's a tl;dr version - they resent them. They despise them with the very core of their being. There might be some couples out there where this model works but for most of them it's suicide.

And one parent has got to stay at home. Again, it's no rocket science but apparently, women get stupider on average with each generation as they insist they want to work either way. If their partner will decide to back down and take care of their child(ren) the effect will be disastrous. If he won't (how many would, really?) there won't be anybody at home to look after the children. Either way it won't work so why have children in the first place?

I could go on like this for hours but let's just stop here.
>> No. 7925 [Edit]
I'm an only child, my father was always out of the country ten months out of twelve for work, and my mother worked until 6 pm. My parents did care a lot for me and worked hard to give me good opportunities, so I don't resent them for that. But I'm almost certain that this solitude in my childhood had something to do with what I am today. I absolutely won't have a child unless I can afford to have my wife stay at home, and I'd have at least two of them. Considering the modern trends, though, this is extremely unlikely to work out (also I can't function socially or barely talk to other people, so the relationship thing is probably out as well.)

Yet my parents don't seem to see anything wrong with how things went, and they're pushing me to start a family once I get out of school. And since I'm an only fucking child, all the pressure is on me. God damn it, and now I'm angry too because I'm thinking about this. Thanks.
>> No. 7927 [Edit]

>And since I'm an only fucking child, all the pressure is on me.


>Oh, that's right, they didn't really want them but it's normal to get married and start a family. Works for billions of people, why shouldn't it work for you? And if you're single past certain age people will give you weird looks at first, then gossip that there must be something wrong with you, then they'll...

It's amazing how many people start families because they are pressured into doing so rather than of their own free will.

And as bad as I feel about saying something negative about your parents pushing your children to get married and start their own families (in most cases it happens just because they want to have grandchildren) even though they don't want to do so is not exactly commendable parenting.

The problem with lots of parents is that they have some expectations they want their children to fulfill. Some basic concepts, really. Get a degree, get a high-paying, secure job, start a family, be a good parent and husband. But some are rather close-minded and won't accept that their child could be happy leading a life they didn't envision for them.

I must admit that I couldn't stand seeing my son become alpha-male normalfag or my daughter turn trashy whore, even if they would be happy. It might be close-minded and that probably means I would be a bad parent. But I at least have enough decency to admit it and hence I don't plan to have children. It's as simple as that.

On a side note, parents who take what I've written about to an extreme and want their children to fulfill some dreams of theirs (most likely thing they couldn't achieve on their own) are nothing but scum. Behavior such as this should be punishable by death on spot.
>> No. 7928 [Edit]
This post is so retarded I don't even know where to begin. If someone's parents want to go out for a nice dinner one night, that makes babysitters the "cancer of society"? My parents went out occasionally when I was a kid, but it wasn't because they hated me; they just had something to do that night. And I turned out pretty darn well. Everyone in my family loves each other, and because my dad worked so late into the night when I was growing up (thus sometimes warranting a babysitter), we're financially secure, too. Just because there are some horrendously irresponsible parents out there doesn't mean babysitters are inherently a terrible concept.

I used to be a babysitter, by the way, before the huge pedophile scare of the 2000s led parents to think any male over the age of 2 wanted to molest their children.
>> No. 7929 [Edit]

>My parents went out occasionally when I was a kid, but it wasn't because they hated me; they just had something to do that night.

Occasionally is the key word here. I was talking about parents who hire a babysitter for long periods of time (or even indefinitely).
>> No. 7930 [Edit]
Then you worded it terribly. You're thinking more of a nanny; someone who is specifically hired to watch the kids because the parents don't have time to/don't want to deal with them.
>> No. 7931 [Edit]

Yeah, I know. My bad. Sorry if ti offended anyone else out there.
>> No. 7944 [Edit]
"In Ovid's narrative, Pygmalion was a Cypriot sculptor who carved a woman out of ivory. According to Ovid, after seeing the Propoetides prostituting themselves (...) he was 'not interested in women', but his statue was so fair and realistic that he fell in love with it."

I heard this story before but I forgot about it. Now that I've rediscovered it I feel that Pygmalion is a proto-brohno and a hero who refused to accept the pig disgusting women around him and kept looking for perfection.
>> No. 7950 [Edit]
I just thought of a genius political slogan: "D is for Drive. R is for Reverse."

Aw, crap, I googled it and someone else thought of it first.
>> No. 7954 [Edit]
My friend's mother is a nanny.

I feel bad for her because she doesn't get much work nowadays. She was hired recently by an Indian immigrant family to help raise their two year old daughter. They have a lot in their careers and upkeep of their lives so they need a nanny to make sure the kid is under supervision 24/7.

I like this family. Mainly because they are responsible. When she went out on interviews, eleven out of thirteen of them expected a nanny to also clean the house, wash the windows, the bathroom, all sorts of things. One even offered to hire her for an hour a day just to clean their kid's room while the kid was at school. Another hired her to look after their 16-year-old son. He wasn't disabled or mentally challenged at all. They just didn't trust him.
>> No. 7958 [Edit]

>Another hired her to look after their 16-year-old son.

This is retarded and yet, at the same time, in a mysterious way sounds quite awesome.
>> No. 7968 [Edit]
Doujins where!?
>> No. 8032 [Edit]
Maybe I should stop using suicide terms so causally.

Like just the other day:
"I swear to Haruhi if I have no time because I get a job I will off myself."

I said this to one of my contacts. To which he replied: "You say things like that a lot..."
>> No. 8297 [Edit]
The average modest asian man

-Studied at college and has a boring white-collar job
-Since he doesn't have a 3DPD, he just spends his reasonably good income on himself and his silly hobbies
-Since he is alone and does not have any family obligations, his savings and spare cash accumulate to large sums in his bank account, doing nothing
-He is tired after working unpaid overtime and too lazy to make his own dinner, so late at night he eats at cheap and tasty takeaway shops and falls asleep slightly drunk. Comes home late.
-His facial expression is one of constant tiredness and indifference
-He likes women and wishes he had a 3DPD, but can't arouse enough care and emotion towards any particular girl to act on it
-He just masturbates to porno occasionally
-He wishes he was brave and strong and did manly things, like be a cool soldier and fight in a war
-He feels that his life is trivial and mundane. His own misfortune and the things he holds value in his life are considered humorous by other people.
>> No. 8336 [Edit]
I'm not asian but i identify with a lot of that/wish I could live like that. esp the 'no family obligations' and 'has a nice comfy well paying job' and 'able to accumulate money for hobbies'
>> No. 8534 [Edit]
File 13085332455.jpg - (100.93KB , 797x466 , samplewrite.jpg )
Why do all 3Ds have the same handwriting?

I think they are all hive-minded extraterrestrial sociopaths who exist to enslave the rest of us. This handwriting is just their way of communicating with each other under our noses.
>> No. 8535 [Edit]
I switched to this handwriting while in high school and you write much faster this way plus it has the advantage of being readable by all your classmates if you need to share/receive.
>> No. 8536 [Edit]
You can read this? "a" and "d" look the same. So do "e" and "i." And "o" and "c."

Hell just add dots and stuff and I would honestly think it was hasty Arabic.
>> No. 8537 [Edit]
File 130853672424.jpg - (27.77KB , 293x413 , 1307051764909.jpg )
Yeah I can read the whole text, no problems.

I admit I was kind of reluctant to switch to it at first since I liked my cute serif old style hand writing but now I don't care that much and this style has kind of merged with my previous one so it's a mix of the two now.
>> No. 8539 [Edit]
>compare it too Investigaters searched for clues or forgery by first analyzing the pattern texture. Hoff[rr?]mann's writtingwas craclcea. in hoffmann's basement, forgery books were reund. investigeters, after 16 months or work came to the conclusion that Hoffmann killed Christenscn. The reason that lead them te this conclusion was the figurea alt the ink formula Horrmann used to rorge this letter. Horrmann killed Christenscn because he was suspiccus of...[sic]"
>> No. 8540 [Edit]
Now you have just got to be joking. There is no way you cannot read that text perfectly fine. It's plain as day.
>> No. 8543 [Edit]
I agree its very easy to read that stuff.

As for my handwriting, i've always used lead pacers and my style has always been tall, thin, with the curves looking more like parabolas than arcs. I think this is a by-product of my weird grip: first joint of my thumb touches the pen.
>> No. 8544 [Edit]
Hey, I think I write that way too. I didn't know it was supposed to be weird.
>> No. 8545 [Edit]
File 13085448986.jpg - (354.25KB , 800x598 , 6a00d83451586c69e20120a4c6ec40970b-800wi.jpg )
This is that bubble script that a lot of young girls write in, or at least that's how I remember it from my school days.

My handwriting looks a lot more like this, and it's just about as readable.
>> No. 8546 [Edit]
That's some really girly handwriting.

At least it's easy to read.
>> No. 8551 [Edit]
I am always annoyed when people call out controversial or just general posts that differ from their own as "trolls." Even if they are trolling, the post still has merit as it offers an alternative point of veiw. And what is the point of talking if not to aid us in pondering all the possibilities of the world?

It seems to me that when one person calls out a post, the hivemind bands behind it as a 'troll,' and suddenly you have a valid idea, being dismissed, and no amount of logic or reason will convince people otherwise.

So I say to you keep an open mind.

let us pray:

May our waifu's be ever kawaii, and their ramen bowl ever full.
>> No. 8564 [Edit]
Stop trolling
>> No. 8567 [Edit]
Yeah I agree man. Whether or not it had trolling intentions behind it, you should still judge it post on its merits.
>> No. 9343 [Edit]
File 131123848573.png - (74.06KB , 479x600 , 479px-Bristol_stool_chart_svg.png )
Did you know that when people die their intestines and bowels relaxes it releases faeces? then what if you were to become a vampire and that happend forever..
>> No. 9344 [Edit]
I learned it from south park...
>> No. 9347 [Edit]
File 131124328390.png - (454.95KB , 622x930 , loveless 12_0.png )
Yes, I knew. But did you know that some butterflies shit (anally expel residuals) from the very begining, after eclosion, while extending their wings? Some moths don't even have a mouth (others emerge with a defectively short proboscis) and thus have to live all their adult stage (imago) without ever eating.

After centuries of artificial keen selection made by men (through sericulture), silk moths (Bombyx mori) have their wings atrophiated and so are unable to fly; males have to walk, jump and fall to reach females, who are so grossly fat they can't really move and only live for a couple hours, to just get fucked, put down eggs like mads and then die.

In order to kill butterflies in situ without damaging them, collectors (and scientists) usually squeeze the specimen's thorax between the index and thumb, wich causes the bug a fatal shock.

Post edited on 21st Jul 2011, 8:31am
>> No. 9358 [Edit]

That's one of the reasons I plan to eventually die by starvation/dehydration. Minimize the cleanup.
>> No. 9366 [Edit]
I don't think you have the willpower.

Wait, don't go out and prove me wrong!
>> No. 9368 [Edit]
Don't worry about that: nature will clean up all the mess you (and me) are as a whole, anyway.
>> No. 9392 [Edit]

Doesn't take that much willpower. Old people in hospice do it all the time.
>> No. 9396 [Edit]
It's fucking hard to starve to death. If you ever give it an earnest try you'd know that.
>> No. 9404 [Edit]

1) I've fasted for a month before (nothing but water). It's not hard at all.

2) Notice the "dehydration" part of what I posted. That's the one that kills you, it's not painful at all if you do it right, and it only takes about a week. It's actually one of the better ways to go. Like I said, the sick and elderly do it routinely as their preferred cause of death, even in jurisdictions that allow physician-assisted suicide. It's what my own grandmother did just a few years ago, and I can attest that she was very comfortable in her last days.

Anyway, I'm not planning to do it anytime soon, not that you care.
>> No. 9405 [Edit]
Were you protesting against the plastic small particles on the sea whose total weight already outnumbers placton's? Anyway: I remember I once read something about a so-called "rule of 3", according wich a person can survive ok:

- 3 months without any food
- 3 weeks witout any water
- 3 hours without any heat
- 3 minutes without any oxygen

don't know at what extent it's true, thought.
>> No. 9410 [Edit]

It depends on a lot of factors, of course. Having a strong will to survive counts for a lot; if you want to die anyway, you won't make it nearly as long. Also depends on your prior health status, climate, activity level, how smart you are about using and conserving local resources, etc.
>> No. 9423 [Edit]
I wonder how different our lives would have been, had the internet somehow not been invented. By 'our' I mean the /tc/ community.
>> No. 9516 [Edit]
I was reading a book about Philosophy by Bryan Magee. In it he says we have no direct writings of Aristotle, only some of his notes, unlike Plato. However he says that once Aristotle was introduced into Medieval philosophy, it caused them to question their held beliefs. My question is, how exactly was Aristotle introduced if none of his works survived to the Medieval age? Did they only know the general outline of his beliefs and not his actual works? Maybe I'll email him personally about this...
>> No. 9520 [Edit]
Maybe these works were lost during the Middle Ages, thus not reaching us? I wouldn't be surprised if the Church burnt down every single copy of a book that "caused [people] to question their held beliefs".
>> No. 9526 [Edit]
As I understand it, most of the original Greek texts are lost, but they'd already been translated into Arabic after the Muslims took over the old Greek centers of learning in Egypt and Syria where the Church in Rome never had much sway to begin with, so the later translations of his full works must have been based on the Arabic translations.

Post edited on 29th Jul 2011, 1:37am
>> No. 9540 [Edit]
Notes taken by his disciples.
>> No. 9600 [Edit]
I don't know. MaGee just says none of his works survived aside from some of his boring notes about technical things and student's lecture notes. That's another good question to ask.

It depends. If his original works were lost before the Arab conquests, how were they eventually brought into the western cannon? If they were around during the Arab golden age, why did they just vanish?

I think for the most part what I'm understanding is that while we don't have anything Aristotle wrote directly, we have enough comments about him by other people to piece together his philosophy. So that means what was eventually to challenge old European thought was the various notes about him.

I really should seek out some professionals on this subject...
>> No. 9621 [Edit]
how much is a "active" google account worth in potential ad-revenue? it must be worth thousand of dollars(data=$) collected with the android system and the use of a google chrome browser.
I looked at my old google account the other day I had 10356 searches during a year(the web search sucks when using it(bubble))
>> No. 9790 [Edit]
I wonder, which are more idiotic, the questions asked on yahoo answers, or the answers given.
>> No. 9791 [Edit]
File 131318427237.png - (71.84KB , 715x333 , Why do gangstas live in Detroit?.png )
They're both great.
>> No. 9792 [Edit]
File 131318448873.jpg - (35.90KB , 631x217 , cat abortion.jpg )
>> No. 9793 [Edit]
We should have a thread about these, though I dont know if they mesh with the theme of the board
>> No. 11051 [Edit]
Moral dilemmas are not about the Right Thing vs the Wrong Thing, Good and Evil. If they were, they could be solved by as much as always picking the good. The most difficult situations are when both (or more) alternatives are about equally good and equally bad. (Worse yet, often the consequences, risks, and acceptable trade-offs are unclear too.) In these baffling cases, the only thing thar makes sense is to choose randomly and regret nothing.
>> No. 11052 [Edit]
In a certain sense, we cannot make mistakes.
"What could have been" is a literally nonsensical question.
>> No. 11090 [Edit]
I don't know if I'll ever understand why people insist on categorizing and judging/hating people based on things like media tastes or hobbies.
>> No. 11092 [Edit]
The categorizing can be useful, such as when one is attending a concert or convention or whatever and wants to fit in, as an offhand example.
Judging and hating, however, is not going to be beneficial to either party as far as I can tell.
>> No. 11094 [Edit]
Making broad generalizations is evolutionary advantagious.
>> No. 11176 [Edit]
It always amazes me when English-speaking people assume there are seven colors in the rainbow. My mother tongue can name only five of them. Orange and indigo are considered yellow and blue respectively.
>> No. 11179 [Edit]
Wait, really? Mine has all 7, we still have different names for the different tones, indigo is "anil", for example.
>> No. 11180 [Edit]
That doesn't make sense; when you mix red and yellow, you get orange, the same way you get green when you mix yellow and blue. I've never understood the distinction between indigo and violet, though; they're just purple.
>> No. 11181 [Edit]
Indigo is basically a bluer shade of purple. For some reason someone felt that it deserved its own name.
>> No. 11186 [Edit]
File 131993069386.png - (0.98KB , 186x30 , Indiglo.png )
For me indigo will always be the color of indiglo
>> No. 11305 [Edit]
Are people attracted to popular things simply because they're popular, why do they assume being popular automatically makes it good?
why do people say the popularity of something is irreverent when the more popular something is, the more strongly and passionately people are willing to defend it when it's quality is called into question?

