[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

 No.4301[Reply]

File: 1574922872176.png (62.84 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 60404D91-366F-4F7D-9BB9-77….png) ImgOps Google

I told Ella that I’d explain my views. This probably isn’t the format they wanted and I don’t know if it’s a /townhall/ appropriate format, but I want to make this before I’m banned (self inflicted) for the week.

The first video explains a lot of my views and outlook, not only in terms of what I believe, but why and the emotion behind it. Although I personally believe that accelerationism is the only option, it’s a major risk and it could completely backfire, but I see it as the equivalent of cutting off an infected limb. There’s a high chance that you’ll die very quickly of blood loss and you’ll be permanently disabled, but if you don’t remove it you’ll definitely die from the poison limb itself, as it infects the rest of your body. This is why I’m voting Labour, because I think, I’m hoping that Labour will crash the economy which will lead to either a coup or a civil war, which is better than the alternative of dying slow, if we die we do it with at least some honour, and there’s always the chance that we may win, and if we end up dying slow anyway (I think a civil war is inevitable at this point, it’s a matter of when, not it for me at this point, but it’s possible that it may not occur. My guess is that it will all kick off in about 10-15 years from now.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=m5a5bRyU-q8

Just in case anyone doesn’t know, the Labour Party is full of actual Communists, not Bernie Sanders tier “Democratic Socialists,” but actual Communists. John McDonnell’s, the guy who’ll be in charge of the countries economy as the Chancellor of The Exchequer when Labour wins, and I think they will almost definitely win a slim majority at least, unironically calls himself a Marxist, and another main figure in the Party, Diane Abbott said, and I quote “Mao did more good than harm.”

Please watch this video. It’s a good summary of the Labour Party, in their own words.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=f6NxkmIGcnc

John McDonnell quote.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=A39g5yXrtA0
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
19 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4324

>>4322
>>4322
>I’m personally anti-Capitalism, but I’d deconstruct it from a right wing perspective. For example starting with the premise I’d argue that it’s innately a materialistic and soulless worldview and that society should instead revolve around the people and culture of said society, not any specific ideology or economic system.

I think you agree with Marx far more than you realize.

>Economics should be seen as a means to an end, (that end being the prosperity of the people of said society) not an in of itself.

Again, agreeing with Marx more than you realize.

>Economics should be seen as a means to an end, (that end being the prosperity of the people of said society) not an in of itself. Free movement of goods is beneficial to the economy, but it hurts the people because it ships jobs overseas and often leads to the degradation of entire industries, or towns or cites that were once a major manufacturing hub, drugs and the free trade of similar substances (including many that are currently legal) are good for the economy, but they hurt the people, public services such as free healthcare, public schools, public transportation, etc hurt the economy, but they benefit the people. Every decision taken by the state should be taken with one question in mind “does this benefit the people as a whole,” I couldn’t care less if it damages the economy, if it benefits the people to a greater extent than the economic harm affects them negatively then it should be taken without hesitation. The economy is a tool, not a religious icon.

Again, more fundamental agreement with Marx here.

>I don’t think that makes me a Marxist. And yeah I agree that other forms of Communism exist aside from Marxism, but I don’t think you can have Marxist system that isn’t Communist.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.4326

File: 1574971154445.jpg (32.18 KB, 350x450, 7:9, nph-4.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Well thank you for making the thread Mint, but I think I didn't communicate clearly earlier. also sorry if the thread made you anxious, reading through it, it looks like it did

When I asked for your views on things earlier, I was trying to ask for your views on race, and why you hold those views. I wanted to understand why you think some races are better than others, and what got you to those conclusions.

If that isn't something you can talk about on the chan, just let me know. Maybe we can swap discords or something at some point.

Either way you put some work into making this thread, so I will watch the videos you posted.

 No.4328

File: 1574974576485.jpeg (150.74 KB, 859x900, 859:900, 58B9CE04-773F-422A-8425-A….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4326
I’m in a self inflicted ban because for some reason Moony can’t ban me properly, but I don’t think he’d mind me sharing my Discord. Mint horse#9976

Also thank you!

>>4324
Same to you, I can’t respond for another week.


