/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15675271
*basedntsits

>>15675271
link the thread fucking faggot

onionstsits? what the heck?
>>15675275
basedntsits? what is this schizo thread

>>15675333
sci filters and modifies certain words
like sointists

>>15675271
reddit is not philosophy. Antinatalism is not real philosophy, either. By the way, also philosophy is not science. Go back.

>>15675346
>Antinatalism is not real philosophy
it is, you're just a fag.
thats not what the OP is asking tho

>>15675346
Suicidal philosophies are still philosophies. Buddhism, for example, is all about that ego death and longs for the day when all suffering (i.e. life) is wiped out from the universe.

>>15675343
>sointists
define this... "word".

>>15675271
>morality
>meaning
Justify why you (mistakenly) believe that philosophy has a monopoly on these purely subjective topics. Not a single moral question has ever been conclusively answered by philosophy. Not a single meaning has ever been objectively established by philosophers. Any retard with no education can have an opinion on these and his opinion will be just as valid as that of a philosophy professor. Now choke on your onions, you mouth breathing cretin.

>>15675378
onions + scientists
some /pol/ack thing I guess.

>>15675392
>Virgin Truth Seeker versus Chad Reality Bender

>>15675389
>Justify why you (mistakenly) believe that philosophy has a monopoly on these purely subjective topics...
philosophy can only come from a mind.
>Not a single meaning has ever been objectively
established by philosophers
because its not possible there are only approximations to philosophical insights
the philosophers job is to try to bridge those things as much as possible, but this does not mean that just because they're "non-provable" that therefore the are dismissed.
let me remind you that science it self is in a sense also non-provable, since you can never be sure of your own sensations.

Philosophy is programming self. You learn codes. You program into yourself codes. You live your life with extra backbone.

It's important. Crucial to rasing children.

>>15675392
what do onions have to do with scientists? how does it relate to "sointists"? what in the world....

>>15675409
Onions is the wordfilter result.

>>15675409
sci keeps filtering S.O.Y as onions
its a /pol/ meme

>>15675392
I started the soience meme

>>15675366
It's not a real philosophy, femcel. It's just a way for you to cope with the fact that Chad will never breed you. Sorry.

>>15675409
onions

>>15675389
>thats another philosophical argument

>>15675371
>inspired by mental illness caused by artificial toxins and social disintegration
>marketed to the masses by eugenicist elites
>a real philosophy
Nope.

>>15675422
>natalists always make it about themselves and never the victims (the kids)
its not about the antinatalists themselves you cretin.

>>15675431
How did I know you're a femcel? By the way, there's no such thing as "natalists". Having kids is not an ideology. You are losing your mind with rage.

>>15675427
>marketed to the masses by eugenicist elites
... its da joose?
on seconds hands maybe a forum where mentally ill schizophrenic racists hangout isn't the best place to discuss science nor philosophy.

>>15675427

>>15675436
Notice your incoherent explosion of rage over a simple, documented truth. Why are you suddenly spewing a thousand buzzwords and lashing out at standardized boogeymen? Is your programming kicking in?

>>15675435
>How did I know you're a femcel?
who are you talking to? are you ok buddy?

>>15675440
Chad will never even spit in your direction, let alone breed you. lol

>>15675271
God.

>>15675451
God non exists. For every existence is God's non existence.

>>15675438
>taking away freedom from certain individuals because of some schizophrenic nonsense

To a normal person "You should not kill" is a trivially obvious common sense statement. Only a philosopher would doubt it. In what sense then can a philosopher be considered ethical if he doesn't even accept something as basic as "You should not kill"? What philosophers are doing is the opposite of ethics.

Now remember the role of philosophers in the pandemic. All so called ethics councils fully supported all human rights violations by governments. They supported lockdown, they supported arrests of protesters. They supported vaxx mandates, forced vaccinations and total exclusion of all unvaccinated citizens. They also consistently refused to address the fact that the discrimination against unvaccinated citizens includes discrimination against the victims of vaxx injuries who are legally considered unvaxxed due to the fact that they can't get a booster. In fact the philosophers in these so called ethics councils vehemently denied the existence of vaxx injuries and supported laws to censor people talking about their vaxx injuries. Throughout the pandemic the so called ethical philosophers turned out to be nothing more than primitive utilitarians arguing in favor of genocidal policies.

1/2

Let's look at another historical example, shall we? The philosophers of the enlightenment were the propagandists of racism and slavery. Throughout middle ages and renaissance different cultures may have been at war, but never developed ideological framework of alleged racial superiority/inferiority. They coexisted in mutual respect. Slavery was prohibited by common moral standards. It was the work of philosophers to deconstruct this world view and introduce racial theory. Only with the philosophers' justification a huge scale industrial enslavement of other races became possible. Now 300 years later, philosophers again are at the forefront of racist propaganda. After decades of peace with the implicit assumption of racial equality, philosophy departments nowadays are aggressively pushing "critical whiteness theory". Their goal is to abolish the notion of racial equality and to introduce racial mistrust and racial hatred.