Post edited on 6th Nov 2011, 1:13am
>> No. 11306 [Edit]
People are attracted to popular things because they're within their comfort zone.
>> No. 11321 [Edit]
I don't understand fashion. If something was beautiful, awesome, or just tasteful some years ago, why it's not now? What changed?
>> No. 11322 [Edit]
Probably the clothing makers, forcing new products onto consumers to make more money.
Wouldn't be good for business if people could reuse old things.
Even if you wanted something old, you couldin't buy it becuase stores will only carry new fassions, and the corperasions have already made sure to brainwash people using the media into wanting the new fashion, which will also have them cast out and ridicule anyone that does not conform to the current fad.
>> No. 11328 [Edit]
People tend to want variety, novelty, and change in their lives and surroundings to some extent. They get bored with having the same old stuff over and over. This happens in a lot of other consumer industries: music, anime, games, etc.

There's probably some social element to it too, e.g. people get offended and paranoid if they see someone not keeping up with trends.
>> No. 11336 [Edit]

>the more popular something is, the more strongly and passionately people are willing to defend it when it's quality is called into question?

I think there's a lot of 'babby's first' effect to this. Since it's babby's first people get more attachted to it and thus claim it's better than it actually is and defend it more than they should. This is also because more often than not people have not been exposed to enough other 'samples' of any given media and they don't exactly have much of an idea what everything else is like. What came first will be the best for them. If it wasn't actually first it was probably among the first few at very least.

Also everybody feels a need to belong somewhere and by labelling oneself as fan of something you fulfill that need. The more popular it is the bigger the group you belong to gets which could be considered good for many different reasons.

That's my theory, might be true, might be not, I have no idea. Just a loose thought.
>> No. 11339 [Edit]
I've actually been thinking a lot about that lately. As a really basic and relevant example, I put forth anime such as Toonami anime: Cowboy Bebop, Gundam Wing, Outlaw Star etc. Kids really enjoyed these, and after growing up if they haven't really been exposed to much else they still stand by these as the greats. Cowboy Bebop I think stands by this, but what I'm getting at is that "babby's first" frequently ties into nostalgia and how strange it is how people cling onto that, and judge how good something is based on how potent that nostalgia is. 80s nostalgia seems to be particularly bad among the horrible shitty geek chic crowd, if only because everything from the 80s was so bad it wasn't even good... just bad.

People really ought to be more objective about their tastes, but if they know they're liking something that's bad they can at least call themselves out on their bullshit and/or keep it to themselves without being "hipster" and obnoxious about it.
>> No. 11342 [Edit]
who kill thier babbys. becuse these babby cant frigth back?
>> No. 11349 [Edit]
>> No. 11368 [Edit]

>what I'm getting at is that "babby's first" frequently ties into nostalgia and how strange it is how people cling onto that

That's more or less what I've been getting at but it's not always about nostalgia. Bringing up specific examples is a surefire way to create shitstorms (or at least justified 'I'm sick of talking/hearing about [x], stop this already!' moans) but it's hard to get any point accross without it.

Let's use Avatar (the movie, not the cartoon) as an example. Most people have little to no interest in scifi but many of them actually got their asses up and went to the cinema to watch it. Now what happens is this: you've got a movie which is bascially a pastiche of countless scifi and fantasy tropes and somebody who has never been exposed to those two genres. Unsurprisingly said person is overwhelemed by how rich the world is even though it's hardly original. I didn't get what was so good about the movie so after I returned from the cinema I went through some popular fora to see what people thought about it - 'wow, those floating islands, so imaginative!', 'wow, the [whatever the Tree of Life was called there], so imaginative!' etc. etc. I'm not surprised it was something new for them but for somebody who happens to play a JRPG every now and then Yggdrasil (and it's variations) is hardly new and exciting (I mean really, sometimes I get the feeling there are less JRPGs which don't mention Yggdrasil in some way than those which do).

That'd be an example of a scifi movie (I mean really, how many scifi movies were nominated for Academy Awards?), let's use a fantasy one now. Sure enough, I'm gonna go full LotR here. However, what I actually want to talk about first is not the movie but the book(s). Now, most people claim Tolkien kinda created modern fantasy (as in the genre). I don't plan to argue with that (even though it's actually far from being true). The thing I want to point out is that he didn't really create much himself, he just happened to have a vast knowledge about folklore, myths, fairy tales and whatnot and his worlds were based on that knowledge. You won't find anything really original in his books ('original' as in 'something he came up with on his own').

Now, let's get back to XXI century. The LotR trilogy (as in the movie trilogy) was quite big so most people at least heard of it. For (probably most of) those who have seen it it's the fantasy movie where the means 'it was the first, it will forever be the best'. What's funny is even people who happen to read fantasy (although they are not exactly what you'd call experts) have pretty much the same idea - Tolkien invented elves, Tolkien invented orcs, Tolkien invented dwarfs.

Now it probably looks like I got completely off topic but what I'm trying to say people tend to give too much credit to many works because they don't have much of an idea what they're really talking about. If you'll stick around long enough you'll soon realize that most fictional works have not a speck of originality within them and that creating fiction of any sort is just about skillful connection of certain tropes and motives. It applies to anything, really. The movie [x] is the shit because it's soo original, the musician [y] is the shit because she's soo original, the game [z] is the shit because it's soo original. I swear, it has never been done before!

You've got the same effect in anime communities of course. Back when Lucky Star aired everybody claimed it invented SoL, K-On invented SoL a few years later etc. When you point out it's not true cognitive dissonance kicks in and you'll soon learn that 'well yeah maybe it didn't but it did this this and that and it's DA BESSTT'. There are shittones of examples of it (my favorite example would have to be Death Note as it's 'babby's first' like half of the time) but sadly, as time passes people stop questioning some things and now even people who happen to be rather knowledgeable in video games area actually believe Wolfenstein 3D invented FPP (even though one could actually argue whether it even invented FPS). Oh well oh well.

And yeah, coincidence has I pondered similar questions a few weeks ago, too. What I actually tried to figure out was which of these two is true: 'it's shit because it's popular' or 'it's popular because it's shit'.
>> No. 11396 [Edit]
Does spicy sour cream exist? That is to say, sour cream, with a spicy tinge to it.
I think it should.
>> No. 11472 [Edit]
You can do it yourself. Just add very little cayenne pepper in increments.
>> No. 11497 [Edit]
File 132125505190.jpg - (7.30KB , 200x139 , 41800_228450049855_3323863_n.jpg )
You mean like this?
>> No. 11557 [Edit]
There should be a doctrine called "Destructionism", which says that the seemingly spontaneous decay of things are actually an act of Haruhi.
>> No. 11559 [Edit]
"There will not be one kind of community existing and one kind of life led in utopia. Utopia will consist of utopias, of many different and divergent communities in which people lead different kinds of lives under different institutions. Some kinds of communities will be more attractive to most than others; communities will wax and wane. People will leave some for others or spend their whole lives in one. Utopia is a framework for utopias, a place where people are at liberty to join together voluntarily to pursue and attempt to realize their own vision of the good life in the ideal community but where no one can impose his own utopian vision upon others."
 --Robert Nozick
>> No. 11579 [Edit]
How do you make mirrors?
>> No. 11583 [Edit]

Took like 10 seconds
>> No. 11587 [Edit]

In case you don't feel like reading a Wiki page on it...
>> No. 11595 [Edit]
In what ways can the japanese spit at their mother tongue on the internet?
There are many simple yet blatant ways to fuck up an indo-european language. You can start a sentence with a lowercase letter, make some ortographic atrocities, completely ignore punctuation, completely ignore the different kinds of agreement our languages usually require and etcetera. All of those can be easily reproduced on the internet.
Now japanese, it seems almost unbreakable without going full retard. There is no upper/lower case, AFAIK most IMEs have some form of orthographical corrector built-in, punctuation marks are scarce and there's no form of agreement I know of.
Of course you can fuck about employing wrong particles, conjugate things the wrong way or stomp the keyboard so badly your IME can't help you, but even that doesn't seem to have the same grace or simplicity as writing "your most harder beter faster and stronger then me dude" has.
One day I'll find out.

Post edited on 20th Nov 2011, 4:27am
>> No. 11596 [Edit]
>> No. 11597 [Edit]
Are those commonly found on the internet though? I already knew about the ryakuji and the asahi characters, but I thought they were used almost exclusively in written/printed works.
>> No. 11600 [Edit]
There are overuses of emoticons and such, and using silly first person pronouns or shortening speech. Also using certain dialects, like the Nagoya accent that tends to shorten things (used mainly by the Japanese equivalent of a California whore) can be used to give off that "I'm a shitty teenager" impression, as well as leaving out a lot of kanji and instead writing it in kana.

As for simplified Chinese, since Japan has kana to use in lieu of complicated characters, they decided to make the simplifications based on taking away a few unnecessary radicals or minorly changing radicals.

圓 → 円
國 → 国
體 → 体

However, the Chinese sought to simplify many more characters, and without a syllable system, they ended up simplifying all radicals in all characters systematically in a way that butchers the aesthetic of the character to looking like a melted bowel movement.

門 → 门
語 → 语
億 → 亿

Meanwhile, the Republic of China uses all the original traditional characters. So in a way, even Japanese borrowed Chinese characters are different than Chinese characters.

I think they sometimes use kyuujitai if they are feeling nationalist/ were educated before 1946, but nobody uses Commieland kanji in Japan.
>> No. 11609 [Edit]
File 132201962881.png - (144.82KB , 957x544 , 48cl6.png )
I have been seeing this for two decades but nobody else ever knows what I am talking about.
>> No. 11610 [Edit]
>> No. 11617 [Edit]
>> No. 12656 [Edit]
File 132786661566.png - (3.07KB , 188x202 , 5de7c031fb4998c6db2972cfc79161a662b817cf.png )
I downloaded a lot of pixel art, and I realized characters are recognizable even at relatively low resolutions. According to my experiments, even photos are enjoyable at a mere 320×200. Makes me wonder what's the point in improving the capabilities of graphics hardware.
>> No. 12658 [Edit]
Because these days how realistic the graphics are make up like 30% of a review score (unless the review was bought). Never forget the backlash against Wind Waker because they went with a specific, non-realism art style.
>> No. 12681 [Edit]

I love Wind Waker's art style but it's one of my least favourite in the series.
>> No. 12861 [Edit]
Quite a few ponderings as of late.

Why do people only like the taste of cold water? It's very much preferred, at least. Nobody likes water unless it's either cold, or something has been mixed in it. Don't get me wrong, this is my case as well - Got some water just now and I put about 7 different icecubes in the damn stuff. I'm just wondering why water that isn't cold is not as popular as water that is.

Furthermore, is it possible to watch so much anime, and be so reclusive, that you actually begin to think of people as looking like anime characters? I'm not talking about forgetting what human beings look like so much as envisioning anime characters out of habit.

Modest Mouse's song "White Lies, Yellow Teeth" is almost a perfect snapshot of their sound at the time. Anybody who listens to that will be able to tell whether or not they're going to enjoy The Lonesome, Crowded West as an album or not. It's almost weird, how perfect an example of their sound during 1997 it is. More bands should have songs like that, that they give away for free download on their website, so fans can know which album they'd like to buy (or download, I've gotta add) first.

And this one's more personal than anything, but why on Earth does Final Fantasy Tactics always choose a flail when optimizing equipment? I have better weapons in my inventory than those damn things (the flail only has 16 attack, whereas Excalibur has 21), but they still get equipped when messing with Optimize. They hit anywhere between 16 and 96. Flails are the best weapon when Thrown, but equipping them is about as useful as equipping one of the many _ Bag(s) that the game offers (but even then, the bags yield some cool buffs for the entire battle when equipped).
>> No. 12862 [Edit]
>Furthermore, is it possible to watch so much anime, and be so reclusive, that you actually begin to think of people as looking like anime characters? I'm not talking about forgetting what human beings look like so much as envisioning anime characters out of habit.

When I was in school I'd imagine the characters in books as being anime style.
>> No. 12863 [Edit]
I still do this. and I sometimes imagine a minor character as a cameo by Snoop Dogg.
>> No. 12864 [Edit]
I can only imagine characters in a book as anime characters. I've been like this for a long time. I don't seem to have the creativity to create a 3D world in my head; my VGA just isn't powerful enough.
>> No. 12878 [Edit]

>Why do people only like the taste of cold water? It's very much preferred, at least. Nobody likes water unless it's either cold, or something has been mixed in it. Don't get me wrong, this is my case as well - Got some water just now and I put about 7 different icecubes in the damn stuff. I'm just wondering why water that isn't cold is not as popular as water that is.

I can't drink cold stuff because it makes my teeth hurt like hell and I drink nothing but water all day long.


Rather unrelated but when I was a kid (it was pretty much the same as a teenager, too) whenever I read books descriptions meant nothing to me. My 'visual imagination' was below shit. I could never ever imagine what something/someone looks like. The very best I could do is use other characters I've seen (i.e. character has short, black hair so he looks like actor [x], while the blonde chick looks exactly like actress [y]) as substitutes.
Thing is I haven't done jack's shit and now reading something feels like I'm watching a movie (even though I haven't seen one in ages). Most of the time I can envision everything perfectly (whether it looks anything like the author imagined it would is another matter). I can also skip to a manga style at will.

Level up!
>> No. 12892 [Edit]
File 132834347713.png - (7.69KB , 841x89 , Pessimism.png )
Thank you, TV Tropes.
>> No. 12992 [Edit]
why do Ford Drivers, who don't care if their partner sleeps around before they meet up, care if they sleep around while they're together, then again in turn, not care if they sleep around once they're not together anymore?

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
that people who view casual sex with strangers as being natural and meaningless, would also view it as being the worse thing you can do in a relationship.

It seems like, there is an unspoken global rule for all relationships, in which each party promises not to sleep with other people.
but why?
people in relationships brake promises to each other all the time, just look at every divorce ever.
If you don't care if they were having sex random people before you, why would you care if they continue?
what difference does it make if you call yourself dating?
It's not like they cared enough to save anything special for you, all you're doing is renting out a used body part that people have used before you and will in all likely hood, use after you.
now that I think about it, that's kind of just a longer term version of prostitution isn't it?
I mean, no one cares if the prostatue they hire has sex with other people before or after they hire them, but probably wouldn't like it if they took your money and slept with someone else during your time with them (unless they were asked to just that.) yet those people will still look down on prostitution, which is also strange, they're just paying up front for quicker access.
>> No. 13010 [Edit]

I would agree with you had you not used the 'used goods' philosophy as your basis. Actually back in the day I used to ponder this topic a lot.

Basically I don't really understand what's this 'faitfullness' is all about and what's so good about it. Is about voluntarily restricting yourself to show your dedication? Or is it about the deep seeded concept that a woman is basically one of man's belongings (some territorial instinct maybe)? If so, why do woman care as much as well?

Etc. Can't say I really get it but then again I tend not to get anything about relationships period.

The simpliest conclusion would be saying something about our instinct as animals but if you think about it it's counter intuitive, as normally an organism would strive to reproduce as much as possible instead of liting itself to one partner.
>> No. 13014 [Edit]
I can understand why someone obsessed with virgins would care (which I am not ashamed to say I am one of) because their desire would at least be consistent.
but for for those that claim not to care about used goods, what difference does it make to them?
Ford Drivers don't take relationships seriously anymore, they bounce around from one 3DPD to another like they're test driving cars, and the majority of marriages, what's escentuals supposed to be the ultimate commitment for a relationship, end in divorce in this country.
so I can't believe it's about faithfulness.

I think the idea of 'man's belongings' doesn't sound to far off, but if that was the case, you'd think they would at least care a little bit about the object having had previous owners.
Unless of course these people are only thinking in the present tense, a here and now mindset, a sort of 'it's mine now, you can't play with it anymore' and after a brake up 'I don't want it anymore, you can have it'.
Maybe it's true what they say, that most people treat and view their lovers as objects.

personally, I believe in the complete dedication and faithfulness to one person, forever.
That means not involving yourself with anyone else before or after that person.
>> No. 13015 [Edit]
I cannot comment on why the current day ford driver would feel angered by such a thing, as it'd be the same as attempting to place rationalization behind a a rabid dogs actions.

Saving virginity did serve many purposes and still does. It lowers the risk of diseases for one which is the extent of what any normal would ever know. I'm sure many of you have already come across research posted in far corners of the web tying together Oxycontin to the female brain while in copulation, and also the hormonal effects of semen on vaginal walls linked to joy and attachment. Even some compounds in semen that cause the vaginal walls in many animals to be inflamed and constrict in order to keep in the male seed. I'm not sure if dogs have this, since the knot serves their purpose for reproduction.

