/lit/ - Literature

>did someone say Bakker? I HECKIN love Bakker!!

>>14771470
>Because the 'sciences' all exist on enclosed, entirely consistent and entirely confirmed bases! AND every scientist has a high IQ inately--therefore they dont need to examine the rational integrity of their epistemology they just knooooow :D it's just like chess (that's an intellectual game, right? One that 'high IQ individuals' know from birth, and anyone who questions the actual worth of the game as a pastime just doesn't get the ruuuuules. Just like science ftw) Not to mention IQ tests may have been designed within a specific framework to reward certain thought-patterns, but only the best ones!

Upvoted chessmaster! Don't be embarrassed, but your genius is showing!

Your Daddy may have never approved, but daddy Dennet wuvs youuuuu!

>>14753391
>Direct challenge to which he can reply with a solid reference
>Instead devolves into literal incoherence (I won't threaten the status quo I maintain just so you gain nothing productive anyway. I just wanted to show that post approval AKA upboat :^) as if it's some dismissive retort instead of a complete dodge

Yeah, you're a complete retard and even you suspect it deep down. Your status quo doesn't mean anything, it was a game. If you're such a genius you could do it a hundred different ways on a dozen different topics in the coming week without it connecting back. You just don't want other eyes on your delusional discourse, having it exposed. And it's clear what your delusion is: of all the responses here you zero in on the Nietzchean retard humblebrag critique (it's the thrill of your intellectual dominance!--pic rel.) instead of anything else.

>>14741038
r/nosleep

Upvoted!

>>14077292
>no i don't want to harm or torture anybody, not even animals

>>13939471
>favorite

>>13722421
>So I just finished reading this and wow, I just have to say the gods are dicks.

>>12854458
>archipelago books
>folio society
>dalkey archive
>norton critical
>new directions
>oxford world's classics

>What do you mean you don't see the point in building a multi-billion dollar, seventeen mile wide Ouroboros in the middle of Europe so we can smash particles together and then fellate each other whenever we get a blip on a computer screen?
>Don't you like particles? I didn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a gender neutral STEM education just so that I could wind up on the street with a trunk full of condoms and overpriced textbooks, unable to put organic basedmilk from Amazon's Whole Foods on my wife's son's table!
>What do you mean you don't care how many Higg's bozos we discovered in our laboratory? Don't you care about the progress of science? Don't you know what will happen when we discover what happened during the Big Bang? We'll be able to explain it--that's what! And then we'll figure out what gravity is, so that backwards ruralites like you without a STEM degree can read about it in Scientific American, right after the article with child pornogra--I mean transgender rights for children!
>And then what? And then we'll smash MORE particles with tax payer funding so that MY wife's son can get HIS article published in Science Weekly when HE'S old enough, and work in an underground world serpent, so that he can afford to by scones at Starbucks every day on his way to work, while his wife is away at Goddard Space Station with HIS wife's son, making waves as a woman in the field of astrophysics and so forth.
>And can you PLEASE just admit that one day there will be colonies on Mars and people will fornicate there and live happily in high-tech space suits with lattes and so forth, without conservatives there to tells us we "can't" genetically modify our babies and open our borders to migrants, which we will transport in droves from the earth to live as our pet underclass, comfortably far removed from my three-bedroom space loft in a gated community, performing the dirty work while we work in the high-tech MINERAL space center on Mars, or at SpaceX, playing Kerbel Space Program during our lunch break, etc.

>>11282065
>I'm an atheist buddhist because buddhism doesn't have any non-scientific beliefs