They're the worst posters on the entire board. Either they're extremly hateful, extremely retarded who will only write in Portuguese a translator can't even pick up or be annoying schizos. They're worse than Poles. I pity everyone who has to post with them during American hours
>>203500609>the worst posters on the entire boardThat actually me
t. literally you
>>203500609I agree
>>203500609Theyre alright
No Brazilian ever called me Bule
>everyone that doesn't agree with my narrative is a schizo, bot, russian shill and their country is a shitholeWhy are shills like this?
>>203500654Ok fine, you get a special spot, but they're right after you
>>203500686What's a Bule? I don't even know what that is.
>>203500609they're also the worst sports fans who have even been known to boo their own competitors if the brazillian competitors lose.if the whole world is being brazillified, does that mean that eventually everywhere will be like brazil?u.s. is the canary in the coalmine on this.
>>203500733>they're also the worst sports fans who have even been known to boo their own competitors if the brazillian competitors lose.not the booing, NOOOOOOO!!!! They are such uncivilized monkeys and savages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Every Brazilian reply under this thread just proves me right. You unironically need to be put down
>>203500733>they're also the worst sports fans who have even been known to boo their own competitors if the brazillian competitors lose.That's based af. Meanwhile you're all loyal customers, and that is why Manchester United is turning to shit, because none of the customers boo's
>>203500812It's you that needs to put us down at whatever cost to resume your shilling, to the point of making this thread.
>>203500732Indonesian for whitey
kkkcalabokaleitcheazedu
>>203500733>worst sports fans
>>203500777what contributions has brazil made to the world other than twinks who inject estrogen? that's all you're good for, start the HRT course so i can hate fuck you.
>>203500704
great now chikaner is trying to put this leftard schizo talking about glowies and cia as our representative
>>203500843Keep seething, nutcase. I'm going to bed fr now and will forget about your pathetic existence while you can keep doing your thirdie tantrums
>>203500897Nigga I don't owe you any contribution
>>203500897The need of "contributions to mankind" as a national pride is a liberal value, as if a country value could be objectivelly measured by how much it has contributed to science and other advancements. It's funny cause europeans are proud as hell of their medieval heritage and they clearly didn't have as much "contributions to mankind" in that period that basically formed your countries and cultures. Having pride of your country isn't necessarily a rational thing, you forcing to be this way, clearly shows that you simply want to force this idea because the first world nations are the ones that obviously are advancing the world that was built to keep them on top over everyone else
>>203500609shut the FUCK up germany don't ever bully Brazil again
>>203501117
>>203500609most of brazilian posters are women, they just have daddy issues
>>203501198Least schizophrenic Korean
Caralho como eu odeio os alemães desse site chinês.
>>203500657I missed you here
>>203501173>1400-1950Exactly my point. Europe is literally situated in the richest lands of the world, perfect for dense cities and infrastructure, perfect for population booming due to fertile lands. The only other places that can get close to this are the USA and China, and they cannot be as dense and history rich as Europe. It was only after catching up with the rest of the world by ditching with theocracy and liberalizing your countries, first with opening up to the rest of the world through trade and later with the French Revolution, that you guys managed to be a powerhouse, only to kill yourselves and become a puppet of the US and the USSR after WW2. Nowadays the world economy and institutions are made to centralize knowledge, prosperity and technology at the USA, with Europe and East Asia as their periphery, with the rest of the world condemned to not have international investments and be eclipsed and suffer braindrain from the first world nations
>>203500686Blue
>>203501326That's a long way of saying Europe is better and created the world as we know it.There's no 'catching up with the world', take a look at the chart. Nowhere in the world acheived anything of significance before modern economy, and there's studies on this showing technological adaptation is essentially the same across the world before modern economy.Modern civilisation developed simply out of the introduction of centralisation to North-west Europe. That immediately results in Europeans configuring centralisation in a manner that suits them, which developed into the atomistic structure of the manoral system leading to agricultural revolution. The major development is 1000ad - 1400 ad.1100ad in England it was around 90% bondmen, by 1400 it became mostly literate freemen aspiring to be professionals. Already through 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries there was a degree of development of markets linking up and increasing professional classes, in 14th century you have the famines and plagues which accelerates this process, along with campaigns in France of large armies of English commoners bringing much wealth back to England. This is part of what the Peasant's Revolt was about, and Henry iv's overthrow of Richard ii; Henry iv comes to power and laws are passed that essentially allow the remaining serfs to leave the old system freely.The increasingly productive new class of farmers produce large surplus of food and this is the first time in world history that a society ends regular famines. Workers pack towns and compete as professionals, larger disposable income means greater viability of higher quality goods, larger revenues are reinvested in canals and roads further likning up markets, and this all leads to eventually economic viability of mechanisation, eventually leading to nation-wide common market and so on.
Brazilians are very chill and friendly here. Unlike the people I share my flag here
>>203501605lol i think we just tend to hate our own countrymen more
>>203501326Nothing like it ever started anywhere else in the world.There's no reason to think it ever would have happened anywhere else in the world in the next 10,000 years.And it simply was inevitable from the moment that North-Western European tribes were exposed to systems of centralisation.A big aspect of it was eugenics, and demographic data shows that between 1000ad and 1700 ad the top third most successful had more surviving offspring than the bottom two thirds that they effectively replaced the bottom two thirds of the population 2 or 3 times over. A big part of it was culture; the huge political story among this economic development was the conflict against the Roman Catholic Church's control over economy, and the conflict against various Baronial Houses who were losing their place in the Superstructure, and all of this was rooted in the pre-christian European traditions focused on law being a product and possession of a people and rule being through Representation and Consent and so on.And getting into geography is such a chicken and egg issue. Yes - life on asteroids isn't very advanced due to it being on an asteroid flying through space. Not sure what you thinking you're getting at with that. Yes, creatures are a product of the land.
>>203501566>>203501640>The major development is 1000ad - 1400 ad.That is if you ignore the Muslim world or China who were miles ahead in the same period. I also knew that by being a western shill you were going to put eugenics and IQ as your main argument, because that what you guys always do, you don't want people to think that the West became the leading power because of the geopolitical scenario of WW2, but simply because you guys are inherently superior.It's funny cause you guys also shill racebaits while shilling eugenics
>>203500609you guys remember /vint/?turns out brazilians were behind most of the garbage posts on /v/
>>203500609We get a lot of Bolsista scumbag posters.PTista-Lvlista posters are usually ok
>>203501710>That is if you ignore the Muslim world or China who were miles ahead in the same period. Sorry, but I'm afriad that I'll have to inform you that there was never anything beginning down the lines of civilisation in China or the Middle East.What developed between 11th and 15th century in North-Western Europe, primarily England, results in advanced civilisation and modern economy.
>>203501770>you see, contributions to technological developments only count if they're made in Yurop
>>203501770>Sorry, but I'm afriad that I'll have to inform you that there was never anything beginning down the lines of civilisation in China or the Middle East.Yeah, there was no golden muslim age where all the catholic priests went to North Africa to learn about Aristotle, nor there was no Golden Age of China. I mean the italian cities have never traded with muslims nor the crusades were a thing. Europe was always inherently superiorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Sinicahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
>>203501710It's also already captured in the chart previously posted.Nothing much happened between the last Ice Age and High Middle Ages.It was a lot of stagnant tax rackets snowballing until eventually collapsing back on themselves and leaving very little of value behind, and really primarily leaving behind their institutions of stagnation; all the supposed 'civilisatoins' of the pre-modern period were really digging holes for the future to overcome, and that's a big part of the story of the development of modern civilisation.Modern civilisation was a conflict against pre-modern civilisation, and it may very well have lost. If pre-modern civilisation was not defeated, and all their systems of civliisation dissolved, then very well we could be just in the same old shit we had been stuck in since the last Ice Age, and it could have continued for another 10,000 years.
>>203501723Both presidents were a disaster
>>203501873You're talking about primitives where most of the population were slaves, or effectively slaves, and lived in squalor and rags. You're discussing retards who couldn't even figure out simple things like electrical technology, and there was no sign of those hopeless cases of "civilisation" ever advancing. They were stuck within their stagnant institutions.
>>203501770bla bla bla that was then. Meanwhile you only have electricity, because someone created for you, because i doubt you could come up with it yourself.In fact, i bet you have to hire someone to replace you a light switch. So cut the crap Graham. Do you know what i mean?
>>203500609The girl who rejected me (who's now dating) entered the gym I'm in and is now working out late night the same time as me. I haven't talked to her there obviously. Frankly, I think its embarassing tbqh.Should I look for another gym?
I agree. I hate Brazilians.