The purpose of restricting one self to a single partner also aided in record keeping of progeny, although it's easy to see where a more influential power would benefit from obfuscating the lines of the common people for their own gain.

As for the comment on "reproducing as much as possible", that is counter intuitive to any family base striving to sustain themselves as you can't feed all those children on your own.

I'd have to agree with the mysterious anonymous poster with the proclivity towards virgins. I think I have already said this, (although it may have been another site) but the common man works for the weekend. If he cannot see past the current day and week, how do you expect them to comprehend something so abstract and romanticized. For the female it is simply seen as a strip of flesh, and for males it is undetectable. I myself think of it as another aspect of a person that seeps down into the rest of their being. To me it speaks poorly if a person had had multiple partners or not a virgin for their current relationship. Whether they succumbed to base instinct and threw it away the moment hormones started kicking, or in a poor judge of character and decision making lost it in a poor relationship, I would be strongly averse to either case.
A similarity arises with other traits, and we can use obesity as an example. At glance a normal might see an obese person and think nothing else on the matter, simply viewing them as a larger and distorted version of the human form. But the root of the problem may lie in slothfulness and gluttony. both these character flaws will most definitely show themselves in many other aspects of that persons life. A non-virgin to me gives off a vibe of poor judge of character, low levels of commitment and foresight, and a devaluing of the self. Along with the biological implications, such a person is abhorrent.

I hope that wasn't too much to read. I've also taken time to ponder quite a bit over this topic and would be much obliged for feedback. I did not think to find such a discussion on this site of all places so excuse me if I've overstepped into an undesired topic.
>> No. 13033 [Edit]
File 132860042833.jpg - (67.41KB , 400x603 , 1327710595964.jpg )
Many of the posts in this thread could've been decent threads in their own right.
>> No. 13046 [Edit]
It bugs me, that whenever girls fight in anime, they don't get seriously injured: after getting hit by a sword, their clothes might be sexily ripped off, or get a paper cut, maybe a decorative scar, but rarely anything ugly or life-threatening.
>> No. 13048 [Edit]
File 132863895327.jpg - (208.13KB , 500x363 , 392934295_ca7dd64755.jpg )

>they bounce around from one 3DPD to another like they're test driving cars

See, this is another thing I find difficult to comprehend. I understand that some relationships just won't work out and it's good that people are willing to admit just that instead of trying to artificially keep up something that does more harm than good. My parents have been together since high school and I have never seen a worse couple. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of divorced couples who are on good terms with each other.

But I digress. Basically I don't understand the 'for the time being' type of relationship. People know it won't work out but they are willing to maintain the status quo for whatever reason (sadly, I think the 'until I find somebody who's better' attitude is pretty common). Normally you'd think people look for lifelong par... No, wait, I said 'normally'.

That's probably the biggest question here - do they really think about relationships like that? As in, do they seek someone they could spend their lives with or do they just want to have a fuckbuddy for a while? The same thing goes for all those 'I'm looking for a boyfriend/3DPD' people. They make it sound like it could be just about anyone. I noticed it's particularly common among high schoolers (we could also discuss how the hormones seemingly turn smart people into complete retards overnight in high school but that's a different topic altogether).

>Unless of course these people are only thinking in the present tense, a here and now mindset, a sort of 'it's mine now, you can't play with it anymore' and after a brake up 'I don't want it anymore, you can have it'.
>Maybe it's true what they say, that most people treat and view their lovers as objects.

That's more or less what I wanted to say.
Also, women aren't that much better nowadays as they tend to boast about their husbands' accomplishments as if they had any part in it. That's about the only good thing about feminists by the way - they just get shit done on their own instead.

So yeah, partners seem like trophies of sorts - men seek good looking women while women seek wealthy men with high social position. And you might say 'well duh' to what I've written just now but what I meant is it looks like that's about the only thing that still matters nowadays.


>As for the comment on "reproducing as much as possible", that is counter intuitive to any family base striving to sustain themselves as you can't feed all those children on your own.

I said it from biological point of view rather than pragmatic point of view.

>mysterious anonymous poster


I have rather ambivalent feelings about this whole thing, mostly because it's not of much corncern to me. On one hand lifelong relationships seem nice from a point of view of a romantic idealist, on the other they seem artificial from biological point of view (there are pretty much next to no monogamous mammals aside from rare exceptions like praire voles or gibbons). I don't know. As it's something that can't be just judged based on conventional logic (or at least I don't think it's possible) I just don't think about it all too much.

TL;DR I don't know shit about relationships.

Complete coincidence but due to the monogamous animals thing I got reminded I was supposed to post in this thread last week! Basically I've been wondering about this:
Swans are known for their faithfulness. Most couples say together for their whole lives. Is the heart symbol related to swans (as in, is that the symbol's origin?)? Pic related.
>> No. 13078 [Edit]
File 132870481519.jpg - (167.69KB , 500x604 , heres-a-baby-unicorn-22010-1301022341-3.jpg )
I was googling images of unicorns and hit this:


[...] The problem with unicorns is that they hold Satanic power and are homosexual creatures.

Now, that's a problem...
And it's weird, because, if a remember correctly, unicorns used to symbolize virginity in christian mytological art.

Post edited on 8th Feb 2012, 4:44am
>> No. 13083 [Edit]

Christwire is a parody site. Think Christian version of Onion.

I don't blame you, however. When it comes to relgion it's VERY, VERY HARD to tell what's a parody and what's an actual opinion. Heck, I made the same mistake as you the first time I saw Christwire. I read some 'Haruhi DEFINITELY EXISTS' article there that listed typical Christian 'arguments' - the editors thought they are funny enough on their own and there's no need to improve them (which is kinda true but when you think about it for more than 5s the fact that every third American believes Earth is 4000 years old is not that funny).
>> No. 13092 [Edit]

People care about not fucking other people while in a relationship due to not wanting diseases from unknown people. It also shows that they care for each other enough to be exclusive and only screw each other. Fucking can be both social/for fun and also for emotional development and closeness.

And there is such a thing as 'open relationships' and polyamory. With that logic, yes it makes logical sense - humans screwe for social purposes and not just for 'deep love'.

Also re. the excessively puritanical actions of some people. Someone preferring to hook up does not make them an "unclean" or "bad" person.

Also, the obsesity analogy is pretty much inaccurate given genetic predispositions to obesity....thank hell I wasn't given that predisposition.
>> No. 13142 [Edit]
People have evolutionary developed to cheat in relationships, men generally will have sex with any healthy woman as long as it has no social consequences whether he is in relationship or not. Women aim for having sex with men with the best genes as long as she has resources to raise a child from the same or another relationship.

For women it's best to be in a relationship with a devoted rich man to gain resources from while cheating with several genetically best men. For men to have a harem of healthy and genetically best women, which requires power and resources to begin with.
>> No. 13143 [Edit]
The best situation for male is to 'seed' as many females as they can but not in harem. Actually the best situation (from evolution psychology view) is to seed females with good genes and leave the 'beta' males to raise children (which aren't actually their). Thing is similar to 'brood parasiting' what cuckoos do and probably explains because some males just 'can't fit' into relationship.

Of course is stupid to generalize that all people act like evolution wants us to act now days. Some females have very wild sex life while some males devote themself to single partner.
>> No. 13144 [Edit]
>genetic predispositions to obesity
Caloric intake lower than what you burn in a day will not lead to obesity, nor will keeping it on the line. In the US everyone thinks of it as some mysterious disease that must be cured in any way other than a healthy diet and exercise. So no, it's not genetic at all in the large scale. You are not producing matter out of nowhere, it comes from what you're eating.

Evolutionary development and using nature as an example is flawed. There may be random mating in the animal kingdom, but it means nothing. What other animal is near par with humans in any other aspect?
Of course, if you think yourself and wish to be no better than an animal, that's your prerogative.
>> No. 13145 [Edit]
I agree with this poster, we as a race should strive to be better than animals, not promote acting like them.
we actually have the ability to to think reasonably and suppress our animistic desires.

>People care about not fucking other people while in a relationship due to not wanting diseases from unknown people.
they can easy get diseases from unknown people before entering their relationship in which they claim to be exclusive to their partner.
what difference does it make if you fuck someone with stds before or during the time in which you're in a relationship?

>It also shows that they care for each other enough to be exclusive and only screw each other.
but they don't care enough to be exclusive to anyone, most everyone will sleep around before and after their relationships, and have multiple relationships, possibly even sleep around during those relationships.

It's meaningless for a person to say they exclusive to one person, if they've said that about ten other people before, and have slept with over 100.
>> No. 13146 [Edit]
I am not saying it is justified to do such thing because it usually hurts someone's feelings. People's brains just want to do that, we are 'programmed' to have certain needs. Other species are even more programmed, like fishes for example. They are just biological robots and their consciousness is questionable.

In modern society everyday people need to use our willpower to fight against their primitive instincts. Example: thousand years ago it was good to have strong appetite because extra body fat helped to survive during cold seasons and when food was less available. Now day food is easily available and having strong uncontrollable appetite will lead to overweight problems.

>What other animal is near par with humans in any other aspect?

Swans for example have similar traits than humans. Quote from wikipedia:
>Swans usually mate for life, though 'divorce' does sometimes occur, particularly following nesting failure.
>Unlike many other ducks and geese the male helps with the nest construction

Also if I recall correct; dolphins are only other species that have sex for fun.

Of course humans have abnormal intelligence. But in the end we humans are just animals. Our purpose in this planet is just to reproduce. During time we too have development certain 'skills', but still we have our primal instincts. But in modern society it is wrong to use them as excuses for breaking 'rules'. Maybe in future people will lose their breeding/sexual needs. What will happen then? Using modern technology we can reproduce new babies without having sex.
>> No. 13151 [Edit]
>In modern society everyday people need to use our willpower to fight against their primitive instincts.

I seriously hope anyone who has to struggle to keep instinct in line never reproduces. Eugenic programs can't be done in mass scale since we do need a large labor force for menial tasks, but that type of work should cease to exist soon. Then the waste can be culled and stop dragging us down in every other aspect of life.
>> No. 13155 [Edit]
Griffith is the fucking annoyingest name to pronounce
>> No. 13159 [Edit]

>Of course, if you think yourself and wish to be no better than an animal, that's your prerogative.

If you think humans are any better than animals you are delusional beyond belief.

If anything, it's the exact opposite. We have the ability to pass moral judgement and we aren't just slaves to our instincts and yet we choose to do the wrong thing more often than the right thing. If that doesn't put us below animals I don't know what else could.

We are discussing this from quasi-evolutionary psychology point of view because in this way you might (even those chances are slim to none) reach some satisfactionary hipothesis as for why we act the way we do.


>I agree with this poster, we as a race should strive to be better than animals, not promote acting like them.
>we actually have the ability to to think reasonably and suppress our animistic desires.

Yup, this sure has worked very well for us so far.


>Using modern technology we can reproduce new babies without having sex.

Paolo Bacigalupi's 'Pop Squad' is a short story somewhat relevant to this topic. It's funny how people really can't break away from their instincts.

I just noticed that in anime lightning and thunder always happen at the same time. What's up with that? Do the protagonists attract thunderblots or what?
>> No. 13171 [Edit]
By virtue of being able to discern those options and decide on them, we are in fact superior. An animal cannot choose, it only does as instinct guides it.

>Yup, this sure has worked very well for us so far.
It has actually. My quality of existence is leagues beyond any other creature on Earth. If you want to follow your animalistic beliefs you're welcome to abandon civilization and stay in a forest.

What we should be doing is halting all reproduction by basis of this same instinct that people do today. Adopting an eugenics program would quickly breed out weak and unfavorable traits. It can't be trusted on the large scale since that would be abused, but if it were to be phased in slowly gattaca style, it could possibly work. There would be suffering for the lower classes sure, but once they're phased out after a few generations the rest will be all the better.
>> No. 13178 [Edit]
I see Freud is beyond criticism. Okay...
>> No. 13183 [Edit]
how do you measure quality of existence?
>> No. 13184 [Edit]

>By virtue of being able to discern those options and decide on them, we are in fact superior.

By virtue of being able to discern those options and choosing the option that hurts others more often than not we are in fact inferior.

>If you want to follow your animalistic beliefs you're welcome to abandon civilization and stay in a forest.

Developing highly organized 'social' structures doesn't necessarily mean going against one's instinct. We won't ever reach insects level of hierarchy and specialization and they have no self awarness, they are just slaves to their own instincts.

Actually, next to no animals operate on their own as it's plain not working. Animals forms herds and the like because it's in their best interests, that's all there is to it.
>> No. 13197 [Edit]
>We won't ever reach insects level of hierarchy and specialization
We are far beyond what any insect could ever create or accomplish.

>choosing the option that hurts others more often
That view is subjective. A majority is nearly always in the wrong. The mass dregs suffering for the sake of a superior minority would benefit humanity as a whole in the long run.
>> No. 13217 [Edit]
File 132914978149.jpg - (63.98KB , 634x392 , article-1312082-0B1F367A000005DC-648_634x392.jpg )

>We are far beyond what any insect could ever create or accomplish.

I'm not sure if this is even related to what I've written.

I begin to doubt whether the word 'instinct' means the same thing to both of us. If you look at evolutionary psychology it's obvious that pretty much everything we're doing is still more or less related to our instincts. This is obvious beyond all doubt when you look at people who strive to get as high on social ladder as they possibly could. It's typical example of struggle for supermacy which you could observe in Zeus only knows kow many animal species. Not only that, at the same time it's also directly related to our breeding instincts, especially when it comes to men. By acquring means or just by doing a certain job (or by doing both which is probably the most common case) they try to impress females (or, when it comes to acquisition of means, they just gather them to do something with them later on). Most of the time this is subconcioius mind you. The way we (by we I mean humans, not /tc/ers) talk, what we wear, our interests, all of this is not free of how we want to present us to other people. Part of it is trying to gain respect (again, struggle for supermacy), part of it is trying to impress others (again, courtship).

We do the exact same thing the animals do, except we changed the rules and our environment.

And even if someone goes against this way of life he/she is not very likely to go against his/her genes. If someone has no interests in stuff like that then he/shr is - from evolutionary point of view - defective and his/her genes will disappear from the genepool.

Etc. etc. etc. I could say 'you could write a whole book about it' but not only are there tenths (hundreds? now that I think about it 6 digits seems more likely) of thousands of them, there's a whole branch of science dedicated to it.

If you think about it, we - useless bums who couldn't give a damn about anyone else - are pretty much as far removed from our 'instincts' as it gets but even then it's related to out genetics more than anything.

The prime example of going against one's instincts are pointless hobbies. From evolutionary point of view they don't really serve much purpose (I guess stress relieving is important but not important enough to spent so much time on it). That guy who sculpts in bananas? Those two guys who can balance any two stones on top of each other (pic related)? That guy who decided to reconstruct Taj Mahal using toothpicks (okay I made it up but it's rather plausible)? Those are the people who truly go against their instincts as animals.

As long as we're made of flesh and bone we won't be free from our instincts. Once you get rid of hormones, neurotransmitters and all that crap we can try to talk it over again. For now we might be humans but first and foremost we're still animals.
>> No. 13327 [Edit]
are people really shocked that whitney houston, a 48 year old drug addict and alcoholic, died?
>> No. 13328 [Edit]
For what it's worth, I doubt anyone here is, or even cares for that matter.
>> No. 13329 [Edit]
well obviously, i mean the world at large.
>> No. 13330 [Edit]
Doubtful. Probably just the fact that someone famous died.
>> No. 13333 [Edit]
I'm never shocked when someone dies. It's possible at every moment of every day that even the most healthy person can die.

What I cannot take is that when people die somehow everyone acts like they were a saint, even if they were truly shitty people.

This happened to my student body every time a person died. Like, one girl who was a whore decided to go out with her boyfriend and his friends. After drinking in the woods for a few hours they decided to go home (probably to fuck) and they slammed into a tree at 80 MPH. Only the girl died and the other two ran away, leaving the boyfriend to call 911.

A day later we have the entire student body talking about how great Bitchy McWhoremakeup was such a great girl, who was nice and sincere and all this shit, and how she had a great future in nutritional sciences or vegan awareness or some shit, even though she was the most caustic, stuck-up bitch to everyone who wasn't a whore or dribbling a football or some shit. She was a terrible person, was decadent, and died because she and everyone she was with made shitty, shitty decisions and had to -imagine the concept- pay for it in the end. I especially love all the hipster attention-whore "gamer girls" who were her main target of shitgiving, talking about how nice she was and how they were friends with her even though a week before she died they were bitching about how she tried flushing all their underwear in the locker room toilet and told them to "deal with it, I can do what I want." They only pretend they were friends so they can get attention, and half of my horny friends at the time were "consoling" them so they could get into their pants.

