/sci/ - Science & Math

This shit isn't science, you cretin.

Rainy day fund.

>>4945877

It is math though you fucking idiot.

catfood
condoms
nappies

HOOKERS

>>4945865
bump with more budgeting numbers.

>no dragon dildo budget

>>4945880
No, it's not, you moron. Addition and multiplication are not the kind of math that needs to be discussed on /sci/.

>>4945881
Why the fuck would he need huge amounts of condoms? Not everyone is a slut like you.

Look through your bank statements and try to categorize your spending.

>>4945897
actually i use gnucash but expenses are not categorized well yet.

>>4945896
fuck you! im not a slut
and at no point did i mention 'huge amount' you cunt.
also, i was clearly joking

fucking faggot

>>4945905
By using common dictionary definitions could you please explain how you're not a slut?

>>4945865
does no one else here budget?

>>4945908
fuck off, we already had this conversation before.
https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S4941624#p4941781
im not a sut, but you ARE a faggot.

>dem murrikan taxes
holy protons

>>4945913
In that conversation you admitted being a slut.

>>4945915
heres some more tax numbers.

>>4945918
no i didnt, i admitted that by that definition, it means EVERYONE is a slut, which makes it completely meaningless.

>>4945921
And I told you that what you're saying is plain wrong. Not everyone is a slut. In fact only a very few people are sluts and you are one of them. We are morally obliged to look down on you, for you are definitely not normal.

>>4945924
answer my last post in that thread then, asshat.

>>4945926
"Abnormity" is a legitimate word of the english language. Your lack of education is showing. And yes, I am telling you that I am not a slut like you.

>>4945941
>"you are such a fucking liar
>u male, rite?
>so you're telling me you've never ever felt any sexual feeling towards any other woman besides your wife/gf??"

really? yeh, really??

well i dont fucking believe you.

>>4945951
The fact that you fail to believe me only shows that in addition to being a slut you are also mentally immature and can't hypothetcially put yourself in another person's position.

>>4945955
we both know you're lying. dont even try.

>>4945964
I can assure you that I do not lie.

EK is promiscuous?

So much for being EK's only fan.

>>4945968
and you 'enjoy immense posteriors'?
fuck off

>>4945951
not him, but i think the point is control. yes, most of us have sexual desires but it doesn't mean we have to around fucking everything in sight. Just like we all experience hunger but if you lack control you are still a glutton. An adult should know how to control himself/herself despite primal urges. It is what separates us from animals.

>>4945976
What the fuck are you talking about, you psychotic cunt?

>>4945978
and i have control as well! i dont 'go around fucking everything in sight.' either!
and i dont just care about appearance. im not a fucking slut!

>An adult should know how to control himself/herself despite primal urges.
yeh, and i do. i obviously dont hit on guys who have gf's, thats a fucking bitch thing to do.

>it is what separates us from animals.
hate to break it to you hun, but we ARE animals. its just that our social system is a little more complex than most.

>>4945982
retard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reTx5sqvVJ4

>>4945988
You are a slut. You admitted it yourself. Being a slut is not normal. Shut the fuck up.

>>4945990
Why should I bother watching some childish youtube video? Take that shit to >>>/random/

>>4945994
> You admitted it yourself.
no i fucking didnt! i said im NOT a slut, which is the complete opposite of that, you blind shithead!

>>4945990
>someone doesn't get a shitty low-brow cultural reference

RETARD ALERT, RETARD ALERT!

>>4945998
I showed you the definition more than once and you had to agree that you fit that definition.

>>4945988
> i obviously dont hit on guys who have gf's, thats a fucking bitch thing to do
I don't know how the argument started, but codifying bad behavior does not make it any less wrong. Obviously the fucking ever thing in sight thing was an exaggeration, but i assume by the responses in this thread that is not that much of a stretch in your case.
>hate to break it to you hun, but we ARE animals
we are at the very least civilized animals. control is one of those things that allows us to be considered civilized. Animals just act on instinct. the reason we are not still hunting/gathering is because we were able to use a deeper form of thinking.

tl;dr: close your fucking legs

>>4946015
what? because i dont stick religiously to one fucking partner? yeh, and that makes all the fucking difference to you, yeh? how the fuck i that even a big deal!??
and as i said! its none of your business anyway!