>>203502028No keep at it. It's good "fuck you" motivation
>>203501921Yeah, nothing happened before the 1500s haha, I mean, civilizations are only capable of producing advancements when they are liberal, hold similarities to our nowadays civilization, if they cannot do that they are barbarians that must be forgotten. You know the Muslims, the Chinese, the Indians?? They are barbarians, you know those that are capable and white? Yes, the romans, greeks, the spanish, french and most and utmost the british and the americans, also the jews, lest we avoid mentioning them>>203501955Oh no their civilizations don't have human rights or democracy like the USA!!! they are clearly barbarians!!!!!! The USA is the best
>>203501968That is more applicable to notions of "civilisation" before the modern age. The glorious history of pre-modern world is the independent noble warrior tribes around the world. There is no glory in the horrific stagnant tax rackets which just bloated up and then collapsed back in on themselves like a shit souffle bringing misery to everyone caught in it.It's very strange when individuals glorify the Hellenistic Greeks, and as if they had some supposed wisdom within their excessive number of fundamentally flawed metpahysical systems, or Rome or China, which were urban areas of great suffering, disease, and poverty. The great peoples of the Italian peninsula were the likes of the Terramare culture.
>>203501921the european contributors around the year 0: Can you name them?Can you explain how whatever they did were of higher impact than the decimal system of numerals and algebra?all this chart tells me is what I already knew: that Charles Murray is a moron
>>203500609I agree with everything on this post
>>203502028>>203502096also who knows maybe she will come up to later. maybe she was nervous and rejected you
>>203502118>Charles Murray>USA Political ScientistAnd he is using that as a scientific example holy shit, he is unironically literally a shill KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
>>203502096That's a reasonable advice. I still think it's a bit embarassing tho.>>203502144I cut all contact with her and she's now dating. Frankly, I don't even want to date her anymore, but the ego still speaks, and I don't want my safe space invaded.
>>203502109>It's very strange when individuals glorify the Hellenistic Greeks, and as if they had some supposed wisdom within their excessive number of fundamentally flawed metpahysical systems, or Rome or China, which were urban areas of great suffering, disease, and poverty. The great peoples of the Italian peninsula were the likes of the Terramare culture.Yes the height of civilization is the United States of America
>>203502028>>203502207>>203502096Funny as they are trying to derail the thread now that the shill has been exposed
i hate our posters so muchshut the fuck up annoying monkeys
>>203502097>Yeah, nothing happened before the 1500syes.> hahawhat's funny? do you have a tiny brain and are easily impressed by some dimwit sentiments of the mystical woo woo peoples who couldn't even develop any degree of mechanisation and the vast majority of individuals lived in shit?> only capable of producing advancements when they are liberal,We have already been over this. It has nothing to do with Liberalism. Do you have difficulty reading? Maybe if you read more and talked less then you would become less of an idiot. Big mouth, small brain. Liberalism is a hijacking and reformulation of the culture zeitgeists which had driven many conflicts against pre-modern institutions in the conflict to assert modern economy, and really was the new institutional Superstructure of Stagnation that we now live under, and which may prevent any next major development. Liberalism is a frightening thing when you understand it. Locke pretty much writes in the middle of Second Treatises that it's not fundamentally about 'Freedom' and 'Liberty', but, back when he's on the side of getting rid of the king, he is writing that he wants to take over the State so that he can make laws in order to enclose and get rid of the last commons and so on, so that he and his friends can get very rich growing sheep.>You know the Muslims, the Chinese, the Indians??Cool. Share some of their ancient fighter jet designs.>Oh no their civilizations don't have human rights or democracyIt's becoming evident that you're a neurotic who is viewing this through ideological partisan lens rather than an understanding of how civilisation developed. You already have your conclusion, that's neurotically and emotionally driven, and so you argue against what I say, even though what I'm saying is not at all Liberal (but you're too stupid to notice).
>>203500609most obsessed faggot award
>>203502265Yes, my tiny brain cannot comprehend that before the United States there was no civilization and that we must defend the nowadays civilization at whatever costs. I mean to defend human rights and democracy we must support Israel at whatever cost. We must understand that the jews, british and americans are simply superior to other people, they are more valuable because for 1000 years through eugenics and IQ they are superior to everyone else, they are like the chosen people by God, and the chosen people must inherent the Earth
>>203502258KNOW WHAT????? I hate you more!!!!
>>203502258
>>203502339>Discussion about how modern economy came about, the important development being 1000 ad - 1400 ad>Ends up rambling about the United States and IsraelAre you a bot or something? Or are you actually this stupid?>other people are more intelligent than me and I'm idiot - such a ridiculous ideaerm
>>203502388Yes, a nation being better than other translates directly by the average IQ of the nation, that is why the jews and americans are better than everyone else. I mean the average american is smarter and richer than the rest.
>>203502388It is a bot. It will respond to your posts with an unrelated subject always centered around the US
>>203502265you're as bad as the other schizoyou're taking other european countries contributions/inventions and lumping them together as those from your countrystop living in the past nigel all western europe countries are just usa/jews bitches nowadays and can't innovate anymore
True.
>>203502388>Discussion about how modern economy came about, the important development being 1000 ad - 1400 adYou literally believe that nothing happened before the 1500s apart from Europe and your argument for that is they were barbarians.>>203502455Yes, I am also a Russian shill, my country is also filled with subhumans
>>203502388You also use as the basis of your thesis a graph from a US political scientist, who clearly isn't biased whatsoever
>>203502425Is that supposed to be sarcasm? Whether something is necessarily 'better' is a matter of perspective.But there is the issue of being wrong and an idiot, and that can be quite objectively measured, such as a hallmark of an idiot is someone who thinks it's really clever to have a vague sense of there was some ancient mystical woo woo powers long ago who had big lumps of carved marble and wowzers stuff.But it's not a matter of not knowing about Mesopotamia, or who the Ottomans were, or not knowing what Rome was, or reading about the Zhou dynasty or Pandya dynasty, it's about being able to have some context and perspective understand the nature of matters. I'm very well acquianted with Sumer and Mesopotamia; I've read much of the books by the likes of Crawford and Pollock and Postgate etc, but I'm not very impressed by it, if anything it's more like reading Orwellianism to me, I'm more of a fan of cavemen and fighter jets. The stuff inbetween is utterly pathetic and achieved nothing and went nowhere.
>>203502551And yet you use as the point of your thesis a graph from a US political scientist, and you believe average IQ translates into development
>>203502258You don't look like that though
>>203502614If you hold Ctrl key and press the F key it will bring up a search bar, and you can type IQ into the search bar and find that I haven't once typed 'IQ'.The traits which are important to developing civilisation is far more than merely IQ but also a matter of all sorts of personality traits that produce a society where something like an Honesty Box can work, and the village idiot who respects the Honesty Box is more fundamental to civilisation than a 140 IQ individual who is anti-social. The important traits that developed were having a strong sense of fairness and honesty, healthy work ethic, outbreeding and reducing clannishness and so on (a big part of the selection pressures that can be theorised is that when North-West Europe adopted centralisation and it met with the latent Germanic and Celtic cultures it resulted in a system of Manoralism that broke down clans and selected for individuals who were more willing to leave their clan, and this resulted in the atomistic nuclear family structure of the medieval period, which is a big part of avoiding inbreeding and developing modern economy)
>>203502614Also violence is a big matter concerning this, which can be a matter more closely tied to IQ as stupid people tend to be more impulsive and more easily resort to violence, but, either way, there's all sorts of research going over this of how that beginning in the High Middle Ages there was a large increase in executions for violence in Western Europe where in the following centuries around 1 in 50 males were executed for some violent crime each generation. This may not sound like much but you're selecting against an extreme threshold across the entire population which over many generations changes the nature of everyone in the population. This is similarly the case in parts of Asia where for a very long time they executed many violent criminals and so they also develop an aspect of highly functional societies, however they lack the big components that lead to developing modern civilisations and overthrowing pre-modern systems.see such as Harpending and Frost 'Western Europe, state formation, and genetic pacification'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25748943/Are you the same loser who I showed a stack of cash and my recent purchase of a £1.3m property to? I feel like you are, but either way just as pathetic.
>>203502614HBD Chick has a lot of worthwhile writing on these matters including pic rel.
>>203502732>>203502827Your point is the same friend, you whole thesis is from Murray, who wrote the Bell Curve and IQ, and your whole thesis is that some people are inherently superior, and the points in history that they weren't we should simply forget because they are barbarians.You are literally a zionist who believe some people are the chosen people and are inherently better than others not due to conditions that put them there. I honestly mean they are simply superior, if they are simply superior, you have no option to accept their superiority. It's scientifically proven by this history chart I just posted haha. Look the jews are entitled to bomb subhumans, the US is entitled to do whatever it wants to maintain democracy and human rights. It's because they are superior.>>203502843Yes, I will certainly read your blog friend, you are clearly a well versed scholar and not a shill at all!
>>203502883>Your point is the same friend, you whole thesis is from MurrayI'm afraid to inform you that you look like an idiot as nothing I have said is from Murray.
>>203502900Yes, the graph that you first posted sure wasn't
>>203502883It's all becoming more and more obvious what your motivations are with all this repeated obsession about>SuperiorYou have an inferiority complex and you are driven by your feelings of inferiority.Whether something is 'Superior' or 'Inferior' is just a matter of perspective and is not a valid understanding of nature.When we understand why the world is the way that it is, how things develop, what causes things to develop in the ways that they do, what makes something what it is, it's not a matter of whether it is 'Superior' or 'Inferior' or 'Better' or 'Worse', nor 'Good' or 'Evil', compared to another thing.Everything you're saying, and all these absurd strawmen you come out with, is all based in appeals to outrage, appeals to emotions, appeals to astonishment, appeals to cultural sentiments, appeals to disrespect and so on. It's all highly emotional stuff, and it's clearly a product of your own neuroses and insecurities and ideology.
