If you want to discuss something seriously, /dis/ is your place

Search /dis/ threads

Password  (for post and file deletion)

Apr 1Progress! At long last, we have the beginnings of a functional combined site ready to preview publicly. Feel free to take our new beta area for a test drive and point out any bugs you see.
Mar 31With the Merger coming up soon, we have created an official steam group for the combined sites. It can be found at http://steamcommunity.com/groups/PonychanSteam

File 138455818730.jpg - (21.34KB , 350x370 , mental-disorder-e1330944991230.jpg )
76258 No. 76258 [View]
I just got back from a NAMI thanksgiving celebration and I'm a little bored now. so ask someone who is living with schizoaffective disorder anything.
14 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76329
>"What clicked in our dna and cells that made us intelligent"

I think what you're looking for is the dawn of agriculture, not particularly the dawn of intelligence.

I would say that would possibly be complex language.

Just guessin'
>> No. 76330
So you're saying that complex language was the dawn of intelligence.
>> No. 76587
Well, you need a sufficient medium to carry thoughts, ideas, and information.

When you can carry them across several generations in a physical medium, you have writing. As long as people can read your symbols, the message you have can be carried beyond your lifetime to people you never will know existed.

I'm sure intelligence existed long before complex language, but the ability to carry that intelligence between individuals, groups, and through generations requires some type of specialized communication system.

File 138911127041.png - (221.81KB , 927x841 , 1385984146_shin0r0z_chuchu.png )
76551 No. 76551 [View]

I couldn't help but think my friends over at /dis/ could help me out with this logical conundrum. Towards the end of my philosophy class, our teacher asked us to write an argument for the question:

>Is this bad weather? = P

After ruminating on all the shortfalls of language and human psychology and social interaction when approaching a question such as thing, I began to break it down into it's key parts. I'm wondering if anypony else is doing it better than I am at the moment.

z (this) = a given time and place being indicated or experienced

b (bad) = relative unpleasant or unwelcome attributes

W (weather) = a state of atmosphere
4 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76560
File 138916941679.png - (29.97KB , 958x682 , bad_weather_logic.png )
Based on the context of your question and your response to Royal Night Guard's analysis, I'm assuming this either isn't an official course in logic, or it's one that's focused only on introductory concepts. I've never taken formal logic in full, but I've taken a course in programming logic that required an understanding of how boolean logic works, so I can provide an alternate take on this. This shouldn't be inconsistent with what Royal Night Guard said, but it's taking a simplified approach to the question with a focus on the more basic core concepts of logic, without using too much terminology.

Logic is big on being able to make concrete statements. To work in logic, whatever statements you're assessing, they have to be broken down such that they can be evaluated as either "true" or "false", no wishy-washy in-between stuff. So the first question is always: How can you rephrase a question such that it can be answered with a series of true-or-false declarations? In this case we have the question:

Is this bad weather?

Fortunately, this question can already be interpreted as a true-or-false question on its own. But let's rephrase it a bit to make it clearer.

Is it true that this is bad weather?

The core question here is whether or not "this" can be assigned certain descriptors, in this case, whether it can be described as "bad weather". But "bad weather" involves the combination of two different concepts that operate independently of each other, "bad" and "weather", so you have to take that into account. You are asking whether or not both of these descriptors apply to "this" simultaneously, so actually you're evaluating the truth of two different statements:
>> No. 76563
File 138918262961.png - (19.17KB , 149x149 , 141 t.png )

Yes, What we said is consistent, and you're probably right about what the professor wants. When the OP said that the problem came up towards the end of a philosophy class I misread that as meaning at the end of an entire class that had already been taken instead of at the end of a particular day's lecture.

A formal approach like I gave is more advanced than you'll see early on in a study of logic and meaning, though what Christopher was doing in >>76552 is basically this sort of approach without the formal syntax. By my denotations the correct statement would be represented b(W)(z).

It should be kind of intuitive that "bad" is referring to a set of things that are bad and "weather" is referring to a set of things that are weather, and that in the OP sentence they are combining to give "bad weather", which is referring to a set of things that are both bad and weather. Because "this" is referring to some particular thing in the context of the utterance, the meaning of the whole sentence is going to be true or false depending on whether that particular thing is both bad and weather.

This can all be represented by diagrams and sets: the intersection of the set of bad things and the set of things that are weather, or by propositional variables and boolean operators: b∧w = P, or by functions: as above. Anything representable in one of these can be represented in the others. If the class is going to cover a lot of logic and meaning the professor will likely give a handout or a text defining the notations he expects you to use.

>> No. 76566
File 138922813939.jpg - (228.82KB , 1280x985 , 137631179448.jpg )
This isn't a math class so throw those greek letter formulas and long multi-part examples right out the window. This question can easily be answered in one sentence.

