[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / christ / julia / leftpol / vg / vichan / webcams / zoo ]

/debate/ - Discussion and Debate

Any and all topics are open to free and unregulated discussion


Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Good boards: /bmw/ - /polk/ - /new/

File: 1426612060746.jpg (54.79 KB, 431x450, 431:450, socrates.jpg)

7f9c43  No.75[Reply]

Discussion and Debate™ is a board dedicated to the one unavoidable aspect of internet forums - arguments. Do you have an argument you want settled? Want to bash opponents of your point of view? Just want the answer to an ever-burning question?

>It's time to take off the gloves and rev up your rhetoric.


1.) Check the catalogue to see if your subject has been posted already.

2.) Keep discussions civil. This is the best way to argue. Obvious shitposts will be deleted without notice, however moderation will be lenient on this matter.

3.) No topic or arguments are off limits. This is a free market of ideas.

4.) If you are starting a thread about a relatively obscure idea, provide links to sources to read up on the topic.

5.) As on every board, the global rules are in effect. Do not post illegal content.


Each month, a sticky topic will be posted with a debate starter, these will be on philosophical, political, scientific, historical, or a wide breadth of other subjects. If you wish to contribute a potential debate starter, just make a thread, or post your idea in this thread. Particularly good threads will be stickied.

4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at

25a21d  No.355

ded board

File: 7091ebd214be7ef⋯.jpg (80.79 KB, 736x566, 368:283, 7091ebd214be7ef50497e94f0d….jpg)

File: ba45e6e15aa49ea⋯.jpg (111.72 KB, 990x1024, 495:512, serveimage (1).jpg)

File: 72178a7ba803871⋯.jpg (103.31 KB, 1050x591, 350:197, serveimage.jpg)

File: a693dffac218048⋯.png (4.07 MB, 1420x1920, 71:96, ClipboardImage.png)

File: ee4d78aeafd9c9b⋯.png (1.66 MB, 1147x764, 1147:764, ClipboardImage.png)

3b0b0f  No.360[Reply]

What is it? Is it purely subjective, objective, or somewhere in between? Can the "art world" ever be saved from the clutches of post-modernists, money launderers, and post-modernist money launderers? Is there such a thing as bad art, or is bad art essentially not art? At what rough degree of skill and universal beauty does something qualify as art? Are the fenceshitters in the middle between pure objectivity and pure subjectivity all post-modernist enablers or post-modernists themselves?

058e9e  No.362

File: d82ee7f209cd4cb⋯.png (488.81 KB, 541x665, 541:665, dor.PNG)


anything can be art as long as it evokes some kind of feeling

some art looks horrendous but its still art because it looks so bad you get angry

5b3ada  No.365

File: dfb6fcf7b39e378⋯.jpg (635.28 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, rhein.jpg)

File: 1ea1a39e1b0e0f5⋯.jpg (913.08 KB, 3264x2040, 8:5, basin.jpg)

Post photography, the most non-jewed art form.

File: 2f1432f7ea476fc⋯.png (272.04 KB, 619x476, 619:476, proper.png)

2b2563  No.337[Reply]

The only straight and non-cuckold porn from the perspective of a male viewer is female solo masturbation. Prove me wrong. Pro tip: You can't.

Also, image related. What's the best method?

41f0f3  No.339

correct tbh, also source?

a5bc18  No.340

No. Stop fapping you degenerate.

7007cb  No.341

File: ba9777058a82a89⋯.jpg (115.15 KB, 669x1080, 223:360, .ancientGreekTrap.jpg)

Define female.

89ea95  No.361


It's from the second chapter GirlS Aloud!!. Here is the first chapter. There are six, and two half chapters, but the 6.5 is more like a full chapter.


File: b70f096c47ef5ec⋯.gif (38.36 KB, 803x510, 803:510, serveimage.gif)

File: 7fb4f095db3bb50⋯.jpg (82.47 KB, 1000x563, 1000:563, topic-globalization.jpg)

e57b8f  No.194[Reply]

Is Globalization a Positive Influence on the World?