>>203500609>will only write in Portuguese a translator can't even pick upSkill issue
>>203502933I said a graph? A graph is an image, you can't type it.The graph simply shows significant developments, which maps onto general explosion in advancement.Why and How that happened is an entirely different matter to simply the fact of that a whole lot happened in scientific and technological and cultural development from 1500 onwards and virtually nothing previously.
>>203502968Yes, I clearly have an inferiority complex, I am also a Russian shill, a monkey, a subhuman, emotionally driven retard. Yet you are the one who believes that the average population having a higher IQ simply translates into development. You know, because it's obvious the USA, Israel, all western nations are filled with geniouses, they have no working men or stupid people at all, their civilizations don't need that, I mean clearly their civilization is great enough to basically accomodate all those great minds haha, they would never riot for better conditions or power because they know the value of democracy and human rightsAlso there were no human development prior to the 1500s other than europe because the other civilization didn't value liberal ideals, I mean the fact that they had slaves clearly translates into not being able to develop scienceI am sorry you have enlightened men, You are clearly person with superior intellect, I am so sad that I am not you, you are clearly richer and smarter than me
>>203503000>I said a graph? A graph is an image, you can't type it.OMG you got me there, you are so much smarter than me, can i suck your cock right now????
stop replying to the bot
>>203503458he posted his blog, insulted me and left. I remember when the Olavo de Carvalho shills also had blogs lmao
>>203500609They BRICSpost more than the other four combined
>>203503498not really, it's because you guys believe that by being against the western narrative automatically translates into BRICSposting
>>203503258Now we're getting back to what matters, after all that irrelevant shit you said it at least brought us back to the initial point of that you're a monkey creature retard and the real dynamic between us is that i'm a beast with a cock even more impressive than my brain, and the best thing that you can provide is sucking my cock. The issue is whether you're a cute twink brazillian femboy with natural tits who gets to.
>>203503669I am sorry I don't date retards who believe they are scholars by posting literal propaganda
>>203500609calm down pajeet.
>>203503708understanding development of medieval economy into modern economy is big time funding from the CIA Mossad Masons. They're always looking to get the average man to be not so impressed by the history of the Sukhothai Kingdom.
>>203500609maybe grow a thicker skin o algo
>>203503907You know that justifying the social contract by creating a national lore is one of the biggest ways of maintaining order and expanding your civilization toward other nations right?
>>203503946National lore is what you're doing, and you're doing it to justify the social contract if your ideology.
>>203503987Do you honestly believe that everything you just posted is scientific? You literally presented me probabilistic model to justify the development of nations, that the genetic and cultural factors of the average population basically led people to economic development, and that geographic and geopolitical factors which are imperative to nation building shouldn't be quantified. You are literally saying that we should ditch geography, politics and only focus on biology and religon lmao.There is not a SINGLE foreign relations school of thought that believes in that, you are literally rambling propaganda to justify the nowadays ideology that is present in this world.
>>203504076Again you come out with absurd strawmen showing that what you're to argue against is apparently beyond your comprehension.The development of economy in north-west europe over the past millennia has been studied to death and is hardly disputed, are you trying to argue against it? Do you even understand it? Perhaps I need to put it in simpler terms.If you make shoes and sell to a market of a small town and a few small villages where most people only want to purcahse low quality shoes once every few years, then there isn't economic viability of a larger scale business.If you sell to a market of a large town, a few small towns, many villages, where most people want to purchase high quality shoes every year, then a larger scale business becomes more economically viable and you begin to develop increase division of labour and water-powered factories and so on, and so more people have more disposable income, goods are economically viable to be produced that increase productivity, such as better equipment for farmers so that the farmers produce even larger surplus of food, which frees up more labour, and all of this is larger revenues which results in more investment in infrastructure which creates even larger markets and so on the cycle goes.Nowhere in the world did anything beginning down these lines develop, and nowhere in the world is there much reason to think it ever would have. And none of this is owed to anything which came before it. It is the product of illiterate retarded farmers from an open field system in rags having to find other jobs; it is not the product of discovering Socrates drinking to many wines at some soiree and babbling nonsensical bullshit about aligning different parts of your soul in order to commune with the ethereal reason floating through the cosmos; the development of modern economy has nothing to do with any such thing. It is not owed to anything before or outside of Western Europe.
>>203504076and over the past many thousands of years not only there was nothing beginning down those lines, and they produced nothing of value which the development of modern civilisation was dependent upon, but when we study all those pre-modern powers what we find is the opposite; we find increasing stagnancy, economies locked by guilds, increasing exploitation of workers, superstructures that quickly move to destroy any real economic development, and they expand and expand and lock more and more people in more territories in poverty and stagnancy, develop more and more instutitions which prevent economic development, and then collapse back in on themselves and leave little behind except those abusive institutions.Do you understand this?Do you have a disagreement with it?Are you telling me that what I just wrote of, is some sort of 'National Lore' and is some sort of propaganda?
>>203504220>>203504277>Nowhere in the world did anything beginning down these lines developThe conditions that led Europe to """discover""" capitalism came precisely from the geopolitcial and geographical conditions that Europe was in, it was not due to because their population were special snowflakes or whatever. Merchant societies have always existed, but national centralization due to fertile lands in the region, aligned with the desire of the nobility of the time for better goods, geographic isolation from Asia and the need to expand due to disease and overpopulation, made it it possible. Other societies had also great success in expanding and achieving great things during their eras of hardship, if anything modern day liberal ideology was created from the crisis of absolutism which was also the pinnacle of the expansion of the modern era economics. The fact is there were periods in human history that Europe wasn't on top, you can clearly see that with the crusades or even nowadays. The US is slowly but surely being eclipsed by China as capitalism is clearly at crisis and needs to reinvent itself to keep it on top. Will they manage to do so, I don't know. Europe has managed to reinvent itself from 1500 until nationalism in 1900s which basically killed Europe, the Muslims managed to reinvent themselves until the 1300s, the Romans until 400 AD, the chinese until the 900AD, it all depends of the people in charge that are capable to lead the masses and navigate through geographic and geopolitical conditions they are givenNational development and power are a consequence of the conditions the countries are given.It's not because of how industrious a people is or how bright someone is, but how those in power are able to steer the people into that.
>>203504557Looks like you're not saying anything which argues with my explanation of the development of the world we live in, nor argues against that it is a product of Western Europe and nowhere else in the world began to achieve anything down those lines.You're doing this thing again when you try to separate environment from the creatures who inhabit that environment, such as you talk about Culture independent of Politics independent of Genes independent of Geography, but these things are inextricable from one another.As I've said, the environment produces everything; it's impossible to separate anything from the environment.When we talk about the latent culture in North-West Europe and how it interacted with the development of economy, those cultures are themselves inextricable from the geography.I used to have a big interest in the history of Law, and Philosophy of Law, and I can go on a big pet thing about this. You can perceive two fundamentally different views of law between the tribalistic traditions, which something like English Law is rooted in, which is rooted in Germanic traditions, and will be common to traditional European traditions, and contrast that to such as what Roman Law developed into, the Abrahamic Religions, Chinese traditions and so on, which is essentially a Priestly type of law, rather than Tribalisitc. And you can relate these to ideas of what society fundamentally is, of whether society is a product of many individuals forming a collective for their mutual interests, or whether society is essentially a collective producing individuals.The 'Priestly' view of society, and notion of Law, is where law operates according to some pre-defined goal and is essentially deductive of that is deduces from grand principles and maxims, and is ultimately based on some Reason and a notion of something being Absolutely True. ...
>>203504724>such as you talk about Culture independent of Politics independent of Genes independent of GeographyDo you honestly believe that politics cannot be separated from culture? So if a law is in charge right now that says that everyone should respect gays, do you mean that everyone automatically respects gays?Do you honestly believe that Genes dictate the actions of human beings and that there is no free will? that human aren't able to contradict their own biological nature and incapable of reason and discipline like the lowest animals? And simply due to that, it's impossible to actually direct humans into doing things by law or society? That humans are incapable of creating order and law?Do you believe that Geography solely harbors the meaning of race and not really the geopolitical conditions that make a country rich or poor?
>>203504557The 'Tribal' is rather where law is a product and possession of the group and it is a tool that is used as seen fit and rather based on precedent, and so also you get the discriminiatory and prejudiced elements of law and that Jealous Nature you see in English Law (and that's really what the conflict with Beckett was about which continues for centuries of the conflict against the Roman Church's notion of that it's above the law of the land; tribal traditions are very hostile to those types of privileges, the privilege is for the people to apply the law as they see fit - and that's the true notion of >no one is above the lawand 'rule of law', it's not that>everyone follows the lawthe true understanding is that anyone can be subject to the law. As the old notions go, like Chief Justice John Fortescue in 15th century said something to effect of that the guarantee of law is lawlenssess; the people apply the law as they see fit as it's merely tool.And you can go all sorts of places with this, such as fundamental differences within all sorts of ideologies, such as Karl Marx ultimately saw society as an organism similarly to Adam Smith with Marx saw use-value being criteria for production, contrast that to the Bolshevik view of society being engineered as a rational machine and a lot of the stuff they imagined was spookily similar to 21st century quota-driven business ideas.Where do these types of differences come from?...