Yes, the weather is bad because it's making me uncomfortable.

Things like weather, movies, or food are so subjective that it's totally reasonable to base your answer on personal feelings alone.

File 137316198227.png - (343.72KB , 2000x2000 , 254.png )
74438 No. 74438 [View]

Hey guys, I'm sorry to come here with my problems, but I just can't take it anymore! I want to jump off the nearest highrise! I've been so depressed lately with the fear that I could possibly be a bad person or do something horrible. I need to get this off my chest and hopefully someone knows something I don't.

So in short, I'm terrified of the thought that I may be a pedo. I've never had this issue before, this started over the past few months. Everytime I see a child I get scared shitless now, I try to avoid interacting with them, or even looking in their direction, I'm scared of losing control or something and hurting an innocent child. I have no history of any violence, or any mental health issues, and to be honest I never really liked kids, they're gross and loud and annoying.

I've done some research and I think I may have found a few explanations for this, but I can't convince myself, and get past the guilt, disgust and self loathing. I was molested myself so I fear that this could have something to do with that, though I feel I have completely gotten past that and moved on with my life, I don't know.

I've never done drugs or anything like that, I guess everybody needs a little boost, so I started jerking (please don't get the wrong idea, it was all legal) off very frequently to porn, I never really thought about the potential consequences. I got bored of normal lesbian porn, got into normal porn, got into furry porn (note I'm not a furry), then I got into mlp and stopped calibrateing for a while, eventually I got into clop (I'm sorry). Moving forward a bit, a friend recently introduced me to no calibrate and explained to me the consequences of this addiction. I read up on the topic and learned that the brain essentially gets bored of the old stuff after a while and seeks out more crazy or novel stuff to get the same boost. One day on /mlp/ someone posted a thread "be honest guys does this turn you on", naturally I clicked the link only to be greeted by a video some weirdo took at a horse contest zoomed in on a
14 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 74564
That gave me a good laugh, I guess its all relative.
>> No. 74645
File 137435900539.gif - (1.06MB , 861x600 , 283275__safe_animated_apple%252Bbloom_cute_diamond%252Btiara_adorable%252Bas%252Bfuck_hugging_hn.gif )
Hi! As someone who's struggling with the same issues as you, I thought I'd share some of my insights in the matter. I hope they can help you! Picture related, because I thought you could use a hug. (I apologize for the possible typos, which are due to a combination of a new laptop keyboard, as well as the rambling, which is due to me being a derp)

Look, it's very simple. Pedophiles /want/ to have sexual conduct with children. They see it in a positive light, and see nothing wrong with it. If you don't, then you're not a pedophile. Having thoughts about something is not the same as wanting it. You've got nothing to fear, amigo.

As for the porn? Well, think of it this way. Some people, through birth, through nurture or just f-ed up odds, have some weird stuff in their brains. It's not exactly related to what they really want, it's just some obsessive-compulsive "brain bug" or summat. And they might have a compulsion to look up weird porn and masturbate to it, just to appease that brain bug. As long as you're aware of it and don't do what it wants, you'll be cool.

Also, there's nothing wrong with masturbation, as long as you're getting off to stuff you like instead of the brain bug. Masturbation's a normal and healthy thing, don't feel like it's somehow filthy because of these thoughts. Just try to disconnect yourself from them and keep doing your own thing.

To use a (pretty gross) extended metaphor: The brain is a city, your personal city. And on its streets, there are puddles of vomit. They've always been there, but you haven't really noticed before. They're stuck on the streets, and they can't really be scrubbed away. But the vomit is not the city, nor is it the streets. It's simply a part of them.

Sometimes, you'll step into the puddles. Sometimes, you can avert them in time, because no one really wants to step into. Sometimes, you'll see the puddles coming, but you might absent-mindedly walk into them anyway. Or, trying to walk around, you trip and fall face-first into the vomit. Sometimes, you might walk away from a puddle only t
>> No. 76559
obedmi Very neat blog article. Keep writing.

File 138753928650.jpg - (12.43KB , 199x254 , fans.jpg )
76493 No. 76493 [View]
So let's say that someone is contemplating suicide. There are a few choices in how to proceed communications with the subject. You can remain silent, but that is boring. It is also against the site rules to advise someone how to commit suicide, or Melancholy forbid that you convince the subject to commit such an act. However, if I the experimenter deem it possible that the subject might commit suicide, the correct choice of action may very well be to tell the subject alternative suicide methods in order to minimize the amount of human suffering that takes place. Of course, that course of action is also somewhat against the rules. The favored response by the rules of the site, society, culture, and by human ethic, is to convince the subject to get treatment for their suicidal ideation while ignoring the cost, and necessity of treatment all together. From a financial point of view, getting help is not the best course of action unless the subjects life holds the value of the effort. The problem with this idea is that the world population is so gross, that a single human life HAS lost its value.

