/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4622354
This will be my last post, because you refuse to argue any solid points whatsofuckingever.
>"If THIS is your argument why we shouldn't care if children suffer more than necessary..."
Well, mister, I EXPLAINED my argument and you IGNORED it; by all estimations because you have no idea what you are espousing. Given I am arguing against you, and you think my argument is "why we shouldn't care if children suffer more than necessary", YOUR argument must be --in it's purest form-- that **children should not suffer more than necessary**. Now, here are that parts that you will conveniently ignore: Everything the western world does in rearing a child is more than necessary. If you want the bare minimum of suffering for a child, you would teach it an english and nothing else. You would teach it no science, because humanity can stay perfectly fine forever being motherfucking animals. That's what you want, right? Because it is for the children? You are some sort of Holden Fucking Caufield, you know that? You just want to catch all the fucking little kiddies in your logico-positivist pseudo-imperialist net before the fall of the cliff of imagination and into real fucking life. Again, I will restate my argument:
If you are trying to argue that a consistently happy person is better than a bipolar or depressed or OCD personality, you are first going to have to delve into the meaning of happiness, pain, and life. I want to know that you are using a computer that doesn't have those rare earth minerals that are found in Africa and that have caused hundreds of thousands of African children to die. I want to know you make your own clothes, because 95% of American clothing is processed with child labor. You BETTER not have a Mac, you better not do drugs, et cetera.

Hrmm.. Shall I take life advice from /sci/?