 No.4282[Reply]

File: 1574804032100.png (12 KB, 1200x1200, 1:1, 1200px-Emoticon_Smile_Face….png) ImgOps Google

https://local.theonion.com/stone-hearted-ice-witch-forgoes-exclamation-point-1819576472

It's the onion, but I think it is very poignant. How do you feel about the way we communicate our tone to each other over text based mediums?

It feels a little dumb and arbitrary, that we must use certain punctuation or even emoji/emoticon lest we come off as distant and cold to some people. I remember when "lol" first became a thing, I thought it was the stupidest, most unintelligent way to communicate with another. But nowadays, I use plenty of lols because it no longer just means "laughing out loud", it is a way of setting the tone of your dialog. It is a tool, just as much as c: and ^_^ and ! are. Frankly, sometimes I am feeling a little like a stone-hearted ice witch and I still pepper in my tone modifiers so as to give a good impression of myself.

Do these things even have meaning anymore if they don't really have to reflect how you truly feel? Do they bring real value, or are we just collectively tone policing ourselves arbitrarily? Do you think that is just how our written language has evolved naturally, nothing special about it?

What do you think? ^_^
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4291

>>428
Perhaps you should practice not hiding how you feel.

Our initial gut reaction feelings to things are not wrong, it's how we deal with those feelings that's important. Like I may hate someone, absolutely despise them, but not act on the hate and try to kill them.

 No.4292

>>4289
I guess you haven't met a talented enough faker. Or maybe you have and you don't even realize it.

It's besides my point anyway, lots of people may not be great at reading others, or might be too anxious about trying to check in on them if they aren't sure.

>>4291
I actually am pretty good about being open about the way I feel! I find that I struggle more with seeing other people be open about the way they are feeling. Almost everyone I know responds to "how are you/how was your weekend" type questions with the shortest of responses. That's probably off topic though, that's less about language and more about people not being that open or talkative.

So anyway, like I was trying to emphasize with the onion article, I think we tone police ourselves a bit too much. Does "Hey, I had a great time last night, nice to get together. We should do it again sometime." feel off to you? Would you question the sincerity of it (if you didn't know them for always being that unemphatic)? So what is a person who is feeling meh but not wanting to put themselves in the spotlight going to do? They'll probably say "Hey, I had a great time last night, nice to get together! We should do it again sometime! ^_^"

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what I'm complaining about in this thread. I just feel like we all make our interactions more complicated and confusing sometimes. But maybe it's just me c:

 No.4295

Much of internet communication is strange and non-verbal. You can just post a picture or a meme and express a feeling or desire. It makes me wonder if this is a facet of how humans communicate or something new.


 No.4251[Reply]

File: 1574483915078.jpg (82.85 KB, 478x653, 478:653, house-face-92.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I saw this posted elsewhere on the Internet, and I thought it might spur a good discussion:
"""
I think it would be interesting to make a "voluntary prison" where anyone can go inside and receive free recreational drugs, meals and housing, but they have to have a clean pee test to get out.

If people want to lay around doing clean heroin, watching TV and hanging out with other addicts, give them a safe space to do so with minimal drain on the rest of society. Attach a minimum wage waiver so manufacturers could set up low skill jobs within, and addicts can save up for when they want to leave. Concentrate drug treatment, health, social and educational programs for economies of scale. Tie dose dispensation to biometric data to prevent people from receiving OD-levels of drugs, but allow them to slowly ratchet up if they wish to do so as tolerance builds. I'd imagine this could achieve a net-savings in cost of anti-drug programs and policing, and could be funded by cities which want to export their derelict addicts.

It would be an ugly business, but I think with proper considerations it could be more empathetic than current drug policy.
"""
Do you agree?  Disagree?  Have any different-but-related ideas?
11 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4266

File: 1574674126735.png (609.05 KB, 971x579, 971:579, 2200067.png) ImgOps Google

>>4265
Well, if we admit individuals must not be allowed to become addicted, and that some or many drugs are addictive, then OP's idea must be bad for contributing to or allowing addiction.  I'll admit I don't know much about meth, so if people who know more say it's additive, so be it, then I guess we should discourage people from using it.  OK.  Well, when I can do it without being a troll, anyway.

 No.4268

>>4266
I feel that's fair. We should try to prevent people from becoming addicted, and we should help those who are addicted quit. OP's idea does neither of these things. It just gives addicted people a place away from society where they can continue to damage their bodies and minds until eventually they die.