My first problem is how to deal with suicidal people in the most universally beneficial way.

Upon deciding to let's say, depopulate the human race, a problem of efficiency arises. As a single human life with few monetary assets, I will have a hard time killing more than one person. A more diplomatic approach will ensure that my crimes do not warrant immediate arrest. Even then, there are few ways to end lives through diplomacy. If a human were vulnerable to suicide, that would make quick work of that particular human. But most humans are not suicidal, and if one were to assist another with a suicide attempt, it almost counts against them as murder. This is NOT the ideal diplomatic solution. Another idea is to go public with your ideas. Depending on the era, telling people that "their lives would be better off over" will have a full spectrum of reactions from "Kill the blasphemer" to "Maybe he's right, let's just forget about it". In addition, going publ
10 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76513
File 138826301603.png - (5.25KB , 265x166 , japanese_population.png )
>Honestly, the only trend there has /ever/ been, is up(pic related)
Attached is the population graph for Japan.

I think this is where most people are getting the "population will flatten out" thing from.
>> No. 76524
It would not be right to extinguish a life that decided to continue. It would not be right to convince a moron to want for their death. However, I bet I can kill one. I know I can.
>> No. 76534
File 138877586496.jpg - (259.98KB , 626x619 , 266282__UNOPT__safe_pinkie-pie_image-macro_wat.jpg )
Well, given that they don't completely discount everything you say on basis of pretentiousness. If they do, and they should, they will probably keep on living. Despite their many hypothetical failings that would deserve them be labeled "morons", it would hopefully be in a less despicable fashion than their would-be killer.

File 138498755930.png - (648.78KB , 900x859 , Twilight-s-Parents-my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-25480067-900-859.png )
76280 No. 76280 [View]

It's a horror story you might hear, about a future where the Government will rip children away from their parents who aren't raising them according to Their Standards. We put it in the realm of fantasy, never to breach reality.

Well, I wouldn't be writing this if it hadn't happened already. You might be surprised to know I have three examples. (Breaking up into three parts because of 'too many links'.)

-to-take-his-children-home/]“School is out – My children are to be given to me,”[/url]the dad said. The school said no, they will decide when the child is given to him. The father, Jim Howe, is citing a Tennesse law that states, more or less, that parents are to be given their children once school closes after a reasonable amount of time, fifteen minutes in most cases.

What started this whole mess is a new policy that all parents picking their children up must drive up to the school after two and wait in line until 2:35 PM for the children to be released. However, the father in this case was walking.

When Jim was told he would have to wait to have his children returned to him, he cited the law and demanded peacefully to have them returned to him. This is when the South Cumberland Elementary School Resource Officer Avery Aytes arrested him.
17 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 76517
It's probably not an issue of gobmnt public v. private. It's probably more an issue of the general prevailing culture.

I remember when I was young I was playing around and asked my mother to pour a bunch of seeds on my head (weird, but whatever, young kids do weird stuff).

An hour later the police came by. :|
>> No. 76518
File 138836319520.png - (43.96KB , 564x666 , I laff at u.png )
haha this. the funny thing is that the one case where it was about a government policy, the issue wasn't a very big deal at all. The controversy started with the overreaction to confusion over specifics of the policy.
>> No. 76523
>It's probably not an issue of gobmnt public v. private. It's probably more an issue of the general prevailing culture.

Yes. That.

>I do find it ironic that two of your examples have hospitals as the primary source of the 'kidnapping', which are private organizations. Yes, the police got involved, but it was the hospital that got them involved, and is functionally no different than your spouse taking advantage of the law to get your kids taken from you.

The point is that the Police should have known better in all of the cases, but the culture's opinion of parents as the best guardians for their children has degraded to the point that they can be manipulated like that.

Someone, somewhere should have had the sense to just say 'Whoa, hold on. Lets do a bit of fact checking here and stop over reacting and risking tearing a child away from their loving parents.' I know for a fact that if the police and the DCF sat down with the parents for ten minutes, things would have gone differently.

File 138737364196.jpg - (396.04KB , 764x673 , The worst punishment of all.jpg )
76475 No. 76475 [View]

Are good and bad qualities of states of existence, or qualities of actions?
Is there ever an immoral situation that a person does not put them self into? For example, can a person ever find themself in a immoral situation completely against their will? And where is the line between what is defined by their will?

Homosexuality works as an example. It seems to me that the debate regarding it is based on two factors, how inherant it is, and whether it is immoral or not. The side saying it's moral generally seems to say it's inherant to a person, and the side saying it's immoral generally says it's a choice. Imagine if it were without a doubt unquestionably inherant and unchangeable from birth for the entire existence of a person. Would anyone still say it's immoral? Or only their choice to indulge in such actions, and their urge for it is irrelevant?