>>203504557It's interesting to note that places where you have these very 'Priestly' types of notions of law develop, reflecting their philosophy and religion and so on, are places where you have one major river overlaying fertile land and not a whole lot in between; they're the sort of places you tend to get large monopolies over concentrated populations, and you get a dominance of bandit clans inbetween who have a lot of control over trade and develop monopoly over law - nothing like the notion of Public Interest being anything of significance other than something to be taken note of.Contrast that to the more 'Tribal' notions of law and society and they tend to develop in places where you don't easily get large scale centralisation and monopolies over concentrated populations and trade. They develop in places such as much of Europe where you have many small plots of land that allow a small amount of development all neighbouring one another, many small separated river networks and so on.The thing about North-West Europe is that it's not somewhere that large scale centralisation is likely to develop due to the geography, but when centralisation does come about in the region then it creates a very different type of economy to pre-modern civilisations.And there you see it, and we see your problem, because you're the one who is thinking in terms of nationalism and ethnic pride, and you ultimately want a notion of that no one, or not a particular group, are not special, and everyone is all the respectable little groups who have their own pretty little thing that's valid, so it's impossible for you to see through the bullshit and recognise that the development of 'civlisation' in North-West Europe is fundamentally different in its nature to the development of 'civilisation' elsewhere.
>>203504557...When you talk about these other pre-modern 'civilisations' you're thinking simply in terms of they're humiliated primitives who can't compete and that this world is so far more advanced - you're making the fallacy of thinking they're the same thing and that it's like some race or competition of developing the same type of thing from the same foundations, but that entirely misses the point and the critical understanding of modern civilisation that it does not follow on from the types of civilisations which develop elsewhere, it's something very different, very unusual, that develops out of a very different geography.
>>203504557>The conditions that led Europe to """discover""" capitalismModern economy does not come from Capitalism.I've already explained to you that the world we live in originates in 1000 ad - 1400 ad north-west Europe and how it developed.In 17th century it's beginning to fully form and that leads to the political upheaval lagging behind the economic changes.Already in the centuries previous these changes in economy had caused all sorts of conflicts as when the Base of economy changes then it undermines Superstructure built ontop of it; when Open Field System began to radically change and you get early Enclosure and early sort of 'Private' Farmers it changes the nature of Feudalism and the Baronial system, and ultimatley many Baronial Houses, which, once upon time, people would largely identify with as their world was regional, ultimatley become economically obsolete. Liberalism didn't really change much, nor produce anything, it wasn't some sort of revolution which usherede in a new world, that's the shittiest U.S. Public School tier education of some nonsense about the French Revolution. The development of modern economy was organic and Liberalism is a political doctrine which comes along, hijacked into a lot of the common sentiments from previous centuries in conflict, and re-writes it all according to the interests of the merchant classes.Capitalism is a piece of software which comes along even later.
>>203504827>>203504911>The thing about North-West Europe is that it's not somewhere that large scale centralisation is likely to develop due to the geography, but when centralisation does come about in the region then it creates a very different type of economy to pre-modern civilisations.Centralization in Europe came as a necessity from the conditions of the time, it was after the black pague and severe overpopulation with lack of resources which lead to failure of feudalism. It was literally one way to solve the crisis that europe was handling back then.It's funny how you are basically quoting tons of info right now instead of simply stating your own ideas right away. You could have simply said: "Europeans are simply smarter"
>>203504557And if we imagine that one day we may achieve something radically different again, such as we see globalisation happening, the harsh reality is that when we break free from something like 'Liberalism' and 'Capitalism' and have an age of wealth and easy life, similar to something like England in that brief golden age in Tudor period where Englishmen worked fuck all hours per year to support a family, then the Superstructure, of all sorts of societal organisation of society and the seats of power for elites, can quickly adapt and lock it all down again.The moment that you think the big thing that is coming in which is going to formalise the new world you're living in in 2500 or whenever it is (if we even get there, more likely all of this can just go away and we'll go back to the norm of shitty stagnancy and a sort of pre-modern economy) but that revolutionary moment in a new globalised world can actually be the thing that's going to put you back in chains.I'm a pessimist, the idea of a light at the end of the tunnel can be another train coming along
>>203505060>>203505087The radical changes are not "radical", but the small steering of policies and economic changes that the elites perform long term, radical changes only come in revolutions and wars. You can say that the world post-WW2 radically changed from the world prior to it. There were no more colonies, no more empires, communism as a global power, fiat money etc
>>203504821>Do you honestly believe that Genes dictate the actions of human beings and that there is no free will? that human aren't able to contradict their own biological nature and incapable of reason and discipline like the lowest animals? And simply due to that, it's impossible to actually direct humans into doing things by law or society? That humans are incapable of creating order and law?If you think of something like the notion that more or less people are the way they are because of their DNA, then commonly people perceive that as it must be a judgemental view of people, but it's actually the other way around of that when you think in terms of something like people are the way that they are and there's not a whole lot you can do to change them it actually makes you a lot LESS judgemental; you actually begin to accept them for WHAT THEY ARE rather than treating them like someone who can be all sorts of ways, because that concludes on that there's a certain way that creatures SHOULD BE and that if they're not that way then THERE'S SOMETHING *WRONG* WITH THEM.This is generally how cults work, and it ties back to previous discussion about like the 'Priestly' view of the world, where there's some 'Reasoned!' Higher Truths! and incoherent concepts such as something being 'Absolutely True' or some Universal Morality, because if there's One Truth then it's for ALL people, and you see that in something like Catholicism; 'Catholic' means 'Universal', and there you see the Scientology tier cult of that it's ONE TRUTH and it's for EVERYONE, and so everyone is fundamentally the same, and wellif you don't fit into the One Truththen there's something WRONG with you;and we're going to have to FIX you.These are abusive and denigrating and judgemental and discriminatory ideas.
>>203500609They're not worse than poles. No way in hell is any other country beating the poles at being insufferable rageposters.
>>203504821>Do you honestly believe that Genes dictate the actions of human beings and that there is no free will? that human aren't able to contradict their own biological nature and incapable of reason and discipline like the lowest animals? And simply due to that, it's impossible to actually direct humans into doing things by law or society? That humans are incapable of creating order and law?But if you actually appreciate creatures for what they are, and you begin to realise you're doing such as caging individuals for years just over how they are naturally predisposed to be, you can come to quite beautiful and coherent complete understandings of nature.For practical purposes we can put a number on heritability of things, such as genoplitics has been done to death for decades with sample sizes in the tens of thousands, and cumulatively it tends towards around .5 heritability of political views, and we get similar thing with heritabiltiy of 'intelligence' and so on, but this is merely science of being able to come up with a model which can make valid predictions on the world; a model that is used in order to predict the world shouldn't be confused with a holistic understanding of the world.All creatures are genes expressed within an environment, and it's impossible to separate the two. At what point do you say that any aspect of a creature is so much environment and so much genes? Everything about how the environment shapes the creature is a matter of the genes of the creature, and everything about how the creature interacts with the environment is a matter of the genes of the creature...
>>203505195>>203505300>but it's actually the other way around of that when you think in terms of something like people are the way that they are and there's not a whole lot you can do to change them it actually makes you a lot LESS judgementalWhat you are basically is saying is that people aren't able to change their own reality and that they should conform for what they are, they should give up trying to be smart if they "naturally" aren't, which is an absurd. Being a conformist is literally giving up on your humanity and ambition, accepting the defeat of your hopes and dreams, because God, nature, the CIA whatever said so. Being ambitious and defying your own nature is literally being human
>>203504821 and then how the creature interacts with the environment changes the environment, which further changes how the creature interacts with the environment, and not only this creature, and not only other creatures in the group, but its interaction with environment, which is 100% genes and 100% environment, is then shaping how all the other creatures and plants are interacting with the environment.For practical purposes we can understand a creature has a genome and we can see that genome by looking at a cell, but, in a complete understanding, where do you really separate how much of those genes are what they are from the genes of the fish and grass and trees in that environment? It all exists in a feedback loop.A tortoise gets hit by a lightning bolt. How much of that is genes and how much of it is lightning? Everything about every aspect of how the lightning bolt interacts with the tortoise entirely involves the tortoise. And everything about every aspect of every ape, everything they ever do, everything they ever think, is entirely a matter of its genes.
>>203505314I'm not talking about any conclusions on any policies or any such thing lol - you're always doing this of putting my words in my mouth and imagining what I think or value or what I'm explaining.
