/sci/ - Science & Math

The production of it usually leaves permanent mental and sometimes physical scars on the child.
It's not nice to ruin someones life like that

childred being abused, exploited etc?

Well, depending on the age, the 'stars' can be physically injured by what's going on, and even older stars testify to mental trauma due to their experiences.

>basing morals on science

good luck with that

>>3367488

Most of the mental scarring actually comes from the fact that they are told they should be mentally scarred by the experience.

>>3367488
Oh, I didn't realize this was the moral philosophy board. Faggot.

This all deals with a personal moral issue on the whole idea of having sex with children, but we all have different views on what a child is.

Truly, such content is ok, but only if the supposed 'child' is able to reproduce. As soon as somebody is able to reproduce, by the laws of nature, they are adults. I can't believe /sci/ is having a discussion over it

>>3367509

Why don't you perform a little experiment. Become a gay male prostitute willingly for a short period, to simulate being forced commit sex acts when you are a child. You must not turn down any sex act customers desire since a child would not have that luxury. Then, when you have been fucked many times, you can reflect back upon whether your shame is just another person's construct projected onto you.

>>3367536
Who said that the children were not willing?

>>3367536
Are you saying child rape / prostitution and pedophilia are the same thing?

Also, why do you assume I'm straight?

Children under the age of about 13 are too young to give consent; they are not even close to mature. Therefore it's always rape with them.

>>3367549

Well, if you're gay, then lick cunts.

children until the puberty are asexual, therefore they are incapable of enjoying sex, in the same way straight people dont enjoy gay sex and gay people dont enjoy straight sex.

Spam the internet all you want, pedos, at least we won't be seeing any of you brave or depraved enough to demonstrate or parade in real life.

>>3367554
Who said?Are you saying that children under 13 are un-intelligent and incapable of choosing?
I am not attracted to young children, but my opinion is if the child has reached puberty and is willing, then it is not a problem.

>>3367579
>>3367563
>>3367554
>>3367549
>>3367542
>>3367536
>>3367533
>>3367514
>>3367509
>>3367493
>>3367492
>>3367491
>>3367488
You are all faggots.
I cant actually belive you fell for my troll thread

eeat shit faggotszzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
faggotszzzzzz are faggotszzzzzzzzzz

>>3367593
So you also think scamming old people out of their money by convincing them they don't need it is fine because they are consenting to give you their money?

I don't blame you for not understanding why this is wrong, every pedophile I've ever met has been at least mildly sociopathic. You honestly don't understand why taking advantage of someone who isn't and independent individual is wrong and that makes you sick. Seek help or if you can't help but take advantage of a child just kill yourself please.

>>3367622
If the old people do not want the money,and want to give it to me willingly , then what is wrong?
Charities that accept money from old people are convincing them that they do not need the money as much as the old people do,and so the old people give them their money willingly , are such charities immoral now?

>>3367659
I wasn't trying to convince you that you are wrong because I know that's impossible you are incapable of understanding that what you do hurts people, I was just trying to goad this response from you because it shows how my opinion about pedophiles being sociopaths is correct. Equating old people giving reasonable amounts of money to them being scammed out of their retirement money due to senility by a confidence trickster shows how sociopathic you are.

>>3367690
You did not mention senility,and the fact that they are spending retirement money has no effect. If they are senile then they cannot make an intelligent decision, I asked in my post if you thought that children who had reached puberty (Biological adulthood and the last stage of mental reform) could not make an intelligent decision, apparently that is what you think.

I also did not equate the two, I was giving an example of people willingly doing something that may not be beneficial to them.

>>3367579 asexual

All I know is I've been fap'n since I was 5. and there are all sorts of stories about girls masturbating as young as 2.

INFORMED consent is the word. Even a prepubescent
child or an animal can sometimes give consent to sex, but it is not informed consent as required by law.

>>3367579

Thats BS.

>>3367813
I do not argue that pre-pubesent children can give informed consent, I argue that pubesent children under the legal age can give informed consent.