One part of this question is is morality based on actions or situations? I firmly believe something bad is not a choice, but a situation. So a person can be, themselves, bad merely because of the situation they are in completely regardless of if they had any choice on if they put themselves in that situation or not. Similiarly, suffering could be described as a bad situation in terms of morality, and christianity describes original sin where one could be born into a bad moral state. Then there's the other side of the arguement, that nothing is good or bad except actions - a person is not bad unless they do bad things. But is it their actions which are bad, or the states that result from their actions that are bad?

My personal conclusions come my belief that morality never applies to individuals. What happens to one individual can never be good or bad, it doesn't matter how much suffering or happiness or knowledge or whathaveyou that it brings to that individual, any individual. Morality only applies to states of communities, period. Actions might possibly be described as good or bad based on if they lead to those states or away from it, but that is merely a metaphorical extension of its meaning. Communities c
1 post omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76478
There are three major approaches to morality:

Consequentialism defines morality by the consequences of a state or action. You are a consequentialist who cares about outcomes for communities.

Deontology defines morality by whether an action follows certain rules. Religious people are generally deontologists who care about the rules that come from God.

There is also a third approach, which you missed :(

Virtue Ethics describes the character strengths and virtues that are the principles of living a good life. I myself am a Stoic virtue ethicist.
>> No. 76487
What is a community?
>> No. 76491
File 138749323221.png - (20.51KB , 140x150 , thoughtfully_twilight_sparkle_by_jakobeks-d4r137s.png )
>Are good and bad qualities of states of existence, or qualities of actions?
That depends on the thing that the word good or bad is attached to. There is a spectrum of things that we put good and bad onto and they sort into different sorts of categories. I don't personally think that there are things that are good and bad independent of the presence of minds so strictly I would say that they are no universal goods and bads in a sense that might be equivalent to a deity saying that something is a good or a bad and "making it so".

But there are things that are very close to universal goods and bads due to historical contingency and biology. The existence of suffering is generally understood to be a bad, and creating suffering deliberately is thought to be a bad. Since group moral codes be definition require individuals to agree on things and have a reason to expect that the other person will be able to hold up an end of a bargain, we have systems that can assess these things. There is a biological basis to the "golden rule" and society is widespread in the animal kingdom. Note that if you get the right sort of upbringing you can pretty much kill the "golden rule" so whatever we are involves lots of possible rule sets, and the ability to repress some with respect to others in the right environmental context
On the other end though there are things we call "good" and "bad" that are named such due to random social taste. Is it really bad to use the wrong fork or to necropost?

So there is a spectrum to the thing that we think of as "good" and a spectrum for things we call "bad". We don't have enough words or frames of reference to make a more defined scale as a species because the definitions shift around from generation to generation despite the very broad differences

File 138694990458.jpg - (143.74KB , 999x998 , tumblr_mbi5gv4dcF1reol70o1_1280.jpg )
76435 No. 76435 [View]

Do you think having children is important as society seems to think?
Do you think the pressure for married couples to have children is overbearing?
Do you think the reward for having children is worth the responsibility and the hardship that comes with it?

What does /dis/ think about children?
26 posts omitted. (View thread)
>> No. 76486
Well I'm coming from the point of view that we can be. Though the human species may largely be immoral, that is no reason to deny our moral aspects and perservere to make ourselves or the world better. I would say it makes our moral duties that more significant. Big things have small beginnings.
>> No. 76489
>Do you think having children is important as society seems to think?

No, but individuals do think it is important - and individuals do think it is important to not have children as well.

>Do you think the pressure for married couples to have children is overbearing?

I have no idea, but I do think there might be a bit of pressure on both men and women who don't want to have children, to have children. I suspect a great deal more men who don't want children are pressured into it by their wives than are women who don't want children and are pressured into it by men - at least in developed countries.

>Do you think the reward for having children is worth the responsibility and the hardship that comes with it?

Depends on the child, and perhaps more importantly, on the 50/50 chance of divorce.
>> No. 76492
>Do you think having children is important as society seems to think?

I think that society thinks that having children is as important as going to school and getting a good job. That would be important. Of course, having children is important. Without children the population dies. The species dies.

>Do you think the pressure for married couples to have children is overbearing?

If there is any pressure to have kids, then that pressure is overbearing. Humanity needs to take a good think as to what children they want in the each of the next generations to come. Then they need to think about what sort of parenting to administer to these chosen babies. But if the human race plans on doing the right thing and making themselves scarce, they are going to have to accept that most people will not be allowed to have children.

In my opinion, there should be pressure on married couples to NOT have children

>Do you think the reward for having children is worth the responsibility and the hardship that comes with it?

