>>1712
I moved away from a town that was mostly Hispanic, where I heard more Spanish than English. Very saddening.

>>1688
I recently learned about zeta potential, which links with bioelectricity and models of Eastern medicine. https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-does-every-vaccine-often-cause

Animal abuse does not matter. The act of killing an animal is not inherently bad, and the animal's own 'needs and desires' are irrelevant.

Take the example of chicken culling, where we systematically kill male chicks soon after birth because they cannot lay eggs. Thousands of chicks are hatched and then immediately go on the conveyor belt and into the grinder. This does not matter, whether or not they have some capacity to feel pain. We are the most intelligent species on the planet and we have the right to use all its resources as we see fit, because we are the only ones who can. Obviously, I am not saying we should go out and kill all of nature, industrialize the entire planet until it becomes a wasteland from our own inventions. Because that would obviously be detrimental to the human species. I am saying that there is nothing wrong with the act of killing or harming animals in any way, if it is beneficial to our species.

There is no reason to do this 'humanely' either, the only way it should be done is in whatever way is best for our species. Feel free to argue against me.

>>1721
You've never had pets, have you?

>>1722
I don't have a pet right now, though I had a cat when I was younger. I hope that my opinion would be the same if I had a pet or not, I should really only believe in what I think is logically right regardless of emotional attachment.

>>1724
I think the emotional factor is the very reason why people would say it maters.

>>1721
There's no objective reason why you're wrong. There's also no objective reason why shouldn't stop giving medical attention to the sick and old. Or go back to caveman society where violence is the way any dispute is settled and there's no concept of human rights. Arguing about morality is kind of pointless and ultimately boils down to feelings and empathy.

>>1726
>Or go back to caveman society where violence is the way any dispute is settled
Well at least for this one, there's an argument that avoiding violence is better for the long-term survival of the species as a whole. But that's not really an objective argument since it's based on the belief that there is some "goal" to be reached in the first place.

Questions of ethics/morality only make sense under a given framework, and what framework you use changes what the answers would be. E.g. to most people having children is clearly a "good thing" but under certain branches of pessimism, it's a horrible thing. By default people seem to very loosely work under something like negative consequentialism (they imagine the outcomes of actions as it would affect them), and they might also have spiritual beliefs that they're constrained by.

I think Hamas did the right thing. There I said it. I don't feel sorry for all those hipsters and egirls they killed. 1400 less IDF and normalfags.

>>1734
Muslims are the ultimate normalfags. All they care about is fancy cars, religion, and producing as much spawn as possible.

Holding all white people responsible for the actions of some, is no different from holding all jews responsible for the actions of some. A common example is the Atlantic slave-trade. SOME White people bought the slaves, but jews owned the boats, so therefore its all the jews' fault, because when white people do something wrong, its the individual's fault, but when jews do something wrong, all of them are to blame. That's a double standard, and it's bullshit.

If somebody says "but jews have been putting the blame on all white people too", firstly, that's again ascribing the actions of some to an entire group, secondly, two wrongs don't make a right. If somebody says "but white people wouldn't have been able to purchase slaves without the merchants", proximate cause is not the actual cause. Unless somebody is a child, they are responsible for their own actions, not whoever "set everything into motion". If somebody says "you must be a jew", so what? How is that a counterargument, and why shouldn't jews defend themselves?

>>1738
despite all your wishes against it, the world still behaves in predictable ways. groups of people act in different ways because of their genetics and cultures. this is such an inescapable fact of reality that even after centuries of people consciously holding liberal ideals, we are still deriding each other for acting like jews and niggers. you do not look at someone and say "wow hes such an individual, hes got so much free will i cant even imagine what hes gonna do next", no, you are subconsciously comparing him to everyone youve met before in order to predict how he will act.

if someone is a failure, it concerns their whole race, because he is entirely a product of his race. you owe absolutely everything to your race, your strength, your intelligence, your beauty, your morals, your work ethic, everything has been passed down in an unbroken chain to YOU. all of your achievements ultimately derive from, and are attributable to, your race. if we take material possessions into account, then other races owe a fair bit to whites, but no other group of people sticks their heads out for white people.

in regards to slavery all that has to be known is that whites were the first to abolish it. every other race had to be violently convinced (by whites) to suppress slavery. now the once white idea of abolitionism is simply known as a good idea. everything that whites idealize ultimately just becomes known as whats objectively good, because whites are objectively the best (an ironic form of cultural erasure). this is why i dont shed any tears for the subhumans that died in the genocides or conquests my ancestors undertook. the white way of life is the best, the only thing wrong with violently imposing it on others is that its futile.