Globalization - The increasing interconnectedness of the world in terms of technology (eg internet), economy (eg free trade, currency), culture (eg multiculturalism, language), ethnicity (eg immigration), administration (eg world government, UN) and geography (urbanization).

Positive - beneficial to the people; furthering the ultimate goals of humanity.

the World - Earth, in terms of humans.

Resources to get started:





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sSNyXEShqI - Is Globalization Good or Bad? (con)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovFjvcd6q1w - Who Really Wins From Globalization? (pro)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWjWfyzmk1Q - The Impacts Of Globalisation (con)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbF2I5t25s0 - Johan Norberg - Globalism is Good 1/4 (pro)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFjFP8uxyEM - Cultural impacts of globalisation (neutral)

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

38 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

7ab5d7  No.305

File: 6f074b8cb6f64f7⋯.jpg (141.39 KB, 1024x668, 256:167, 1500988675342.jpg)

Humans haven't developed to the point where a global society is possible. What we are seeing is people who have a great deal of power scrambling to create systems which will maintain that power. They don't care about creating a global humanity, this is just a way to shackle us further.


They aren't just printing money from nothing. It's being created in the form of debt by taking loans. They are borrowing money from banks which will be repaid by tax to pay for the loss that was incurred by banks (actually they massively benefitted the people who will be paying the tax basically lost their money which is what they are rebuying through bail outs).

7ab5d7  No.306


A banker, a worker, and an immigrant are sitting at a table with 20 cookies.

The banker takes 19 cookies, uses those 19 cookies to fund globalism, civil unrest and increased immigration, while the worker has to share the last cookie with the immigrant that considers him more disgusting than a pig and would behead him and rape his daughter if he had the chance.

>the government, a worker and an immigrant are sitting at a table with 20 cookies

>Government takes 19 cookies, and then demands from worker to give the last cookie to immigrant

the banker takes 19 cookies for himself, he then takes the worker's cookie and breaks it in half and gives half of it to the immigrant that he invited in.

He then says to the worker "if you say a word about what I just did I will tell everybody you are a racist!".

Then he offers to loan the worker a cookie at interest.



before globalism:

>affordable housing, higher education

>plenty job opportunities

>quality cheap native goods. cheap petrol etc

>no diversity or identity politics

>intact communities

>stability, prosperity and safety

with globalism:

>unaffordable housing, unaffordable higher education

>no job opportunities (native workers replaced w/ foreign diversity)

>shitty expensive foreign goods

>expensive petrol

>broken communities

>instabPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

5b7521  No.311

globalization is just another one of those jewish tricks, that and centralization.

they want the whole world to be under 1 centralized government, with themselves in control. i cant imagine how people can view globalism any other way.

in addition, globalism is terrible simply because separate individual nations work much better, because people always feel the need to belong to something exclusive or unique to them. You cant have everyone living in 1 country simply because it strips away identity, and people dont like that.

1045ff  No.338

File: 7ac4873b47dd52a⋯.jpg (584.83 KB, 549x1105, 549:1105, 001.jpg)

File: 662fc8da6ed93bb⋯.png (162.05 KB, 1024x896, 8:7, 002.png)

File: d1b25f8c88078c3⋯.jpg (37.44 KB, 627x663, 209:221, 03.jpg)

File: ef99327e5a57a07⋯.png (132.48 KB, 2092x1270, 1046:635, 1466625417140.png)

I believe that globalization is detrimental to any Western society.


Because Jews are a very small minority in their host societies, their ability to live in any country depends on enough of that country's citizens either being Left-wing, or ignorant of politics. This has been stated by many prominent Jews. (1)

Further, the ideology of modern "Liberalism" (aka Globalism, cultural Marxism, post-modernism) and the universal trend of "liberals" supporting mass globalist immigration, fails to take into account the negative traits of those they import as voters and cheap labour. (2) (3) (4)

Therefore, Globalization is a scheme concocted at the highest level of international finance and industry by rich Jews & shabbos goys to subvert the host populations of Western society.