 No.4281

>>4251
If it allows for any profit motive at all, we're going to end up incentivizing these companies to get people hooked on drugs. If they can't leave, it seems these organizations could do whatever they want to them unless there's regular government audits or open doors for journalists to come and go as they please, just something to check on the people inside.

I don't know, i think there's too many ways for this to go horribly, horribly wrong.


 No.4211[Reply]

File: 1574198755779.jpg (63.63 KB, 640x796, 160:199, d480d603d39083f65300d4532e….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Did memes on 4chan help propel Donald Trump to the presidency?
13 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4245

>>4243
>so anyone Hillary could have potentially appointed could not be any worse unless they too were accused rapists.
Huh?  That doesn't follow at all.  Someone's sexual misbehavior in high school doesn't do a good job of predicting how well one would discharge the duties of the Supreme Court.  Someone who committed rape 30 years ago could very will be rehabilitated now.  Justice Kavanaugh is a steller jurist and definitely does a better job than would a someone selected randomly from the set of all lawyers in the US.

>>4243
>The things Trump promised ARE real. The two things can't be compared.
I don't understand what you're saying.  What I did in 2016 was to estimate the expected value of electing Trump and the expected value of electing Hillary.

 No.4246

>>4245
>Someone who committed rape 30 years ago could very will be rehabilitated now.

Woah, that's a whole other can of worms to open in this thread. I don't agree at all, but it's not what we are talking about.


>I don't understand what you're saying.

I'm saying that promises to do something should carry more weight than fabricated hypotheticals. Me saying "I'm going to rob a bank" is more an indication of future events than if I buy a ski-mask, which could allow me to hide my identity, which could allow me to rob a bank.

 No.4248

I think they did.  And in fact, I think they contributed to other recent election results, and perhaps even more distant election results.  Almost every election is ultimately a challenge to create a wavy ripple of popularity by spreading ideas through the electorate.  By definition, those are memes, whether they're pictures spread by Russian bot accounts or just articles in the opinion sections of newspapers.


 No.4189[Reply]

File: 1574075415274.png (1.65 MB, 1000x1492, 250:373, fs_queen.png) ImgOps Google

While we can imagine some forgotten past, before states, before kings, before even tribal elders, when early man (woman, and child) lived in small communities too sparse and isolated to be much but politically flat; socially egalitarian one to another, as time passed, people of the Bible, people of the first historian Herodotus, people of the modern, complicated world became subjects to (occasionally agents of) systems of institutional power and authority.  What are we to make of these hierarchies?  How are we to respond to powerful forces in our lives and the lives of others?
15 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4227

>>4222
Hmm...your view, if I try to restate it, is that authorities are rooted in fear, they continue by keeping that fear in people's mind.  Probably usually fear of a dangerous other.  Immigrants, minorities, underclass.  Because fear is their fuel, they have little interest in remedying the root of this fear, and so they are ineffective at anything but self-preservation, and therefore do not relate to a human need for safety and security.  Further, encouraging people to respect authority rather than look to their own -- perhaps more adaptable and sensible -- moral compass keeps humans childish in submission to their Mother State, but a false mother, even who only tells scary stories.

It does seem that way sometimes.  The government of my country seems to stoke fears of immigrants.  Well, that's a political thing to say, I guess.  Some would say, the governments reveals the accurate state of things.

>absolute morality
For a respectful human, I think the only absolute is that their individual moral sense must give way to authority when an authority exists.  Once they've given up their individual prerogative, they have no right to ask the authority be unchanging, and few are.

>that the authorities we invent necessarily have greater access to moral truths than any of us do

If they didn't, I don't see how they could be just.  People would be advised to trust their own heart and resist authority when it commanded otherwise, or resist authority in general because it may presume to command otherwise.

>come to expect the backlash and destruction of authority figures to be a fundamental part of the cycle of chinese history

In the longer term, yes.  If you could use the eventual disolusion of authority as an argument against their validity, then it'd be hard to say any was valid.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.4230

>>4227
>>4227
>Hmm...your view, if I try to restate it, is that authorities are rooted in fear, they continue by keeping that fear in people's mind.  Probably usually fear of a dangerous other.  Immigrants, minorities, underclass.  Because fear is their fuel, they have little interest in remedying the root of this fear, and so they are ineffective at anything but self-preservation, and therefore do not relate to a human need for safety and security.  Further, encouraging people to respect authority rather than look to their own -- perhaps more adaptable and sensible -- moral compass keeps humans childish in submission to their Mother State, but a false mother, even who only tells scary stories.