No. 76365 [View]


tl;dw We are literally running out of space in the air for broadcasting information though radiation. Remember TVs that used to pick up signals though 'bunny ears' and radios in the modern era? Well now our cellphones, tablets, wireless internet and a whole lot more is doing the exact same thing, and the space isn't unlimited.

So what is the solution? Treat the space like a commodity like Oil and have the Government distribute it? Or is the solution in technological advancement? What's your opinion on the situation?
7 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76416
or we can invest in technologies that will be able to compact data better, like a Winrar on steroids
>> No. 76425
File 138670433331.png - (18.77KB , 150x117 , pondering_twilight_sparkle_vector__redone__by_dipi11-d4pjzoe.png )
Yes it is a solution. It's the one we happen to be using right now.

To consider changing the status quo I need two things:
*A list of the current problems.
*An alternative that is handed to me with specific examples for how it will solve the current and historical problems (the history necessitated the status quo).

I'm confused about how government regulation is supposed to be related to this problem of insufficient bandwidth. You suggest that we might consider some other means of regulation, but how are the problems with the current means of regulation related to this? Your video describes current problems but does not say anything about there being no answers within our current system. Your video also does not talk about alternates to the current regulatory scheme.

I just don't have a reason to think about what we are doing now without that sort of information. In the absence of evidence of a superior means of allocating radio frequency use, the rational solution is to convince the government to make another move similar to the move to digital from analog signals.

>Businesses that own slips of the Spectrum charge more and more money to use it because it's becoming a more and more uncommon and precious resource (Supply and Demand). To continue to ration it out is not a long term solution.
>> No. 76488
Stumbled on this article and thought it was vaguely related.


File 138737031830.png - (75.12KB , 553x593 , efficiency-perfection.png )
76473 No. 76473 [View]

Mirriam Webster defines "Efficient" as

adjective i-ˈfi-shənt

: capable of producing desired results without wasting materials, time, or energy

We often use 'efficient' in a positive light. More efficient = better. An efficient worker is a good worker. An efficient company, a good one.

However, in the context of money, or in the context of labor, could 'efficient' become damaging, harmful, or counterproductive? Is it possible that we have perused capital or labor efficiency just a bit too far? Why or why not?
>> No. 76477
Yes, it can.

If you know exactly what task needs to be done, efficiency is always an improvement. If all that matters is completing task x, the person who can get x done faster with less resources is obviously the one you want to go with.

But in real life you never have a clear and certain idea of what the task is. The goal of a company is to run a successful business. Sometimes that means having a business model and completing the tasks associated with it as efficiently as possible, but sometimes it means investing a lot of money now in order to improve performance later, and sometimes it means paying close attention to the world and completely changing the nature of the business at the right time.

There is a parable about a company that hires an efficiency expert. The expert dutifully goes around talking to people at each step of the business and making detailed notes. He notices that every time he passes by the office of a particular well-paid employee he finds the man inside reclining with his feet up on the desk, his eyes closed or staring off into space. So the expert gets the big boss and shows him the relaxing employee, pointing out that he is adding nothing to the business and should be terminated to save the company considerably. But the boss replies, "that man once had an idea that made this company many millions of dollars and saved it from going under. And he was sitting exactly like that when he had the idea!"
>> No. 76485
Thats an interesting parable.

One thing that worries me about efficiency taken to extremes is that it balances too much outcome on too little.

A couple of examples come to mind, though I'm not sure how 'real world' they are - they're just scenarios but they don't seem so far fetched.

Lets take Mark's example from the other thread, where in communist china they outlawed the use of mechanical mowers and made people use hand tools to trim lawns. While in many respects, the inefficiency of this kind of labor seems rather silly - on the other hand, what once took one person maybe 30 minutes or an hour to do ,now takes many people several hours to do.

Sure its more efficient to get it done faster, easier, with machines - but if you depend at all on people in the community or society to have money, making sure many people have some is better than making sure one or two get it all. If the lawn trimmers get paid a reasonable amount of money, then making lawn care less and less efficient generates more and more jobs, and more people have income. In a hyper-efficient scenario, these people are all out of jobs. In fact, maybe even the lawn mower mows lawns itself, and people just pay the company to send it out.

More efficient can mean less jobs, and a weaker economy, due to imbalances in work availability and whatnot.

File 138728389745.jpg - (18.49KB , 300x290 , employment_opportunities-300x290.jpg )
76466 No. 76466 [View]
I'm curious.

What do you think the 'message' or 'story' is here in this short animated film lasting 5:25 (and then credits at the end)


Last edited at Tue, Dec 17th, 2013 05:38

2 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76471
File 138734281513.png - (284.55KB , 491x288 , dssdfsdf.png )
It struck me as a "Flintstones 'it's a living' joke" gone too far.
Personally I saw it as a reaffirmation that you're as valuable and as useful as you choose to be. No one seemed very happy but no one seemingly wanted to change how they were treated.
Except for the lamp at the end!
>> No. 76472
File 138736950871.jpg - (51.25KB , 500x700 , 562295_652566978127759_2071366496_n.jpg )
What struck me is how many people participated in the collaborative effort that produced what was essentially a doormat.

