Friendly reminder you're all philosophers within the school of empiricism

>t. Overzealous lab rat brainlet
Lemme know when your next lab test gives us some insights in the human condition, knowledge, language, ethics, etc.

that's the only towards collecting insight?? c'mon guys. We obviously need content from both schools of thought, let's not fight.

>OP posts the finest ass
>most of the thread is talking about philosophy

scientists are no better than slaves.

She's like 16, calm down, there are way better asses. Off to yourself.

Whores like this need to be punished for their degeneracy. I need to spank her.

>Philosophytards this pathetic

I've studied so much philosophy and even being an over thinker myself, I can't figure out what fuckin insights philosophy has.. Maybe the buddhists or nihilists have something right in that there is no enlightenment and no god but that's pretty much a cop out. If your only insight is that humans are just retarded that's not very impressive

Scientists are good little cucks for the engineers who steal the ideas in their little papers. Keep publishing, bitch boi, I need to make another million.

nope, I'm a Platonist and mathematician; I reject evolution as an absurd, unfalsifiable lie with no evidence to rest on.

Lemme know when philosophy determines anything about anything.

all scientific words are philosophical in nature, even the idea of "equality" or "difference" or "category" or "time" or "atom" or "evidence" all require philosophical unpacking.

Philosophy is to science as science is to engineering.

>all require philosophical unpacking
Bullshit, just because a word has a definition doesn't mean the word is philosophical.

Science only needs one specific type of philosophy to work, objectivity and whatnot, but engineering only works based on things science has determined

Kek

>all scientific words are philosophical in nature
All words are made of letters and everything has a word, therefore everything is made of letters.

Science is not philosophy because it does not produce concepts

I have no problem with that. Philosophy is great. It's what separates us from ignorant, unwashed savages.

>16
If she's 16 then I'm 16 am I right or am I right.

>EVERYHTING IS PHILOSOPHY
Kek, I love you delusional faggots.
I can define something to be vague enough to have everything in it and then pretend like that matters.

To be fair...

Isnt logic a subset of philosophy?

>She's like 16
and?
We're not all repressed americucks here, friend.

>i reject something i don't understand

The point is not that 13 year old age of consent in your country isn't universal, it's that you're like 27 y/o but still get turned on by 16 years old, fucking disgusting pig.

it is, it was even created by aristoteles

I wasn't the first guy you replied to, the age of consent is not 13 in my country, and I'm not "like 27 y/o". If your post were true, it STILL wouldn't matter. You're not making any point, you're just pretending that there are some magical barriers in biology that adhere to your empty and shifting, in-the-moment ""views"", because the truth of it impedes on your embedded moralistic cuckoldry. Even in that territory, there are no ethical justifications for holding a random person to be a "fucking disgusting pig" it's simply social repression and unjustified, irrational nonethics. You start your post with "the point is..." yet you make no point, whatsoever. Make one, even if ethical (you have to go a bit beyond "um it's like..bad and stuff.."), or fuck off with your near white noise posts.

You are the reason this board is shit. You don't even know your own thoughts, you just lash out impulsively, loosely guided by your life of being embedded by the memes and commands of others' creation.

So your excuse to pedophilia is that there's no "magical barriers" in biology that lets you fuck kids? It's not about consent either, how the fuck can someone be almost 30 yet still be attracted to a 16 year old? She's almost old enough to be your daughter if you were on 16 and pregnant.
It is disgusting and calling you a disgusting one is definetly justified here. You literally just add fancy words in your sentence to make it seem like a well thought answer when in reality you've probably been arrested for sexual harassment of a minor.
People like you make me want to puke because women your age know how filthy you actually are while young girls hasn't realized it yet and you're taking advantage of those undeveloped bodies that could compensate for the tiny dick of yours.

>It's not about consent either, how the fuck can someone be almost 30 yet still be attracted to a 16 year old?
If she's attractive and has the body of a woman. Not too hard to grasp. And there is most definitely a distinction to be made between children and teenagers, especially when the teenager is fully developed.

There are women in their 25-30 are petite and look like they have bodies of 14 year olds, does that mean you can't have sex with them? No.
What makes you think it's okay if she's 16 and has the body of a 25 year old model as a 30 year old? Why not just go for actual 25 year old instead of one that is 16? Her mental maturity at that age is of almost a child and she barely knows what sex or love is for that matter, not until after college do they realize how valuable real love is or life after school for that matter.
Stop making the point that the body is the only thing that matter, it's not something they control it's just genetics, however mentality is developed through experience and at that age they have basically none, let her grow up to be something that can think for themselves and not some youngster that's easy to take advantage of.

