/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11171228
whats their stance on catgirls?

>>11171228
>Who telling people they can't genetically engineer themselves or their kids?
God is one of those people. It is forbidden.

A pity reply.
No one cares about you, OP. Relax.

>>11171238
Go away Christcuck.

>>11171239
COPE.

They are philosophers and they are right you dumb utilitarian maggot.

>>11171245
>they are philosophers
So retards who couldn't study STEM?

>>11171252
Based

>>11171252
Go back to your popsci subreddit

>>11171267
cope

philosophers can't do integrals

>>11171228
reality check: it is obvious that engineering humans for intelligence and longevity (the thing you faggots are obsessed with) will be more difficult than engineering them to be tall, less violent etc. the most likely scenario if genetic engineering is widely adopted is that it will be used for meaningless cosmetic changes and to reduce people's stress, cognitive awareness and rebelliousness such that they can withstand the system's pressures more. essentially it will be a tool to domestic humanity

>>11171245
Don't tell me you're unrionically a deontologist.

>>11171240
brainlet

>>11171299
checked and based
>>11171228
they have small penises and are afraid of being inferior.
also they are wh*toid, virign freaks.

>>11171294
based and tedpilled

>>11171233
>14 posts in and no (You)s
i knew i shouldve used an image

>>11171245
>utilitarian
huh? how did you come up with this?

>>11171294
true. we should destroy everything actually. good point

>>11171459
based catgirl poster

>>11171781
heres my happy ass trying to get in on the ground floor of the new catgirl thread but nooooooooooooooo, nu-/sci/ is too good for catgirls threads apparently

>>11171228
You must become what you hate anon. Read their work and argue against them.

>>11171802
>muh morals
ok but there are muh morals too so go fuck yourself.

>>11171810
Morality is important you stupid retard otherwise people would have murdered you already for being a fucking idiot.
Your "morals" are irrelevant here because people don't look to you to write public policy. If you want designer babies you have to become a philosopher and argue for them like an adult.

>>11171839
So what is their main argument agains genetically modified babies in the world where it's legal to give birth when you know your baby has down-syndrome or when you're an alcoholic mother?

>>11171245
You can’t prove moral claims, moron.

>>11171889
Keep telling yourself that moral relativist scum.

>>11171916
proving anything requires axioms, which philosophy does not have

>>11171927
Isn't philosophy supposed to use logic?
Or are those type of philosophers called scientists now, and we have to obey to that other kind, those who deny logic? Those we call politicians, meh.

>>11171950
>Isn't philosophy supposed to use logic?
perhaps, but logic is built on axioms
in philosophy, logic is built on opinion, if you analyze a thought deeper and deeper, eventually you will come to a statement that you cannot prove, you have no real evidence for, and your peers may have wildly varying interpretations of

>>11171980
>you have no real evidence for
don't you have real evidence that 2+2=4?

>>11171985
the main thing i was trying to say is that math and logic need axioms that everyone agrees on, otherwise there is simply no real point
only schizos think 2+2 =/= 4

>>11171992
axioms come directly from definitions

>>11171228
based

>>11171927
Moral statements are non reducible to natural science or metaphysical statements. Even a 10 year old kid has a better notion of the property of goodness than a dumb relativist like you.

>>11172016
so are they arbitrary (because it's so convenient for those who don't want to reveal their true goals) or you can actually reduce genetically engineered children ban to some well-known moral norm?

>>11171228
>Frogposter calling others stupid

Oh the irony.

>>11172050
>> asked to prove that prohibition of a technology is moral
> you like frogs, thus you don't know what to like.
The question is right above your smug mug.

>>11172016
this argument is meaningless

>>11172066
No one is gonna do your homework faggot. Google is there for you to search papers of philosophers arguing for a particular position the matter.

>>11172112
> read our talmud
> no, I don't have to prove you shit, just obey
fuck off cuck

>morals aren't re-
*shoots you*
*smirks jewishly*

>>11172117
>>11172115
Good shit OP, now delete your sad thread, I think you trolled enough people already.

>>11172126
the guy you're arguing with isn't even OP lol

>>11172117
> genetically engineering oneself or one's descendants is literally murder!
You don't shoot people not because you're moral, but simply because you won't get out with it.
All true moral is reasonable.
All unreasonable moral is nothing but manipulation.
While Israel does whatever it wants, you are not allowed to, because you're too inferior to even understand why you shouldn't do it, so why bother explaining it to you.

>>11172139
>get out
get away
(not a native speaker here, my bad)

>>11172139
>You don't shoot people not because you're moral, but simply because you won't get out with it.

Dumb sophist says the same shit in Plato's dialogue only to get BTFO by Socrates a in the next chapter, you should read philosophy, many of your "original insights" have been refuted a thousand times.

>Ayn Rand

Never mind, it's too late for you.

>>11172165
>Socrates
the one who considered it moral to rape little boys?
So you read him, make your best to refute my "original insight" (even if it's too late for me, save the young ones reading this thread)

>>11171228

>>11172189
>the one who considered it moral to rape little boys?
based if true

...but its not

>>11172248
but it is
read this shit and tell me it's not one big fag fuck fest

>>11172248
a good portion of the early dialogues involve some situation where socrates is trying to woo or seduce some handsome boy