>>3367690
>it shows how my opinion about pedophiles being sociopaths is correct

Try to think out of the box, mate. Sexuality is one of the basic needs of a human being. To relief oneself sexually is about as important as having a house to live, a bed to sleep in, or having enough food to not be hungry. (I guess survival by itself is still more important)

Well, for example, you guys all know these stories, one dude is in love with a girl, there's a rival, and they fight to death and all that. Is the guy who's in love a sociopath because killed/or damaged another man in order for his love life to be fulfilled? A lot of people fight and try to give themselves an advantage when it comes to love and often hurt and damage other people for their own convenience.

A pedophile isn't really a sociopath if he can't see why his sexuality (see above, one of the most important things in a human life) is wrong. The pedophile will most likely unconsiously search for excuses, claim society is wrong and all that, he has a pretty sad existence and most of them break at age 40-50 and end up in jail. They can't really help their 'sociopathic behaviour", in one way or another. Only really intelligent pedos with some huge self control can be stronger than their instincts, this definitely isn't sociopathy, this is just being human.

I'll tell you what's wrong with cheese pizza. NO TOPPINGS. It's just fucking cheese.

That's bullshit, man.

You're talking about ephebophilia not pedophilia
/thread

>>3367840
>a pedophile is not a sociopath because he can't see why it's wrong

Actually, sociopaths CANNOT SEE WHY WHAT THEY DO IS WRONG. I believe that's part of the definition of a sociopath.

>Being unable to stop oneself from breaking the law is human.

Derp derpa derp derp.

>>3367849
You're like, trying your hardest to not get my point, right?

Nah, you got the definition of a sociopath wrong. A sociopath is someone with no remorse, pity or sympathy for his fellow human beings. 1-3% of the human population are sociopaths, most of them understand society's norms and follow them just fine.

>>3367481

Explain your Science of it.
Else we dont have a lot to discuss.

>>3367847
I am >>3367826
And I thank you for teaching me that word.

>>3367891

Becuase who said human nature makes sense.

Human nature is madness frozen in the slow motion of our daily lives and controlled impulses.

>>3367732
Are you and advocate for sexual relations between minors and adults?

Do you have children?

I recall reading somewhere on the internet once that evidence exists that suggests that men whose male ancestors where philanderers and rapists are more likely to be attracted to females in the age range of greatest fertility, 20-24 years old or so, while men whose male ancestors formed long term monogamous relationships were more likely to be attracted to fertile females with the greatest number of fertile years remaining, around 12-16 years old. Good thing there are exceptions to age of consent for marriage, I guess.

What's wrong with cheese pizza?
Unless you're some fucking vegan or some shit.

>>3368038

>[citation needed]

>>3368038

I really can't believe people trying to justify fucking children. What the fuck is wrong you.

>>3367659
>comparing charity to child porn
Stay classy /sci/.

Why is homosexuality wrong? I think its perfectly fine to fuck someones asshole.

OP if you're correct why don't you try an experiment. Go down your street and visit any neighbours who have children.
Ask them if you can go in and talk to them, then explain what you've said in this thread to see what there reaction is when confronted with someone who wants to fuck there 10 year old.

>>3368038
Yeah, must really explain the ridiculous amount of young upstanding african ladies in teenage labor relative to their population.

>>3368132
Why don't you go to your local church and tell them evolution is true?

>>3367849

>Actually, sociopaths CANNOT SEE WHY WHAT THEY DO IS WRONG. I believe that's part of the definition of a sociopath.

No sociopaths know what they're doing is wrong
They can see why it's wrong
They just don't care

>>3368146
Why? Paedophilia, like religion, is wrong.

OMG. i cannot believe you faggots are still posting in my troll thread.

DID I NOT TELL YOU NIGGERESZZZZZ THAT THIS IS A FUCKING TROLL THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EAT SHIT /SCI/

>>3368153
Because the argument you were making is an ad populum.

>>3367481


fucking idiot. There's a reason if something called puberty exists.

And yes, it's wrong, awful, and it could permanently hurt and damage a person.

>>3368159
Argue all you like but you will never get parents or society to let people fuck their children.

Scientifically, I see nothing wrong with performing human experiments on Death Row inmates.

YOU PEOPLE ARE FUCKING STUPID.
I AM GOING TO TROLL EVEN MORE NOW

>>3368166

Challenge accepted

>>3368169
Are you trying to imply it would be wrong?