I'll ask again: In what sense can these philosophers be trusted when it comes to ethics and morality?

2/2

>>15675459
Bro just stop forcing people into this existence...

>>15675459
>To a normal person "You should not kill" is a trivially obvious common sense statement.
You mean except for all the people and circumstances where "normal" people are okay with killing? The thing about normalgroid automatons like you is that they can't grasp just how much of their core perception of the world is socially conditioned and not "obvious" or "trivial" at all. "You should not kill" as a principle is a fairly recent and inherently philosophical development.

>>15675461
>>15675459
Lol didn't read. Tard. Kys now

>>15675459
>>15675461
Because you can't completely rely on "common sense"
at some point rape was common sense, it was good enough for certain tribes at certain times.
just because people are free to philosophize anything they want doesn't mean that philosophy is guilty. you're free to make your own philosophy that sounds "sane" to you.

If we did kill people, the world wouldn't be in turmoil. Nevermind the fact people do kill people. It's in the philosophers mind we realize things like, 'you shalt not kill' does not work as a philosophy, and we'd devise what's better suited, such as a lesson on why killing is bad, and in which situations killing is good. "If you want to kill, join the army', per se. It can also be reduced to the fact killing in nature is ought, you ought kill to protect or even to feed if necessary; you shalt not kill is a philosophical standpoint and it's barely a good one on it's own that a good philosopher would declare has the opposite effect. It's saying 'no' without a good reason which is puzzling enough to send a man insane for the opposite. A fools law.

>>15675464
>"You should not kill" as a principle is a fairly recent and inherently philosophical development.
A statement that was already considered trivial in the earliest written texts of humanity more than 4000 years ago in mesopotamia is not "fairly recent".

>>15675271
>where do they get their morality/meaning/philosophy from?
From facts and logic. Simple as.

>>15675480
The process of taking code from facts and logic is philosophy.

>>15675480
so philosophy?

>>15675480
Since when do philosophers purely study myths to get their morality code?

>>15675472
>already considered trivial in the earliest written texts of humanity
They wouldn't have bothered to write it down if it was considered trivial, groid.

>more than 4000 years ago in mesopotamia is not "fairly recent".
No, that's precisely "fairly recent", but this isn't even relevant. Even today "thou shalt not kill" isn't something normalgroids (like you) uphold as a principle. They uphold it only as far as law and social norms extend. They are more than happy to support endless and senseless killing in the name of whatever the corporate narrative makes into the current thing.

>>15675461
>Throughout middle ages and renaissance different cultures may have been at war, but never developed ideological framework of alleged racial superiority/inferiority. They coexisted in mutual respect. Slavery was prohibited by common moral standards. It was the work of philosophers to deconstruct this world view and introduce racial theory. Only with the philosophers' justification a huge scale industrial enslavement of other races became possible.
Slavery wasn't common in Europe in the middle ages because Christian theology deemed the enslavement of other Christians to be abhorrent. It remained common in other parts of the world (Africa, Western Asia). It was also very common in classical cultures, even advanced ones like Greece and Rome. During the height of the Roman empire, up to 20% of the population consisted of slaves.

>>15675453
>no one mentions rights being taken away except the schizo ximself
>schizo projects their schizophrenia onto someone else for something they completely fabricated in their own mind
many such cases

>>15675487
>They wouldn't have bothered to write it down if it was considered trivial, groid.
You clearly never read ancient texts. They wrote down all kind of trivial shit.

>No, that's precisely "fairly recent", but this isn't even relevant.
It's very relevant because this moral prinicple precedes the advent of philosophy by 2000 years.

>They are more than happy to support endless and senseless killing in the name of whatever the corporate narrative makes into the current thing.
Only because philosophers once again larp as authorities on ethics telling everyone their lies on why genocide is suddenly morally justified.

>>15675493
Fun fact: In ancient Rome when a slave impregnated a free woman the child born this way was a free citizen. Quickly after importing black slaves there were more free black citizens in Rome than black slaves.

>>15675459
Normalfags are completely retarded (you being a good example). I'm not trusting their "common sense" on anything.
>human rights
Especially this meme.

>>15675506
MADE FOR BBC
MADE FOR BBC
MADE FOR BBC

>>15675281
>>15675508
https://www.reddit.com/r/Efilism/comments/15stlwt/normies_are_so_utterly_sadistic_they_are_ok_with/

>>15675508
You are apparently too autistic to recognize that the word "normal" in my post did not refer to normalfag NPCs. It is in fact embarrassing for you that I have to spell it out explicitly because you didn't get it. "Normal" in this semantic context is to be read as "capable of common sense and critical thinking" as opposed to cognitively and morally deficient philosotards.

