What demographic impact did WW2 have on Germany and Russia?
Did young male casualties halt population growth?
inb4 modern R*ssia has more women because of a war 70+ years ago
It's because R*ssian men die at 60 leaving a lot of babushkas
populations were booming across europe after the war
obviously many men were missing but it recovered fast
>>1909978
Why are you censoring Russia?
why are people these days so bitchy about exotic animals? it was common for royalty to have them but in the last 100 years or so it's seen as wrong
didnt mike tyson had an exotic animal
thats less than 50 years
i think it has become more uncommon because status symbols have been replaced by more convinient things like phones and cars
A: They're usually endangered
B: They're often dangerous, to people, the environment, or both.
That picture is a perfect example of both. Tigers are highly endangered. It's also A TIGER, and they got kids around it. Tigers can easily kill a person entirely by accident. The damn things can cave in a bears skull with a single swat. It can literally tear the flesh from your bones just by licking you. It's an apex predator, a killing machine, and those idiots have it as a house pet.
So yeah, idiots getting themselves killed, and the subsequent termination of the endangered animal. That's why.
>>1909960
chill, dude
What did they mean by this?
Don't interfere too much
>>1909824
People make their own problems, and even more trying to fix them
he was a libertarian
Hi /his/,
Lately I've been reading works on hermeticism, self-help, new thought and anthroposophy. I've renewed my faith in god and have been pulling myself from miserable thoughts and have become more confident and happy as of late.
I've been wanting to read The Ego and Its Own for a while but I'm afraid that it will take a shit on all of my progress in self-improvement thus far.
Can anyone confirm for me whether or not such a book would destroy my progress and turn me into a desperate man again?
>>1909609
Skip him. Mad Max isn't academically relevant outside of commentaries on Nietzsche anyway, so you aren't missing anything crucially important to a wholesome understanding of western philosophy.
Though, to his credit, I think it's easier to misinterpret the ideal of the overman more than it is to misinterpret spooks.
Good luck on your journey!
if you've made any "progress" that stirner's book would destroy, it's not actually progress. that would mean you've been building an artificial source of meaning in your life, to put it in more referential terms, "spooking yourself". it "works" as a bandage, as neechee was so desperate to try and "prove", but in reality it's a crutch that you don't need to survive and be happy. stirner organized these thoughts into a concise document that can be very useful to read if you're interested in having both a logically valid AND sound basis to your phenomenological outlook in life.
>>1909642
>academic relevance
sounds spooky
OP didn't say anything about understanding "western philosophy as a whole", so why are you responding with this ugly, wrong post? literally 99% of western philosophy derives "ought" from "is" and is objectively non-sequitor. literally 99%. not an exaggeration. and you tell him to skip reading part of the 1% that doesn't?
>>1909609
t. riven main
>Vidi, Vici, Veni
What did he mean by this, /his/?
>>1909608
t. riven main
>>1909608
He meant the ponts were a buncha cucks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zela
He was talking about your mom.
>his philosophical outlook contains an "ought"
you know that's non-sequitor, right?
>>1909598
So?
>>1909598
>you ought not derive an ought from an is
>>1909619
the reality of the situation is that deriving an "ought" from an "is" is non-sequitor. there is no "ought" involved in that fact unless you derive one from it, like you just did, making your smartass response non-sequitor.
Ultimately, every post we do is to further our own agenda. Wether it is to make someone laugh, which makes us feel good, or to get (You)s, to show people you point of view to make them think like you, to give information to people which could make the world a better place, what you would call a better place. Is it to make people angry which you find amusing, it all comes down to one thing: You do it because you want to accomplish something with it, which is through you subjective eyes something positive, disregarding all the other oppinions.
Furthermore, in real life, it is no different. Is it the old lady you in the subway you offer your seat to which makes you feel good because you feel like you did something good, or the homeless guy next streat you gave some money for the same reason? Isn't it still egoistic in some kind of sense just because we do something which we think is good, making us feel a bit better?