Mostly, a lot of injustices are self sustaining cycles.

>>4227
>Some would say, the governments reveals the accurate state of things.

Again self-deception. It appeals to the needs of those who fear others.

>>4227
>For a respectful human, I think the only absolute is that their individual moral sense must give way to authority when an authority exists.  Once they've given up their individual prerogative, they have no right to ask the authority be unchanging, and few are.

How do you justify that?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.4247

>>4230
>does it consider the nuance of pragmatic justification for an authority as simply  division of labor
Well, that's fine.  Most hierarchies I know have justifications, either religious or pragmatic.

>basic lack of omniscience is a sufficient explanation
I don't know about that.  The evil of authorities has become clear to you, and I doubt you claim to be omniscient.

>You are far from the first person to believe that their unique traits set them at odds with other people to the point they begin to believe that they are not human themselves

Oh, I've come across others.  I imagine there are many ways to deviate.  I know you disagree, but when I think of humans -- human nature, I guess -- I think of creatures who are justly served by human authorities.  I do not think I have always been...justly served...by authorities, so I can not, for myself, 100% respect them.  But disrespecting authorities is a dangerous path (in the right circumstances, deadly), I would not tempt others down that road, unless they really need it.

>Most humans can't agree on what that constitutes

Well, if I believed that human nature could not be known or agreed on, I wouldn't be able to figure how humans could create authorities that could be relied to act in ways morally appropriate for masses of humans.  I know that's your thinking -- authorities can't know humans nature well enough to know what is morally appropriate -- and it's all consistent.


 No.3809[Reply]

Interesting video to discuss.
48 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4210

>>4209
>Funding for art is a weird one, since it's naturally going to stifle art i think. Art should expand in all kinds of different directions, and i think funding for the arts could actually restrict art by encouraging artists to stay within convention in order to be considered art/artists and receive funding.

This depends on who is making ghe judgement call on what gets funded.

Ultimately, the point behind funding of the arts is the recognition that market forces can be just as constraining on artist and creativity as the need to appeal to the market discourages risk taking.

Thus, funding for arts that would be more expensive than just like, painting (such as film for instance) is there as a relief from this fundamental creativity stifling pressure that comes from the market itself.

Take for instance a movie like Paris is Burning. A documentary about late 1980s ballroom culture. It was a documentary funded by a government endowment for the arts about the LGBT competitive fashion competitions that were particularly popular with LGBT kids of color. Many of whom were deeply impoverished.

That documentary would go on to have a permanent place in the national film registry 25 years later, but in 1987, who would have funded that privately? Who exactly was the documentary for ? Who would have been the key demographic for that?

It's considered an important and influential documentary that chronicled an underground culture in America at the time and exposed an important perspective. And at the time no investors would have been interested in the project because the (assumed) audience for it would be too small for any private investors to care. The film didn't have any audience until it hot critically praised and won some film festival awards, and that was when it found a consumer base, after the film was already made, the audience that wanted to see it were not largely LGBT, but people interested in an interesting and well made documentary about LGBT culture amongst young LGBT people of color. Plus, it made the topic more commercially viable amongst documentary consumers.

That's essentially what government funding of the arts is supposed to do. It encourages innovation in a market where the interesPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.4213

>>4210
I certainly like the idea, the market certainly doesn't always reward art or creativity, the prevalence and of the isekai genera in anime is a pretty good case study for that idea, but the details of it are somewhat baffling to me. Who decides who gets funding and who doesn't? Untimately there's some sort of authority deciding who to fund, right? They're deciding what counts. Seems odd to me that there should be an authority like that for art.

 No.4235

>>4213

I think it would be a matter of whether or not the artist can successfully argue to a committee about their application for a grant that they would not, realistically, receive funding from an investor or private patron.