I don't know, it seems to me that perhaps it would have been better to follow your own interpretation without first sampling other people's.

However, I want to point out that this video seems to have nothing to do with communist china. For that matter, I don't think I can make the connection with 'this one thing that is bad isn't so bad because of this other completely unrelated thing that is worse'. I don't think you are being purposefully dishonest, but comparing 'bad' to 'worse' in order to make 'bad' look better strikes me as a somewhat dishonest thing to do. Granted, almost all things lack a definite, defined value so must have their value estimated by comparison to another thing - however this thing should be similar or closely related.

I don't feel 'communist china' was similar or closely related enough to this video to be compared, but if you want to make a case for that I'd be willing and interested to hear it. If you want to discuss efficiency I will be happy to make a thread for it.

Thats interesting. I would think the overall scenario in the animated short would actually be seeking to try to get the viewer to question and seek change in a situation they could call similar to what is in the animated short. The people in it though, didn't seem very interested in changing things. They actually seemed quite distant and disengaged.
>> No. 76474
File 138737251140.jpg - (51.70KB , 265x263 , BACON!.jpg )
It looks to me like they're showing how pretty much everything a person uses in an industrialised society is the product of someone else's labour, by replacing that produced item with the person who produce it's labour directly.

That seems overly complicated, especially when all a sicle needs to be produced is a guy in a smithy, and all a sicle needs to be used is a person in a field.

Both of the examples you listed were essentially the same in practice. In both the lawns gets mowed, and in both people are doing allot of excess work. Except that in one a bunch of useless materials are being produced in addition to all the excess labour, just to accomplish the same task. Which is then worse?

So mow your lawn with a scythe, store the hay and use the extra time saved to tend your garden. No one will be unemployed if they're all employed in their own food's production, and if everyone has their food then they have no need for excess labour. Plus, then everyone's responsible for their own needs, not dependent on others. Ludd was right, smash the looms.

And when it comes down to it my responce would be why mow lawns in the first place? If you need an orchard cleared of grass in order to keep fruit pests down, then stick some geese in it. If you need to keep a field laying fallow free of brush, then stick some goats it in. By why go to the trouble of keeping a field cut for aesthetic purposes? There's lots of tasty things that grow on their own when you let a field grow, after all.

File 138657742207.jpg - (44.17KB , 821x763 , princess.jpg )
76419 No. 76419 [View]

>Made in America
>monarchic/feudal society
>gold standard
>government, where it is suggested, is non-interventionist and impotent; solutions derive from the actions of the main characters
>feudal society characterized by an explicit aristocratic and clerical hierarchy.
>racial caste system; the traditional three castes of the peasantry, aristocracy and the military
>Equestria is led by elites that are either deities or ascended spiritual masters that act as a bridge between the material and the transcendent.
>Ascent into royalty is conflated with spiritual and genetic ascension.
>gold standard
>Reaffirms inequality and encourages harmony and division of labor, as opposed to egalitarianism.
>> No. 76421
File 138658611624.png - (18.27KB , 172x172 , 26 t.png )
>MLP:FiM is reactionary to the core
Well, let's take a look. But right off the bat we should be suspicious of this hypothesis because we know that MLP:FiM was created by a feminist with the explicit goal of furthering the progressive concept of gender. If a show with that foundation ended up reactionary to the core, we ought to be very, very confused. It might even suggest that *gasp* neoreactionaries and progressives have some ground in common.

I think the greentext can be divided into two major points:

(1) The show is set in a medieval/feudal society
Does this make the show reactionary? Well, no. There is a difference between a show which is set in a feudal society and a show which supports feudalism. The political and economic setting of MLP:FiM is so far from the focus of the show that I'd say the show has no overall political philosophy. We don't really know how the government in Equestria works and despite how many times the OP mentions it we don't really know that the currency is tied to gold and we don't have any reason to believe there is a racial caste system. MLP:FiM simply doesn't care about these things, it doesn't have a message on this scale.

(2) The show illustrates behaviours that reactionaries like e.g. harmony as solution to inequality, national identity with ritual and ceremony
This point seems maybe a bit stronger, but still not compelling. We see division of labour across the three types of ponies, but essentially zero division of labour across species or the sexes. Equestria is pretty darn socially egalitarian. Group identity; duties to friends, family, and nation; and group bonding through ceremony are big themes in MLP:FiM and also endorsed by reactionary thought.

