Forums

Here's the idea.    So basically, for an amount of bones (though its still offline, I know) you could make a custom (non-animated) emote. There would be a customization screen where you could pick features (hair, horns, ears, mood, eyes, ect.) And only you could use it. I feel like it'd be a nice way to express our "types" and add a more personal feeling to the experience of this site

This is funny... for me, it's exactly the other way around. In my head, there is only me (and the stupid autopilot, but that's a part of me). I'd get completely confused if there were others in there ... 

You're absolutely making sense, Charias. You're rationally and seriously addressing a very fair and complex question. I'd also like to second the statements made by @Cipher. However, let me try to add my own peak to that "philosophical hill" - for anyone willing to follow me up there: Correct. But I think we can safely formulate an even stronger statement: none of us can know for sure exactly how any other being thinks, including other humans or other animals. That means: if I would claim to you that I would think like a human, you could still ask me to prove it and I... couldn't. Neither can you. Because there is just no standard pattern of how a human is supposed to think; even if there were such pattern, I still wouldn't know exactly how you think, so I couldn't verify that your thinking actually matches the pattern. Hence, neither of us can prove that they're thinking like a specific animal, or a human; and still, neither of us can disprove an according claim. In other words, we have to trust that everybody thinks just like they do. And that "paradox" imo leads to exactly three viable options to handle personal people's beliefs which can not be scientifically proven, e.g. the otherkin belief. I'd like to point out that I only refer to beliefs which are reasonably, consistently and persistently taken, and that are not used to reason any violence against other beings, be it mental or physical. This includes, but is not limited to, the belief in the existence of god, the belief to be transgender, or the belief to be otherkin, but e.g. excludes beliefs taken temporarily for sheer fun. Having said that, the three options are as follows: 1) We call all of these beliefs wrong
2) We trust only part of the believers, i.e. we accept only a part of the beliefs and call every person who believes otherwise either wrong or even mad
3) We trust all of the believers, i.e. we accept all of the beliefs, regardless how strange or impossible they might seem Now, in my opinon, only option 3) is acceptable. Let my try to outline why I think so. First of all, taking option (1) would essentially mean to call most of the world population wrong. Also, I think it would consequently lead to accepting only things that can be explained by science; however, science fails to explain phenomena we constantly experience. This would e.g. include the phenomenon of conciousness, or feelings like e.g. love. These things would break down to be sheer consequences of electric signals in our central nervous system, the emergence of such would be mostly unknown. In some cases, e.g. the phenomenon of "phantom limbs" as consistently reported by otherkin, not even the biological use would be known. Now, to be honest, this is a fair assumption, but it is one that I just don't want to take because it leaves far too many effects unexplained, including those I'm constantly experiencing myself and can not deny. Coming to option (2). Now, first of all, because none of the beliefs can be proven better than another, there is no rational reason to accept only part of them. For example, there is no physical observation that verifies the existence of god; on the contrary, current physics' state of knowledge rather indicates the opposite. The same is the case for a person claiming to be transgender: the physical observation indicates the opposite. And yet the same is the case for otherkin. Hence, none of these beliefs is generally more or less provable than another. Secondly, the approach of accepting a specific belief just because the people taking it are in the majority can also be no rational reason, but would simply be unfair. Finally, I'd like to point out that history shows that taking option (2) was used to reason wars against believers who were classified to have the "wrong" belief. People have died in these wars. All in all, this makes option (2) completely inacceptable for me. Which leaves only option (3): accepting all of such beliefs. Now, what does that mean? It essentially means to take a "working assumption". In science, this term denotes an assumption that needs to be taken although it can not be proven. I will make the implications clear. For example, if a person consistently and persistently claims the personal belief that god exists, and names reasons for this belief, I have no other choice but to accept the working assumption that god actually does exist for that person. If a person likewise claims to be a man in the physical body of a woman... I have no other choice than to accept that this person really is a man in the physical body of a woman. If a person likewise claims to be a wolf in the physical body of a human... I consequently have no other choice than to accept that exactly this is actually the case, as unlikely as it may seem. Now, many otherkin perfectly match the criteria of consistently, persistently and reasonably taking their belief; the previous post is a good example: @Charias explicitely names the reasons.  The motivation for this belief is oftentimes not even externally triggered; many otherkin take their belief although nobody has ever explicitely told them to do so (which is, by the way, a general difference to a religion). Hence, I have no other choice than to accept that this perception is actually accurate: a person who rationally, consistently, and persistently believes to be non-physically a wolf.. is actually non-physically a wolf. As for how this can be, there are multiple explanation models. The concept of reincarnation is one of them. There are others, e.g. the multiverse hypothesis, but this is not the place to discuss them. I'd finally like to point out that the above is a personal opinion of mine which admittedly could be called quite extreme. Maybe I've made a logical mistake. Hence, I'll be more than happy to enter a discusson about it. For the time being, I wish you all the best for the treatment of the headache which emerged by studying this text !

This randoml;y came on our Spotify playlist radio thing yesterday and,, I completely forgot how good this is?? <33 its not our usual style but,,    

The more I think about it, the more I wonder how anyone even survives with just one person in their head. I would be so lost without Khar! It's just... kind of weird for us to even imagine, haha.

I've been very absorbed in my personal writing and art projects as of late-which is a good thing. I just....kind of dropped off the earth (internet) for a few days. Not like that's a bad thing though. I like where I'm headed with some creative processes. 

In Germany, we have the saying "and now we have the salad".... which actually means "and now everything's messed up". And that's pretty much how I feel after my second working day 2019

I just love this guy For me this Track is one of the top 3 in 2018 😄 Man i wish i'd be a HipHop journalist so i can support great Rappers like him and make them famous....