 No.4038[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1573418512579.jpg (287.01 KB, 880x660, 4:3, unusual-hybrid-animals-31.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>pic not related, I just needed something

Inspired by the Gender Roles thread:

So at my current state in perspective, as a straight cis person, I do not personally want to date a trans person because I feel like it would be living a bit of a lie and stringing them along because I have an ultimate goal in mind of having a family, and I am rather straight.

However, I don't want to be completely close-minded and would like some input as to your thoughts on this, especially if you are trans yourself, and if you think ultimately this would be a cruel thing to do to someone?
105 posts and 25 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4202

>>4199
>>4199

>nor would I if I could.

Yeah this is getting ridiculously transphobic.

 No.4203

Thread is locked while we discuss a report that just came in.

 No.4224

While Proud Parrot and Fancy Dog disagree, and on a topic that Fancy Dog may hold very personally, we've decided that doesn't mean any rules were broken.  /townhall/ is a forum at least partially for discussing morality, which inevitably means that people with different ideas of right and wrong are going to show up and share their thoughts on the matter.

In this case, the discussion is about when to reveal yourself as trans to a potential romantic partner, and no answer you could give to that question is without pros and cons.  The discussion seems very legitimate.


 No.4144[Reply]

File: 1573951240914.jpg (310.5 KB, 834x778, 417:389, f_22.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I would like your opinions on this:

>Kellogg's company suddenly closed in my country a year ago
>You_all_fired.exe
>Government seized the company because
>They running the plant and producing brands like Corn Flakes without consent of Kellogg's
>Kellogg's mad & nobody cares
>Extra points: Printing mild pro-socialist political proganda on the same box with Kellogg's mascots.

Are getting away with it?
It seems so
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4171

File: 1574034284626.png (288.23 KB, 640x360, 16:9, 640px-Parasol_and_Notewort….png) ImgOps Google

Such things aren't uncommon in moments of political tension. It mostly amounts to an outstanding lawsuit that gets dropped when relations stabilize and an unusual experience to share for the people who lived through it.

Copying the branding is a little more unusual since it makes export complicated but I've still heard similar stories. Pardon me if I don't know the specifics.

 No.4174

File: 1574044240477.png (115.26 KB, 500x519, 500:519, f_38.png) ImgOps Google

>>4147

I guess

>>4170

>if Kellogg is gearing up to take legal action against them, which they are in the right to do so.

It seems Kellogg is already trying to.

However, the crazy thing is that it will probably be fruitless...

>>4171

> It mostly amounts to an outstanding lawsuit that gets dropped when relations stabilize and an unusual experience to share for the people who lived through it.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.4177

>>4174
Kellogg might demand damages, but that might be less costly to the company to pay Kellogg the damages rather than completely cease production and sale of cereal for however long it takes to re-negotiate.


 No.4039[Reply]

File: 1573419104869.gif (214.32 KB, 900x600, 3:2, b7fca859-8535-4a0c-aa2c-04….gif) ImgOps Google

We all know the trolley dilemma, but let's add a bit of a twist to it.

Let's assume that the track leading to multiple people, has people that are strangers on it. You have never met these people before and know nothing about them.

The track that is leading to a single person, you do know. Infact, this person is one of your very dear friends, perhaps even your best friend.

Now, just a few weeks before you come to find yourself in front of this lever, you and this friend have, ironically, had a talk about sacrifices. During this talk, your friend told you that they would rather sacrifice themselves, rather than let other people die.

Now, having this information about your friend clearly in your mind, can you pull the lever to switch the track to hit your friend, instead of the strangers?
23 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4136

>>4126
Someone's value to you shouldn't be the deciding factor on whether they live or die. That's kind of a terrible way of thinking. There are millions and millions of people with absolutely no "value" to me. I still do not wish them to die, nor would I sacrifice their lives.

>I doubt a drug addict would remain a friend of mine for long anyway.

That's completely missing the point. Your friend could be an unemployed gamer or whatever. The point is, your friend may not benefit society as much as the "stranger" does, and your friend may not have as many people who would mourn their lose as the "stranger" does. There's other factors to weigh besides "who does more for me."

>Aren't friends supposed to treat each other specially and have some loyalty to each other?