>you owe absolutely everything to your race, your strength, your intelligence, your beauty, your morals, your work ethic
This is patently untrue. Even in the most charitable interpretation that you meant everything is determined by your genetics(+epigenetics?), this is also untrue because your environment obviously plays a large role in your personality. A random chance event like your parents dying when you are long will influence your emotions, morals, etc.

>>1740
i think the very next sentence i wrote put what you quoted into context very well and should clear up all of your misunderstandings.

>>1739
It's natural for people to categorize, but human nature/intuition isn't evidence for something being true, like every action of a person being predictable based on their race. Relativity isn't intuitive, yet evidence supports it. Culture can't completely suppress human nature either.

>you owe absolutely everything to your race, your strength, your intelligence, your beauty, your morals, your work ethic, everything has been passed down in an unbroken chain to YOU
If the out of Africa theory is true, does everybody owe everything to Africans? Do I "owe" everything about myself to my fish ancestors? In some sense, sure, but how meaningful is that? Ashekenazi Jews have plenty of European admixture. Where do their evil traits come from? Where did white people's amazingness come from? Japanese people originate from Korea. Do all of their good traits come from Koreans?

>everything that whites idealize ultimately just becomes known as whats objectively good
Colonialism isn't generally well-regarded. What's "known as" good, also isn't necessarily good. The puritanical mindset that's in vogue comes to mind.

>>1741
Don't see how.

Post edited on 4th Jan 2024, 5:32am

>>1742
>It's natural for people to categorize, but human nature/intuition isn't evidence for something being true
lucky for you we have troves of statistics illustrating the differences between the races, all avaliable for free.

>If the out of Africa theory is true, does everybody owe everything to Africans?
no, you owe it to the people who made it out of africa, you know, the ones that actually evolved into higher beings. seriously what the fuck even is your logic? hmmm im white so therefore i owe my genetic inheritance to... AFRICANS. yeah. not the people who passed their genes down to me, my own kin, but some jungle dwelling chimp fucking niggers.

>Colonialism isn't generally well-regarded
so which group of people refuses to occupy white countries now that they have the chance?

>>1743
>we have troves of statistics illustrating the differences between the races
We're not talking about averages, we're talking about individuals, and how well an individual's behavior can be predicted by their race. That's tangentially related to my first post anyway, but you decided to make it the main focus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your view, all of a person's actions are caused by their race, and can therefore be predicted based on it. I would say neither of those things are true.

>no, you owe it to the people who made it out of africa... i owe my genetic inheritance to... AFRICANS. yeah. not the people who passed their genes down to me, my own kin
All human beings have a common ancestor. You're drawing an arbitrary line between "kin" and not "kin". You said "everything has been passed down in an unbroken chain". Drawing a line, breaks the chain. Maybe you're saying things get added to the chain, but you didn't mention that earlier. If things get added to the chain, that makes individuals' behavior less predictable, and not everything is owed to predecessors.

>which group of people refuses to occupy white countries
Even if we say that's the same thing as colonialism, nobody calls it that because it has a negative connotation. That's the point I was making. I'm not saying people shouldn't have in group-preferences by the way. But your justifications for that are nonsensical and imo unnecessary.

Post edited on 4th Jan 2024, 3:24pm

Evolution isn't real :^)

>>1744
>That's tangentially related to my first post anyway, but you decided to make it the main focus.
tangentially related? really? so even if someones race could predict absolutely everything about their character (which is the point you believe im making) that wouldnt affect your statements in the slightest? would you still be just as confused as to why people use "jew" as a slur?

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your view, all of a person's actions are caused by their race
"all of your achievements ultimately derive from, and are attributable to, your race"
im saying that everything you need for success in life is derived from your race. and the earth i guess, because we use its resources.

>All human beings have a common ancestor. You're drawing an arbitrary line between "kin" and not "kin".
very debatable, but even so your point is meaningless. it isnt an "arbitrary line", its a measurable genetic difference, and to anyone who isnt being dense they can see that difference in their everyday life.

>If things get added to the chain, that makes individuals' behavior less predictable, and not everything is owed to predecessors.
not to any meaningful degree. evolution works very slowly.