>>4946025
>codifying bad behavior does not make it any less wrong.
oh really, explain how this is 'bad behaviour' then!

>we are at the very least civilized animals.
one of the very few species to kill our own kind. i'd call us less civilised than most.

>Animals just act on instinct.
so do we! for the most part. yes, we ARE more intelligent, and can think deeper, but you cant escape your natural instincts either.

>tl;dr: close your fucking legs
tl;dr, shut your fucking face!

>>4946040
It becomes /sci/'s business, when you brag about being a slut on /sci/. Go make a zoology post.

IS THERE ANY WAY TO FILTER TRIP FAGGOTS WHILE THEY TAKE THEIR TRIPS OFF TO SAMEFAG?

>>4946051
i dont brag about it, because IM NOT ONE!!

fuck, you're dense!

>>4946058
WHY CANT mods BAN TRIPFAGGOTS THAT SAMEFAG AND DERAIL THREADS?

>>4946040

Isn't this what that book "The Ethical Slut" is all about?

>>4946060
You are constantly posting about your fuck buddies. Stop it. You never made an on-topic post in a science thread.

>>4946060
Do you come to /sci/ just to get mad? Almost every single one of your posts is you calling someone a retard. I can't imagine someone wanting to spend their free time like that.

>>4946048
>oh really, explain how this is 'bad behaviour' then
have you been ignoring me the whole time? read my original reply
>one of the very few species to kill our own kind
lol wut? this is the most fucktarded post i've seen all week. animals kill each other all the time. aren't you a zoologist? You're post is not misinformed then, you're just simply retarded.
>but you cant escape your natural instincts either
yes you fucking can, that's been my point the whole time. Just because you lack self-control doesn't mean the rest of us do.

>>4946070
>constantly
the last time it came up was the start of june, and it wasnt even me talking about it, i was quoting some fucking anon who was spouting off about it
https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S4743530#p4744151

that aint 'constantly'
and i NEVER bring it up of my own accord, you fucking shitfaced liar!

>>4946083
It's literally the only topic you're talking about on /sci/. You never make any science posts.

>>4946072
>Do you come to /sci/ just to get mad?
obviously not, but some fucker always ends up pissing me off anyway!

>>4946080
>read my original reply
where?
all i see is tards calling me a slut with absolutely no basis.
>animals kill each other all the time.
of the same species? its actually fairly rare.

>Just because you lack self-control doesn't mean the rest of us do.
i dont 'lack self control' and theres nothing wrong with what i do!

>>4946094
its not my falt if anons bring it up!
this guy started all this: >>4945896
>Not everyone is a slut like you.
obviously i had to respond!

>>4946102
You don't have to respond, you giant autist faggot. You could stop browsing /sci/ and learn limits instead.

>>4946111

>>4946102
>where?
>>4945978
rephrasing it to answer your question, it is bad behavior because it shows a lack of self-control.
>of the same species? its actually fairly rare
no, it's actually the most common for any non-predator. Animals don't just kill for food you know. Also, killing in humans are simply outlier cases (considering there are billions of us). For most animals, it is just normal territorial behavior, or mating behavior, or whatever the fuck have you.

>>4946121
I think you wanted to thank me for being helpful and admit that I was right, but for emotional reason the only reaction you were able to express consisted of posting an image macro. Such is the sad life of an autistic tripfag.

>>4946135
>it is bad behavior because it shows a lack of self-control.
it isnt a lack of self control! i know exactly what im doing, and theres nothing wrong with it
as an analogy, lets say theres a bucket of fruit, a really big bucket, with all sorts of different fruits in it.
you pick 3 peaches. i pick a peach, an apple, and a bunch of grapes.

its not like i went and picked 47 bits of fruit out of the fucking basket! i just chose a bit of variety, while you were fine with just peaches
you see what im saying??

if i lacked self control, i'd be the fucking glutton who gorges herself on all the fruit in the basket, but i dont, i just take a little bit because im hungry, and so do you. the difference is that your choice is slightly more uniform. theres nothing wrong with either choice.
if you just want peaches, then just have peaches! thats fine, i dont mind, it aint a big deal. but someone who likes a bit of variety with their fruit, that aint a big deal either!