>>203505339To defy your own nature is what makes us human, that is why I will keep annoying you shills here.Enjoy :)
>>203505300>All creatures are genes expressed within an environment, and it's impossible to separate the twoIf you take from a pure biological perspective it makes no sense from a person to chop its own arm for an ideology
>>203505425or to basically become a frontline soldier in a war
>>203505084>Centralization in Europe came as a necessity from the conditions of the time, it was after the black pague and severe overpopulation with lack of resources which lead to failure of feudalism.I'm talking about the expansion of the feudal system in the Early Middle Ages, going on a thousand years before. I've already covered Black Plague, that's part of the 14th century famines and plagues which appears to have accelerated a process, but only accelerated it as it was already developing. There were minor periods of supposed prosperity - for some sections of society - previously in the 12th and early 13th century, but through around 1000 ad to 1400 ad you have a general development, and political struggle, away from pre-modern institutions which managed economy, such as the conflict between the Crown and Church and Barons, and a lot of important history that is often gone over, such as Beckett is a flashpoint, is put in sensational terms and misses what was really being fought over of just why Henry ii was so pissed with Beckett, why Edward i introduced Model Parliament despite freeing his father after his father fighting against it etc.There was no 'failure' of feudalism, it was that it was increasingly gradually becoming outmoded and its seats of power were becoming economically obsolete. Just imagine that originally you have all these loyal Barons who control small regions based on most of the economy being farmers in big ant colony farm systems paying rent, and overtime the whole thing disintegrates - that's not a failure of feudalism, it's an economic evolution which is leaving feudalism behind. And that is behind so much of the civil conflicts, and of course jews involved in all of this too which often gets left out of the history books.And this is just England, which is the primary focus point, especially Southern England, but there's also similar developments in Northern France and Low Countries which mirror this stuff.
>>203505425I haven't said anything where an individual cutting off their own arm contradicts it.
>>203505453You're working from the premise of that individuals are fundamentally rational creatures, which is part of the Cult that I'm discussing of these very warped views - it's part of the whole idea that hoomans are so special and magical pixie rational beings who commune with the higher troofs. Apes are creatures of instinctual visceral reactions, like any creature, and things can be filtered through thought processes, but any brain activity begins with a visceral instinctive reaction.
>>203505558We being humans cannot analyze our own brain, how much truly is our will free or capable of defying the genes you said, in the end it's impossible to say for certain. But to believe that we are purely biological is also being part of a cult. If anything nothing is certain and I prefer to believe that we can challenge our own nature
>>203505603>but any brain activity begins with a visceral instinctive reaction.Yes, is our will biologic or does it come from our free will? Or is it a mix of both? Who know fren. It's like Kant opening the brain to the public and saying that free will exists
>>203505627Now we're getting into 'Free Will' and 'Capable of defying the genes'? ... 'Determinism'. What I was discussing doesn't relate to that discussion, but this comes back to something already gone over of confusing the model we come up with of nature itself. The idea of 'Free Will' vs 'Determinism' is wrangling with conceptions we've come up with and are not in nature itself, so it's a false dichotomy. You're talking along the sort of right lines, but rather than>we cannot analyze our own brainit's more a matter of>we can't comprehend nature in its entiretyand the notion of there being 'determinism' depends upon the notion of being able to comprehend nature. As if our monkey brain models can ever come close to comprehending nature itself. The idea of being able to understand every aspect of nature to the point that you can predict the future is absurd premise and a misapplication of systems that we do attempt to make predictions with. Just because you can predict what choice is made it doesn't mean that a choice isn't being made; being able to predict choices doesn't mean that there isn't 'Free Will' and a creature isn't making a choice, but the only way for creatures to make a choice is to live and discover nature.This, again, comes back to the culty idea of that things must fit within some system; forcing the Monkey into the Machine. It's a perverse and deprecating attitude towards life placing some shitty monkey brain model over nature itself.
But great talk fren, it has been a long time since I've been this entertained here on /int/. You shills are getting better, but I honestly think that the West is dying if you need to say to the population that they are just animals without anything special, hope is needed to keep the population engaged in this sick world
I like brazilian posters, they're generally very kind and have treated me with more respect than the average latino on this board. The brazilian thread moves fast but it's fun to read.
>>203505765>just animals without anything specialthere's the cult talk. what's special about them is that they're just animals, anything else is depriving them of how actually are speshul.
lmao this bong still arguing
>>203505752>and the notion of there being 'determinism' depends upon the notion of being able to comprehend nature. As if our monkey brain models can ever come close to comprehending nature itself.It's actually interesting that this sort of talk is becoming mainstream right now, precisely when AI is everywhere and liberalism has reached a point of inflection that needs people to accept their place on society to keep on being functional >'determinism' depends upon the notion of being able to comprehend nature.Determinism basically comes from the notion that our actions aren't the cause of our own will but more like external factors above our own control, like biology, genes etc. Free will is the notion that our own actions are solely the fruit of our will. I meant in a biological sense, like the visceral reactions of the brain are fruit of our own will or external factors
>>203505861>what's special about them is that they're just animalsI doubt that a guy in his 40s in debt without a wife and child would accept that easily
>>203500609latinos rule, germanics drool!
>>203500733the world being brazillified? since when? brazillians have little enough influence in the us that most people still think they speak spanish. i wouldnt worry too much.
>>203505933>It's actually interesting that this sort of talk is becoming mainstream right now, precisely when AI is everywhere and liberalism has reached a point of inflection that needs people to accept their place on society to keep on being functional I wasn't saying anything about individuals 'accepting their place in society'>Determinism basically comes from the notion that our actions aren't the cause of our own will but more like external factors above our own control, like biology, genes etc. Free will is the notion that our own actions are solely the fruit of our will. I meant in a biological sense, like the visceral reactions of the brain are fruit of our own will or external factorsEverything about a creature is biology. That a creature is biological doesn't mean that it doesn't make choices.>>203505964>I doubt that a guy in his 40s in debt without a wife and child would accept that easilyWhat does it contradict that would otherwise make an individual feel special about themselves?
>>203506072>Everything about a creature is biology.That is the whole problem, it's basically impossible to reach that conclusion alone while having a human brain. Do our thoughts come from biology or do they direct biology or both? Descartes basically came to the conclusion "Think, therefore I exist" by dissecting part by part and realizing that our reality is only capable of being conceived by the fact that we are able to think, therefore is biology as we understand a matter of our own thoughts? In the end it basically becomes a cult as you said, whatever you choose to believe
>>203506072>What does it contradict that would otherwise make an individual feel special about themselves?People are ambitious, they desire to be something more than ordinary, be it by status, recognition whatever. What you are saying is basically calling them ordinary, people don't want to simply be normal, they want to be the best, they want to be chosen by god, immortal, superhuman whatever lol
I actually don't mind Brazilian posters so much as how often I see them. like, Finnish, Australian and Chilean posters are also horrible posters, but at least I don't have to see them as often. I think Brazilians should relax, the fact that in this thread 9 out of 10 posters are Brazilian should already prove my point.
>>203506285It's literally only me
>>203506163What does specification of humans have to do with it? 'Human' is ultimately just a construct, a category that is valid depending upon context, like 'Species'. Are Neanderthals 'human'? Who was the first human born to? Who did the first human reproduce with? I'd say that if something like phenomenal consciousness relates to the immaterial then it's an observer experience. Perhaps you can imagine if there's some Soul which animates Mind and then Mind can animate the Brain, but even something highly speculative and loose such as that still back to the issue of how do you separate it from the biology of the creature? Every and any way that the brain is somehow animated depends upon the nature of the brain.And there's no reason outside of bullshit institutions to think somehow this is exclusive to humans - again, at what point did this start? Did all the other however many ancestors of homo sapien sapiens, and populations closely related to them, not have souls? How can you draw the line? The real reason that someone feels comfortable stuffing their face with factory farmed animals is not because they believe they have a soul and the animals don't, it's because of biology and their instincts, and any real rationalisation of it it truth of truths is their biological difference to those other creatures.Have you ever seen the memes about koko the gorilla's IQ and IQ in some Sub Saharan African countries?The interesting thing about that is the reaction is>lol black people are stupid! not>wow, koko is really smart!It's a gorilla who was taught sign language, and it's an individual who had hopes, dreams, fears, anxieties, a complex rich emotional experience and everything. But if you're saying what makes something special is what can be quantified then you're the one with the problem of anything being truly special, as koko is relatable, not necessarily more; a shark or an ant may have some equivalent, because it's unrelatable to us doesn't make it less.
These inferiority complex football mutts constantly attack us to get an ego boost kek.
Why did this thread turn into a philosophical discussion about animal cognition?
>>203506325The whole point here I tried to say is that biological materialism is also a thing that cannot be proved. Because of our whole view of reality is made by a human brain as well, how can you take for granted that you your whole reality is true if your thoughts are processed by a human brain? couldn't reality as you take for granted be a simulation or something lol? You are trying to debate scientifically something that is in the domain of philosophy
>>203506452it's a thread about brazillians
>>203506452Because his point is that europeans are superior due to IQ and genetics, while I try to argue that nations are built mainly due to geopolitical and geographic conditions
>>203506469rational conclusions through conceptual analysis are not necessarily a matter of 'truth', true would be what we can verify to correspond with reality. we can come to understand reality through being able to make valid predictions on it.