>I'm not saying people shouldn't have in group-preferences by the way. But your justifications for that are nonsensical and imo unnecessary.
im saying we need to build a society based on the truth of race. but im curious as to what your in-group preferences are.

>>1746
>would you still be just as confused as to why people use "jew" as a slur
Where have I mentioned slurs? My first post was about double standards I've seen wignats hold. I don't feel like going along with this diversion anymore, so this will be my last post along these lines.

>everything you need for success in life is derived from your race
So to be clear, environment doesn't matter? This is what the other anon brought up. If someone is raised by a pack of wolves, or locked in an empty room all day, I doubt they'd be successful regardless of their race. On this very website, there's people who had fucked up circumstances while growing up. I'd be willing to bet they'd be more successful had their circumstances been different.

>its a measurable genetic difference
Then can you give some numbers? A numerical criteria for who you consider "kin"? Your ancestors who left Africa, might be closer to certain Africans(there's more than one kind) than they are to you. Also, do you consider all white people to be your kin? If you're Polish, are the French your kin?
>its a measurable genetic difference, and to anyone who isnt being dense they can see that difference in their everyday life.
Not everybody's day to day life looks like a /pol/ comic. There are those who know smart black people and stupid white people. Again, this is about individuals.

>im curious as to what your in-group preferences are
Anyone who looks like me and or shares my disposition. Tohno is half Guatemalan, yet I have more affinity for him than most people who are closer related to me.

>>1747
>Your ancestors who left Africa, might be closer to certain Africans(there's more than one kind) than they are to you.

>>1748
sorry, have an anime clown instead. doesnt really have the same effect though imo...

>>1749
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect
>The difference in gene frequencies between the original population and colony may also trigger the two groups to diverge significantly over the course of many generations.
>As a result of the loss of genetic variation, the new population may be distinctively different, both genotypically and phenotypically, from the parent population from which it is derived. In extreme cases, the founder effect is thought to lead to the speciation and subsequent evolution of new species.

>>1750
neither of those articles purport that a european could be genetically closer to an african than another european. at all. but im glad youre taking a closer look at genetics.

>>1751
>neither of those articles purport that a european could be genetically closer to an african than another european
Where did I say this? What I said was "the people who made it out of africa", were Africans, probably close to some modern Africans. This isn't hard to understand. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're just dishonest.

>>1752
no yeah when i think of my ancestors i think of a pitch black nigger wearing a lip ring. what you really thought i was stupid? of course i know the original europeans were black, i watch cable tv like everyone else.

Branched from >>/so/29482

I tend to agree with this viewpoint. You might enjoy reading pessimist literature (e.g. Peter Zappfe) which is the only school of philosophy that meaningfully examines the question of "why should you bother living" and comes to the conclusion you did that it's not worth doing so. His short essay "The last messiah" is beautifully written.

Your perspective that death is the ultimate liberation is also seen in some buddhist schools. I'm sure someone will come in and disagree about how buddhism isn't inherently pessimistic though (and although I haven't really studied much there I'd just disagree that the only thing preventing buddhism from being a purely pessimistic death cult is their belief in reincarnation). But you can also set that aside and look at people who have stepped outside traditional religious frameworks like UG Krishmaurti, who supposedly had some freak accident which neutered his self of self.

>There is a solution for your problems—death. That freedom you are interested in can come about only at the point of death. Everybody attains moksha eventually, for moksha always foreshadows death, and everyone dies.
> Just let me warn you that if what you are aiming at—moksha—really happens, you will die. There will be a physical death, because there has to be a physical death to be in that state. It is like playing around with controlling your breath because you find it amusing. But if you hold the breath long enough, you choke to death.

Although interestingly in the same interview [1] he was also directly asked "why not suicide" and he responded with
> If you commit suicide, it does not help the situation in any way. The moment after suicide the body begins to decay, returning back to other, differently organized forms of life, putting an end to nothing. Life has no beginning and no end. A dead and dying body feeds the hungry ants there in the grave, and rotting corpses give off soil-enriching chemicals, which in turn nourish other life forms. You cannot put an end to your life, it is impossible. The body is immortal and never asks silly questions like, "Is there immortality?" It knows that it will come to an end in that particular form, only to continue on in others. Questions about life after death are always asked out of fear. Those leaders who would direct your "spiritual life" cannot be honest about these things, for they make a living out of fear, speculations about future life, and the "mystery" of death. And as for you, the followers, you are not really interested in the future of man, only your own petty little destinies. It is just a ritual you go through, talking for hours and hours about mankind, compassion, and the rest. It is YOU that you are interested in, otherwise there would not be this childish interest in your future lives, and your imminent demise.