4e4eaa  No.359


Generally, globalization isn't bad per se, rather its the homogenization of the world which is the problem. A world government would be fine, as long as it lets the people it governs be autonomous, same goes for everything. If the world government were to try to use 1 set of laws for every place on earth, a disaster would surely be at hand.

File: 6bdf7abca9ec6d3⋯.png (702.28 KB, 1436x1580, 359:395, capitalism-socialism.png)

f77733  No.189[Reply]

Socialism will be defined in a broad sense, including socialized government services to full-blown communism.

At what point does socialism turn from a beneficial to a negative impact on the economy and general public?

Remember this is a logical debate about IDEALS not about examples of socialism in practice. Do not assume anything that you can't back up.

Some Resources:











Also sorry this is the only socialism-related image i could find on my computer

13 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at

cbc2ff  No.327


OP here, let me elaborate on what I meant.

>Is Socialism Ever Viable or a Beneficial System?

'Socialism' here means any ideological system under the banner of socialism, and yes 'not real socialism' fags are expected, however they will be required to explain, or make distinct, the system of socialism they are advocating.

>Is the worst source possible when it comes to politics.

yes I know, that list was put together rather quickly, but it still gives a good starting point for someone to understand the basic concepts

>Why? You are asking about circumstances when Socialism is useful.

examples of socialism in practice are certainly evidence, however the debate is not just whether these examples were good or bad. It needs to be made clear that this debate is about ideology and hypotheticals, not whether the soviet union was good/bad etc.

c54f5b  No.343


In that case, No, socialism encourages sloth and stagnation due the lack of competition between people that's been driving our species forwards.

3b5aca  No.344

File: 19fc7c013c4d7a8⋯.png (169.63 KB, 600x540, 10:9, .png)


> In that case, No, socialism encourages sloth and stagnation due the lack of competition between people that's been driving our species forwards.

Anarcho-Capitalism (which some morons people call Socialist - consequently, you are not allowed to say that "it isn't real Socialism") does not abolish competition, but embraces it to the fullest extent.

Yes, OP is retarded.

3afd13  No.345


i disagree, in many ways competition can produce negative things, as in what this >>199 guy said. socialism would do right to correct this, or regulate against this, and no one would be worse off.

how do you consider that eventually, given a complete freedom to compete with each other, one individual may rise to the top and dominate all others, essentially destroying competition through monopolizing.

competition is a self-destructive system, and at least some socialist regulation would be required to ensure its stability.

8d0639  No.358


The free market isn't perfect you know.

Have you ever seen a government pay a business to pollute more?

That being said it's still more or less the best basis for an economy

File: 67e125c68b1578a⋯.png (17.4 KB, 300x300, 1:1, Beauty.png)

62bb4b  No.335[Reply]

What is the most important question of all?

It can't really be the aforementioned one as aesthetic that would be, because then the answer would give us no insight. I would say insight to be of more importance than aesthetics when ranking questions.

Then again what is the most important aspect when ranking questions? Would that one do? Or this?

Does this make any sense to you? That is quite important. Now I'm just rambling to make up the character quota. Why the fuck does it need to be so high? THAT is the one I want to find out.

3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

ad79d9  No.349


>What is a question?

A communication which involves a request for information.



ad79d9  No.350


>Who says aesthetic gives no insight?

No one, the subjective = the objective. Aesthetics are all you need.

f989b1  No.354

The answer to that is rooted in reality, not reason or logic.

Let's look to what happens to life:


It starts simple, and gets more complex over time, to fit more environments.

I suspect the final form of life, be it organic or machine, is an entity that can survive in all environments, and utilize all forms of energy.

Think about it a bit. It's basically a god, but not quite a god, seeing as it's still just a mere mortal animal. Even if it solved mortality or whatever.

Just ponder this concept: Complex increases over time. What is at the end of life and evolution?

How you phrase the question determines the answer, or answers.

5aea30  No.356

>What is the most important question of all?