I'm not convinced. Calling any of these shows "reactionary to the core" sounds to me like someone getting a bit too excited about their favourite political philosophy and starting to see it in everything else they like. This is common in politics. "Marx's ideas are perfect. In fact, everything good must be Marxist! Name anything good and give me a few minutes and I
>> No. 76423
All of these require such huge leaps of logic it's almost amusing.

>monarchic/feudal society

As we do not see any Lords or Ladies or Knights or anything of the sort, we can not support that it is a feudal society. In fact, we see the opposite. A Mayor, a position that is elected though popular vote even when it was first created in the 12th century, showing that there is an elective system in place.

Most headcanon accepts this and fills in some blanks by making the Equestrian Government something closer to England during the 17th Century with some modification. Celestia and Luna operate as Heads of State while different districts or cities elect representatives to serve on a sort of Parliament. As we see a judge standing next to Mayor Mare, we can assume that there is also a separate Judaical system.

>gold standard

A large portion of the world was on the gold standard until relatively recently.

File 138619191550.png - (9.97KB , 386x207 , Law of jante.png )
76392 No. 76392 [View]

The law of jante(pic related) is thought to be the model that most of Scandinavia follows when dealing with other people. Also described as the shield of Jante, it discourages individuality, and supposedly promotes solidarity.

Is this a healthy mindset for a community to have? For those of you living somewhere in Scandinavia, do you think these laws are an accurate portrayal of peoples mindset?

Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

Last edited at Wed, Dec 4th, 2013 14:20

1 post omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76398
File 138626315105.png - (213.34KB , 515x618 , Babs270.png )
I don't really go in for the self-abasement as a moral law thing.
Shudder to contemplate the mind of a person who wouldn't find those laws thoroughly toxic either.
>> No. 76417
I sometimes wonder if humanity reached the Enlightenment then looked at themselves and just said "Nah, nevermind."
>> No. 76422
File 138663326164.jpg - (86.86KB , 375x472 , Interesting.jpg )
I could see that as describing a society I would enjoy, but not as a code I would follow. It's too people-focused to be a code I could follow.

File 138605481668.jpg - (161.20KB , 900x548 , image.jpg )
76370 No. 76370 [View]

You guys are screwd.
I'm not actually against you guys, but if they do raid you...
What's your next move?
6 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76380
File 138611298546.jpg - (22.76KB , 400x400 , Goddomot_260c7e_924819.jpg )
God dommit Ponk...
>> No. 76384
File 138612983501.jpg - (82.33KB , 600x600 , Costanza Sparkle.jpg )
>caring whether 4chan raids us
>the year of our lord and saviour three-thousand and fifteen minus one-thousand and two

Shiggy, meet diggy
Diggy, meet shiggy

Last edited at Tue, Dec 3rd, 2013 21:04

>> No. 76391
File 138618925557.gif - (33.63KB , 376x337 , Good Luck.gif )
I've heard of people claiming there is going to be some kind of raid several times, but nothing ever comes of it.

The fact is that the whole brony thing STARTED on 4chan. It got so popular that a lot of infighting started between pony fans and the people who didn't like ponies. Almost every single thread was getting derailed instantly because of all the pony reaction images. Eventually the 4chan mods decided to ban ponies saying "If you want to post ponies, go start your own chan".

...And guess what, people did. They started dozens of them that started pulling huge traffic from day one. That combined with a drop in 4chans traffic from all of their visitors who were now going elsewhere for their pony fix, caused the mods to quickly reverse the ban and create their own pony board.

So as much as the 4chan pony haters would like to think they have lots of people on their side, they just don't. They simply don't have enough haters on their side to actually get anything off the ground.

File 138535493768.jpg - (123.68KB , 630x803 , cycles of collapse.jpg )
76313 No. 76313 [View]

I have been feeling pretty down about where things seem to be going lately and I came across this article that supports some things I have thought were true about where the world fits into past patterns of social evolution. Basically I have thought that there was some kind of "breaking point" coming but I have not had the history knowledge to do more than speculate about what I was feeling about what is coming.

Blame Rich, Overeducated Elites as Our Society Frays [www.bloomberg.com]

Pics from the article.
Top: Detail of the cycle of wealth gap creation and political/social instability
Bottom: Political violence spikes through US history.

>Complex human societies, including our own, are fragile. They are held together by an invisible web of mutual trust and social cooperation. This web can fray easily, resulting in a wave of political instability, internal conflict and, sometimes, outright social collapse.
>Analysis of past societies shows that these destabilizing historical trends develop slowly, last many decades, and are slow to subside. The Roman Empire, Imperial China and medieval and early-modern England and France suffered such cycles, to cite a few examples. In the U.S., the last long period of instability began in the 1850s and lasted through the Gilded Age and the “violent 1910s.”
15 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76339
File 138566627518.png - (676.43KB , 533x799 , 1098363_10152204610849465_1448530835_n.png )
>I agree with the pattern and think that we are on our way to something very bad.