Which on one sense sounds contradictory, but I think it only makes sense in his unique set of circumstances where 1) due to his "calamity" (physically it probably may have been some sort of aneurism that messed with the default mode network) that neutered his sense of self, barring any physical pain there's not much difference between non-existence and "limited" existence, where the "limited" means you're operating purely in a stimulus driven fashion with no "mind wandering". And 2) the big caveat that he never mentions is that even if by a miracle such a freak-accident does happen to you, it is incompatible with the modern world. UG did not need to work, (no idea where he got money from) and his wife pretty much acted as his maid. So he could quite literally just in a room all day not doing anything. It's only under those very unique set of circumstances that you can claim an equivalence between the two.

In all other cases (i.e. pretty much everyone) it "does" help the situation.


Also with regard to >>/so/29486 - "natural death" like its portrayed in fiction, where you go from completely healthy/lucid to dead in the span of a day is very rare. Both because being healthy at old age is rare, and because dying from organ failure that isn't external in nature is rare. So with high probability your death will not be a "natural" one but rather a painful one: perhaps you would already have had mobility issues by then with poor quality of life, and it's some disease (e.g. infection or cancer) that finishes you off.


[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mind_is_a_Myth/I

Post edited on 31st Aug 2024, 1:32pm

>>1777
None of this explains why being alive is so awful. You're starting from the position that life is inherently unpleasant. Even the question "why should you bother living". is phrased like that, with the presupposition that life is bothersome. This line of thinking is the result of neuroticism, a mental defect. Without it you'd enjoy life and the question might as well be "why should you bother having fun"?

Post edited on 31st Aug 2024, 1:43pm

>>1777
This does make sense. I do not understand what you are trying to convey though. On the grounds of pure discussion I have nothing of value to add.

>>1778
>None of this explains why being alive is so awful
Living is awful only so long as you have inborn capacity to contemplate yourself just enough. The bigger your ability to contemplate yourself, the stronger the anguish of being cornered between purposeless existence and fear of death. And I am not going to get started on chronic stress, anxiety, depression and other disorders that contribute to the mindset of discarding life as something worth experiencing.
>awful
Literally nobody said that iirc.

>>1778
>from the position that life is inherently unpleasant

Dukkha is literally one of the four noble truths in Buddhism: dissatisfaction and emptiness are indeed intrinsic to human life as we have been burdened with self-consciousness. You can't have one without the other. Are you going to categorize all of buddhism as a neurotic religion?

A buddhist would say that not recognizing this makes you ignorant, that you are deluded by Maya or whatever; of course I don't know enough buddhism so I can't use their terminology (nor do I want to, since there's no need to make things more complex than they are). But I've always believed being able to recognizing this fact is a hard-divide between types of people. It's either blindingly "obvious" to you, or one will never be able to grasp it. Supposedly in buddhism meditation/contemplation is supposed to help you realize it, but I think that's hogwash.

>>1779
>Living is awful only so long as you have inborn capacity to contemplate yourself just enough. The bigger your ability to contemplate yourself, the stronger the anguish of being cornered between purposeless existence and fear of death.
Yup you nailed it. This is precisely what Peter Zapffe says in "The Last Messiah" as well. I'd really encourage you to read it, since the way he writes is really beautiful (alas unless you can read German you have to make do with translations).

>I do not understand what you are trying to convey though.
Oh I didn't really have any point to make other than agreeing and pointing to related literature.

>>1779
>Literally nobody said that iirc
>just taking your life is reasonably the only sensible route, provided you have enough courage
>non-existence is superior in every way
I think the implication was strong enough that it didn't need to be stated directly.

>>1780
>dissatisfaction and emptiness are indeed intrinsic to human life as we have been burdened with self-consciousness. You can't have one without the other.
The original Buddhists' only frame of reference for a self-conscious being is humans. If you asked them, they'd probably assume you can't have flight without wings that flap. Looking at the problems human beings have, as a result of their higher order thinking being in-conflict with their emotions, and assuming this is inherent to self-consciousnesses, is extremely presumptuous.

I think that given the right circumstances, a being capable of self-contemplation could enjoy its life in perpetuity. In my opinion, that existence is what's ideal.