How is something truly unique created. How do you create something truly original, without basing your creation off something else.

How was it decided what all the colors in the rainbow are, and is it possible to imagine or create an entirely new color?

The whole universe is truly unique, and in existence therefore it must have been created somehow. So the question covers things like 'how the universe came to existence' too, though in a pretty abstract way.

5aea30  No.357


>What is beauty

Everyone has their own innate understanding of beauty, and there is no 'right' answer, so I would see it as a pointless debate. Nonetheless it is still important for everyone to understand beauty, however they may see it, as it is arguably the greatest purpose in life.

File: e636c696006716a⋯.jpg (733.19 KB, 1559x1557, 1559:1557, 14975904103341.jpg)

0c1b2a  No.352[Reply]

What is the meaning of life?

What is the ultimate good? If any such thing exists.

Is the meaning of life simply just to exist, and have experiences? And if so, how does aesthetics fit into it all?

9eb1e3  No.353

here is how i see it ,we are told how we exist but the problem of course that faces many is what is the meaning of my life?.also let me be clear are you referring to life as a whole,the individual,now to the aesthetics i cannot answer.now to answer this

"is the meaning of life simply just to exist,and have experiences?"my answer to that is i don't know>>352

File: 6a3501876e26d2e⋯.jpg (114.54 KB, 846x635, 846:635, serveimage (1).jpg)

3c8946  No.193[Reply]


successful - benefited the general public of america by an amount equal to or greater than what was expected.

in other words is he living up to the hype?

information sources:




29 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

b03e24  No.235

i think we can all agree though, that trump is worse than hitler

bc60cc  No.309

fucking kike mods on /pol/ deleted a thread where i was making a long post for this topic. so posting it here.

When it comes to something like this, perception is key. I think trump has done a very good job at shifting the overton window, as others have said, simply by being in

the white house. Of course, it comes into our best interest to keep Trump doing things we want, however as long as the general public believe he is doing things that

are /pol/ approved the window will continue shifting in our direction. This is perhaps the greatest proven benefit of having trump in the whitehouse, even if he doesnt

change anything, he will have already rallied these ideas deep in the population, he has made people question, and for the while, all that matters is that.

Now my concern however, is that riding on Trump and his presidency will intellectually damage /pol/, both in public perception and in reality. This is because for as long

as we are not discussing ideology and ideals, and instead discussing other people (eg trump) and their ideals, we will stagnate in this regard. It is not a measure of

good ideological development to cling to the ideas of others, we must create our own ideas and have mobility in these ideas. Now this hasnt affected /pol/ to the same

extent as 4/pol/ or r/The_Donald, but it is not a good thing to start doing, ideally i think we should completely ideologically detach from Trump, that brings me to my

second concern.

This also gives us a point of failure in terms of perception, the more we continue to endorse trump the more ideologically interconnected we become, and if he crashes

and burns, in reality OR in perception, (and note that a large portion of the general public already believe hes failed). if he fails then we will have permanently connected

ourselves and our ideology/movement to a failed figurehead, ie not good. Endorsing trump gives us a very large incentive to see him succeed, aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

bc60cc  No.310


whoops kinda fucked up the formatting

c0f555  No.331



I'm not sure if I missed something, but that seemed more like an inspirational picture than Commie propaganda. What I saw was an old man saying, "Kid, you have what it takes to make a great tree. Don't change that, and make sure your tree stays great. This tree used to be great as well, but it no longer it is. I'm here to fix that and make this tree great again."

5607b7  No.351


It's anyone's guess what the fuck he is doing there. This proposed gun ban is really throwing me off, I can't tell if he's serious or >4d chess fags are right on this one.

I still think he is doing a better job than Hillary could have done, even if he is nowhere near what I had hoped.

File: e357ee060dd54d7⋯.jpg (52.1 KB, 600x380, 30:19, decentralization.jpg)

File: 1280c28c479fdd2⋯.png (287.99 KB, 1572x1576, 393:394, decentral government.png)

4df476  No.183[Reply]

Should a decentralized society be considered ideal in terms of political structure, economics, businesses, administration etc?