That doesn't mean that their lives are worth more. I am being put in a position where I choose who lives and who dies. I'm not going to arbitrarily choose my friend because they are my friend. And if my friend is OK with self-sacrifice, they would understand that idea. That sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. That's not to say I'd NEVER choose my friend, and indeed, my friend has an unfair advantage if it's him versus one person. But him versus 5 people? Yeah, that's not a decision I would just make lightly.

 No.4138

File: 1573939093764.png (424.55 KB, 1700x1517, 1700:1517, 1487079583319.png) ImgOps Google

>>4131
>But knowing that your friend would be -ok- with giving their life, and this being the major focus of the dilemma, could you pull the lever and, basically, sacrifice your friend to save these other five people?
Probably not, unless I was a railroad employee responsible for switch.  As a mere bystander, I would have a hard time taking responsibility for altering fate like that.

>Does knowing the one person, in this scenario, and knowing their wishes, make it any less hard to pull the lever?
Yes.  But not enough though that I would do it if I was just a random bystander.

>>4136
>Someone's value to you shouldn't be the deciding factor on whether they live or die.
Well, what if I have to take an action to save anybody (e.g., if there was a burning building and I could either save a friend or a random stranger)?  If I choose a random stranger instead of my friend, then I wouldn't be a very good friend, would I?  A parent should choose to save their own children instead of a random stranger's children.  In fact, if they don't, they could even be punished by the law!

>That's kind of a terrible way of thinking.
Why do you say that my way of thinking is terrible?

>There are millions and millions of people with absolutely no "value" to me.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.4164

My friend lives. End of story. No sequel. In a different circumstance, I would probably even pull the lever to hit the other people if it saved my friend.


 No.4027[Reply]

File: 1573341821873.png (296.6 KB, 1024x1188, 256:297, twilight_sparkle__2_by_vad….png) ImgOps Google

"It wouldn't be an issue if we let kids wear whatever clothes they wanted and play with whatever toys they wanted.
I always wanted soldier toys but my brother wanted barbies. My parents should have just let him wear pink and play with barbies.
If society didn't box people by their genitals, we wouldn't have people trying to jump into the other box.
You don't see many people saying they identify as brown-eyed. That's because eye color doesn't dictate how people treat you."

Do you agree or disagree?  Do gender roles serve a useful enough function in modern society to justify their existence?  Or should socially encouragement/enforcement of gender roles be relaxed/eliminated?
10 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4060

>>4059
>Should we by default drop society's expectation on everything?
No, I wouldn't want people to be rude and anti social for the sake of dropping social expectations. But letting a child chose their favorite color, toys, and clothing is completely harmless to society and should be allowed.

 No.4062

>>4059
>If my kid wants to run around naked at a public event, would that be acceptable?
Why wouldn't it be acceptable, as long as there is no danger of (hypothermia or frostbite) and adequate precautions are taken against UV damage?

 No.4081

>>4027
>"It wouldn't be an issue if we let kids wear whatever clothes they wanted and play with whatever toys they wanted.
>I always wanted soldier toys but my brother wanted barbies. My parents should have just let him wear pink and play with barbies.

Completely agree

>If society didn't box people by their genitals, we wouldn't have people trying to jump into the other box.
>You don't see many people saying they identify as brown-eyed. That's because eye color doesn't dictate how people treat you."


100% disagree.

My childhood access to girls things had no bearing on whether or not my subconscious mind expects my body to be shaped and to function different than it does and causes me a low level panic when my ability to disassociate from my body is compromised from something like say, something touching my genitals.

Girly things may serve the function of appearing to be a girl in the mirror, but we don't identify the way we do based on what roles we can or cannot fill.


 No.3687[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1571539228577.jpeg (101.96 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, hillary-118443.jpeg) ImgOps Google

What's up with Hillary?  Yesterday she was saying something about Jill Stein (former Green Party presidential nominee and respected environmentalist) and Tulsi Gabbard being "Russian assets" or something ridiculous like that.  And apparently lots of people think that Hillary is going to run for president again this year. [1]  What's going on?

[1] https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/4614/Will-Hillary-Clinton-run-for-president-in-2020
84 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.3953

File: 1572804264205.jpg (35.27 KB, 600x375, 8:5, Glaceon.600.140942.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3951
>And again, willingness to gamble on something doesn't necessarily mean there's a significant chance of it happening. Some people don't follow politics very closely. This is a silly argument.
Studies show that prediction markets are pretty good at predicting what will happen.  Again, I suggest you read up on prediction markets; it's a really interesting subject!