>>203506557>true would be what we can verify to correspond with reality.but reality is a thing that is being processed by your brain. The domain of science should is contained on the domain of philosophy not the opposite. To discuss science we have to assume certain assumptions, like the fact that the reality that I see is the same that you see, which isn't a thing that is able to be proven, but it is merely assumed. That alone basically shatters biological materialism, I mean materialism by definition is an ideology precisely due to that.
>>203506471Kek
>>203506617The assumption that reality does exist, not that creatures see it the same - what I was just discussing is a matter of that creatures can't see it the same as their ability to perceive depends upon their nature as a creature. It appears that much has been achieved through this assumption; getting into solipsism, and speculating that everything is just a simulation (which itself is a pretty meaningless concept as how would that necessarily change anytihng?) is reaching the point of saying nothing of substance.
>>203506706What I am basically saying is that, sure, you can achieve tons of things by putting an ideology at a mainstream agenda of a population. But in the end that ideology isn't necessarily reality, the whole point here is the fallacy is precisely in that point. In the end it becomes a matter of steering the population into believing what is reality and what isn't for the advancement of your civilzation, it becomes a tool for achieving what a society wants. Biologial Materialism is as useful of a tool as Liberalism or Communism.
>>203506793I never argued any ideology. I explained how modern economy developed in north-west europe, how nothing like it previously developed and there was no significant scientific or technological development elsewhere beforehand, and there was nothing that appeared to ever be able to achieve the same elsewhere but rather everywhere else was more antithetical and something which this civilisation needed to defeat and overcome in order to manifest. I imagine that this understanding of the development of civilisation upsets your moral sensibilities, likely because of ethnic pride, and you're arguing against what I said out of ideological motivations. I was talking about law and philosophy and understanding it - not making conclusions on how society or man's place in society should be, but my view of behaviour and how various institutions interact with behaviour, and you started asking me questions of what therefore policies should be. But what policies you want depends upon what you as an individual want. Such as talking about whether people feel special - that's not objectively a problem or not, it depends upon what you want to achieve.Somehow we've gone into solipsism. Something being a simulation doesn't make it any less real. Saying that everything is just in our minds has no real conclusions and is just an unfalisifiable hypothesis which doesn't make sense as while gradually being able to make predictions on reality, it's also so difficult. It's poetic that you end up asking me to consider something like sollipsism, as sollipsism is asking someone to deny the obvious reality infront of them, and I'd say that's what you've been doing this whole threadbecause I have been pointing out the obvious reality, and you've been asking me to stop
>>203506911The whole problem is that you are trying to argue scientifically something that clearly is in the realm of philosophy. You cannot accept that your view is as much of a cult as everyone else, because it is in the realm of philosophy not in the realm of science.You follow the cult of Biological Materialism, I also follow a cult. And that is ok. Philosophy is precisely that, it is to discuss models of reality that are impossible to be proven
>>203507011What is it that I'm trying to discuss which is in the realm of philosophy? When I was using the term 'cult' I was referring to what I'd previously discussed of different views of what society is, what law is, and whether groups should be organised and ruled according to a pre-defined goal of what is supposedly good. This relates to the issue of morality and the notion of morality being Universal and the same morality applying to others.
>>203507078What is it that I'm trying to discuss which is in the realm of philosophy?It's because you believe that biological materialism IS reality, I offered you an alternative saying that reality couldn't be simply be proven true from scientific observation, and that alone puts this discussion in the realm of philosophy. Reality is bigger than our observations as human beings, and in the end it becomes a wishing game or as I said a tool for those in power to direct the narrative. There are tons and tons of philosophical models discussing what reality is and none of them can be proven lol
>>203507178i've been browsing the internet thinking about you and i found this image. could be boy or girl, idm, but the convo is also getting mixed up. Let's give some terms meaning.Reality: the sum total of all that is realReal: That which has shape and locationScience: Understanding reality through observation and experimentationagreeable?Understanding Reality, and the method of Science, isn't a matter of 'proven', as the old saying goes 'Proof is for mathematicians and alcoholics'. Strictly speaking, Science isn't even a matter of Truth, or Fact, it's matter of Validity.History is ultimately similar to science of that it has a preference for evidence and you build an understanding through coming up with hypotheses through evidence and building a model and then testing that model against other models by introducing new evidence.This is the issue with Solipsism as ultimately it's meaningless as it doesn't negate or contradict the process of science; that i'm imagining it all makes no difference to how that science works in this thing i'm supposedly imagining - okay, i'm imagining it... so? It doesn't interrupt anything, and meanwhile we continue to have such predictability and consistency on reality, despite it being so unpredictable - why would the mind come up with such a thing? If it's something simulation then it's no less real by being a simulation, and at this point what's even fundamentally the difference between 'real', 'imagined', 'simulation'?
>>203507362>Understanding Reality, and the method of Science, isn't a matter of 'proven', as the old saying goes 'Proof is for mathematicians and alcoholics'. The point isn't science per se but the fact that you are using science to justify things beyond the scope of science, you are using observations of reality to justify reality and model morality, history and the entire society on it. It's like believing the ocean is a glass of water
>>203507638>justify reality and model moralityhow am i 'justifying reality' and 'modelling morality'?morality is a product of our instincts; morality is a product of our biology - and that you would draw a line here and say it's crossing into philosophy is based on what distinction? nevermind all other aspects of life, but this is back to solipsism. we have predictive validitiy on behaviour of creatures, their emotions, we're increasingly learning how the brain works, we have a lot of science on that how that behaviour is a heritable and so a matter of genes, we have a lot of scientific work on material processes which produce life and shapes it, and you're getting hung up on the brain and morality, yet not how the human eye works and light waves hit the back of the retina and up the optic nerve and so on. Like you kept using the term>materialistthat i'm a 'materialist' - i'm not a materialist aka physicalist, i'd say that phenomenal consciousness is that something immaterial is self evident, and i have had what is commonly called 'near death experience' when i was in a car crash, not that i reject there could be some physical explanation for it, but it was nothing like this world nor like a dream, but it's stuck with me for the rest of my life and i've had different feelings since it and it does shape my views, such as things i'm talking about, of this is the greatest 'highest' thing here in this real, but in any case any such doesn't contradict what i'm talking about.morality isn't simply a choice as it's built upon a visceral reaction; you can't simply choose what you find beautiful or what you fall in love with, or what you find disgusting or hate. This is similar to what you see, of that you can't simply choose what you see as it is lightwaves hitting the eyeball, but you can imagine things ('imagine' in this case being what doesn't have shape or location, at least beyond the neurons generating what you imagine)
>>203507874>morality is a product of our instincts; morality is a product of our biologyYou are basing this on the fact that you believe that Biological materialism is reality, it is impossible to prove that our will is in fact a product of biology, because it is impossible to prove that what we perceive as reality is reality or that our will is fact completely biological. That is why you are trespassing the real of science and discussing philosophy, you are basically using science to promote your view of reality while saying it is reality
>>203507965you keep talking about 'biological materialism', but i just told you that what i'm saying isn't biological materialism. based on what is what i'm discussing any less real than anything else that we can understand? you're back to solipsism. you can say the same about any aspect life - or you can say the same about the position of a rock of that it's impossible to prove that it's a product of the physical world. you can also say that our vision isn't completely biological. again, it's not a matter of 'proof'. science is not trespassing on philosophy when we study thoughts, behaviours, emotions, consciousness, political views, moral views etc, any more than it is when it studies anything else about life.
>>203508126it's not just solipsism, there are tons of models of reality that are against your model of reality friend. The belief that only the biological matters is biological materialism>it's not a matter of 'proof'.It is, when you say that something IS reality and scientifically model everything from it, to the point of saying that morality, history etc NATURALLY derives from this.
>>203508179so you're now just saying we shouldn't even attempt to understand reality.great, in that case can you never say anything about anything? like do you have a position on israel and palestine?time to reflect on everything you've said here and how invalid any commentary on it is, and when it comes to things like that it really is a matter of loose interpretation.you've only ended up at this point of saying>well your whole notion of something being real is jazz handsbecause of your philosophy (aka your feelings) trespassing on science.what you're saying here is that when we study altruism, reciprocal altruism, cooperation, empathy, pack behaviours, group cohesion - when it comes to evolutionary biology, psychology, neuroscience etc, that science is 'trespassing on philosophy'? pinch test time. what you've ended up saying is something you could pause and run past yourself, if not someone else.but the whole thing from the beginning is this constant strawmanning and seeming real mixing up of what someone is saying about how things are, and responding as if they're talking about how things should be, and that's from the very start when it comes to talking about development of modern economy, and then talking about organisations of society and law, you keep coming back as if it's an argument of how things should be, and it seems to be a lot of projection as that's what you're struggling with is that you get upset with someone talking about how things ARE when it doesn't match the narratives that support your feelings how things SHOULD BE.But that's the defining thing about science and philosophy of that science can explain mechanisms behind life and morality and society, and philosophy analyses what meanings we can take from moral systems and concepts. if someone feels that understanding reality is trespassing on their philosophy of what ought to be, then it's a case of philosophy (aka your feelings) trespassing on reality.