>>3368164
>it could permanently hurt and damage a person
so could inaction

>>3368169
We should do that, fucking moralfags. The greatest doctors in history did. Morals are worst than religion in every respect and destroy scientific advancement more than anything. Abortion, a billion different researches, animal rights, etc. Absolutely NOTHING to do with the religious, just stupid morals. Science needs none, people should fuck children.

>>3368190
No.

>>3368196
Yes.

>>3368206
Doch.

>>3368190

I'll fuck children for science

>>3368035
If they are still under their parents house, then they are reliant on their parents and follow what their parents say

Fucking children would be a great cause for scientific study since there's a lack of information on it.

>>3367481
ethics != science


>OP thinks science can solve moral problems.

>morals can't be based on science
I seriously hope you guys don't do this

Samharris.jpg

>Implying the age of consent isn't an arbitrarily chosen number by POLITICIANS

And this is why atheists are sick fucks.

>>3368336

woah, back that shit up. Ethics may not be science, but science can be used to justify or unjustify ethics. There is a connection there.

>pedofags still trying to justify their perversion

I know you're getting all giddy over the fact that the (western) world doesn't persecute gays anymore, but rest assured, your lot will never be accepted. The fundamentals are entirely different.

Have a seat right over there.

>>3368209
>bernd
>arguing against live human experimentation for the good of science
what the fuck am i reading

/sci/ - Pedos & Racists

>>3367509
And I'm a tentacle beast who happens to be a gothic lolita. That's so wrong in so many ways.

>>3368347
Science cannot derive moral axioms.

Go ahead. Use science to solve the trolley problem.

>>3368387
and EK

>>3368392
Determinism. All morality is moot. Choice is an illusion.

>>3368403
that ant me, and that pics a sh00p anyway.

Sex should be legal at age when (for boys) their cum is viable and (for girls) when they can safely bring a baby to term

So around 13-16, when MOST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD have the damn thing set

/thread

>>3368421
>and (for girls) when they can safely bring a baby to term
orly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina

still too young IMO

>>3368421
why cant they have sex for fun before then?
before first period for girls, and before the production of sperm for boys

>>3368447
maybe they dont want to, so young.

>>3368451
>maybe they don't want to
>implying little boys and girls don't have sexual desires

>>3368392
Science can't derive scientific axioms either. What's your point?

> mfw this thread was supposed to be about child pornography

We should treat sex like driving. You need to pass a test first.

>>3367481
Child pornography is the product of an action that demonstrably harms a child and significantly reduces their well being. That is why it is wrong.

>>3368485
there are no scientific axioms

>>3368504
there are no moral axioms either.

>>3368504

Empiricism

>>3368516
there is nothing in this world that is self evident.

>>3368519
How do you prove anything then?

>>3367481
Where's the study that shows CP is not harmful?

>>3368524
you can't unless you trust examples, demonstrations, and experiments.

>>3368519
What's your point? Science works off of empericism, which itself is based on certain axioms, such as the existence of the physical world, our ability to know things through observation, etc.

>>3368549
> trust examples, demonstrations, and experiments.

Those are axioms.

>>3368553
No, they are not self evidently true. You have to trust that they are representative.

>>3368550
> the existence of the physical world, our ability to know things through observation

None of this is self evident. You you have to trust that they are true if you want to get anywhere. I'm defending science of morality here and you people don't seem to realise.

>>3368560
I'm not sure how you can defend any kind of science while denying the existence of axioms.

>>3368570
Well you can't prove that this is true:


>the existence of the physical world, our ability to know things through observation


but we can still do science if we trust that it is.

>>3368585
Yes, we trust it because we find it self evident. The truth of these statements are intuitive. Not very rigorous, but it's the best we've got.

>>3368588
No you trust that is self evident. you don't trust it because you find that it is self evident.

>>3368592
I trust it's self evident because I find that it's self evident.

I think we need to stop this discussion because we're hitting philosophical bedrock. Anything beyond axioms becomes a stupid question.

>>3368602
>I find that it's self evident.

Prove it.

>>3368607
You're asking me to prove an axiom?

OP, You can't be serious. You simply can't be.