A decentralized society is one in which power goes first to the local level, and then to the state level, and then to the federal level.

This is different to a "distributed" society, which is essentially anarchism, in the way that governments still exist, but they exist on layers upside down to centralization.

instead of the top of the pyramid having all the power, the federal government is subject to the state government, not the other way around.






e61bf1  No.187

The only problem i see with this is how can you ensure that individuals remain good people. There needs to be some sort of method for preventing social diseases like the degeneracy we see in modern society. It would be hard to ensure this without at least SOME power coming from the top. The "free market" of different governments this model would provide would be no defence against this either.

The disease will just spread as we can see with california liberals spreading to oregon, washington, new mexico, arizona, texas and colorado.

Actually scratch that, the various local governments will simply just not let them migrate to their locality. Will that local government then just be quarantined forever? Will that result in a succession? Would the regional government governing the locality allow a takeover of the "undesirable" locality, with support from other local governments? Does that mean it isnt true decentralization?

What if the region, with support from 3 quarters of its localities, is allowed to permit the "takeover" of another locality, and take control of its government, temporarily? Like an immune system for the government structure. This way, when a particular location is very disliked by the larger region, it can be fixed easily. Like a natural survival of the fittest. And, in the case that the problem gets so large that a whole region has been infected there is still the state-level government that can allow a takeover of the region that is causing issues.

Of course this means that it would have to start as a good society, if a bad society ever happens to get the majority of power, shits fucked.

418901  No.192

so this is basically

"if ancapism actually worked: the political philosophy"

also, that pyramid is missing a step for "gated communities" or similar

5a62c2  No.315


sounds a lot like anarchy, but maybe more civilized.

i was reading a thread a while ago where 2 guys discussed anarchy and it sounds a lot like this.

interesting idea though, but will probably never happen

01fca2  No.322


8dcb7f  No.347

so there must still be rules. like a constitution that every tier of government has to adhere to?

i feel it would fall apart very easy, as soon as someone broke the' rules'

File: f3a507d534f3860⋯.png (114.19 KB, 600x200, 3:1, ClipboardImage.png)

403015  No.328[Reply]

Is evolution true? Micro-evolution has been proven, but macro-evolution is just a theory. Since it is, how can they teach these unfounded ideas in schools and colleges? What proof is there really of macro-evolution? Even if you do prove macro-evolution by observing currently species evolving over long periods of times, or even humans evolving, is that really proof that we did in the past? It would only be proof that we could have done so in the past. Human evolution before recorded history would still just be a theory.

b9800c  No.329

If I may, can I suggest that we boil it down to two questions, since this is where the debate tends to become a circlejerk, and proceed to answer them in that order.


>Is there enough evidence to prove the possibility that macro-evolution did happen?


>Does this amount of evidence have enough "credit" to make it a subject of learning over other theories of creation?

Simply put, first, let's bring up the evidence that already exists both proving and disproving the concept. Then, second, let's address the "moral" question of if it should be taught as law.

25be74  No.332


macro-evolution isnt that hard to understand really, it is the same thing as micro-evolution just across a much larger time span. small genetic mutations happen, sometimes they stick, sometimes they dont, over time enough mutations will stick in the DNA to give the animal or plant new attributes and essentially make it a new species, this happens by small stepping stones, and most of the time every genetically obsolete subspecies of a particular group dies out due to insufficient fitness for whatever niche that species inhabits, thats why we dont have half-ape half-humans, but we do have apes because they are able to occupy their niche better than humans were able to.

to answer your question though

>Is there enough evidence to prove the possibility that macro-evolution did happen?

it depends whether you value reasoned evidence as much as empirical evidence, if you reject non-empirical, then no we havent observed 'macroevolution' as of yet. we only have evidence from observation of other things, and reasoning from that. At the moment from what i understand there is currently more reasoned evidence FOR macro-evolution than against, in other words, the theory makes sense and stands up to most criticism. to sum up, no there is not enough empirical evidence to prove (or disprove) macro-evolution, but its a very good theory