Even this very thread is only to further my own agenda, seeing different point of views and possibly further my horizon,
I would of course differentiate between pure egoism, which only involves you own well being, and this, I would call it social egoism, resulting in helping others in order to feel good themselves. But never the less, they are just egoism only manifested in another way.
So what do you guys think?
Pic related is just some also a bit philosophical but not really related
tl;dr
learn to make OPs better nobody is going to read this.
>>1909600
Dont be so lazy
>>1909587
t. riven main
Revelations 22:16 KJB
>"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
"
My best guess is that jesus came to do the Job that Lucifer was supposed to bring. However, it crashes with my interpretation that Lucifer did brought us the light unintentionally by tempting us to become something more that naive children.
My nigga that video is old as fuck.
>>1909530
>root
This is a typo, in the original Aramaic it was "robot". Christ was warning us of the faggotry that is /r9k/
>>1909571
Well, fuck me up and nail me to a cross, Senpai
Is there a leader in history who earned utmost loyalty and respect from his soldiers on the same scale as Caesar?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxLqx8xF9Pw
>>1909496
Napoleon maybe?
Muhammad
>Napoleon continued to walk on, to within easy range of the guns.
>‘Soldiers, I am your emperor. Know me! If there is one of you who would kill his Emperor, here I am’.
>He threw open his famous grey greatcoat, inviting a shot.
>It was more than the government soldiers could bear; they abandoned their weapons and ran towards the invaders, shouting ‘Vive l’Empereur!’
>They tore the white royalist cockades off their shakos and threw them to the ground. They clamoured around Napoleon, reaching out to touch him, weeping. Their great leader was back amongst them.
>The hapless officer offered his sword to Napoleon and may well have feared the worst. Instead he was swept into a forgiving embrace.
Is he our guy?
No, this board has already been lost to reactionary Catholics. It's advised that you migrate elsewhere.
Only commies like him.
He's what every /his/torian should strive to be.
Marx's theories regarding labor were written by a man who doesn't understand the value of labor. Labor is the a person's time multiplied by their work. Communism forces those who labor more to be unequally yoked with those who labor less, or not at all.
>>1909371
>Communism forces those who labor more to be unequally yoked with those who labor less, or not at all.
And how do you deduce that?
Communism lets you keep the full product of your labor. If you labor less, you get less product.
>>1909407
What if you need the product of someone else's labor? How do you decide the value for exchange?
>>1909407
>Communism lets you keep the full product of your labor. If you labor less, you get less product.
"The full product of your labor" is a meaningless term when all of modern economics is so intertwined that the whole is enormously more than the sum of its parts.
Who were the greatest inventors? I'm inclined to think it's the Chinese. They created paper, the compass, gunpowder, and printing. Who can top that?
God.
America, France, and Britain.
The holy trinity of the Industrial and Electronic Revolution.
Depends on how you define "invent", really. If you take it to mean initial discovery (regardless of practicality, applicability or if someone else takes the idea and does more with it) then I'd say the Chinese but in a practical "we need a solution to this problem" sense then the Romans have everyone else absolutely BTFO. If you're talking about less tangible things, such as art or philosophy, then either Renaissance Italy or the ancient Greeks, respectively.
You just got a time machine. When and where do you go?
The 1910's America
>>1909305
2 days ago, then I can bet all my money on the outcome of the melbourne cup and become a millionaire
>>1909305
>where
Good question. Know any good astrophysicists who would be able to give the earths position at any given time in the past?
Amelia Earhart likely died as a castaway, not in the air
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/world/history-rewritten-amelia-earhart-trnd/
>"We found records of bonfires being lit in the area where the bones were found. Based on the fish bones and bird bones found in the area, Earhart survived weeks, maybe even months, in that island," Gillespie said.
>>1909061
Her last thoughts were probably "i wish i paid more attention in home economics class".
>>1909061
>women
>surviving
blatant SJW propaganda piece
>>1909124
She didn't survive, she died.
how exactly did this guy do this without screaming his ass off and freaking out?
>>1908951
He attained the state of past beyond giving a fuck.
is this the most based death in history?
>>1909006
I honestly think it is.