I was the Haruhidamn Switzerland of my social group. Now I feel like Switzerland in 2140 after all the other nations in the world nuked each other...
>> No. 13334 [Edit]
billboard changed their rules just so she would be in the top 10 again, this is getting pretty ridiculous
>> No. 13336 [Edit]
We should all go outside and bawl our eyes out, beating the ground with our fists, too.
>> No. 13337 [Edit]
Relax, will you? This happens every fucking time someone famous dies. Just give it a few more weeks and it'll blow over, as usual. Let's just take it easy in our own cozy corner of the Internet, where we can safely ignore all the sensationalist media.

>> No. 13339 [Edit]

>What I cannot take is that when people die somehow everyone acts like they were a saint, even if they were truly shitty people.

Jesus Christ, tell me about it. Michael Jackson is probably my favorite example. One day he was a wicked pedophile who everyone wanted to see rotting in jail for the rest of his life and the next he was some kind of patron saint of music (all genres, not just pop).

I wonder if everyone will try to pretend I was secretly an amazing person once after I'll kill myself. That'd be really fun to watch, 'tis a shame I'll have to miss such an amusing spectacle.
>> No. 13340 [Edit]
Just leave it be. Like I said, two weeks or so, and everybody has moved on.

You did, however, reminded me that my funeral is going to be depressingly empty. Good thing I'll be dead, anyway.
>> No. 13341 [Edit]
I doubt I'd even have a funeral.
After they scrape up my rotting body they'll just toss me in a large oven, and that will be the end of it.
>> No. 13343 [Edit]
I remember those times when people used phrases like "cyberspace" or "information superhighway" or "web" when talking about the internet.
>> No. 13346 [Edit]
I went to a funeral the other month and it reminded me of how depressing mine will be. The only people there will be my immediate family and the less immediate ones who will feel like they need to come, or else they will be mad at them. I have no friends, nobody will have any stories about me, no achievements to exaggerate, my existence as a corpse will be only slightly different than my life now.
>> No. 13347 [Edit]
Same, most likely only my brother and maybe his family will attend my funeral. But I get more depressed by the fact that they cannot comprehend the value of my collection and will probably give or throw it away. Perhaps it does not have that much monetary value but the "historical" value is quite high. There is a lot of rare books, comics, games, figures etc. I've gathered over the years.

Other stuff I've thought about. Why do people consider Ada Lovelace to be the first programmer? She was not the first to write a program and apparently she did not even write her program herself.
>> No. 13356 [Edit]
Reading your post has given me the idea of leaving notes around my room, hidden under figure bases and in game cases, that sort of thing.
to let anyone that might find them know what they could sell them for, info on where the boxes/accessories are and so on.
>> No. 13357 [Edit]
I wish my grandmother did this with her dolls.

All I have to go off of is what her old internet friend in Maine says, and I'm afraid she's just going to make me put my reserves low and she'll snipe all of them and sell them for what they're really worth...

One of the things I like to do is hide $1 and $5 bills around my room in pockets and such, I got this idea from the theory that all of the singles I find in winter coat pockets were put there by me as a gift, and I induced acute amnesia so I could find it in seven months and be happy. So I actually did it now that my memory is so terrible.
>> No. 13358 [Edit]
Nice way to deter potential bidders.
>> No. 13359 [Edit]
I am NOT going to sell a $70 doll for $10.
>> No. 13360 [Edit]
That's why you make a second account and bid on your own item dummy.
>> No. 13362 [Edit]

I kinda considered doing it in the past but it's too troublesome; I'm too lazy to do it.

Luckily I don't own anything particularly rare or else I'd feel that since I have no use for it it'd be a good idea to sell it to someone who'd like to have it but can't seem to find a way to get one.
>> No. 13682 [Edit]
I think I figured out why moe has a personal appeal to me - While most judge it as shallow and hedonistic in nature, I find that aesthetics, overall, are superior to story in [some] anime. If the character designs aren't good, I just can't get into the show (happened pretty damn obviously with Lain), whereas a show with solid character designs tends to absorb me instantly. I maintain that in anime, the best you need to hope for is good art. Of course, this doesn't explain my love for series that have neither good story nor art, but some things in this world remain unexplained.
>> No. 13723 [Edit]
Think about this: Each one of us has an ancestry stretching over an incomprehensible amount of generations through all of human history, human pre-history and even before the existence of humanity, which makes up millions of years. Each of these generations have struggled against impossible odds to create an offspring to continue this chain. They've struggled through plagues, starvation, wars, predators, making it highly unlikely in many generations they'd survive long enough to create offspring. If a single link in this huge chain had failed, you would never have been born.

The fact that you were allowed to exist is the result of a struggle that has gone on for millions of years. Compared to your predecessors, it's never been easier for you to continue on this incomprehensibly long legacy. But no, that whole struggle ends here. Just because you couldn't be bothered to leave your apartment long enough to find a wife, and would rather just fap to 2D little girls.

Doesn't it feel glorious?
>> No. 13724 [Edit]
What about the ones of us who have sisters/brothers who happen to be ford drivers? Odds are they'll keep the chain rolling.
>> No. 13734 [Edit]

>Doesn't it feel glorious?

I thought about the same thing before and it oh so does.

When I was a kid I spent all day to build a perfect snowman just to obliterate him with a shovel after that. And when I say 'spent' I mean like once a month every winter.
Sim City 2000 was my favorite game.
And I am more than pleased with the state of the world today because it really looks like it's getting worse with every year (well it's supposed to end this year either way).

Creating things is really fun but that's only a careful preparation for an even better activity.
>> No. 13740 [Edit]
Funny passage I found in a review from 2001:

>Its also a little short and can be beaten in around 24-35 hours.

That's thought provoking in a way. We probably already hit the area where everything in double digits counts as long. And that's pretty depressing.
>> No. 13758 [Edit]
>Its also a little short and can be beaten in around 24-35 hours.

Sounds like my penis.
>> No. 13759 [Edit]
You must have a really cute penis~
>> No. 13761 [Edit]
my penis cannot be beaten. i've spent the better part of 22 years trying to but it never truly dies
>> No. 13766 [Edit]
File 133121686313.jpg - (388.83KB , 3684x2070 , ZTcMZ.jpg )
I really don't know how to act around other guys.

I was raised by women, and in school I somehow ended up around the women, so I've really never had many(they can be counted on one hand) male acquaintances/friends. Sure, you guys are guys, and I get along fine with you all, but all of us here know how different it is between real life and imageboards and such.

Just something that popped into my head the other day, and has been skating around since.
>> No. 13767 [Edit]
>I really don't know how to act around other guys.
pretend you dont have any feelings and go from there
>> No. 13768 [Edit]

Just for the record, the subject of the review was a video game, not male genitals. I hope this makes the matter easier to undestand.
>> No. 13784 [Edit]
Yes, and no.

It largely depends on the person, but I know how to generally act, which gets me by 90% of the time.
>> No. 13804 [Edit]
Are you saying women are to blame for slowing down the advancement of mankind?
The idea sounds interesting, would you care to elaborate on it?

I for one much prefer to blame religion for that, just look at the dark ages.
>> No. 13805 [Edit]
I cant tell who here is trolling. maybe nobody is.
>> No. 13806 [Edit]
>I for one much prefer to blame religion for that, just look at the dark ages.
I did not know that people like you even existed any more. I do not know if you are just outright ignorant or "only" intellectually dishonest. But please, tell me one, only one, good reason why "dark ages" were dark. I suspect that you cannot.

Or are you a troll? I am not sure if I should report you for excessive trolling.

Edit: actually I went to medievalists.net to check the newest articles and guess what the newest was about.

Post edited on 10th Mar 2012, 4:05pm
>> No. 13810 [Edit]
I think most are responding with tongue in cheek.
>> No. 13814 [Edit]
So you don't believe anyone was ever persecuted and/or killed by members of the church for heresy, because they practiced in fields of science that contradict teachings of the religion?
>> No. 13818 [Edit]
I wonder how humans discovered how to prepare eggs for consumption.
>> No. 13819 [Edit]
I don't think putting something in boiling water or heating up the egg's content after cracking it open is that crazy of a idea, but I bet people started by eating them raw, possibly after seeing animals eat the eggs of other animals.

What I'm curious about is how people learned to prepare normally poisonous foods, like Blowfish or what types of barres are okay to eat.
Who would mess with something that just killed the last person that ate it?
>> No. 13820 [Edit]
the japanese
>> No. 13823 [Edit]
Provide a concrete example of such person. Not just ambiguous drivel.

>anyone was ever persecuted and/or killed by members of the church for heresy,
Well, of course I cannot say "ever" but if by heresy you mean science then I am 99.9% positive that church never persecuted or killed anyone for practising science. And even in cases of real heresy the church was way more merciful than you seem to think.
>because they practiced in fields of science that contradict teachings of the religion?
The conflict hypothesis is quite new and based on myths. Could you please provide an example of such contradiction? The medieval church was the patron of sciences and practising these sciences was "never" used as supporting evidence if someone was on trial for heresy. At least so that church accepted it as valid evidence.
>> No. 13824 [Edit]
File 133146791929.jpg - (109.26KB , 1280x720 , Galileo .jpg )
how about Galileo Galilei?
The church traditionally practiced in Aristotelian science which held the idea the universe is finite and spherical with a stationary earth at its center, but Galileo Galilei preached Copernican science, which states that the earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around.

Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus as well as his biblical views in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany which became the basis of his first Church trial and censure. A major work published in 1632 resulted in Galileo's conviction on suspicion of heresy and a lifetime house arrest. The Galileo affair provides important lessons and applications to the Church and to science today.

Another background factor in Galileo's conflict with the Church was the influence of the Reformation. Because Martin Luther (1483-1546 A.D.) and the Protestant reformation (1517 A.D.) questioned Church authority, the Roman Church lost significant power and influence. It reacted with a list of literature forbidden to Catholics. Included were any writings challenging traditional Scripture interpretation

In 1615 Galileo wrote a letter outlining his views to Madame Christina of Lorraine, the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, "Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science." The tribunal used this letter against him in his first trial in 1616. They directed Galileo to relinquish Copernicanism and to abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion and doctrine, and even from discussing it.

In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems—Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication, a twelve year effort, presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered). Galileo also warned the Church of a trap they were walking into:

"Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position--eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved that the earth moves and the sun stands still."

The Roman Catholic hierarchy and their Aristotlean-Ptolemaic advisors did not heed this advice. The Roman Curia promptly banned and confiscated Galileo's monumental work; and it became the basis for his second trial, censure, and lifetime house arrest by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1633. The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis. They suspected him of holding heretical opinions condemned by the Church, which they ordered him to abjure [abandon a false opinion]. Seven of the ten Cardinals presiding signed his condemnation.

The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: “The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.”

Please note; I specifically said "fields of science that contradict teachings of the religion"
Not just "science"
>> No. 13826 [Edit]
Didn't Galileo come after the dark ages?
>> No. 13828 [Edit]
Jupiter is unusually bright these days, well visible even in urban ares. You can find it (him?) at about few degrees east from Venus.
>> No. 13830 [Edit]
And the discussion has come to this point when someone tries to crowbar Galileo to the middle ages. But nevertheless he is needed because he is the only example people can come up when it comes to the church persecuting anyone for science.

Unfortunately you seem to just have parsed some google results and do not provide an original argument. I see only some paragraphs merely describing how Galileo was persecuted but do not really address the real question why Galileo was persecuted.

To have completely fair treatment of the affair one would need to start from the ancient Greece and explore the whole history of astronomy. Hopefully you do understand that to have this level of comprehension would require multiple books and it is not possible on tc. I am going to write only a brief overview of the situation because I am lacking time right now, there might be also some mistakes because I do not have my sources at hand.

Firstly, 16th and 17th centuries were times of change for astronomy. First the observation of supernovas and comets challenged the view of a solid universe. In addition there was at least seven competing models and Galileo was latecomer to the debate. By his time the scientific circles had pretty much abandoned both Ptolemaic and Copernican theory. Even the church had abandoned the traditional Ptolemaic theory and revised it so their official position included ideas such as elliptic motion of planets but did not include heliocentric view as it was deemed scientifically implausible. Objections included things like lack of observation of stellar parallax. Church did not intervene the discussion much but was ready to correct theology if they saw it to conflict with observed reality.

Secondly, Galileo was a supporter of Copernican heliocentric world and he taught it. Some cardinal whose name I forgot told him that if the scientific problems would be solved the scripture would be reinterpreted. However, while these problems were unsolved Galileo should teach his position only as a theoretical position. Galileo did not listen and taught Copernican heliocentric world as a fact and wrote his book Dialogue. Dialogue was a work of popular science and did not take the latest discoveries, especially those made by Kepler, into consideration. So in fact Dialogue was not astronomically up to date. In addition it did not counter the Tychonic geo-heliocentricity but the traditional Ptolemaic view which had been almost abandoned.

Thirdly, Galileo was friend of pope Urban VIII and in good terms with the Jesuits. Pope asked Galileo to consider some argument in his upcoming book in this way pope actually supported Galileo. Dialogue has three characters: Salvati, Simplicio and Sagredo. Salvati presents Galileo's views and Simplicio defends Ptolemaic theory, his name means simple (minded). Sagredo is "neutral" but always agrees with Salvati. Galileo made Simplicio to present Urban's argument. Pope was seriously insulted by this because he interpreted the book as an attack against himself. It would be especially dangerous because he was already having troubles and had been challenged. Galileo lost his two most important supporters and gained a very powerful foe. Many Jesuits had accepted Galileo's view earlier but now they could not do much as pope was against Galileo.

And lastly, in the trial, the real question was about did Galileo believe and teach the heliocentric theory. The letters, his book etc. were used as evidence to point out how he did support Copernicus's view. Galileo tried to deny it for long and even claimed that the case was the exact opposite: he said that he refuted Copernican view in the book. This obviously was seen as lying to the inquisition.

So Galileo affair had four main reasons and none of them were religious. First, he defended position which was opposed by almost majority of the polymaths. Then he acted against inquisition and was not satisfied with teaching his position only as theoretical one. Then he angered the pope and finally he lied to the inquisition. After the house arrest Galileo was allowed to continue his work.

And to continue the discussion if religion did really harm the science one should point out how Galileo made some of his arguments based on Bible and was probably inspired by the religion. So even Galileo affair shows how religion is not harmful and could be only used as an argument against church.

>Please note; I specifically said "fields of science that contradict teachings of the religion"
>Not just "science"
Still waiting for the field science which contradicts teachings of the religion. It was always the theology which was revised if a valid theory was presented. Remember that the Ptolemaic view was supported by the scientific community so geo-centric theology was based on "science" as much as it was based on scripture.

>I'm pretty sure Galileo is rolling in his grave right about now.
See >>13826
>The joke is even 400 years after Galileo's death religious superstitions are still the main force that stops scientific advancement.
I wouldn't say that this is completely true but for example the young earth creationists should be slapped with a Bible and told to be more like the medieval church and revise theology instead of trying to revise science.

Well, that was a very confusing reply. But if you are genuinely interested in the Galileo affair you should probably consult some historians of astronomy and science than a shut-in on tohno-chan.

I would recommend James Hannam's Haruhi's philosophers and Number's Galileo goes to jail as introductory popular history books dealing with the subject. They both have their problems but so far are the most accessible and enjoyable ones I know. Thony Christie has also interesting blog on history of astronomy and related fields: https://thonyc.wordpress.com/ and some of his posts give really valuable insights concerning the context of Galileo.

>> No. 13849 [Edit]
I wonder if moe can be considered less of a set of character traits, but more of a concept on par with love?

Like, being ambiguous. Moe is the feeling of cuteness a character emits. It just so happens that a lot of people find certain traits to be moe- like clumsiness or certain gestures or voices, that make something seem lovely to someone. So, theoretically, a person could find a character like, say, the pizza shop woman from Danshi Nichijou (not mirror type) to be moe because they find her character to be calming, and that makes feels in a person happen?
>> No. 13850 [Edit]
File 133163654412.png - (79.35KB , 570x374 , belief-in-evolution.png )
some countries are still going through the dark ages
>> No. 13851 [Edit]
If so many people didn't conflate that question with the question "Do you believe Haruhi exists?" maybe the graph wouldn't look that way.
>> No. 13854 [Edit]
>dark ages
People should realy stop using that.
The term dark ages was used by a late medieval Italian historian called Francesco Petrarca to describe the period in history where there was little (Latin) literature.