Post edited on 31st Aug 2024, 2:21pm

>>1783
>I think that given the right circumstances, a being capable of self-contemplation could enjoy its life in perpetuity.
Given the right circumstances I could well be such a being. As long as self contemplation is not completely detached from the self it is impossible to not experience the full gamut.

>>1784
What's "detached"? What's the "self"? What's the "full gamut"?

Post edited on 1st Sep 2024, 9:31am

>>1785
It's whatever I meant it to be, sorry.

It's a made up term that promotes black and white thinking about people but the condition that makes someone a normalfag is experiencing love and having sekkusu at least once (making ¨love¨), in my opinion.

Call it a failed normalfag post if you want, I still think it's a fundamental (normal) part of the human experience I don't have. More importantly, I don't have a point of reference to truly say ¨Meh, it's not that great¨ or ¨well, at least I experienced it¨ , so the thought of it comes up whenever I see it depicted in fiction. I could theoretically do it but the juice I can get isn't worth the squeeze and it'd be something transactional for someone like me.

I know fiction (anime) and ¨love¨ are highly idealized but that's the point of this post, really. What bothers me is not having a point of reference and seeing constant reminders of it with nothing to compare it to. A normalfag will never know what this is like. They can feel lonely and be in the same position as I am in the present but they had a normal experience in the past me and others can't relate to.

Branched from >>/an/38557

Ah I read the entire conversation thread (originating at >>/an/38543) and yes I can see where you come from now. Yes I do agree that when combined with >>/an/38543 there is a tone of not having familiarized much with this imageboard. Particularly the overuse of interjections, casual tone, treating it as some sort of "live" conversation ("Guys we're fucking doomed I swear"), etc.

The content itself is fine, the style is indeed a bit annoying to read though, especially the ("Guys we're fucking doomed I swear"; this isn't a chat room). Author seems to have good intentions though, please just try to proof-read a bit and treat this less of a casual chatroom and more of a discussion forum.

This is a stupid thread because it's literally available on the entire board; this is anonymous. Literally every single thing that will be written here can just be posted as its own thread in /tat/.

>>381
Chivalry did die. That's a very specific set of rules.

>>388
How the fuck would "frozen yogurt" - without bacteria - be more healthy then ice cream? They are both MILK. The health is exactly the same.

>>388
Um, zero people (or characters) "have" to wear makeup. What a weird thing to say!

>>403
Anime has great, encapsulating, detailed storylines, like Fringe and Doctor Who and, I assume, Game of Thrones. Cartoons do not. Debate is ended.

>>404
You must be 20.

Plenty of so-called "kids" cartoons, except that many, many, many, many regular cartoons are actually for ages 10-25, instead of "kids", are drawn fine. Or good. And even th4 absolute most-famous cartoon that IS only interesting to 5-year-olds, of anyone, is drawn well. Looney Tunes.

I have seen a very low quality of cartoon drawing recently. But if someone is 20, then how would they even get to imageboards in the first place.

Most NORMAL, "non-adult" cartoons are literally drawn BETTER then anime. Even the mere fact that anime only has like 3 drawing styles. Let alone that close to zero series have humans who look like humans, etc.

>>1833
>Most NORMAL, "non-adult" cartoons
Most non-adult (kids) cartoons are animated with flash.

Being 20 is amazing and horrible at the same time! Jokes aside, anime is aesthetically superior to most american drawings. To most any drawings really, tbqh. Maybe it's because I watched too much anime but its aesthetics are much more appealing to me.

>>1833
You're either retarded or a troll.
>>1838
Any pro animator in Japan could effortlessly bang out a western cartoon character. In fact, they'd do it better than the people who usually draw them. Try the other way around and it would be a complete disaster.

Post edited on 19th Dec 2024, 6:37pm

mods! why is my post deleted?

>>1847
Probably because of this rule: >>/r/7
>- Do not misuse the quoting function (i.e. "greentexting").

Kids with divorced parents should get as much sympathy as kids with dead parents.
If your parents divorce, it means the very reason why you were born is no longer valid, but you are still here.
That's a recipe for mental disorders

It's often unreasonable to call people who can afford not to work parasites.
The job they decided not to apply for can go to someone else, there aren't infinite jobs.
And the fewer applicants there are, the better bargaining power the person who did get the job has.

You're paying taxes whenever you buy something legally, income tax is by no means the only way to support society