CP is terrible and traumatic for the child because pre-adolescent children have no sex drives. Being put in a position where they're forced to have sexual intercourse by someone they usually love and trust is so morally reprehensible it's sickening. The mental scarring and trauma stems from a betrayal on the part of their parent/guardian not just for letting harm come to them, but being the cause of it.

I don't fucking care if you're a sick fuck who likes little kids, but do NOT try to justify it with BULLSHIT morality and logic. Inb4 "hurr, the fact that it is traumatic for the child doesn't make it immoral."

>>3368613
Exactly, you can't. you just need to trust that it is true. You cannot 'find' that it is true.

>>3368616
Fine. I simply trust that it's true.

Just my personal experience. When I was 4-5 I was sexually abused. At the time it just felt wrong, and I remember it feeling uncomfortable. No society telling me it was bad. Just me. I also know many other people who were touched as children, most if not all who recall it say they remember feeling confused, something was wrong, or uncomfortable.
Take that for what you will pedos.
Also as an adult I see that it is a strange desire they can not control and feel bad for pedo's lack of self control.

>>3368619
I fap'd

>>3368619
there are plenty of little boys and girls who love it. they are silenced by the moral police

>>3368624
Name 5

to all axiomfags:

nope.

when a science is axiomatic, such as physics, the axioms are not based on either nothing or 'intuition'; they are based on empiricism. 'intuition' is simply the generalisations we make from the empirical observations we've made through our lives. for instance, we used to believe space is euclidean. this is because in every single instance we'd observed it to appear so, and no instance had ever contradicted that. so the axiom was actually empirically justified, like all science. when later we discovered euclidean geometry is just a local approximation, due to new and contradictory evidence (michelson morely), once again our new axiom (c is constant) were empirically justified, though not through 'intuition' this time.

>>3368629
so in conclusion , the only think axiomatic is empiricism and thats why science is the best thing ever.

empiricism/intuition can solve contrived moral dilemmas like the trolley problem, it's that in those situations there wouldnt be enough time to conduct the appropriate controlled experiements.

>>3368629
> the axioms are based on empiricism.

How did we derive the axioms underlying empiricism?

>>3368628
Connor, James, Maria, Chloe and michael.

>>3368642
axioms just come from experience. you believe something to be true because your experience tells you so. Empiricism is just this but more rigorous.

What were we talking about again?

>>3368647
exactly, science is just what you do naturally in everyday life, but it's done under strict control and standardisation so that the experiences of 1 person can be relevant to many.

>>3368622
You are easy to get off.
>>3368624
Like I said my personal experience, however, I know of a boy at 12 who killed himself. He was confused because he "liked it" by cumming inside his mom.
Also a girl I know at age 8 who recalled "quacking with a funny sensation" she took up the cutting habit for many years because she felt strange about "liking it."

Anyway, in regards to MORAL axioms, I trust it's self evident that promoting human well being is good.

Creating child porn can be demonstrated to be detrimental to our well being especially the well being of the children involved.

>>3368659
i have a powerful imagination

>quacking with a funny sensation

what is this?

>>3368642
i don't find this question interesting. actually, the way humans acquire knowledge is hard wired into our brains. before we were worried about epistemological considerations, we would see that every time we let go of an unsupported object it would fall down, and we'd generalise from that a general principle and that would be knowledge. the mechanism is subconscious. therefore it is not logically contradictory to use empiricism, which like i say is part of our nature, to discover that we use empiricism.

but i really don't care about this reflexive crap. the only question for practically assessing the situation is: can you think of any axioms of science not based on empiricism?

personally i think it's obvious that there are none, otherwise we'd have no reason to suspect they'd apply well to our reality.

Seriously, i cant believe my troll thread got so many replise.lol

>>3368659
that is two very stupid people, killing yourself because you like something is stupid.

Thats just society telling them something is bad and they gave in.

>>3367481
So publish an article in a journal or something.

>10 images omitted
>not 1 image of sexy children

>>3368667
> can you think of any axioms of science not based on empiricism

I disagree that there aren't any. The axioms underlying empiricism itself can not be demonstrated empirically. Science itself is based on empiricism, therefore, science is based on non empirical axioms.

>>3368506
Who demonstrated it? You think they are going to confess they liked it?