Poor countries with a poor education system don't know about evolution.
>> No. 13855 [Edit]
>Poor countries with a poor education system don't know about evolution.
Where does that put the US?
>> No. 13856 [Edit]
We know about evolution, we just refuse to believe it.
>> No. 13858 [Edit]

>I wonder if moe can be considered less of a set of character traits, but more of a concept on par with love?
>Like, being ambiguous. Moe is the feeling of cuteness a character emits. It just so happens that a lot of people find certain traits to be moe- like clumsiness or certain gestures or voices, that make something seem lovely to someone. So, theoretically, a person could find a character like, say, the pizza shop woman from Danshi Nichijou (not mirror type) to be moe because they find her character to be calming, and that makes feels in a person happen?

Are you serious? As in, are you seriously asking this question? It's obviously the case, moe is completely objective and even the definition kind varies depending on whom you ask. It's hard to put it words.
>> No. 13859 [Edit]
Don't 'cha mean subjective?
>> No. 13860 [Edit]
Yes I am.

It's better than the shit that is going to get this thread deleted, or even the board.
>> No. 13861 [Edit]
See, a lot of people use moe as a term without actually understanding it. 

For instance, Yamakan. When directing the Haruhi anime, he noticed that a lot of people wanted Mikuru's "moe" accentuated. So, Yamakan in his infinite wisdom, thought moe was some sort of glasses girl clumsy crap, and decided to make her into a dimensionless, clueless girl who always has only three emotions copy-pasted on her face. While Mikuru was a truly interesting character in the novels and manga, she was turned into a valueless moron in the anime. 

When confronted about this, he blamed all otaku, readily admitted he had no idea what moe was, and scoffed it, saying he wish it would just go away. He basically thought it was something that appeared in 2003, when the concept existed before Lum. 
>> No. 13862 [Edit]
You're so deep and intellectual Shinden.
>> No. 13865 [Edit]
At least he posts better than you do.
>> No. 13866 [Edit]



>So, Yamakan in his infinite wisdom, thought moe was some sort of glasses girl clumsy crap, and decided to make her into a dimensionless, clueless girl who always has only three emotions copy-pasted on her face.

Huh, I always looked at Haruhi as more of a parody. Mikuru being parody of dojikko, Haruhi being so tsundere she was endlessly annoying instead of cute, Yuki being a Rei-clone/cooldere than was more Rei-eqsue than Rei herself, Koizumi being FAUBLOUS MAX and Kyon being your cynical unfazed everyman.


>See, a lot of people use moe as a term without actually understanding it.

That's the case with quite a few terms in fact.

Since you brought up love yourself let me ask you this - how many people understand love? And what does it even mean to understand it?

But yeah, sorry if what I said sounded offensive but reading iyour post was like reading somebody pondering if maybe life has no inherent meaning.
>> No. 13868 [Edit]
>tell me one, only one, good reason why "dark ages" were dark.
People dying everywhere, no conditions for living, poverty, inquisition...
>> No. 13875 [Edit]
Why are enemies in games sometimes called "mobs"?
>> No. 13876 [Edit]
old MUD terminology for enemies that were mobile, i.e. they moved around.

MUD is multi user dungeon, btw. basically a text based MMO.
>> No. 13877 [Edit]
Mobiles I think. The same that in MMO dungeons many are called "pats" for patrollers that follow a set course.
I guess mobs just follow an oblong shape where they have free range of motion.
>> No. 13883 [Edit]
I assume that we are north-west Europe-centric.
>People dying everywhere
I didn't know that humans were/are immortal before/after early middle ages. If you meant that early middle ages were more violent then you are wrong as the period was relatively peaceful. Maybe you could elaborate a bit what you meant?
>no conditions for living, poverty
Define no conditions for living and poverty. If one defines them with lack of necessities the early middle ages certainly were not poor as necessities were abundant. Maybe you meant lack of luxuries? Then you are a bit more correct, however I would argue that the relative amount of luxuries was not any lower than it has been in other eras. Again some elaboration would be splendid.
Not early middle ages. And inquisition was not even that bad.
>> No. 13885 [Edit]

>Not early middle ages.


>And inquisition was not even that bad.

Not true. I wish people would stop that.

If you really want to defend inquistion you could say that they didn't burn people because they thought it's fun, they did it because they believed in the cleansing power of the rite - they thought they might save somebody's soul by doing it.

Recently I see more and more people trying to downplay all sorts of genocide. Crusades weren't that bad, inquistion wasn't that bad, Jews getting gassed is just zionist propaganda, Armenia never happened, Rwanda never happened.
>> No. 13890 [Edit]
I'm incredibly sick of hearing about politics and bureaucracy. Every word that comes out of a politicians mouth is invariably a total lie. Every sympathetic expression, or moral stance, all fucking bullshit that they've practised for years until they appear genuine.
>> No. 13897 [Edit]
I hate politics. I wish politicians could get on with their work without having to worry about 'surviving'. They should be able to implement policies which are in the best interests of the nation without getting shit on by other parties just for the sake of getting shit on. Politicians of all different parties should agree on the best policy for their country. Also, success should be proportional to competence, not how well you can backstab and manover over other people.
>> No. 13898 [Edit]

I think you missed this thread
>> No. 13961 [Edit]
Wait, are you trying to compare crusades and inquisition to Holocaust, Armenian genocide or the events in Rwanda? Do you happen to be one of those people who claim about everything to be a genocide? For example Dresden was a genocide of Germans, colonialism of non-whites, Guerre de Vendée of Vendeans, Potato blight of Irish etc.

>If you really want to defend inquistion you could say that they didn't burn people because they thought it's fun, they did it because they believed in the cleansing power of the rite - they thought they might save somebody's soul by doing it.
Because my computer suddenly lost power and I had not saved my lengthier answer I will just link an article which is quite accurate:

But in short, the image of brutal inquisition is pretty much early protestant christian propaganda and later myths. Most, if not all, modern research disagrees with the myth. Another article from the same author which explains one oddity in the first article:
>> No. 14053 [Edit]
Sena from Haganai is just enough of a bitch and just enough of a woobie that it makes both rape and lovey dovey doujins of her equally satisfying to me.
>> No. 14067 [Edit]
>I wonder how humans discovered how to prepare eggs for consumption.
Probably they found eggs laid by some animal around volcanic area or hot spring, and realised that heat from ground made inside of egg solid and tasty. I once saw one cooking/travel show where they made their dinner burying food in ground around volcanic area.

About poisonous food. I am not sure how blowfish is prepared but correct me if I am wrong but some parts of blowfish are poisonous and some are not right? I can think scenario where people shared blowfish for a meal and some people died while some didn't.
>> No. 14069 [Edit]
>I can think scenario where people shared blowfish for a meal and some people died while some didn't.

If that's how it actually happened, then it seems even more hilarious that people continued to eat it.
>> No. 14073 [Edit]
Only certain parts of fugu are poisonous, to prepare it, the poisonous parts are removed, However, it's basically a hairline cut you have to make, and if it's not perfect you can stop breathing.
>> No. 14367 [Edit]
I noticed that as I grow older my respect for my mother has dropped while my respect for my father has risen. My mom is kind of a crazy idiot and my father is rather chill.
>> No. 14374 [Edit]
I'm pretty sure people would have eaten eggs if they couldn't be cooked.
>> No. 14451 [Edit]
Why do most of the comparisons between food and tsunderes are "something teeth-cracking-hard filled with something marshmallow-smooth and sweet"? I was eating some ginger candies today and they seem perfect, it's both hard, sweet and picant/bitter - whatever you call ginger taste - until the end.
The usual metaphor gives me the impression that you can just beat the bitch until it cracks open, lick the sweet filling out and throw it away, and that up until the rupture it's all tasteless and bland. Ginger sweets have no such vulnerabilities and are so much more delicious anyway, all the way.
>> No. 14652 [Edit]
Why do my mother's enchiladas and spaghetti taste better as leftovers?
>> No. 14655 [Edit]
Maybe because it gives time for the flavour to come out. Stews and curry taste better when they're old for this reason.
>> No. 14690 [Edit]
How do I wee without wee spraying onto the rim during the last few blasts
>> No. 14692 [Edit]

Sit down.
>> No. 14725 [Edit]
He's a man, not some cock gobbler.

Work on your aim, or lean in a bit during those last few squirts to get it in the bowl. Lift up the lid so you wont get piss on it, or it will get sticky and annoy the hell out of you during shits.
>> No. 14727 [Edit]
If 3D has no redeeming qualities, why would 2D draw inspiration from it?
>> No. 14734 [Edit]
>If 3D has no redeeming qualities, why would 2D draw inspiration from it?
Well no one would fund a show with characters that were nothing more than randomly drawn shapes which didn't speak any language from this planet, nor set on this planet or have any connection to humans at all. Anime and eroge etc is supposed to give the viewer an ideal of sorts, one that isn't accessible to its viewers and simply entertain them. It's a form of escapism were you can feel at least some connection to the characters, it'd be hard to connect well with a flying spaghetti monster.
Besides, not everyone shares the view of utter hatred for everything that comes in a 3D form. Also, the creators are 3D after all and have to take their inspiration for their human characters from somewhere, and I doubt the majority of them are disgusted every time they see a person either.
>> No. 14735 [Edit]
i think there are shows like that, and it's subtitled. Or I'm wrong. I'd think some experimental hipster type person would create some sort of animation like that
>> No. 14737 [Edit]
>it'd be hard to connect well with a flying spaghetti monster.
I identify more with Punpun than with random generic MCs, to be honest.
>> No. 14750 [Edit]
I really liked saya because she wasn't human either. Literally a moe blob.
>> No. 14772 [Edit]
Waluigi in Japanese is a portmanteau of warui and Luigi.
>> No. 14782 [Edit]
File 133711628159.png - (1.27MB , 1280x800 , 100_Dango.png )

can you uplaod images of those characters? Also, The Dangos. Pic related. Not human, but kawaii as FUCK
>> No. 14784 [Edit]

Why did I never notice that?
It's so obvious too.
>> No. 14786 [Edit]
Because of the incident with Uke-Mochi, Amaterasu decided not to ever occupy the same area of the sky as Tsukuyomi.

Won't Sunday be extremely awkward for them?
>> No. 14827 [Edit]
Language may be a system we use to pursue truth, but it has its roots in our problems and it is not an end in itself. Without language, while they may not be as nearly profound, elegant, or majestic, our problems as well as our solutions would continue to exist. Language has its role in our world, but it's merely the costume for our thoughts, if anything.
>> No. 14828 [Edit]
What exactly is a Ford Driver? What is it that makes us different?
>> No. 14829 [Edit]
No one made you part of this "us" group you've created in your head. That is for you to decide.

You might even fall under the Toyota Driver umbrella.
>> No. 14830 [Edit]
We are all ford drivers. Nothing separates us from 'normals' as we are all human.
>> No. 14831 [Edit]

The only real difference between us an Ford Drivers are our insterests. We like to watch shows for little girls and they watch sports and whatnot.
>> No. 14832 [Edit]
What if i watch both?
>> No. 14833 [Edit]
why do you feel the need to tell us this
>> No. 14834 [Edit]
saying "yeah" like that makes it sound like you are testing us or something and that's pretty obnoxious
>> No. 14835 [Edit]
Surely morals play a large part in our differences, also our attitudes towards society and our general way of thinking too. It's not just a matter of me liking eroge and them liking some crime-solving macho man TV show. It's not that our our thought process is derived directly from our interests, they're merely a result of our way of thinking.
>> No. 14836 [Edit]
But pedophiles blend into the normal society. Look at the news stories about religious leaders, doctors, sports coaches, teachers, etc. While a lot of us may be pedophiles, I don't think that it is a defining trait for that reason.
>> No. 14837 [Edit]
what on earth are you talking about
>> No. 14841 [Edit]

>Surely morals play a large part in our differences, also our attitudes towards society and our general way of thinking too.

Our attitude towards society is worth mentiong, true.

Our way of thinking is pretty much the same. We hate everything we deem normal just like normals hate everything they deem not normal. We're just as close minded.
>> No. 14843 [Edit]
>We're just as close minded.
Not strictly true, for normals if something strays away from the 'norm' then it's immediately deemed as no good. I don't want to sound like some hipster idiot here, but they are very sheep-like in their opinions and won't stray from the masses. If someone told a normal they should watch a Japanese cartoon about cute girls, their response would be something along the lines of 'that's gay', whereas I'm quite willing to watch a normal show if it were to interest me.
It's their close mindedness of not wanting to be an 'outsider' that also differs. I'd say we're much more open minded to things in general. I think we're also much more willing to accept people for who they are, unlike if a normal saw someone who didn't want friends or didn't like socialising they'd immediately think they were some kind of freak.
I think I could have written that better, but you get the point.
>> No. 14844 [Edit]

>whereas I'm quite willing to watch a normal show if it were to interest me.

You're probably in the minority then. Most of /tc/ vehemently hates everything that reminds them of Ford Drivers, no matter what it is. I can almost imagine some people would stop breathing if they'd realize that's what normals do.
>> No. 14845 [Edit]
Well, I did say 'if it were to interest me'. Very few things ever have, I also don't mean shows like some horrendous reality contest or pretty much anything American. I still find enjoyment in watching various Discovery shows or perhaps something like Top Gear, it's just entertainment after all and I still watch them with my parents. I can still despise people on them and I don't have to be associated with the audience either. I don't see why the audience should put me off certain shows that I personally find entertaining, if it did I would have stopped watching anime a long time ago and I sure as hell wouldn't play half the games I currently do, I'd be an incredibly bored person in fact.
>> No. 14846 [Edit]
Being a normal isn't completely about what you do or how you are personality wise but following the pack. Just doing things and thinking things because everyone else is. Being a normal to me is just simply not being you. For example I don't see why anyone who isn't one would watch certain reality shows but if you genuinely like it for some reason then you just do. That's why even here I don't tell people to get out just for thinking a certain way or being what in general would be called "being too normal". I hate the way some people think, were individual people here not a complete hive mind. We may all share many similarities since you wouldn't be here if you didn't but when I see someone getting called out for just stating how they really feel about something here especially on /so/ I just sigh because that's being exactly what you hate. A follower, just like an alternate version of a normal that's almost just as bad.
>> No. 14879 [Edit]
I was thinking a moment ago that it would be fun to have a mythological paradise for NEETs, like Fiddler's Green for sailors or Big Rock Candy Mountain for hobos.
>> No. 14960 [Edit]
Whenever there are problems between me and other people, I can't help but wonder, "does the problem lie with me or with them?" ... It's a really hard thing to think about rationally. I don't know how you would go about figuring things out like that, my mind just goes blank. I guess that's part of why I usually avoid people.
>> No. 14961 [Edit]
I really don't understand when people are sincerely angry at straw men. I can understand imaginary (girl)friends, but why imaginary have enemies?...
>> No. 14963 [Edit]
Think about how boring [insert show here] would be without evil.
>> No. 15073 [Edit]
Why do all of these wannabe "authors" make video games? They all strive to make the "best" story possible and usually fail.

They are trying hard to change video games to be some sort of "artistic" garbage instead of keeping it to what it is supposed to be - something to have fun with.
>> No. 15086 [Edit]

Haruhi forbid someone try to use a relatively new medium to convey something meaningful rather than just mindless entertainment. A hundred years ago, you'd be saying the exact same thing about the film industry.
>> No. 15088 [Edit]
I think it's more a problem of how they go about it. by means of overusing in-game cinematics and limiting the interactivity, it starts to become more of a movie and less of a videogame.
>> No. 15089 [Edit]

Yeah, I'm with you on that. I love MGS and Final Fantasy, but neither of them show the full potential of the video game medium as opposed to film. Valve games are much better in that sense; their designers have a great understanding of how to use games to tell stories, as opposed to telling stories through mini-movies pasted on top of the actual game.

Sure, the typical indie "art game" nowadays is fairly pretentious and shallow, with a few exceptions. But I believe this mode of storytelling is still in its infancy; I think that within our lifetimes, once we've established a culture in which several generations have grown up playing video games and it's no longer viewed as a childish or niche hobby, we'll start seeing some truly great works emerging from this world.
>> No. 15090 [Edit]
File 133864471622.jpg - (409.53KB , 1600x1500 , 1338096736_80594000.jpg )

I wouldn't. Movies are meant to be watched. Games are meant to be played. That is all.
>> No. 15091 [Edit]

Well, thankfully not everyone is as dull and unimaginative as you are.
>> No. 15099 [Edit]
You can write some truly fantastic stuff with videogames, you just have to be more creative than linear.
If you try to write a narrative, the "game" will probably be shit I think. Focus more on building the world for the player to interact with instead.
>> No. 15103 [Edit]

If anything I feel it's the other way around. There's nothing even moderately creative (or interesting for that matter) in watching 30 min long cut scenes.
>> No. 15118 [Edit]
But the story in a video game can be expressed in ways other than just cutscenes. It is up to the developers to use the game mechanics, visuals, sound, and music to both create the mood and tell a story. While I agree that cutscenes are a lazy way to present a story, you seem to suggest that it is the only way for it to be presented. And that a 'story' in a game has to automatically take away from the whole experience.

