/debate/ - Discussion and Debate

>>169
That's an assumption, and you know what they say about those.

bump

You can see the cube though, that must mean something.

If the cube can divide by zero, can we not induce that to create a wormhole, possibly returning the delicious caek back to our plane of existence?
Or would that conflict with the quantum activity rule?

>>156
Transitivity nigga. Medias control "people" (the majority of them).

>>78
It is the worst, because the more people are in power the less consensus there is and the slower and more bureaucratic the making of decisions becomes.
>Fascism/Dictatorship when following Machiavelli's philosophy is the one best system for the improvement of human civilization.
>Anarchy is the one best system regarding individual opportunities and freedom, obviously.
>Communism is the one best system in regards to the human condition and dignity.
I'd like to add that what I view as the greatest flaw in nowadays' democracy is that all idealism is lost, all that matters to the electorate is what practical changes a politician makes, not what that politician stands for.

>>165

>Fascism/Dictatorship when following Machiavelli's philosophy is the one best system for the improvement of human civilization.
>Anarchy is the one best system regarding individual opportunities and freedom, obviously.
>Communism is the one best system in regards to the human condition and dignity.

That's a pretty interesting way of seeing it, at least in best case scenario.

best and/or worst case scenario i'd go with anarchism

>>167
>anarchism
Anarchism simply cannot exist. If there is conflict on person or group will enforce their will over another.
This is the very definition of government.

Anarchy isn't a bad system of government, it just cannot exist outside of a theory.

I never watch too much the tv, the tv where i live is as retarded as it gets, it's painful to watch.

I watched Breaking Bad not so long ago, and i really loved it, so it would be my favourite, but the only series i've finished, the other one i followed for some time was Lost and i stopped watching at the 5th season i think.

>>82
Watching Mushishi, but kinda got stuck at halfway, it just feels so repetetive and uncreative at times, like Hellgirl.

I suppose I can only be partially helpful, but, as an all-encompassing statement, animu is art.
I'm a musician by trade, so I listen to a lot of music.
Music is art, I think we can all agree on that. The trouble is that there's a lot of startlingly bad music out there. For every Ben Folds, there's a dozen Katy Perrys. For every IAMDYNAMITE, there's an army of Maroon Fives.
Film is an art form, but that doesn't mean Michael Bay doesn't make film.
With that pretentious bullcrap preface out of the way: In my somewhat limited experience, most anime tends towards Maroon 5 levels of "it fills a simple service with absolutely no reaching or striving to improve". Part of that, I'm sure, is also that they have a genre that western entertainment does not: Slice of life.
How exciting, or engaging, or thought-provoking can something be that is, by definition, exactly what you did today?

>>137

Just like with all kinds of media, most of it will be MCD, but there's space for art in there.

It's kinda sad how /a/ likes their "b-but muh waifu, weeaboo-tier stuff" so much, it's as if /mu/ liked Katy Perry, as if /film/ liked Michael Bay, as if /lit/ liked 50 Shades of Gray…

The basis of morals are universal, as they well from a very simple, common set of practices - before it was "thou shalt not kill," before there were even words to describe it, it was "Thou shalt not kill within thine tribe, for strength in numbers and unity is our primary asset against this harsh world".
Morals evolved from guidelines that helped ensure humanity's survival and/or growth.

To remain in the given scenario, let's look at killing and murder. In almost every case, it is generally considered immoral to kill another. In places where it mightn't be so demonized, we can simply see morality interacting with hubris.

For example, "honor killings" are still quite common in yuropistan, but this does not go against what I just laid out. Why? Because there were no moral reasonings behind those killings. It's always honor.
>that family kicked my dog and littered on my lawn.

These are people that don't go around shooting everyone, just one particular person or family that insulted them. This shows that these are not motivated by morality (or lack thereof), but ego.

tl;dr morality at its basest core is universal as it stems from the instinctual drive to thrive. If we were to quantify a morality's quality, one would have to judge which better fosters growth.

>>139
While I agree with the premise of your argument, in my opinion it no longer holds in this day and age.

The origins of morality probably did have much to do with survival of the species, but in the last couple of centuries, we've reached a point where survival is just taken for granted. Basic needs and safety are things no one really worries about anymore. The roots for this mindset have been sown for millenia now, but it's especially flourished after the industrial revolution.

Much of our morality in the present time deviates strongly from what would guarantee our survival. If you were to define the quality of morality by the chances of survival it caters to, then by that definition the last few generations of humanity have undergone a severe collective degradement of morality.

We should be euthanising the mentally/physically challenged and limiting their reproductive rights, while favouring the geniuses *since natural selection no longer does it for us*. Yet, if you try suggesting this anywhere outside of /pol/, you'd just be looked down upon as a lunatic. Perhaps another millenia of evolution will get us to a point where this will be the norm, but for now, it seems we're stuck in tribal morality.

tl;dr - if 'high quality' morality fosters survival, why aren't we killing all the retards and cripples yet?

>>141
Imagine my surprise to see someone else in this board.

Now, for what it's worth, I would like to go on record as saying I do, for the most part, believe that human achievement has rendered moot darwinistic evolution. Because of this I also believe we should, as a species, be much less attached to zygotes than we are presently.
As an aside tangent, it seems to be tied closely to the "political correctness" cycle, which ebbs and flows with time. Looking back at an admittedly limited frame of time, it looks to me like we might be on a downslope and saying/doing "what's right" will be preferable over feelings and emotions relatively shortly, and I'm looking forward to that day.
Given that we both accept the same premise I've put forth for OP as true, this is going to be a boring debate.
I move that we instead shift focus to your rhetorical question posed in the tl;dr.

>>143
>I would disagree here, for I believe there is no ultimate 'right' to be done, and if indeed we progress far enough, we'd implode and kill all of humanity in mutually assured destruction.
Sorry for the confusion of context, Anon. When I said "right", I was simply talking in the limited scope of political correctness - Remember how in the late 80's/early 90's, it became taboo to say "fireman or policeman or any other gender-implying titles? CBS even banned the terms "anchorman" and "weatherman" for a while.
When I said "right," that was improper wording, for sure. Perhaps a better way to rephrase my statement would be:
>Looking back at an admittedly limited frame of time, it looks to me like we might be on a downslope and saying/doing what objectively conveys the proper information will be preferable over feelings and emotions relatively shortly, and I'm looking forward to that day.
In another way, a couple years ago, we were knee-deep in the PC wave and if you called a "policeman" to help, they wouldn't because that was an improper title. Once we're in a trough of the PC sine wave, that won't matter much any further. The side effect of this shift in mentality is that people will be able to harbor differing opinions and undertake different courses of action than are right now deemed "wrong".
It was a tangential statement with a smaller scope than the discussion in whole, aiming to color my feeling that my opinion that selective childrearing is good can't be held today, but it, and controversial stances like it, will be able to be held in the future.

Digression aside
>Animals obsessed with surviving trying to survive and in a meaningless world.
So, we agree that morality is a tool, that is: Morality is to survival as a hammer is to a house. Seems to me, however, that we disagree on what color the house we're building is painted.
I'd like to point out the language we each used, presumably subconsciously, which do quite a bit to allow me to understand you.
When I defined morality as a tool, I said it was used to thrive ( >>>139 ). You have stated, to the common man the very similar "trying to survive." ( >>>143 ).
ThPost too long. Click here to view the full text.