>Does this amount of evidence have enough "credit" to make it a subject of learning over other theories of creation?

do the other theories of creation have any more scientific merit? what makes any theory of creation more credited to be a subject of learning? i would say that it is the amount of scientific substance to it, and in this case i would argue that macro-evolution has enough scientific explanation that it is acceptable to be taught over other theories. of course all theories deserve to be taught, its just that macro-evolution/evolution in general is much more fleshed out and in harmony with science than other theories. Also, macro-evolution as a theory of creation doesnt really explain anything, in fact, evolution, by definition, is not a theory of creation at all, it is a theory of how different species were created. whatPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

b9800c  No.333

File: 12c999fd6949897⋯.gif (1.64 MB, 425x247, 425:247, 1431740562113.gif)

File: c48ddb3f6badfdf⋯.jpg (511.49 KB, 1344x1909, 1344:1909, gods-not-dead-dvd-cover-46.jpg)


>perhaps this is different where you live though. nothing should be taught as law, or as absolute, but i dont think evolution is, or really ever has been taught as absolute truth.

Then I do not believe you have had any experience with the American education system because they do teach macro-evolution as "truth" across all levels of education (Which is the reason why the subject is such a "hot topic" issue in the West). If you take even the slightest stance against the possibility of it, or even question it, you are almost destined to fail your class inspite of everything else that happens. It's where films such as God's Not Dead get their inspiration from:

>The inspiration behind the setting of the movie dates back a few years ago. I was in a meeting at Pinnacle Forum and Alan Sears from Alliance Defending Freedom, was speaking. He was speaking about a young girl who was asked to do some things that went against her faith and got in trouble for not doing them. That story put my jaw on the floor and made me think about how many students go to college as a Christian and how few stay a Christian after they finish their four years. It was that story that inspired me to set the movie on a college campus.



Now, to get back on-topic, I do have to give your explanation of it credit because it does state what the idea of "macro-evolution" is and to the extent it goes. Usually when hearing the debate you see the creationists downplay it as this ridiculous notion that no one should be taking seriously, meanwhile the evolutionists prop it up as this "amazing, almost unfathomable" process that no one can somehow explain, "But, it totally hapPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

ddd444  No.334


>Then I do not believe you have had any experience with the American education system because they do teach macro-evolution as "truth" across all levels of education

Then why do they call it the theory of evolution in school? Why not the law of evolution? You're conflating it being taught at all with it being taught as truth. That's like saying the bible classes they had in my highschool back when I was in school are illegal simply for educating about the bible.

>But, if we all come from the same place, why don't any of the cold-blooded animals exhibit just as similar traits[?]

The answer there is simple. Those traits developed after mammals and reptiles diverged in evolution. Evolutionary divergence however doesn't necessarily mean a reptile can't by chance develop traits normally only found in mammals.

ae9c3b  No.346


oh wow nice ID GET

sorry i have nothing to contribute, i dont really know enough about this subject. i am reading though.

File: 1426616409204.png (261.65 KB, 302x388, 151:194, discern.png)

126396  No.79[Reply]

Are morals universal? If murder is wrong in the US but justified on an island on the other side of the world, who says which moral prevails? Is one "better" than the other, and if so, what criteria defines the quality of a moral?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

126396  No.141

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?

126396  No.142

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.

126396  No.143

File: 1427375336772.jpg (249.5 KB, 530x397, 530:397, 1424813416873.jpg)

Ah yes, I think I found this board either through >>>/8lounge/ or >>>/cyber/. This has potential, even if it could get up to a few posts a day.

As for the debate, I'd like to point out that my post was more of a Devil's Advocate kind of thing than my actual opinion, just to test the waters. Since you seem to concur, I'll expand on my philosophy.