Overall, video games are a new medium and I appreciate that people are experimenting with it and creating 'artistic garbage.' Such experimentation will reveal new, more immersive ways for a story to be present whilst having minimal impact on the core game itself. You should try to look at the impact that such 'failures' may have down the line.
>> No. 15166 [Edit]
When a TV show has big, sweeping establishing shots of a city, did they take that footage themselves or is there some sort of depository for footage like that
>> No. 15172 [Edit]

Either or. But a lot of that "extra" footage is contracted to what they call B-roll photographers or companies, since it's cheaper.
>> No. 15173 [Edit]
Why do so many people lie? Why isn't your word worth anything to you? It's the closest your mind can be to existing in our real world. I may be an awful person, but at least I'm always honest. At least with my words, I have something. Even if I don't respect you, I'll at least respect you enough to be truthful.
>> No. 15174 [Edit]
It's often easier, more convenient or more fun to lie.
>> No. 15175 [Edit]
Some people find it easy, convenient, or fun to steal or abuse children or something, so it's not a strong justification.
>> No. 15176 [Edit]
strawman and people don't need any justification at all to do a thing
>> No. 15177 [Edit]
I'm only pointing out that just because it's fun or easy to do something doesn't mean that it's right. That's hardly a strawman argument because I'm not misrepresenting your idea; I'm just saying that your reasoning is weak.
>> No. 15179 [Edit]
That wasn't me, and you are correct. I was hoping no one one would point out my mistake as I misread your earlier post when I wrote that.
>> No. 15182 [Edit]
I lie in a attempt to hide my stupidity and failings. It usually doesn't work.
>> No. 15186 [Edit]
Not everybody cares much for doing what's "right."
If I enjoy lying over telling the truth for any given situation, I will if I can get away with it. It's not what's "wrong" or "right" that matters to me, but what's the most entertaining.
>> No. 15188 [Edit]
For a while, I've wondered what it meant to be a good or bad person, and relating to that, what good and bad actions were, as far as they can exist. This is what I've decided on for the present.

If you constantly live in pursuit of what feels good and away from what feels bad, you'll realize that it's not the best way to live as soon as you pause and reflect on the nature of things. It's impossible to have unlimited supplies of anything that makes us feel good, and distancing ourselves from those things will only make us feel worse than we would had we avoided them in the first place. The best kinds of actions which we can make are those which insure happiness and stability for ourselves in the long run, even if they make us feel bad in the present or the near future, because meaningful improvements to our lives, and more importantly, stability, are essential for surviving in our fast-approaching future. Meaningless pleasure may be appealing, but seeking it often involves the bringing of harm to ourselves or those around us and it will leave us as quickly as it comes. A clear mind and conscience, more than anything else, lies at the foundations of our happiness.

With this in mind, the relationship between our actions, ourselves, and time, it becomes quite easy to judge whether an action is good or bad. If we quit our jobs because we're mad at a co-worker, although we'll feel proud for our actions at the time, we'll regret it after several weeks come mealtime with an empty wallet. This will bring us to a bad state of mind that will be difficult to escape; for me, this is an example of a bad action. Similarly, if we avoid buying anime and instead put our money into savings (or invest in a better home, better car, or anything else which will improve our daily state of life), while we may not enjoy our decision in the future, reflection will make us value our actions more. A good person is one who invests in the happiness of himself and others; a bad person is one who chases after his own weak forms of escape. A good person doesn't continue doing harmful kinds of actions, while a bad one does.

The value of introspection is often undervalued in a society where clever salespeople (along with drug dealers, prostitutes, and scam artists) only stand to profit from meaningless pleasures. But as we invest more of our time into appreciating the world around us and being more mindful of ourselves and our actions, we find our reliance on the immediate presence decrease. To feel contented with the state of the world at any given moment, we need only to see it with the right pair of eyes. Meditations on things we may find beautiful (music, nature, our waifus, etc) will only make it easier for us to see the world in this kind of way. And as long as we take care to invest in a future no worse than our present, straying from our wishes, hopes, and dreams, we will always be happy. Of course, that's not to say that it's necessary to endure an unpleasant state to reach our desired one; many things are both directly beneficial to our happiness in both the short and long terms, such as reading works of literature, gardening, creating works of art, or anything else which we can enjoy in meaningful ways while improving ourselves.

These thoughts all came to me after a very stressful and terrible day so this probably isn't anywhere near my best writing, and it certainly doesn't feel original, but at least there is meaning in my life once again. I thought at one time in my life that love, hope, and trust in another person would be the easiest and best route to a happy future, but I realized that the facilities for love or faith don't require any external facility to operate; we only need to love ourselves to succeed. This may be why so many people enjoy having waifus; I've never felt love in that way before, but I can see how it could help so many of us find contentment in such an awful world. With this view of goodness and happiness, I've decided I'll finally get a job, even though I have a hard time dealing with other people and motivating myself to do much of anything besides sulking around and whining. I believe that I'll get one! Suffering is a wonderful thing to endure because it forces some change to the way we think, it forces us to find some kind of solution to those awful problems life poses to us. I'm sure that once I can pay my father rent while making other economical investments in my future, as well as remain contented with and mindful of life in the present, I'll find long-term stability and happiness. Yatta!
>> No. 15189 [Edit]
>A good person is one who invests in the happiness of himself and others; a bad person is one who chases after his own weak forms of escape. A good person doesn't continue doing harmful kinds of actions, while a bad one does.

I agree with you here. But where do you believe these poor or bad decisions stem from? I don't wish to say some people are simply born good or bad, because I think it's prior choices or experiences that tend to have negative effects on people in the long run. That then opens the question: why do some people continue to be bad if they already know they indeed live awful, horrible lives?

Ah it's too early in the day to be thinking, but I liked your post. I'll give it more thought today because lately, these are the questions I've been asking myself.

Anyway, sounds like you've taken a decision to improve your life. I wish you the best of luck. It's no easy ride.
>> No. 15191 [Edit]
"Good" and "bad" are both subjective terms.
>> No. 15201 [Edit]
Why are the concepts of love and disgust, of pleasure and of pain so closely linked? I'm not the only one that feels this way, am I?
>> No. 15203 [Edit]
> But where do you believe these poor or bad decisions stem from?
I believe that everything that makes us "us" comes from our prior experiences. All that we know is that which we have observed and been made aware of. If someone makes "wrong" decisions in their lives, I believe it's because they lack awareness of something, whether that something is what makes them happy, or what will come in the future. I guess I'd call it ignorance more than anything else, because there's no term (as far as I know) for a mindset which avoids mindfulness. Someone on /so/ wrote about impulses and obligations and such being the reasons why we act the ways we do; and I agree with him completely (because I am him).

> Why do some people continue to be bad if they already know they indeed live awful, horrible lives?
Perhaps they haven't been hurt enough. Perhaps they don't know why they're unhappy, or how to escape their unhappiness. Maybe they enjoy pain. Or maybe they've accepted that their lives won't change and continue to persist in their bad habits. Things which are harmful often bring some pleasure immediately, and that's why we find ourselves drawn to them. You know as well as I do that drugs (I just find this to be a strong example of a destructive behavior) or whatever else feel good to some extant; that's while we'll turn to them in the first place, and it's why we'll keep going back. Only when we're aware that the short burst of pleasure they bring is causing us harm in other ways, when we are more aware of their effects, will we want to quit them. But this is all only what I think. I don't feel I'm a very smart person, I just try to apply logic to knowledge I've obtained from conversations with other and from books for my answers. What do you think? I would love it if you would share!

> I'll give it more thought today because lately, these are the questions I've been asking myself.
I'm glad! It makes me happy to know that people can read and relate to my thoughts and wonder about the same things. If it helps them fix problems or makes them think about things they haven't spent much time wondering, it makes me feel like I didn't waste my time writing things out, and if people who are interested can find problems and point them out, we can work together for a better understanding of things... if you're drawn to philosophy at all, you must have some love of wisdom, and by discussing ideas with others and finding flaws we gain a better working knowledge of our world. According to a philosophical perspective of truth called empiricism, we only have our own past experiences to work with when we think about things; by sharing ideas with others, our own misunderstandings or ignorance regarding certain things can be wiped out, right? While the way we enjoy things and understand ideas is highly subjective, our subjective view of things, our internal reality is definitely linked to the external world, so while there may not be such a thing as objective good or evil, there are going to be ideas which are better justified than others, which (to me, at least) are much more agreeable than those thoughts with no evidence supporting them or even evidence contradicting them. If we can have dialogues with one another or share our own monologues relating to our ponderings, we will be certainly be better off for it, I feel; at the least, we'll be entertained.
>> No. 15209 [Edit]
Got a bit drunk and scribbled in my notebook, felt a bit sober and attempted to clean it up. It's a bit long and I don't feel it's very creative, but I feel my arguments in it are strong and I would love to hear what you think.
What is the self? It is a difficult question to think about, although I believe it is an important one. I shall approach it first by answering how I believe the self is formed. We, as humans, tend to differentiate the external (that which is outside of us) from the internal (that which is within us). The internal is that which exists within us; it consists of our feelings, our hopes and our fears, and our impulses, and it can most certainly be considered to be subjective, because how we approach and understand any given idea will be different for any given person; but something which is common between our internal worlds is that they are structured by certain frameworks such as logic and language. Language gives us symbols for our experiences, and logic trains us to form healthy associations between our symbols.

How does language form symbols? What is the importance of a symbol? What is the relationship between our symbols, subjective truth, and language? A symbol is only a form of short-hand for many ideas. The things which leave the strongest impression in us are what our impressions which are most closely linked with. Our experiences with any given thing form a picture of it in our mind. I feel that the relationship between nouns and adjectives is a good way to view this. Any noun (for example, cat) can be described with many adjectives which we gather through many of our own experiences (our own cat may be soft, kind, warm, small, etc). Strong links exist between every concept in our mind, and what these links are will vary from person to person. Because we share many of our observations, many of us will be able to have a general understanding of what a cat is, but because we have different memories and feelings with cats in general, what a cat means to us as individuals will differ because we unconciously place more importance on some traits than others.

In our world, there is nothing which truly differentiates a door from a wall; while they may look different, there is nothing which truly delimits them from each other. However, through our experiences, we are trained to learn that doors open and close and that they may offer privacy or security. We may call these the functions of a door, and may well be our strongest associations with the door concept. Certain physical traits of this object (rectangularly-shaped, wooden, possessing a knob, etc.) are observed by all of us, but we do not all have a perfect definition of what a door is because although certain traits can be realized, we will never share every one of our experiences with one another. A door can be said to exist objectively. If I point at one and ask what it is, everyone will answer "door" because that is our symbol for it in our language. We can realize that doors often have hinges, latches, and knobs which assist in their utility, but not all doors have these have these links; if we were to remove a door from its hinges and also remove its knob and lock, and we were perhaps to saw this piece of wood into a new shape, what would this object be? We have no new name for this object, but our memories still call it a door, so the symbolism remains, its only link being our memory.

No objects actually exist. When we look at a door or a cat, we are not actually seeing a door or a cat, but various shapes or colors that it may possess. Our memories will link these traits and create a symbol for it. If we understand an object to be a linking of its traits, we can also understand a trait by linking similar objects. Consider red. Fire is red, as are apples, blood, or hair. Consider round. Balls are round, as are marbles or discs. Not everyone has seen red blood or round marbles, but if we have some understanding of redness or roundness we must have experienced them in some way in the past.

We internalize the external through our senses, our language, and our logic. Language is used to create symbols and logic maintains associations between these symbols. Our memories store these links and impressions. Language again is used to externalize our memories. We logically form links between our symbols, our ideas, when we write or speak a sentence. Language is an attempt to universalize symbols both within ourselves and within our societies. As communication increases between individuals and stricter definitions of symbols are formed (the door to my room, that cat on the television), they come closer to having the same symbol in their minds. All new ideas arise from logical combinations of old ideas, so the sharing of our internalizations of the world around us is vital.

If a bond between imagery in our minds is formed or strengthened, we are said to have faith in that idea. If it is weakened or removed, we are doubting it. In order to have some sense of understanding, we must have faith in certain ideas, as well as our framework for them. We cannot have mathematics without logic. We cannot have Christianity without Christ. We cannot have science without induction. Once faith is established in these core concepts, further knowledge can result. If we see a map and we have no reason to believe that it is a symbol for the world around us or anything at all, it will have no meaning, for no links exist. By forming broader systems and classifications of thought in our minds, we find it easier to understand new concepts. Ideas in our minds which are linked with positive feelings are beautiful. An object can never be beautiful; while we may love our waifu, we should not fall in love with the ink which light convinces us she is. It is impossible to love an object because the only way we can internalize an object is through symbolism. It is quite easy to be attracted to symbols.

Suffering is the result of conflictions. Our system of understanding in our minds, being a logical one, should remain free of contradiction. When a memory conflicts with another, when an ideal form of a person conflicts with the external one, when we want two things but can only have one, our mind punishes us for thinking in an illogical fashion. Suffering, being unpleasant, results in the eradication of false belief. Taking time to think carefully, applying both doubt and faith to our beliefs, the strengthening of bonds supported by our senses and the weakening of those which aren't, will free us from suffering. Suffering is also caused by ignorance. Our mind, being a logical one, seeks to connect all of our experiences and explain them when possible. Suffering serves us then as a motivator for justifying or rationalizing our observations in a logical way and then having faith in them. How we answer our suffering, how we apply faith and doubt, how we have come to observe the world both through our senses and from those of others is how our memories and symbols are formed. We are what we believe. Having a clearer and more precise understanding of foreign concepts leads to longer, happier, and more successful lives, which is why we humans use our senses, languages, logic, and memories to form a picture of our world. By sharing our observations with others and taking care to analyze them, we gain a clearer understanding of the world outside of us. Our awareness and our ability to form symbols which correspond with reality are what make us wise and educated. While our beliefs may be subjective because our experiences differ, our communication and rationalization of our experiences works to make our external and internal worlds align.

Ah, sorry, I'm rambling... the self, then, is our subjective image of the world, or in different wording, it is the memories which are not universally shared. As communication is further improved by advancements in technology, we can hopefully see an end to subjective thought, and the self, as it will mean that our suffering as a result of misunderstanding and ignorance will cease to exist.
>> No. 15224 [Edit]

I agree with much of what you say, so I'll save reiterating obvious points. I esecpailly like your thoughts about communication and the evolution of technology, though I won't bother to analyse it right now.

I think a great and recent example of the benefits of communication would be the Arab Revolutions which have occured in the last 2-3 years. Due to the repression and lack of freedom that overshadows much of this part of the world, they've spent a good part of the past century believing that suffering was normal, or at least tolerable. It's genreally accepted that the catalyst for this social revolution arose in Tunisia, after a young man suffered the brutality of the state and it resulted in his unfortunate death. People slowly came together, united under the idea (which was then still a premature and abstract concept) that they should not suffer the way they do. Through the use of cellular phones, social media and what they've begun to term "citizen journalism", exploded with the cries of tens of millions of voiceless individuals who managed to come together with the shared idea that their suffering is unjust. This idea evolved into not just a request for change, but a demand for it.

I've always held the belief that much of what we learn or in this case, how we define, objects, people or ourselves can only be ascertained by sharing and listening to the thoughts of others. Be it through ancient Socratic type methods of debate, distribution of pamphlets and literary magazines (as was common in early industrial societies), pub/cafe philosophy of the 20th century, or through the internet. Regardless of how we communicate, a lack of these "public" methods of debate would mean critical thought could not exist and no one would be any wiser to the world around them.
>> No. 15243 [Edit]
I was recently banned from another imageboard for asking people who their waifu this week was. While I don't have a "seasonal waifu" (I've had mine for nearly a year) I do believe that it's possible to justify having short-term waifus. Without further ado, "In Defense of Seasonal Waifus". All comments and criticism appreciated! I love hearing what people think about what I have to say!


To me, a waifu is just a character that you love. I suppose that the concept of loving an anime character may seem strange or bizarre, but all love is idealistic in nature in my view of things. The closest you can get to loving another person is loving your conception of who they are, your mental image of how someone is. Psychologists will assert this - it's what makes love different from lust, which is only a craving for a person's body. And so will "waifuists". Their kind of love is similar to a normal's love, but it's much more pure.

Maybe you don't agree with me that anime characters can truly be loved, so I'll try a different method of convincing you. I hope that (if you've been following with me up to now) you can realize that some people feel that they can. It seems like you're familiar with how /a/ works and you should know this. Waifuism is not a new concept; it has been in our society for centuries. Don Quixote is a story about a man with a strong and passionate love for his mental image of a person who does not "exist" in the way we understand existence to be. Knights would often champion their love for women who they had only seen in portraits. It may not be a healthy form of love, but to deny that people can love non-real concepts is a delusion. Even "normal" people in love can love false images of people, which is the foundation of seduction.