>>203508179and aswell as that you haven't really discussed anything here which is outside of science, but all of your behaviour here can be explained by science. we can talk about neuroses, obsessive neuroses, hysteric neuroses, ethnocentrism, moralising, narcissism, motivations of attempts to obfuscate straight forward concepts.darling, if there's a part of you which is outside of biological materialism, nothing you've said here is it.
>>203508306>>203508179You fags are still at it? Commit suicide
>>203508306>so you're now just saying we shouldn't even attempt to understand reality.I am not saying that, I am saying that we cannot base morality, history and other concepts based on science, but on philosophy and the demands of society. Simply because it is fundamentally impossible to base those on science. It is impossible to make a moral scientific assumption based on biology, because we cannot for sure know what is inside of our heads and the heads of other people, what we can do is probabilistic models which aren't deterministic per se
>>203508379Why are you so adamant in discrediting me? Do you need me to be wrong this much? It's funny cause you haven't been able to overcome the fact that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed
>>203500777>They are such uncivilized monkeys and savages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Man, I hate brazilians so much, you don't have idea. I don't suck gringo's cock, but for fucks sake, what the fuck is wrong with those people. Everyday, when I go outside, I see those savage monkeys behaving in a way I just can't comprehend. They hate us for a fucking reason.
>>203508444>I don't suck gringo's cock, but for fucks sake, what the fuck is wrong with those peopleyou do
>>203508390>we can't base them on sciencewhat do you mean by 'base'? as in that what society, or an individual, feels about moralities, shouldn't be a product of science? then you're just doing what i complained about of that you're mixing up the matter of how things work with a discussion on what sort of behaviour individuals should have.> It is impossible to make a moral scientific assumption based on biologywhat do you mean by 'moral scientific assumption'?we are discussing how that we can understand morality through understanding nature, not that we get our morals through understanding nature.>>203508428less rhetoric. i can't tell if you're female or male. you get a bit neckbeard, but also you're feminine and clearly in need of a hard thick dick.
>>203500636I-Is that a female girl? A hapa even? HNFFFNGGH *unzips pants* I... MUST... COOOOOOOM *plrbbtzztzpyupyupyu* dios mio... la deusa culo grande...
>>203508428have you ever heard notions such as that children should be taken from their parents at birth and shuffled around and randomly given to other parents, and such as that wealthy white parents should have to raise black babies from poor backgrounds and poor black parents should have to raise white babies from wealthy backgrounds?how do you feel about something like that?
>>203508505>as in that what society, or an individual, feels about moralities, shouldn't be a product of science?It's not that should, it cannot be as long as we cannot understand what is inside people's head. The only way science can do something about this is by probability which isn't deterministic>morality through understanding natureYou cannot understand morality through observing nature, because you cannot understand what passes on people's head, what you can do is a probability study which isn't deterministic
>>203508523I personally have a take on it, someone might not have the same take as me. Can you know what the next person is thinking?
Everyone above me should kill themselves
>>203508578again, it's the same matter of anything that we can come to understand the nature of, how the eye works can be spoken of in the same way. we don't need to know everything that 'passes on people's head' in order to understand the behaviour of creatures.
>>203508622>we don't need to know everything that 'passes on people's head' in order to understand the behaviour of creatures.Yes, you need. That is what science is about. You are literally denying reason by assuming that. That is why the only serious studies about this are in the probability realm
>>203508578and the issue of 'what is inside people's head' - individuals themselves don't know that, again, creatures are not rational automaton machines, everything begins with a visceral instinctive reaction, this is self evident in how dishonest and how bullshit so many people are, and they often can't even recognise they're lying to themselves as it's piles of coping mechanisms, and many of those coping mechanisms are to delude the self in order to be able to cope. you ever notice how contradictory supposed moralities are? it's all after the fact, they're having a visceral reaction to something, which they don't know why they have it - can't possibly comprehend the complexity of why they have it, and it goes through all sorts of justifications in order to be socially acceptable.i feel like that to you the things i'm saying is perhaps sort of desacralising people, but to me what i'm saying is not only just not coping with that, yes, we understand behaviour and so on through material processes, but it is where something truly sacred is, because it is rationalising things which is what destroys anything sacred.and this is the ultimate critique of liberalism is that liberalism through rationalising and quantifying everything destroys everything. when you apply reason to things, when you separate something from the true irrational mysterious instinctive nature of creatures which makes them majestic, then you destroy everything. eventually there's no Beauty, there's no Love, there's no art, there's nothing, and in the end there's nothing left but money and relations.
>>203500609I hate brazilian too, Kraut.
>>203508746>individuals themselves don't know that, again, creatures are not rational automaton machines, everything begins with a visceral instinctive reaction, this is self evident in how dishonest and how bullshit so many people are, and they often can't even recognise they're lying to themselves as it's piles of coping mechanisms, and many of those coping mechanisms are to delude the self in order to be able to cope.you are simply assuming that and that isn't scientific at all
>>203508634?? what you just said is a grotesque caricature of science. science is a matter of making valid predictions. not only you're trying to write off entire fields of quantitative science but there is an extensive and rapidly advancing understanding of the brain and consciousness as products of complex systems, along with, again our whole understanding of life developing through material processes.
>>203508816> science is a matter of making valid predictionsSo science is probability now?
>>203508780it's the scientific consensus at this point. you must be appealing to is antiquated notions. it's self-evident through any scientific study of behaviour; it's self-evident through a basic understanding of life and evolution, contradicted by Creationism and that we're miniature Yahwehs. it's not a matter of that there isn't 'learned behaviour', or 'rational behaviour', or there's no Conscious Choice, it's a matter of that ipso facto by the very nature of life, of that we are organisms, at the fundamental level, any process of any living creature begins with a biological response to stimuli, evolving from survival mechanisms that have evolved over billions of years, that there are also very complex processes that have evolved doesn't change the fundamental nature of a living organism. you should pinch yourself and ask yourself what it is that you're even trying to argue, or even trying to argue against and why
>>203508826we already went over this when you started conflating science with proof. science is not a matter of truth, or fact, or proof. Science is a matter of validitiy. in science we talk about validity because it's not a matter of being able to make valid predictions.
>>203508897>it's the scientific consensus at this point. you must be appealing to is antiquated notions.Yes, the scientific consensus of something you cannot understand, great science>Science is a matter of validitiy. Validity is different from making a prediction, something being valid implies in a logic behind it to become valid, predictions are only predictions, they are guides to logical conclusions but aren't the conclusions per se
>>203508897>>203508910These two have been debating for 6 hours now. Get a room and start making out you two.
>>203508926maybe this is a language problem. empirical observation and experimentation is through a model or theory's validity is measured through whether its ability to make accurate predictions. logic is a derivational system where a logically valid syllogism is a restatement of the premises, which is what makes it valid is the premises you begin with are reformulated in the conclusion; you don't get any new information out of logic (which is why the fallacy of suggesting you can equate something like morality to logic, or mathematics, which is just tautological systems of pre-defiend axioms. this is why the idea of something being Universally True, or Absolutely True, is a self contradictory incoherent meaningless concept. we can't arrive at moral conclusions through anything like logic as logic is just restating what you began with, which is your feelings - and that's where morality comes from is that it built on your nature as a creature, and morality can't be independent from a creature as it depends upon and is a product of the nature of a creature)
>>203508926and it's about time we started discussing something meaningful instead of this cock sucking shit of just platitudes you've been doing forever and asking me to just not recognise the world as it is infront of us, because you keep talking about morality but what does 'morality' even mean to you at this point?you have been arguing over a notoin which are you even prepared to put any meaning in? because it's easy to just say>no it's not no it's not u don't know what's real no it's not it's magicalbut give the concept of morality meaning and then we'll see how what you say stands up when you actually need to say something that means anything.any moral law is simply something that you are willing to use violence, or force, to protect or prevent something happening, and that's exactly what moral law is when it comes down to it, or something you're willing to praise. because before i say like>are you sayinig that all scientific understanding of behaviour, empathy, psychology, personality etc is "SCIENCE TRESPASSING ON PHILOSOPHY!"because where are you drawing this line, as you don't say anything that means anything because you won't give anything meaning, you can just talk about morality as this magical other thing that exists outside of actual behaviour of creatures, but, like the rest of reality, it's manifest that a creature using any force, or caring for anything, is a result of its instinctual reactions and survival mechanisms of protecting those it empathises with, protecting itself - just like as if creatures aren't primarily operating on visceral reactions, i used to be a lifeguard and you have any idea what a drowning person is like when they get a hold of you?