>If you want to believe Hillary will run again, you can.
The market equilibrium for Hillary running is only 20%; that means that it's much more likely that she won't run.

>But i'm choosing to see that as very unlikely to a high degree based on what I know about presidential campaigns.
I don't think you're choosing.  In general, humans can't consciously choose to believe something; they need to be convinced that the belief is true.  I think you just have different priors ("priors" in the Bayesian sense) and weigh the evidence differently than I.

 No.4041

File: 1573427776455.jpg (76.32 KB, 600x800, 3:4, wendy-comic-01.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

https://www.foxnews.com/media/2020-hillary-clinton-michael-bloomberg
>Ex-Clinton strategist: Don't rule out Hillary run, amidst news of Bloomberg's entrance

 No.4044

>>4041
"Guy who used to work for Hillary guesses at her intentions" doesn't sound very credible.


 No.4007[Reply]

File: 1572991300551.jpg (49.79 KB, 602x318, 301:159, main-qimg-3b9c36fceab7d017….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What are the foundations of ethics? Do you subscribe to some form of utilitarianism? Deontology? Something else?
7 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4018

File: 1573185263675.png (48.53 KB, 180x209, 180:209, Crystal_Megaree_Chikorita.png) ImgOps Google

>>4014
>>What are the foundations of ethics?
>Authority, I suppose.
What authority?

 No.4020

I do what Batman would do.

 No.4030

>>4018
That's the hard question.  You might first think ethics is following your heart, but I guess that doesn't work at a grand scale, that idea is superseded for many ethical questions.  What happens instead is you get a relationship between an person or group capable of administering punishments and rewards and a person or group incapable of escaping those punishments and rewards.  When people choose this relationship, right and wrong relate to punishment and reward, and so ethical power moves from an individual to that individual's authorities.


 No.3952[Reply]

File: 1572803546194.gif (29.59 KB, 640x480, 4:3, 0201_US_lifeexpectancy_low….gif) ImgOps Google

Lots of people believe that the Healthcare system in America is broken.

Do you think it's broken, if so what is making it broken?
How should we fix it, or improve on it?

This is a very partisan question, and I think both sides disagree why Healthcare doesn't work. Be ready to back yourself up with sources if need be.
21 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4024

I just have to chime in to say that I hate this graph.

 No.4025

File: 1573315362929.png (567.47 KB, 592x543, 592:543, 1552332945396.png) ImgOps Google

>>4024
Why do you hate it?

 No.4026

>>4025
Bad axes (which I forgive) and a line poorly fit to scattergram data as if it represents some sort of causal relationship to emphasize deviation from that contrived causality (which I do not forgive).


 No.4009[Reply]

Ahh, when the mask slips off ...


 No.3546[Reply]

File: 1571032682667.png (528.77 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, gggg.png) ImgOps Google

Is there any such thing as unconditional love?

Personally, it seems love is created based on conditions -- are you similar? are you sufficient? do you make me feel good?, often are your genes similar?.  It's hard to believe once formed love would be free of conditions.  And I know not all relationships or even marriages continue (short of death).  I could explain that by saying someone tripped a no-go love condition.

But there is no shortage of articles telling me otherwise, perhaps even suggesting I've never experienced true love (or never acknowledged it), I've only been used, and drawing on my own experience am probably only capable of using others myself.  Express your perspective, if desired.
10 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.3800

There's always a breaking point.  But it's a nice idea.

 No.3834

File: 1572046230234.png (118.29 KB, 287x394, 287:394, Bar13.png) ImgOps Google

>>3546
Probably not.

 No.3957

File: 1572832632847.png (228.05 KB, 1280x854, 640:427, squirrel.png) ImgOps Google

>>3555
>That might as well be unconditional love.
True, perhaps.

>find someone they're more compatible with
That does sound nice.

>>3556
Hmm...can you love someone by not supporting their goals because their goals are self-destructive?  Probably.  It's a bit paternal, like a mother keeping a baby from going off a ledge.  Harder when you don't have that level of control.

>>3558
I see.

>>3596
Maybe it's possible to separate unconditional love and unconditional affection.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


[]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]