>pic slightly related

As a casual overview of evolutionary history will reveal, almost every single thing about our lives has been (or is in the process of being) engineered so as to enhance our survival capacity. Be it the ideal female/male, or the size of our brain, be it the pleasure you get from an orgasm, or the bad feelings associated with pain/injury. Pretty much everything helps us, in some way, to live. And yet, there's nothing inherently good about 'living'. The mere response that we as a society show to death is amusing.

I think chan culture with all its gore, scat, guro, vore, crush, torture, necro, animal abuse and whatnot has, to a large part, helped me be far more objective about life than was possible within the confines of society.

Tangent - I dropped to the brink of depression and jumped back, with one single epiphany - nothing any one does matters in the slightes, in the grand scheme of things. Sounds edgy/tryhard, I know, but at the moment it turned my life around.

Tiny subtangent - Read some of Terence McKenna's work if you haven't already.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

126396  No.144

>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.

4164e7  No.330

Dailymotion embed. Click thumbnail to play.


>So, we agree that morality is a tool


>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.

Could I point out that one of the problems when talking about "morality" is that people immediately group it in with the most basic of human rules instead of identitying it as a system of laws and actions that apply regardless of the situation. Morality still very much exists today, and is probably more alive now than it ever was. The problem is that today's morality could be summed up in one word, economics. We no longer exist in a world where one has to be "Mightest of the pack" or "Smartest of the group". With the way the world is currently set up, one has to inhabit both the traits of the mighty and the smart in what could be best described as one word, charisma.

However, because of this almost alien combination of traits, people just pass it off thinking it's just "scummy Jewish tactics to gain more money". Here's the problem, however, money determines your power in this world and there are two ways to get it. The first, and most known and hated of, ways is to break all "morals" to make your way to the top through cons and theft. The problem with this approach is that it could all go tumbling at any point and it's a one way trip. The second approach, however, is to go into overdrive on being the mightest and smartest person you are capable of being. However, the problem with this approach is that it requires actual, almost alien, work from a person, and how many people are really willing to attempt that instead of laying back and blaming their state of being on the rest of the world not conforming to their wants?

Simply put, morality still exists as much as it ever has, but the common age has resulted in people being more open about where they stand, and their lifestyle very much shows it. Another way to put itPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 9ba06aced78d923⋯.jpg (80.49 KB, 680x680, 1:1, it didnt have to end like ….jpg)

e92443  No.236[Reply]

Politically speaking, what point in history marked the beginning of the end, so to speak.

Definitions are somewhat up to you, remember to have sources and facts to back any claims though.


23 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

e92443  No.260

for america after the loss of the confederacy in the civil war or the creation of the fed.

for the world as a whole the treaty of versailles

e92443  No.261


>loss of the confederacy was bad

hangon wait just a minute

you do realize that the whole confederacy thing was started to plunge america into a huge war to generate debt and hand money and power over to international financiers?

Russia had to threaten Britain and France against intervening and let the north win swiftly before it turned into a huge world war that would have generated even more profits for the financiers.

e92443  No.262

I'd say it's probably when fractional reserve banking, or banking in general was invented, when your way of making money is literally using other people's money, natural human desire to maximize profit and minimize effort has the potential to screw everything up.

I think we really began to see the effects after the industrial revolution, the whole affair was a fairly large social upheaval that we've never recovered from. Land owning aristocrats and nobles (while not perfect in their own right) were replaced by people who were good at acquiring capital, often by ruthless means (see rockefellers and standard oil in the US as the best example). The whole affair lead to a very large ruling class made up of people who had no moral obligation to keep the citizenry's best interests at heart, and would bend the rules and harm as many people as they could in order to make a profit. What really sealed the deal was the creation of the Frankfurt school, a think tank specifically devised to erode western moral tradition, and human decency in general in order to make the general population into a legion of peons who follow only their base desires, making them incredibly easy for the elite to control. The effects of this have been showing themselves for years, but are coming to a head recently.

This is my answer, I doubt many would find it disagreeable.

e92443  No.263


Politically, I would say it was during the French revolution. That is the clear and marked beginning of the Kali Yuga. That is the creation of the progressive and conservative dichotomy we live under today.