>>4946149
>she actually thinks a fruit basket analogy is any kind of solid argument
your logic and rhetoric skills are almost as bad as your math skills. I genuinely think you're trolling now. It would be sad if you were serious.

>Come to /sci/
>EK shitposting
>Nothing new under the sun
Another hour another EK thread
EK stop making these threads

>>4946163
how is that trolling?? explain wtf is wrong with the analogy then!

>>4946168
Just wait for me to become a janitor. I'm so gonna clean up this board.

>>4946171
Thanks ummm Carl.

>>4946168
>EK stop making these threads
you actually think i made this thread??

>>4946170
it is not what is wrong with your analogy, it is what's wrong with the use of analogies in rhetoric. Analogies are an explanatory tool, not a rhetoric tool. This is one of the first things you learn in any philosophy, argument-based English, or logic class. Since you are or have gone to university, i expect you to know this. Unless you somehow got away without taking any humanities classes.

>>4946176

Stop being fat. Also, stop pretending that you're interested in science, because you almost never talk about any real science on this forum.

>>4946171
oh god, not carl, he's almost as bad as EK

>>4946187
i did zoology, not philosophy. and i dont see why i cant use my analogy here. it seems to fit.

>>4946187
>he needed a philosophy class to learn common sense

>>4946195

>zoology

Eek. My condolences. I mean I like animals and biology, but man... Glad I'm in neuroscience.

>>4946223
neuroscience is cool as well, i just prefer zoology.

>>4946196
i don't, some people do. I acknowledge this, and so do not expect everyone to have the same intuitive sense of logic as i do because I'm not a fucking autist. Analogies can seem like perfectly reasonable argumentative methods to perfectly sane people. But I do expect her to know it because she has been taught in it. there's a difference between ignorant and stupid. Now get the fuck out, you are just as bad as her.
>>4946195
You don't have to major in it to be expected to take a class in it. same as you probably don't need trig or calc in for zoology, but you still need those math credits. I sure as hell didn't psychology, but I was still required a certain amount of social sciences credits. most accredited universities try to teach their students more than just knowledge in their own field.
> i dont see why i cant use my analogy here. it seems to fit
i told you the problem is not that it fits, it's that you don't use anologies for rhetoric.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html

>>4946230
i never even took a class in it.
and if i wanna fuckin' use an analogy for rhetoric, then i'll fuckin use an analogy for rhetoric!

>>4946223
Congratulations. You found the only major worse than zoology.

>>4946230
FYI: ek knows neither trig nor calc. He/she hasn't yet finished highschool and does not really study zoology.

>>4946237
>He/she hasn't yet finished highschool and does not really study zoology.
i'm a she
im 21, and i HAVE finished highschool, and i DID study zoology.

>>4946237
>FYI: ek knows neither trig nor calc. He/she hasn't yet finished highschool and does not really study zoology.
this

>>4946236
>and if i wanna fuckin' use an analogy for rhetoric, then i'll fuckin use an analogy for rhetoric!
you can do whatever you like, doesn't mean it is correct. If you're going to keep using flawed logic even though you have been told why it is wrong though, don't expect to convince anyone or be taken seriously.

>>4946244
Prove it. You are making an extraordinary claim, so it's up to you to provide evidence. From your writing style I'd say you are about 14 years old and your "contributions" so far seem to confirm this view. I haven't seen a single university level zoology post from you, neither did you ever post a mature and reasonable statement.

>>4945865
>1000$ a month on cellphone bills
Fucking hell, how much do you use it? I don't even spend a hundred a year on mine.

>>4946270
that was for annual expense. he allowed $97 monthly for cellphone bills. The real curios thing is how his rent is under $400. must be living in someones laundry room or something.

>>4946292
that was for annual expense. he allowed $97 monthly for cellphone bills.

>Implying that is cheap

>>4946306
an iPhone with all the trimmings costs something like that

>>4946306
i never implied it was cheap. Just that it's a huge difference from $1000 a month, as the question assumed.

Why did you bother to project stuff 40 years from now?