>>203509064>>203509299The only way to effectively make scientific model off morality, history whatever is through probability, and that isn't accurate at all because we cannot fully comprehend how thoughts are formed. One individual could easily overturn the fate of a society despite the average probability saying the he will go with the flow. Probabilistic models are only modeled over data that you have available, and we will probably never have access to the people thoughts for that to be completely accurate
Also I am off m8, I am too tired to keep on chatting with guy that is awake in India earning rupees to defend a dying empire by spreading bullshit from redditBye, it was fun
>>203502843>Iceland>Blue kek
>>203509311>because we cannot fully comprehend how thoughts are formedyou can't fully comprehend any aspect of nature - how could we ever? we're just apes, so therefore we can't even bother to understand ANYTHING. all and any of our understanding of reality is in some form 'probability', as you put it. that humans have any organ is a matter of 'probability'. the understanding of the human brain is rapidly advancing, we already have complex understandings of structure of the brain, neurochemistry, emotional experiences and resulting behaviour, what stimuli can change how a creature thinks or feels or behaves etc. we don't need to have any complete understanding of every facet of how a human thinks and feels in order to be able to understand much of the nature of it. We know that what you value, how you react to situations, how you cope with problems etc, is heritable and a matter of genes - how couldn't it be? are you made of magic stardust or something? we know stimuli which can change how you behave, how you feel, how you think, what you value, and even just the simple reality of that if i inflict enough pain on you then you will change, your morals will change, and your thoughts and feelings and values will adapt to the environment depending on the physiology of your brain. what even was it that you were trying to argue? your 'morals', of what you think force should be used for, is a product of the nature of you as a creature and other creatures in your environment and your circumstances. mostly a matter of trying to get food, security, status, and dick, or pussy, probably dick.
>>203509524>you can't fully comprehend any aspect of nature - how could we ever?Most deterministic models have to be accurate to be valid, and they are used formed from logic and observation, the laws of physics and others are an example of that. While probabilistic models need accurate data and a huge processing power to make a huge number of interations to succeed in making a valid model and even then it pales in comparison to a deterministic model most of the times.
>>203509524>We know that what you value, how you react to situations, how you cope with problems etc, is heritable and a matter of genes - how couldn't it be?You cannot be certain of that, you are assuming that
>>203509524> what even was it that you were trying to argue?The fact that you cannot make a valid scientific model for morality, history whatever because you cannot fully understand the human mind, you can only make a probabilistic model which isn't accurate at all, because we don't have enough data for that and probably will never have
>>203509693a model is not 'fully comprehending' nature, it's just a model, which you don't have much familiarity with but someone told you about deterministic models and probabilistic models and somehow you confused that as one being scientific and the other not. the model depends on the context, a probabilistic model is for a realistic representation of complex systems that have a lot of variability, a deterministic model looking for a single deterministic prediction is useless. i don't follow why you're talking about and how you think getting into deterministic and probabilistic models is relevant.
>>203509752you're going in circles. we already do have valid scientific models for behaviour. science doesn't depend upon 'fully understanding' something, rather science is the process of coming to increasingly understand.
>>203509720in the replication crisis, the likes of genopolitics does not suffer. in fact when we look at heritability of personality traits, political views and so on, it's far more scientific than almost all the rest.
>>203509825>it's just a model, which you don't have much familiarity with but someone told you about deterministic models and probabilistic models and somehow you confused that as one being scientific and the other not.Both are scientific, I never said they weren't. The difference is that one for it to be accurate it needs tons of accurate data and processing power, which in the case of history, politics whatever is impossible to achieve accuracy>complex systems that have a lot of variabilityDo you understand that reaching that model through probability doesn't imply in fully understanding its dynamics?
I just woke up. What happened to my thread? Tf are you debating about
>>203509840>we already do have valid scientific models for behaviour.Models based on probability without accurate data.
>>203509862> in fact when we look at heritability of personality traits, political views and so onIt's also a probability model without accurate data, how can you be certain that these things are due to genetics?
>>203500609true
>>203509896We're discussing the matter of morality, not history and politics. "fully understanding the dynamics" doesn't mean anything. typically you're just evasively moving onto other things, where you're then also wrong. that how we feel about things is a product of our biology isn't a matter of probabilistic models, it's a matter of ipso facto by the nature of living creatures that our experiences are a product of stimuli and that any and all aspects of experiencing anything is a matter of our sensory system, and even the notion of separating complex processes of pre frontal cortex and so on from being an instinctual reaction is merely useful concept for understanding it but is necessarily also a part of the same organic systems of instinctual responses, there's a nice notion, a 'GOD OF THE GAPS' if you like, that we can't explain phenomenal consciousness, aka qualia, and we can insert magic there of perhaps, even though it makes no real sense, there is some reverse input from the immaterial realm of our soul where Mind bridges Soul and Brain and so on, but ultimately the brain is an organ which is a product of survival mechanisms over billiions of years of evolution, and even if there is a magical jewish angel in your head it's still inseparable from the visceral instinctual response as anything and everything it can experience is shaped by instinctual responses.this is aside from that psychology, neuroscience, even social sciences, isn't going away, rather is making large strides in mapping brain structures, understanding processing and development of eomtions, identifying neurchemical pathways etc.
>>203510004predictive validity and replication. you seem to despise science. this feels a lot like religious conversations of the past where you're hoping that somewhere in the vanishingly small territory you can fit in a material god, just 2020s last stages of it.
>>203510144>We're discussing the matter of moralityMorality comes from a set of values an individual holds, how can you be certain these values come from nature? By asking someone? lmao>predictive validity and replicationAh yes, getting two twins that were raised separately to hold the same beliefs proves that genetics are able to determine beliefs, that is why we should model our whole society over biology
>>203510171>you seem to despise science.Yes, I am the one literally proposing that shitty models should be used to determine the future of mankind
>>203510218> that is why we should model our whole society over biologyyou've done it again, and this is what all of it comes down to and why you keep going in circles and saying stupid things, because you're not discussing in good faith. you're ideologically driven where you're opposed to understanding the world if it contradicts culty narratives that your ideology depends upon (which is a product of your neuroses and coping mechanisms and seeking of status and feeling that you're a good person and so on). none of this has anything to do with how we should model society lol.>Morality comes from a set of values an individual holds, how can you be certain these values come from nature? By asking someone? lmaoby coming to terms with reality of that your values are a product of your brain structure, emotional processing, dopaminergic system, behavioral genetics, epigenetics, and all of your social behaviours and social learning is something which has evolved through selection pressures and your ability to reason and how you reason and what premises you choose in reasoning is a product of your developed coping mechanisms and neuroses and emotional development, your need to tell yourself certain narratives in order to psychologically hold yourself together in order to feel good about yourself, or affirm yourself, or maybe hurt yourself, in order to cope with whatever, is all a product of instinctual visceral responses from your genotype being expressed within an environment. just basic inevitable stuff that you can't get around.
>>203510325still doing it. showing that to you this all about your feelings and ideology, which is why you come out with such fallacies and absurd strawmen. sorry but you're done with.
>>203500609>They're worse than Poles.careful adolf few more steps and you'll fall in love with us like the one bavarian guy
>>203510344>just basic inevitable stuff that you can't get around.Yes, humans are purely biological you can see that from my probabilistic model that cannot have accurate data because we cannot grasp human thought>>203510356>>203510344You are the one still dodging the fact that you are fundamentally flawed, because you are using science in a domain it doesn't belong. We cannot grasp human thought and we probably never will because our reality is grasped by the same thing we are trying to understand
>>203510356>sorry but you're done with.You were done like 30 posts before that. I am literally repeating the same phrases over and over because you cannot get over the fact that you believe in biological materialism
I have to get ready for my commitments this morning. I feel that everything I've said, from how modern economy developed to a crazy trying to claim that somehow our ability to consciously experience the world isn't inextricable a matter of our biology, is not only fairly well said but there's been no legit counter argument to any of it, just a lot of shrill gnashing of teeth and squealing. I'll end by saying that, again, all these notions of>all hoomans are the same (but not the animals you can factory farm those)>we're all blank slates>we simply choose what we value and what we feelanything along those lines are very dehumanising, delegitimsing, abusive, institutionalising, culty paradigms where creatures must tell themselves and one another that htey don't value, even reject, what actually makes them who they are, and what actually any genuine love or empathy or beauty actually come from, and rpelace it with a culty concept of some amorphous soul, where the flesh must bend to the divine will.It's very similar to Scientology - you see a lot of it explicitly in Scientology, and it's a typical strain of thinking. It's something that removes everything sacred and beautiful in life, and that's not necessarily a BAD thing, it's also an aspect of evolution and our nature, and it's the successful expression of some dominating others and gaining resources and stauts. Much like various scam which prey on the desperate and naive, or take advantage of people's good will or desire for status.You can study these types of individuals, and, besides they'll be high in neuroticism and narcissism etc, they'll be unhappy and have poor lifeoutcomes. It's the sort of individuals who spent time on introspection crap instead of going and doing something in order to feel differently; their inability to recognise and care for themselves as a visceral creature of feeling and instinct leads them to being losers and being caught in a trap of other creatures, which is all over nature.
>>203510470>all hoomans are the same (but not the animals you can factory farm those)>we're all blank slates>we simply choose what we value and what we feelLmao you are literally a brainlet if that is your conclusion from everything I just said. I don't believe we are blank slates nor that biology doesn't affect human beings, but believing REALITY IS BIOLOGY is fundamentally ideological and flawed. And that was your downfall, you believe in Biological Materialism and believe that this is reality. And thing that simply cannot be proven whatsoever
>>203510470>they'll be unhappy and have poor lifeoutcomesYes, people should not be ambitious, they should accept their roles in society and learn to live with it haha. We are lowly animals and we should accept that some people (israelis and americans) are superior