>>15675504
>You clearly never read ancient texts. They wrote down all kind of trivial shit.
I figured you were talking about writings that pertain specifically to the subject, you cretin, since they probably don't casually mention about all the people they didn't kill in miscellaneous records.

>this moral prinicple precedes the advent of philosophy by 2000 years.
Records of it as a "moral principle" ARE philosophy from 2000 years ago. None of this helps your point no matter how you twist it, because 2000 years ago may as well be yesterday in terms of the history of this species. You're legitimately crippled in the mind if you still can't grasp that it's been "normal" to kill people for arbitrary reasons for literally 99% of human history, and that's ignoring the fact that it has remained normal for the other 1% despite the shift in thinking towards "moral principles" as opposed to ad hoc "common sense" that says you may or may not kill people depending on current circumstances and fashion.

>>15675534
doesnt change the fact that your sentiment shows how little cognitive ability you posses since you are unable to determine how conditioned you are. 99% of your thoughts and feeling have literally been dictated to you, you didnt come up with any of it, you inherited it. You are little more than a flesh automaton

>>15675346
At the end of the day we can't prove anything to each other. we think pain has real value, you don't
agree to disagree.

>>15675534
No you faggot nigger, "normal" is not whatever you happen to believe at any moment.
You're retarded and so are your opinions.

>>15675544
>Records of it as a "moral principle" ARE philosophy from 2000 years ago.

>None of this helps your point no matter how you twist it, because 2000 years ago may as well be yesterday in terms of the history of this species.
Civilization started with bronze age. Anything before that is irrelevant to the discussion.

>You're legitimately crippled in the mind if you still can't grasp that it's been "normal" to kill people for arbitrary reasons for literally 99% of human history, and that's ignoring the fact that it has remained normal for the other 1% despite the shift in thinking towards "moral principles" as opposed to ad hoc "common sense" that says you may or may not kill people depending on current circumstances and fashion.
None of this contradicts what I said. You seem to be confused what kind of argument you want to make. So far you made none.

>>15675553
My thoughts and feelings are original and the product of critical thinking. You are projecting.

>>15675571
Seething hard.

>>15675585
>it's been "normal" to kill people for arbitrary reasons for literally 99% of human history
>"common sense" says you may or may not kill people depending on current circumstances and fashion
>None of this contradicts what I said
What you said:
>To a normal person "You should not kill" is a trivially obvious common sense statement.

See? Mentally ill and low IQ. No discussion to be had here.

>>15675588
you are donkey only capable of donkey thoughts and donkey reasoning

>>15675591
>t. no common sense
This is just sad. You really are that autistic that you can only think in absolutes? It's common sense that there are always exceptions.

>>15675593
You're the ass clown who didn't know what an IP address is. It's time to drop the name tag.

>>15675593
In this world donkey mind rules. Those who are against philosophy are the ones making IQ threads in effort to categorize the ones that do donkey. So donkey do. One vicious cycle.

>>15675601
You can't even respond coherently anymore. I thought you were mentally ill but you're clearly just a Markov chain bot.

>>15675603
Kek. Now bodhi will post his shitty screenshot collection of his own schizo posts and call "Anonymous" an obsessed schizo.

>>15675608
Are those "Markov chain bots" in the room with you right now?

>>15675609
bodhi is a womanizer bigot racist schizo fag.

>>15675607
How low did you score on the IQ test?

>>15675614
Transport yourself to any episode in history that involved "normal" people massacring other "normal" people. Is "common sense" in the room with you right now? LOL. Anyway, no one cares about your keyword-based psychotic ramblings.

>>15675620
>Transport yourself to any episode in history that involved "normal" people massacring other "normal" people.
You still trying to force your silly word games with the word "normal" even though I explained the semantics of my post to you?

>Is "common sense" in the room with you right now?
Yes, unlike you I am capable of common sense.

>Anyway, no one cares about your keyword-based psychotic ramblings.
You care enough to seethe.

>>15675620
nigger

>>15675271
From their 15 to maybe 20, when they figure things out for themselves.

>>15675643
>i am having a full-blown psychotic breakdown
Don't care.

>>15675705
nigger fag

>>15675705
I'm sorry to hear that and I hope you get help. By the way, the meme arrow is for quotes, not for statements about yourself.

>>15675769
>i am losing my mind with rage
It's okay. At least the voices agree with you that modern moral principles were "common sense" for "normal" people whose way of life and common sense involved the opposite of upholding any moral principles.

>>15675787
You misused the meme arrow again. Why does your ignorance of history and your failure to comprehend natural language enrage you so much?

>>15675799
See >>15675787