/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15903318
>you are stuck in that world

>>15742133
>not ban, regulate
In other words, give him and his likes a monopoly.

>>15740247
>people who have been taught to think for themselves
Oh, yeah, if only we had a good government with good mandatory schooling that taught children how to have the good thoughts intead of the bad ones. Pinnacle of critical thought right there. You must've gone to the good government school.

>>15737795
>These properties are the main properties found in the intellect, completely independent of sense perception.
Proof?

>>15682239
>"Thou shalt not lie" isn't something atheists believe in, only Christians have that belief.
If Christians didn't want to lie, why did they create a religion that is humanly impossible to follow without constant hypocrisy?

>>15131101
>speed and velocity are two completely different things
I agree with you that they are two completely different things. Now go and re-read my post under the assumption that I understand this perfectly well. Honestly, at this point, the challenge is to see if I can get you to even understand what I'm saying. I don't even care about proving you wrong anymore.

>>15125594
>it looks like a red herring when it comes to primes.
No, the two are actually tied together by definition.

> If primes are contingent on being the points iterative cycles of composites don't hit or loop at and they're composites of 1's
Schizo word salad.

>what importance do they have in addition?
None. Why should they have importance in addition?

>>15100924
Don't know about AIDS but do a blood count. If you're low on neutrophils and high on lymphocytes, you have whatever it is clotbots are spreading. I know I have it now.

>>14887849
All of them.

>>14808477
>you're not understanding the point that available is a flexible subset of possible.
>you're not understanding
>YOU'RE not understanding
Oh, you dumb gorilla nigger. Good job. You finally managed to irritate me.

>>14779204
Cool. Alright. Maybe Jualia is broken.

>>14747203
>We can see some gradient of self awareness and consciousness in the animal kingdom on this planet.
Can we, now? Can we "see" their self-awareness? Do you see how what you are saying would be unconvincing to the person you are talking to for exactly the same reason he was skeptical to begin with?

>>14740476
Well, if we're carefully separating the concrete from the abstract, the most you can say is that there is some concrete state of affairs that roughly embodies the relationships implied by talking about some guy making some post online, but this is absolute autism that the cretinous bot is dragging us into, not a line of thought I care to pursue. For the purpose of my argument it's sufficient to point out that a program is fucking abstract while direct experience is not, invalidating his analogy.

>>14735054
This. Not to mention the documented prostitution and pedophilia rings that serve NATO and American leaders bureaucrats. As always, these murdeders and child rapists are having the time of their life while warmongering and destroying poor nations overseas. Figures the child-raping homosexual will subconsciously engange in hypocrisy at every turn.

>>14719872
Okay, but like... does it belong to some kind of a category? Like '2' is "the two symbol" but it's also a number. Sorry, I'm clearly quite slow-witted compared to a genius like you, so bear with me here.

>these are the people you argue with in the serious threads

>>14708497
Oh, wait... You were serious?

>>14688667
>You have to realise that science isn't about making absolute claims
*I* have to realize it. Right.

>>14674643
>buzzwords and jargon are the gateway to schizophasia, its slippery slope
>schizophasia
>schizophasia
>schizophasia
>schizophasia
>schizophasia

>ITT: midwit spergs getting dopamine-hacked by namefagging bots
They win every time you reply. It doesn't matter how laughably wrong they are.

>>14537887
>I didn't think about it too hard
You didn't think about any of them too hard, did you? Is there any particular image from that lot you can talk about in a way that makes your characterization of yourself sound more truthful than my characterization of people who "like" bot art? You don't seem particularly keen to talk about any visual aspect of that one...

>>14516176
>So there you go, that is the answer to your question
You didn't answer a single one of my questions. lol. I guess your level of sentience is too low for that kind of exercise, so let's try something else: why isn't the 'ask' goat red? The other goats sitting by it and listening to the preaching goat don't have any traits assigned to them, and they aren't asking anything. Why are they red?

Daily reminder that every time you engage in a discussion about the AGW scam, they win. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in it. It doesn't matter if you're trying to refute it. They win as soon as you engage.

>It's not paradoxical in the least. You cannot give a single example of numbers that cannot be finitely described, because there are none.
Holy shit, imagine being this stupid. Imagine arguing with someone this stupid.