What are the solutions?
>> No. 76368
File 138595185514.jpg - (256.82KB , 668x445 , qw7k43j9-1344477226.jpg )
>What are the solutions?
That could be its own topic. Since this is basically a rant about the nature of the problem, which should be defined first, I'll hide it and put the conclusion after that. I know some stuff about human behavior but am not an expert at history or economics so anyone who knows more about this should fire away.

Despite what some folks might think I don't "blame one Rich people". I think that what rich people are doing is instinct. But so is what the non-rich does. It's a matter of objective distribution of resources, ability to earn resources, people with the resources, suffering people and how why will act. The rich get attention because they are objectively a part of a screwed up system and they have to be studied to fix the system. You literally cannot fix this without pointing at the "group of humans with more wealth than anyone else", period. Some people are sensitive to that but tough.

This does not mean that how resources are redistributed should not be carefully studied. If a society erupts into violence and re-balances it's socioeconomic order that is a redistribution of wealth. If a society manages to tweak it's economy and regulation into innovation and job creation with the help of the existing wealthy that is redistribution of wealth. If a society chooses to increase the minimum wage, increase the corporate tax rates, create various programs for job training/education and more to redirect those unneeded educated elites, that is wealth redistribution. It will happen by some means.

Those concentrating the wealth.
Humans that accumulate resources (wealth) tend to want to keep them. They get used to a status quo and a standard of living and like many other humans they want to build on what they have, no matter how much they have (also with monopolies on political influence)
>> No. 76374
Here are some things I think might look like solutions in regards to this.

>A cap on financial wealth with a percentage decay penalty.

>example - you have more than X amount of money, it decays at a 1% yearly rate

This is essentially a greed tax that decays financial wealth. The goal is to encourage the circulation of money by capping it. Money already decays in some sense unless you move it around, adding a decay rate allows people to have a maximum budget without having to actually reduce their income (as they can use the extra money to purchase or invest in things).

>New forms of money. Regionalized, localized. This money can be given on merit, as welfare, or even set up to decay using time principals instead of greed. If exchanged locally by local communities, it can inject local currency into local businesses.

>A global carbon/emissions tax, equally redistributed among all people, to help pay for the carbon tax.

File 138477713390.jpg - (250.61KB , 1024x768 , microbiome-1.jpg )
76277 No. 76277 [View]

Not too long ago I was presented with the idea, from a friend of mine who holds a degree in chemistry, that our microbiomes are actually a very important and integral part of who we are as people. That we can actually produce antibodies in one human and spread them to another human who will integrate those antibodies through casual physical contact.

I haven't researched this, but this morning I noticed an article from NPR which suggests that our microbiomes have a lot to do with how our minds operate as well, and that we can exchange behavior patterns, attitudes, etc by exchanging microbes.


Perhaps, as organisms, we are a lot more than just a brain piloting a human machine in which a lot of microbes are hitching a ride on and in us. Perhaps we are not just the sum of those microbes as well, but also their lives, networks, and exchanges?
Its an interesting thought. What do you think about how our microbiomes assist, influence, and are part of us? Perhaps we should be using less antibacterial soap, and sharing drinking cups a little more often...

Last edited at Mon, Nov 18th, 2013 05:20

2 posts omitted. (Expand)
>> No. 76335
File 138551637745.jpg - (61.64KB , 726x484 , vinegar big mother in hand.jpg )
Good post!

>The big one that I want to know next is what are the bacteria, archaea, and fungi producing and receiving that make this process work?

Yes that. Wow.
>> No. 76336
Most of our serotonin is in our gut, right?
>> No. 76337
File 138557253637.jpg - (99.62KB , 946x691 , nature09944-f1_2.jpg )
Image from Enterotypes of the human gut microbiome [www.nature.com]

>Most of our serotonin is in our gut, right?

Yes. ~90% of your bodies serotonin is in gut cells called enterochromaffin cells and it's not just digestion,
>In the gastrointestinal tract, 5-HT is important in response to chemical, mechanical or pathological stimuli in the lumen. It activates both secretory and peristaltic reflexes, and activates vagal afferents (via 5-HT3 receptors) that signal to the brain (important in the generation of nausea).
You could say that in the digestive system it acts as the final activation switch for various digestive/food related functions not limited to absorption of food. Neurotransmitters could be seen to have a "theme" due to historical contingency the themes if they exist are based on really old primary uses and get fuzzy as time passes and evolution plays with various biological networks and serotonin seems to be related to things related to interacting with and gaining resources accumulation, storage, absorption...whether expelling if contaminated (nausea>vomiting), moving along for absorption, or adding things to allow digestion to occur.

As far as emotional regulation is concerned a huge amount of our behavior is involved with resources at the individual and social level and the wikipedia link to serotonin outl

Delete post []
Report post

[0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]