>>3368685
asking about the "axioms underlying empiricism" is about as relevant as asking as asking why over and over again

>>3368685
bro you ignored my question. currently you're saying science is empirical therefore science isn't empirical.

i'm saying cut the meta crap and give me an axiom of science, not philosophy but actual practical science, which is not empirical.

>>3368699
Fine.

The physical world exists.
We can know things about the physical world
We can know things about the physical world through observation and experimentation.

Prove any one of these. These assumptions are used by every single scientist on the planet.

>>3368685
the " axioms underlying empiricism" at the heart of our very nature, they are demonstrated every time you do anything.

>>3368665
My bad quaking.

>>3368707
bro you metad again. plz reply when you want a cogent and honest discussion.

guys
comeone
sage

>>3368713
is that sexual? what even is it?

>>3368716
Only the first one could be though as metaphysics.

The other two are purely epistemological

>>3368716
I'd say that too if I didn't have an actual response

>>3368741
> not understanding the word meta
> in 2011

>>3368762
it's pre simple bro:
you can't argue that science is empirical based on our understanding of its empiricism being non-empirical because this means logically contradicting yourself.
science either is or isn't empirical.
the justifications of the logic used to evaluate the above may or may not be empirical but it definitely isn't relevant.
the question at hand is, 'is science empirical'?

>>3368776
Science is empirical. Empiricism is not empirical.

>>3368782
>Empiricism is not empirical.

useless contradiction is useless .


fucking mental masturbation.

>>3368792
In order to prove empiricism is empirical, you would be using empiricism to prove empiricism.

Circular logic is circular
Fucking mental masturbation.

>>3368782
grats bro. now to the issue of justifying epistemological systems: have you even thought about what you are doing?

i mean, okay, let's say the justification of empiricism is non empirical.

what is the basis for this claim? is it non-empirical? then you're using a priori means to justify a priori statements and lookies, we have exactly the same problem.

either we submit to the infinite recess and say that knowledge is impossible, or we stop somewhere.

holy shit how is this thread still on the front page. /sci/ is full of retards

>>3368799
>imitating someone to ridicule their point because you are not very witty.

lol

>>3368799
It's not circular logic. It's simply stating that empiricism = empiricism.

>>3368818
Prove empiricism empirically.

>>3368802
>>3368802
>>3368802

>>3368802
>either we submit to the infinite recess and say that knowledge is impossible, or we stop somewhere.

We stop with axioms. That's what they are for.

>>3368826
prove empiricism with rationalism.
then prove rationalism with rationalism.
can't even comprehend how much of a dumb fuck you have to be to not notice the gaping hole in your philosophy.
LOL LOL LOL LOL

>>3368832
yep, we stop with axiom of empiricism. glad you have finally come around bro.

>>3368837
It was a rhetorical statment.

My point is that you can't prove empiricism, empirically or otherwise. We need to either adopt the unprovable axioms or not do science.

My point in response to this
>can you think of any axioms of science not based on empiricism?
>personally i think it's obvious that there are none

still stands. The axioms of science are not based on empiricism. Because the axioms of science are the axioms of empiricism. And the axioms of empiricism are not based on empiricism.

>fucking morons think CP is child porn.

This thread has more science than you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation

typical /sci/ tread. Keeping troll threads going for "intellectual discussion."

stay classy, /sci/

>>3368854
the idea is that, objectively, the way our brains work is based upon empiricism.
therefore, when we assess nature and come to the above conclusion, we were using empiricism (because we were using our brains).
there is no problem with infinite recess because we're not talking of justifications, we're just talking about the way the world is, physically.

>>3368875
>the idea is that, objectively, the way our brains work is based upon empiricism.

That's only true to a degree. Our brains have loads of ways of telling us what we should think, not the way the world actually is. We have over active positive pattern recognition for example. We see patterns when none exist sometimes. This is how "luck charms" come about

>>3368884
strange you picked up on that, because i think empiricism IS pattern recognition.
we then make the dubious claim that the pattern is in some sense indefinitely extendible (induction, white swans etc.)

>>3368865
OP must be in shock

>>3367491

what if shes into it lol. I once had a 6 year old grab my junk.