"Okay," you may be saying by now, "so people can love anime characters, even if I don't. But you really can't believe that you can only have a waifu for a week." This is all assuming you're not laughing, or snoring -- sorry, but this is an issue that I take very seriously, so seriously that I fear that my poor writing is doing an injustice to my beliefs. If you're able to follow along and agree with my points, though, that's the least I can hope for. Anyway, back to the topic. We know that people can love symbols and images. Love is something which is independent of space -- when we love a symbol, we're loving only that, not an actual body or a piece of paper covered in ink or a love pillow. Love is a concept that I don't fully understand, but if waifuism is a real thing, it must be understood that it's something which only exists in the mind. It has everything to do with ideas and nothing to do with what we can see, touch, smell, feel, and hear. It may be a delusion for this reason. But love happens independently of what is physically tangible.

If love can exist independently of what we understand space to be, why can it not exist independently of what we understand time to be? As I said earlier, love is a concept which exists fully in the mind. I can only hope that you can agree with my reasoning, but if you've just read this far than I'm satisfied. People can fall in love at first sight or they can realize love for people they've known for years. The time it takes for love to develop or realized varies because, as with all concepts contained fully in the mind, love is highly subjective. Kant argued that our conception of time was a transcendent concept as well; there is no empirical way to measure or justify the existence of time. In my understanding of his writing, time is as much a concept independent of the tangibly real as love is. We can feel as though it has some basis in reality (as our love for "real" people does, or our observation of clocks ticking away) but in truth it is a concept which exists fully in the mind of a human.

Two people can be in love for a lifetime after realizing their feelings, or they can maybe only love each other for weeks. Haven't you ever loved someone for a short period of time? While love and time can be linked, and longer periods of love are certainly happier ones, I do not believe you can say that a short period of love is any less meaningful than a long one. Love is as independent of time as I feel it is of space. It's only that - a feeling - and all that matters for it to occur is that we find an ideal beautiful. Physically tangible, long-lasting love is certainly the healthiest form of it, but it is not necessary for love to be physical, and it's not necessary for it to last for long periods, either. When someone falls out of love, it's even better if they can get away, I feel; if we don't love a woman, why should we let her live in our house, why should we force ourselves to be with them? We can say for certain that it is better not to force ourselves to love someone when we do not; and this is definitely a reason why having a waifu is superior to traditional love. It only lasts for as long as we want to, with the people we really want to share this feeling with.

I get the feeling that I'm boring you by now. I'm sorry. I just want you to know that I really believe it's possible to have a waifu for short periods of time. I'm sorry if I've offended you with my way of thought. If you've been reading this far, I thank you for reading. I'm really not trying to do "obvious trolling" so I feel a shortening of my ban would be fair. I would love to hear your comments on the "right" and "wrong" ways to have a waifu because I was not aware that there even was a wrong way to have a waifu. I don't mean to come off as rude, but I'm just a bit upset that I'm banned this week from a favorite board for trolling when I've only shared my beliefs. Thank you for reading, and I hope you can feel some sympathy for me.
>> No. 15267 [Edit]
A 3DPD has been disrupting my emotional state so I have been inventing puzzles to distract myself from my feelings. Here are two such puzzles:

One man trains for six months and can lift a rock that weighs one hundred pounds. Another man does not train at all and can lift one which weighs one hundred twenty pounds. Which man is stronger?

A product which costs ten cents to manufacture is sold for one dollar. Another product which costs five cents to manufacture is sold for two dollars. Which product is worth more?

The ambiguity in language and in vague concepts (for example, value) gives rise to interesting games.
>> No. 15307 [Edit]
I think you make many good points philosophically, but functionally within the context of our community they don't really work, as your ban demonstrates. While it may indeed be possible to love for a short period of time, such intense feelings over such short durations are more readily referred to as infatuation, while the term love, both in general and within our subculture, is reserved for more lasting feelings.
I can understand your defensiveness at having your feelings seemingly trivialized. But you should also recognize that for those of us that have loved our waifus not for days, weeks, or months, but for years, your liberal use of these terms feels trivializing as well. And while it may indeed simply be semantics, it is you that is running counter to what are largely accepted definitions.
>> No. 15310 [Edit]
I think that while acting upon infatuation can have horrible effects with 3D, the effects are mineralized when it comes to 2D. While you may feel some guilt if you cheat on your waifu, you can usually be sure that she'll forgive you for it and work on strengthening your relationship. How long have you had your waifu for? Do you ever feel directed lust or infatuation towards other characters? (I'm sorry if that term offends you, I lack a better one.) I think part of human nature is occasionally growing weary of targets of your affection with time. I love my waifu very much but I've never gone longer than two weeks without "cheating" on her. I've sometimes wondered if she would be happier without scum like me in her life... ah, it feels like I'm warping this into a different kind of issue, I'm sorry. Are you totally faithful to your waifu? What do you feel can constitute an act of cheating?

I find electronic communication's role in revolution fascinating as well. One drawback of online communication though is that people have less responsibility to justify their facts. I'm sure that if a figurehead in the revolution wondered "Hmm, I'm sure people would work harder towards our goal if I were to invent a murder or other act of atrocity from the government. Let's invent an event! If it gets us to our desired end more quickly, it is certainly justifiable." Hoaxes spread very quickly online. This is more true with pseudonymous conversation and especially, especially true with anonymous conversation; with no identity to tie your words with, there are less obligations to stay sensible or honest.

I agree with you quite strongly on the importance of criticism. I feel that criticism can even be more important than acts themselves. Subjectivity is what makes things meaningful; if we keep an objective look at all things, we can't help but assign equal value to all ideas and actions. Through criticism and analysis we can assign value to things as well as poking out holes and such.

I wish you guys would longpost too, I feel bad about doing it so often...
>> No. 15313 [Edit]
I think it is impossible to love someone for so short period. It is not love, just short time affection, or crush. For me waifu has much deeper meaning than minor crush. Bonding and falling in love requires more time than week in my opinion.

Your "waifu this week" should be changed to "favorite character this week".
>> No. 15314 [Edit]
How long do you have to feel affection for someone before false love (infatuation) becomes true love? I feel the same way today about my waifu as the day I first discovered her and I feel it's love rather than infatuation. "Favorite character this week" may cause less controversy, sure, but I find it is difficult to make clear definitions of what love is and isn't, especially regarding waifus, because it is such a subjective thing. I feel that you can only really distinguish true and false love from one another in retrospect; and even then, I don't feel that the period of time legitimizes feelings at all. Love you feel for a minute isn't necessarily weaker than love you feel for a year. I suppose it can be certainly be harmful to 3D if your feelings fade after a month and you suddenly declare that maybe you should only be friends, and any negative feelings can make someone figure "oh, it wasn't really love, it was just infatuation!" but is it really the same case with 2D? I'm sorry, I hope I haven't upset you at all, I just think that it's a difficult concept so I'm sharing my thoughts. Your ideas have made me consider things I haven't before.
>> No. 15316 [Edit]
You aren't upsetting anyone. You have right to your own opinion and I have mine. In my opinion infatuation and love are different things. Infuation is based on "first sight" and it can turn into love. While love is something what comes after deeper bonding. For me it took 2 months before I could call feeling I felt for her "love". This is just my opinion but I think you can call it love when things tend to "stable". In infatuation or crush phase, things tend to be chaotic and uncontrolled(your new feelings make you feel uncomfortable etc.). Still many of us seem to have different opinions of love (>>>/mai/9287).
>> No. 15319 [Edit]
File 133984105060.jpg - (95.84KB , 641x641 , philosophers.jpg )
It's all some kind of fucked up dream! Don't you go just yet, it's not over yet. Look at it and look at it again, you'll see it's changed again. It's crawling away! Do you even know what it is you're looking at? Every face but her own, every voice the same. The voice of reason spoken from a nonbeliever. An ironic twist on a sad fate. Woops! Not Kant, ugh! It's gone!
>> No. 15323 [Edit]
Jesus and Diogenes there (and no Ricoeur)...
Oriental stuff taken as philosophy...
Freud a Philosopher (and no Lacan)...
No Peirce or Saussure...

>> No. 15324 [Edit]
Seriously, make an effort to blend in or don't post at all.
>> No. 15326 [Edit]

Wittgenstein and Jesus in the same group?

I Kant believe it!
>> No. 15331 [Edit]
Ah, clever. Viewing my previous post through the lens of what you've said, if I feel infatuation for another character or "cheat" on my waifu, this would indeed trivialize the concept of a waifu to others. I now feel that my last post was rather short-sighted.

Yes, I feel infatuation for other characters come and go, and while I do feel a sexual attraction to my waifu, I don't fap to her exclusively. The sexual facet is not a central feature of our relationship, though, and this certainly seems to be the case for most of /mai/.
>How long have you had your waifu for? Do you ever feel directed lust or infatuation towards other characters? (I'm sorry if that term offends you, I lack a better one.) I think part of human nature is occasionally growing weary of targets of your affection with time.
While my feelings for her have taken many different forms, the short answer is nine years. Yes, infatuations, lust, and all manner of other emotions for other characters have come and gone. But I consider her my waifu because ever since I first met her, she has been the most important thing in my life.
>Are you totally faithful to your waifu? What do you feel can constitute an act of cheating?
Building on what I just said, let's consider that level of importance I place her in a "tier". There is nothing else in this tier for me, and I would consider an act of cheating placing anything else in this tier of importance

And now that I think about it, I should stop projecting this standard I have on to everyone else.
This post also became a bit more personal than I intended
>> No. 15400 [Edit]
I was doing so well, but all that shit started catching up with me again.
I can't keep up with life, after all.

And thus, the cycle begins, again.
>> No. 15478 [Edit]
I'm able to convince myself that things that aren't so, are. I wonder how I can undo it.
>> No. 15699 [Edit]
I've been thinking about it for a while, and I think that it would be pretty cool if game companies had their own little console mascot instead of the fan made ones (although those are good, too) integrated into their consoles and were optional to use.

It would be nice to have a little cute, moé "60-tan" or "yu-tan" or "suri-tan" greet you and act as if they cared about you and what you do.

>> No. 15787 [Edit]
I'm of the opinion that any online community that requires considerably technical knowledge or extreme amounts of dedication and obsessiveness in their users to fit in cannot become bad.
>> No. 15804 [Edit]
Communication is fucking amazing. I'm so amazed that people can discuss things over the internet so easily. You never really think about it, but when you do, it's just fascinating. Humans are the ultimate creative species on Earth.
>> No. 15822 [Edit]

Communication on the internet is even too much for me.
>> No. 15823 [Edit]
I agree. I am very happy that I was born on internet era so I have been able to find similar people like me.
>> No. 15828 [Edit]
File 134194689766.jpg - (5.98KB , 133x195 , george.jpg )
>I'm so amazed that people can discuss things over the internet so easily.

In the current, digitized world, trivial information is accumulating every second, preserved in all it's triteness. Never fading, always accessible. Rumors about petty issues, misinterpretations, slander... All this junk data preserved in an unfiltered state, growing at an alarming rate.

It will only slow down social progress, reduce the rate of evolution. The digital society furthers human flaws and selectively rewards development of convenient half-truths.

You exercise your right to 'freedom' and this is the result. All rhetoric to avoid conflict and protect each other from hurt. The untested truths spun by different interests to churn and accumulate in the sandbox of political correctness and value systems. Everyone withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum. They stay inside their little ponds leaking whatever 'truth' suits them into the growing cesspool of society at large. The different cardinal truths neither clash nor mesh. No one is invalidated, but nobody is right.

Not even natural selection can take place here. The world is being engulfed in 'truth'. And this is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper.

>> No. 15830 [Edit]


But we've always done that. It's not just the digital era.
>> No. 15834 [Edit]
>They stay inside their little ponds leaking whatever 'truth' suits them
In the limit, even scientists do that. Propositions are either true or false merely in the context of their usefulness for a certain (personal/colective) inherited local tongue and it's goals.

>No one is invalidated, but nobody is right.
Hard as it sounds, propositions turned into arguments were never vows of life-lastings beliefs: they are nothing but rethorical tools; mere words that, used appropriately, serve to nothing else than to win a discussion.

However, the entire phenomena of (apparent) trivialization of information, is merely the cost of Internet being (still) the true first mass comunication medium: the only place where common citizens can reach the wide public that constitutes their own peers, reading each other and writting for each other, instead of just passively recieving some elite's mass delivered propaganda. It, however, does not vulnerate the development of specialized academic knowledge yet, since no degrees and thus no jobs on the matter are give to people educated by the web (similarly as they weren't normally given to people who teached themselves in public libraries); so, in the bigger picture, and in accordance with the positivistic prediction, education is still a highly hierarchisized process meant to preserve the "order" of social classes, which the web (even as frontal virtuality) still seems unable to tear down.
>> No. 15835 [Edit]
The irony is that your style of writing is hard to read and that hinders the ability of people to understand it. Its not enough for truth to be avaliable. It must also be readily accessible. Making it hard to access is a form of dishonesty.
>> No. 15836 [Edit]

I didn't think his post was hard to read.
>> No. 15848 [Edit]
You almost described the state of postmodernity
>> No. 15856 [Edit]
This sounds like the plot for umineko.
>> No. 15893 [Edit]
I was thinking about 3/11, 7/7, and 9/11, specifically, why are these bombings identified by numbers instead of called a proper name.
>> No. 15895 [Edit]
I partially stopped going on larger imageboards as well as not going on omegle or chatroulette because of that weird feeling of talking to random people, discussing personal shit, and disappearing too probably not see each other again. Of course, when i discussed that on another forum (Tvtropes) they mentioned passing random people in the street and how similar that is.
>> No. 15904 [Edit]

I can't vouch for the others, but in the case of nine-eleven...

I'd guess because the date feels more universal than the event, so more people can sort of rally around it. I live on the opposite side of the country from NYC, so if the events of 9/11 had been called the "New York Attacks" or something, it would be easier for me psychologically to hear that and think "this happened far away, it has nothing to do with my life." But like most Americans, I remember EXACTLY where I was and what I was doing on the morning of September 11, 2001, and so I think referring to it by date helps to "unify" it as an American event, rather than just a New York event. But that's just a guess.

(Also, there was already a terrorist attack usually called the "World Trade Center Bombing" back in 1993, so it might have been to avoid confusion with that.)
>> No. 15912 [Edit]

They're certainly not memorable names, but what else could you call them?
>> No. 15963 [Edit]
Double-ten day, the 2/26 Incident, 8-1 day...
>> No. 15964 [Edit]
Although your average hikki will be more wise than your typical normal, he won't be able to apply his wisdom. Disheartening, but as public education was meant to do.

O-one of those is my birthday..
>> No. 16000 [Edit]
Should an ideal society support those who are unwilling or unable to work? I've been throwing around the issue around quite a bit in my mind. Although I'm a hopelessly unemployed citizen of my country, I remain alive and can thrive from the hard work of others. I could see moral justifications for charity but when considering moral justification for receiving it, I run into a bit of difficulty. Part of it also is that I feel that, on a deeper level, it's wrong for me to exist without contributing to mankind. I believe that the best kind of action we can do in our lives is make changes which improve the state of the world for those which come after us in the future. Leeching, or even merely sustaining the current event of affairs, could be considered "wrong" or "not right" if my belief is valid.
>> No. 16004 [Edit]
There's no right or wrong when it comes to money: there's only what people are willing to give and what they aren't. I ask myself, am I willing to give money to someone who won't bother to work out of his situation and make good use of that money (in other words, me two years ago?) No, I'm not. Maybe some people are, but I'm not.

Work can be stressful and annoying, but it also means not having to live at the mercy of others. Unfortunately, the work situation today is so fucked that it's hard to even find entry-level jobs that pay nothing.
>> No. 16006 [Edit]
>your average hikki will be more wise than your typical normal

lol seriously? yeah, the guy who lives in his moms basement and spends all day torrenting visual novels is a real sage. not.
>> No. 16007 [Edit]
He can look at society from an outside perspective, that's pretty much all you need.
>> No. 16008 [Edit]
Let us go back to our roleplaying books and use the classical D&D Wisdom vs. Intelligence example:
The hermit who spent his whole life meditating in a cave might not even know how to write his name, but is usually wiser than the scholar who chose to live in society.
See, normals may have higher intelligence score, but we have potentially more wisdom.
That also explains most hikis magical ineptitude. Wizards gain spells based on intelligence rank, not wisdom.
>> No. 16013 [Edit]

brb Druid
>> No. 16015 [Edit]
We also spend more time at home, reading books and researching things online. Normals just spend all day flipping burgers, then get home and either just sit around playing candyville crusher and mobster wars on facebook, if they're not out getting drunk and shitting in urinals or having one night stands. 