It is also the beginning of the Aristocracy being killed off, in the war the aristocracy plays against the jews.

After WW2 when virtually all of the Nobel lines and Aristocracy has been killed off, the new ruling elite sets their proletariat free. Post-WW2 we now live in their "free world".

One of the first things is convincing the non-noble lines that they have a race (conservatism) and that we are not yet free (progressivism), so that there will never be a chance for any strains of nobility to live on.

The noble lines from the Satya Yuga are all died off and there is now no control. The body withers as the hive can not live without king or queens.

5b03e2  No.313


hmm, this is an interesting one.

i would like to say around the 1960s but i know those problems were seeded much much earlier.

In truth, i would probably say around the 1800s, when capitalism kicked into full gear and all the elites came into existence. That was around the time when materialism replaced spirituality, all the production and material wealth went to peoples heads and they lost sight of what really matters. to trace it further back though, maybe to the renaissance, when we unlocked some of the keys to understanding the world, but we began to use it in all the wrong ways.

i really think society just needs a complete reset though, things have been so fucked for so long that a collapse would be refreshing.

File: 1426616834651.jpeg (630.78 KB, 1920x1152, 5:3, FedRes.jpeg)

11c5e6  No.81[Reply]

With all the news about the Federal Reserve recently and with a big announcement due tomorrow, let's get a debate going about whether or not a centralized bank is necessary.

11c5e6  No.173

Fuck banks and currencies.


>bumping in a board with 8 threads

11c5e6  No.177


I'm going to take the stance that it isn't. Regulations and safeguards in place over all banks, I think that would be enough.

396d9f  No.316

in theory, centralized banks are fine, but only when they are owned and controlled publicly not by banking elites or international financiers.

but to answer the main question, no its not NECESSARY per se, but it is beneficial to have a currency that is fit for the economy it is used in, so a central bank and fiat currency probably isnt that bad.

besides, whats the alternative to a central bank? trading in gold? bartering?

File: 1426616264051.jpg (296.36 KB, 1200x987, 400:329, politics.jpg)

e09f09  No.78[Reply]

Is democracy the best of the worst, or the worst of the potentially best?
>anons of all stripes and colors welcome
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

e09f09  No.157

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

e09f09  No.165

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.

e09f09  No.167


>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

e09f09  No.170

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.

e09f09  No.174


Not really, anarchism doesn't mean mad max

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

5fbbf1  No.77[Reply]

This is the first Weekly Debate thread on /debate/. All are welcome to join in.

Over the course of human history, many have attempted to decipher what it means to be happy. Some have said that money makes a man happiest while others argued that the ultimate happiness was found in philosophy. Now, it's your turn.

>What is the ultimate happiness?

3, 2, 1… Go!
10 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at

5fbbf1  No.164

I feel a strong desire to do a "we're not so different after all" villain monologue at this point. I'll spare you the pain and just do it in my head. Wild at Heart hits the experience vs. spectacle point as well. Though, as is often this intersection of politics and religion, John takes a centerist Libertarian approach.
The way that translated into my life was that, if I could create an asset that made money work for me, I could begin to experience life in it's fullest. As I had said back up at the top, "money doesn't make you happy, but neither does a car payment." Once the financial thing's out of the way, once I could stop spending all my hours in what amounts to polite slavery working for another man and building his dream, I can begin building mine. And I don't mean cars, houses, et cetera. Those things are nice, but the things that really define my dream are things like charity. Giving to those that need it and deserve it.

I will have to go out and pick up a copy of The Revolution of Everyday Life. Many thanks for the point.

5fbbf1  No.166

The difference is, while you want to achieve this at the expense of others, I don't think that would be a desirable approach.

5fbbf1  No.168

Who says I'm acting at anyone else's expense?

5fbbf1  No.169

> if I could create an asset that made money work for me
It implies that someone else is doing the work that enables you to realise yourself.

5fbbf1  No.171

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

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / christ / julia / leftpol / vg / vichan / webcams / zoo ]