Realistically we also have more than enough potential to surpass them in intellect as well.
>> No. 16022 [Edit]
its a myth. theres nothing wise about hermits.
>> No. 16033 [Edit]
How would you know, anyway? Maybe some really wise guys throughout history have decided to pick up and leave civilized society because they were sick of its bullshit. That makes sense to me. Besides, at least a few writers have done just that, though not in such an extreme manner. Lucky for them that they can still work and maintain a livelihood while being hikkis.
>> No. 16034 [Edit]
How are all these crickets getting into my house, get the fuck out crickets
>> No. 16035 [Edit]
Nothing is ever 100%.

I'm also dealing with some pesky bugs that also been sneaking into my house. They're not crickets, or at least I don't think so, but they have cricket-like legs, they're black, they look like bigger mosquitoes, and they use their wings as their main mode of transportation.

I'm glad that today's bug spray works amazingly well.
>> No. 16037 [Edit]
I sprayed around the other day and I'm still seeing em
>> No. 16038 [Edit]
It makes sense in theory, but after years of contact with hikkis, and being one myself for some time, my experience tells me that the average hikki is just as moronic as the average Ford Driver.

Most hikkis spend their time masturbating and arguing about shit on internet boards, Ford Drivers spend it with obnoxious socialisation or whatever. Neither will give you wisdom.

If anything, shut-ins might have more misc. knowledge of things because they have more time to spend on research, but my point is, just the "status" of being shut-in will not give anyone wisdom of any sort.
>> No. 16040 [Edit]
I meant for the ones that you directly spray and kill when you notice them in the time that you have to deal with them, not the ones that will come later and piss you off as the flying black things still bother me every once in a while. I only said the bug spray thing since back then it was useless and wouldn't kill the bugs even if you wasted the whole can on them.

You should probably look around for holes or something if they're getting in your house. If it's an outside problem, there's not much you can do, unless you buy, like, poison or something and throw it everywhere with the expectation of mostly everything dying in your lawn/backyard/patch of grass.
>> No. 16042 [Edit]
I could easily make the opposite argument. People who arent hikkis have more "life experience" (had more jobs, relationships etc.) and are therefore likely to be wiser.
>> No. 16045 [Edit]
File 134337537150.jpg - (588.74KB , 1280x800 , serial_experiments_lain_desktop_1280x800_wallpaper.jpg )
Ok, but consider this: what if knowledge, insofar as knowledge, it's not its aplying -or not- but its realization? In other words: what if someone's mastering on something -or his lack it of- is really grasped not by its mere execution (praxis) but over its contemplation (theoria)? If life is like a hellish labyrinth to go through: who gets a better grasp of it? the one who wanders around and suck some experiences, at the cost of getting traped by them, or the one who stays at his place watching them all through a screen and, free of charge, join the fragments together like the pieces of a puzzle?...

I mean, of course we seem to need both on a personal account: theoria and praxis; also: noone seems able to learn in someone elses's head; but if knowledge is given mostly by signifying, liguistification and theorization, a life devoted mostly to contemplation seems to be more knowledgeable (empowering or not, happiness' rendering or not) if only because that's all knowledge really deals with: mental constructs.

Post edited on 27th Jul 2012, 9:17am
>> No. 16046 [Edit]
Life is butts.
>> No. 16051 [Edit]
Work in progress. Not my best writing but I'll post the finished version here in a few days if anyone enjoyed what I have so far... I would love to hear your thoughts on what I have so far!


How easy it is for man to turn to the path of existentialism in a modernist society!

The orders: live, produce, consume, die. The warcry: Haruhi is dead! All knowledge we can ever have or hope to have, we have been informed, comes from our senses. What is real? That which we observe in material form, and nothing more! After all, existence precedes essence. Science is the only path we can pursue if we hope to comprehend our world. Gone are the fairy tales (lies) of the past; there’s no invisible man in the sky; and certainly, there aren’t demons to be held responsible for unexplained faults. There is no good and there is no evil past one society’s or another’s vague definitions: all is equally and ultimately meaningless in our world!

So assert the modernists. An easy dogma to swallow, but certainly not pleasant, is it?

If we live believing what they assert, and we’re led to believe that the individual’s life is hopelessly absurd, fully devoid of meaning; and that around him is equally worthless; that all the pains and suffering of the world fall upon his shoulders; that he lives in a world where everything is permitted and nothing is denied — but his hopes! Can we truly live in this life, and thrive? Can we live life with passion, can we live happily? Can we live meaningfully? I believe not!

On one level, it is quite easy to shrug off premodern thought, especially myth. We know that there are no fairies or goblins, we know there’s no man in the sky smiting evildoers, and we know that there’s no objective list of “good” and “evil” deeds in our world. Why, then, should we turn our heads to it? There’s no way, certainly, which truth can come from lies. This kind of thinking is also very easy to arrive at: and yet its conclusion is unsatisfactory! I will attempt to form an argument composed of several points which I feel will lead you to the conclusion that premodern society is necessary for man by defining what I deem to be the premodern condition and voicing its strengths.

1: What does premodernity mean?

The term simply refers to the period of time and way of thinking of earlier times which fell out of favor in the 1700s with the rise of the scientific revolution. But that’s not to mean the way of thinking is outdated and therefore wrong; you can be a premodernist as easily today as you can be a postmodernist! The scope of this essay will further definition of this term, but it can be summed up as “religious thought” as opposed to “scientific thought.” Myth and faith play heavy roles in determining “religious truths” as opposed to science’s skepticism and doubt; and I believe that modernity is inclined towards materialistic thought, while the premodern favors the ideal.

2: What is a premodern truth?

As I’ve stated previously, in modernism, the scientific method dominates the individual’s understanding of reality. If we’re to have any “higher truths” at all (wisdom: that which lies beyond science’s scope!), they are to be manufactured by the individual or his society. Any “higher truths” we have will change and adapt to fit the demands of a given community, in the same way hypotheses and theorems will change to meet the demands of the scientific community. But what this a higher truth what is our wisdom?

I feel the best way we can define wisdom is by saying calling it “that which transcends or rises above our sensory information.” Modernity asserts that all things rot and waste away in time as we “progress;” after all, that’s how our material world is, and we can’t see beyond that! But I feel that wisdom exists independently of our physical world and sensory data. If we want to have meaning in our lives, we need something which lies beneath the surface of things, something which rises above; we need good and evil, we need right and wrong. Where modernity places all concepts outside of science’s scope together, into the trashbin, premodernity only places some things there. To be aware of status: that is to be wise!

Wisdom in premodernity comes not from our awareness of the material world but awareness of that which lies beyond it. Rather than being materialistic — believing that matter is all there is, and nothing else — premodern thought tends towards idealism, sometimes saying the most real a thing can be is in our minds. A prominent form of idealistic thought states that an object’s “true nature” is that of a perfect form which rises above our world and existing solely in our minds, only occasionally revealing itself in shadowed forms for moments before our eyes and then vanishing again.Both premodern and modern thought will agree that material objects will come and go in time; but premodernity asserts that though an object’s true form, or essence, exists independently of time and space, thereby transcending the physical world. For an example: a river’s waters will flow into the sea before evaporating and returning to the mountains; while the river appears to move and vanish, we can still claim the same stream to exist! Although the form and shape of an object changes, some underlying principle remains.

The idealists will argue that while we may be able to sense the material world (and indeed, that it is the primary source of our knowledge), the most real a material object can be is real in our minds; that is, in the ideal form, as an

3. What is myth, and how does it relate to premodern truth?

4. How do myths help us live meaningfully?

5. What legitimizes premodernity?
>> No. 16052 [Edit]
many of these posts could fit as well on /mt/
>> No. 16054 [Edit]

Maybe, but philosophical thought is pondering too.

This thread is huge, though, maybe it's time for another one.
>> No. 16068 [Edit]
Guy writing about idealism and religion being better than materialism and science here. I was quite drunk and somehow can't remember my post's password, orz. However, I've cleaned up a bunch of the grammar in it, although I'm too tired to add more tonight. It was quite bad and I'm sorry that I can't improve it...

>> No. 16069 [Edit]

I'd be interested in hearing the rest, but I don't agree with pre-modern thought one bit. If we are to assume that everything is pointless and devoid of meaning because existence precedes our essence, it is equally as pointless if our entire essence is pre-determined before our existence. A stream will be a stream, a NEET will be a NEET. But on the contrary, a stream can cease to exist (through natural or man-made intervention) and a NEET can cease to be a NEET.

Perhaps a better way to put it is to steal an idea from a guy called Jean Sartre, which is that production can precede existence.

Post edited on 28th Jul 2012, 9:18am
>> No. 16070 [Edit]
What is attractive about the male ass?
>> No. 16071 [Edit]
File 134350338998.jpg - (738.86KB , 1072x1500 , Spoiler Picture.jpg )
i dunno
>> No. 16072 [Edit]
File 134350712559.jpg - (59.76KB , 357x1000 , Michelangelo-David-rear-view-detail1.jpg )
>> No. 16074 [Edit]
quit drinking.
>> No. 16075 [Edit]

For that matter, what is attractive about the female ass?
>> No. 16076 [Edit]
I used to ask that every single time people started up with that whole 'dat ass' bullcrap.
>> No. 16078 [Edit]
File 134350955866.jpg - (64.25KB , 600x700 , PF6151_263296867.jpg )
waist-hips ratio, smoothness, gap and dimples.
>> No. 16079 [Edit]
fertility and fat reservs
>> No. 16080 [Edit]
I don't buy those. I hate them pregnant and buxom.
>> No. 16081 [Edit]
We are talking about mature females and males not Lolis. Have you ever seen mainstream porn/hentai with skinny asses?
>> No. 16082 [Edit]
I think it's more a matter of tight vs big asses.
>> No. 16085 [Edit]
> If we are to assume that everything is pointless and devoid of meaning because existence precedes our essence, it is equally as pointless if our entire essence is pre-determined before our existence.
Because I made no mention of predetermination, I'm going to write a reply about meaning which is somewhat unrelated to what you said.

When I made a mention of "essence," keep in mind that I wasn't necessarily speaking of human nature. "Existence precedes essence," in my eyes, can be easily developed to the thought that "essence is artificial" and that to "existence is all which there is," which can take us to the philosophy known as "nihilism," its assorted branches arguing similar points (life is without meaning! actions are without meaning!). This is because I feel that materialism removes the human element from our picture of reality. A famous philosopher known as Kierkegaard argued that "leveling" things out, removing value by equating all things, was very depressing. I feel very similarly. Do you feel that materialism leads to nihilistic thought, and do you find nihilism depressing?

On the other hand, by attaching "invisible forms" to things in our material world, I feel we gain some kind of metric for determining value of things. In the context of myth, it is my view that it is asserted that some actions, some things ARE inherently superior to other actions and other things, and man is given the important role of making things right. In myth, things in our material world are merely representative for our ideals, and we do this best, in my eyes, by making things "larger than life."

We can see this in the Islamist Jihad concept or the Zoroastrian's philosophy of moral war -- when you live, you aren't merely existing; you are fighting a war against evil, and you on the side of good! We can observe in the heroic stories, quite frequently, life lived on the most grand scale. By inflating man and his actions, by giving him end goals in life, by giving him a role in his society and in the universe, he is given what I consider to be "value." Many people which I have talked with on the topic offline have told me that they need this sense of status or rank to live how they feel is meaningful.

I'm sorry, I don't feel like I answered anything, and I don't think that my thoughts are quite developed enough -- but it all boils down to "materialism = nihilism = meaningless life = unsatisfied = unhappy" and "idealism = mysticism = meaningful life = satisfied = happy". My thoughts are highly influenced by a writer on mythology named Joseph Campbell; if you haven't heard of him, I would highly recommend his book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces." Once you've read that, if you've enjoyed that, you should move on to other works of his. He does a much better job of speaking on myth and its function than I do. I really really love his works, and I hope that you can grab some of his books as well!

> A stream will be a stream, a NEET will be a NEET. But on the contrary, a stream can cease to exist (through natural or man-made intervention) and a NEET can cease to be a NEET.)
If you walk away from a stream but can still envision it in your mind, I would argue that the concept or ideal of a stream is known to you, and thus, you are aware of what a stream is. If the image of a stream exists for you in your mind, although you have ceased to physically perceive a stream, streams still exist for you as long as you can mentally perceive them. I don't really know a better way to describe this...

A man could embody the NEET form or the NEET ideal at one time or another; I would say that this signifies that some form or ideal of NEETs can exist. And I would go on to argue that a man living in accordance with his ideal form of a NEET, conforming to that higher state or principle, would be more satisfied with his sense of being and place in the universe than a NEET who desperately wishes he could be normal. When our material world and ideal worlds correspond, we are happy.

Is that not why we prefer 2D to 3D? 2D women are of a higher metaphysical state than 3D ones; by embodying our ideals perfectly, they are superior. 3DPD -- material forms of things are, if not meaningless, repulsive! 2D is "pure," 2D is "honest," 2D is "truth," 2D is "just!" It transcends our physical world and is all the better for it! This must sound silly to some people, but if you are an otaku well-versed in idealism, or even an otaku at all, you must surely agree! If you don't find 3D repulsive at all, I don't understand why you're here! Myth is one way in which we can deal with our unpleasant physical existence.

I could argue "quit watching anime." Why ought I? Did you know that there are several people on Tohno-chan who use illegal drugs? I think the guy who's using cocaine or the guy who's using heroin in the daily activities may be a better one to have a conversation with first. I don't drink often and I just do it to have fun. It's something many people do and it is not wrong to drink alcohol, in my eyes.
>> No. 16178 [Edit]
I solved the problem of artificial consciousness. Check it:

10 Print "I am a computer program in BASIC."
20 Goto 10
>> No. 16188 [Edit]
Sometimes I have the impression that philosophy is a multi-millenial game of chinese whispers.
>> No. 16270 [Edit]

That was great.
>> No. 16365 [Edit]
Life is all right once you know what you desire. Why remain in a state of endless, inexorable misery? Be happy.
>> No. 16368 [Edit]
i'm a fucking piece of shit and i feel like dying
>> No. 16369 [Edit]
What if you know what you want, but you can't have it or it doesn't exist? I disagree.
>> No. 16370 [Edit]
It depends what you want. Desires must remain realistic.
>> No. 16371 [Edit]
In that case, your advice isn't that useful.
>> No. 16372 [Edit]
I want to be a dinosaur.

My life isn't alright.
>> No. 16373 [Edit]
but you're a human, you could never be a dinosaur!
>> No. 16374 [Edit]

Ah, but it wasn't advice...just pondering. Only you can determine what you want in life, and only you can achieve it.


You just have to believe, man.
>> No. 16385 [Edit]
Sometimes I wonder if I ever become delirious I will start mumbling about anime and touhous and things. Like if I went to the hospital for surgery and they start to sedate me I'll start mumbling about reimu and cirno having a tea party before the doctors wheel me away, and if I died on the table my parents would never know what the hell I was talking about
>> No. 16397 [Edit]
File 13453861542.jpg - (92.38KB , 850x870 , sample-ab5d63e61b507454ee614f751ac2f7ed.jpg )
I've been NEET now for 3 months and the boredom aspect is finally starting to kick in pretty hard. I have a huge selection of anime, VN, books, music to watch/read/do/[verb], but I can never be bothered to do any. If I do one, I feel frustrated and annoyed that I could be having more 'fun' doing another.

I don't know where I'm going with this, but just wondering if people have found some way to deal with this. I was going to post it as a new /so/ thread but I didn't think it warranted its own thread...Maybe it does.
>> No. 16398 [Edit]
Sleep. Think. [verb].

If I get that kind of feeling, I'll go for a walk outside... may work for you. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with just sitting in your bed doing nothing.
>> No. 16399 [Edit]
Yeah I get that feeling of wanting to do something more productive all the time.
Aside from hopelessly searching for ways to make money online, there's not really much to do in that area.
>> No. 16404 [Edit]
write the great American novel, or the novel for whatever country youre from
>> No. 16406 [Edit]

That's just what being a NEET feels like I guess, I'm sure it's the same for many of us.
>> No. 16438 [Edit]
This is huge and takes a long time to load for some, please start a new one!

View catalog

Delete post []
Report post

[Home] [Manage]

- Tohno-chan took 0.33 seconds to load -

[ an / ma / vg / foe / mp3 / vn ] [ fig / navi / cr ] [ so / mai / ot / txt / 日本 / mt ] [ irc / ddl / arc / ns / fb / pic ] [ home ]