I'm not the guy you're arguing with. I agree with you that it's probably wrong for a 30yo to have sex with a 16yo. However that doesn't mean it's wrong for adult men to be attracted to females with developed bodies. Arguing for that is arguing against your very nature and basically just really dumb. I find the girl in the pic very attractive, but I wouldn't actually fuck her given the chance because, like you pointed out, the difference in maturity is too great. I'm 25 yo btw.

>peasant cultural norms
I never cared what a bunch of fake-christians who have never fought a day in their life and whine about probelems in their faggoty republics. You will all die, for promoting your faggoty feminist retardation.

I was merely responding to your inquiry into how one can be 30 and attracted to a 16 year old. You never mentioned sexual intercourse in the question.

The Theory of Everything has been written. It is all Electricity & Magnetism in case you were wondering.

>she's like 16
Woman in her peak so what?

>The Theory of Everything has been written. It is all Electricity & Magnetism in case you were wondering.
You quack

two nukes just wasn't enough

>philosophy
>literally love of knowledge

I suppose after you get your doctors' of philosophy you could just love the politics within academia, but you'd be no scientist. Just trash.

Good answer, I wouldn't call her attractive though, but that booty sure is big and fine. Could be a butter face lololol
I'm not close to religious and never was. Bringing in fought is the most irrelevant shit you could bring because majority of people in the world have not been in war, if you have you probably did for oil, fucking tard. What was it like getting fucked daily by other soldiers?
Also fuck feminism, don't even know how you managed to say something this irrelevant
Back to 8ch pedo

Empiricism a shit
t. pyrrho

you are the fakest fuck who ever wore leather and fur and thought he looked good. Eat shit
>yeah? well you fight for ZOG
you are retarded

all scientists, mathematicians etc. should study philosophy. no one should study philosophy exclusively, it results in useless people with heads full of bullshit

>people think they know things
>they dont even know what knowing is
this causes all sorts of problems

maybe her but hurts

brainlets fuck off to /b/, there is not a single rational man that wouldn't want to fuck a hot 16 yo

>t. post wall toasty roasty

The concept of certain words in scientific research were birth from the studies of ourselves and our environment which is philosophical in nature.

I remember keeping up with this series, it was great.

'no enlightenment' does not mean what you think it means. It's not some guy making it to the end of the tunnel and going, 'hey guys, it was bullshit'. It's that *when you're enlightened*, there is no 'enlightenment'. Do not look at it in terms of 'is' and 'is not'.

'Joshu also said: "Brethren! If the right man preaches the wrong way, the way will follow the man and become right. If the wrong
man preaches the right way, the way will follow the man and become wrong. Elsewhere it [Zen] is hard to look at but easy to see through. At my place it is easy to look at, but hard to see through."

because it's more comfortable teehee

I don't care but I fucking love this trend of wearing leggings and no bottoms. Saw this bitch with the sweetest fucking ass in the milk aisle today.

Y'all smoking crack.

That bitch is hot and if I thought I could get away with it I would fuck her silly. 31 years old.

I am studying math, buddy.
The only empirical thing I care about is that you are a faggot.

so is this a butt thread or a philosopher thread?

What's the difference?

Wrong.

You're wrong.

Science is a means by which we measure reality, not the means by which we define it. Look at Kepler's theory of the cosmic symphony, and how planetary orbits are loops because he believed God designed everything. Or the fucking Benzene ring.

Objectivity in the lab is impossible. Think about it a little and you'll understand why.

>Science is a means by which we measure reality, not the means by which we define it.

That's a very fine line you've drawn there, homeboy, and it's ignored literally everyday. The nuances of semantics don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

>and it's ignored literally everday
You mean to say that scientific theories have never been discarded ever before? You mean to say that complete systems have yet to be fucking replaced?

The only things that apply to what you said are Newton's Laws of Physics, which were replaced by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

uw0t I don't even

Describe to me how this progression works. I'm studying Anthropology.

>Facts are real, tangible things.

Okay.

>Facts are real, but sometimes conflict and their context is important.

Also reasonable.

>"Facts" aren't infallible, and context sometimes matters more than their content.

No problem so far.

>"Facts" don't exist.

Understand it completely. It's just an extension of the above.

>"Facts" don't exist. No one culturally-learned interpretation of reality applies perfectly to everyone, and saying so is crazy. For example, you can medically "prove" that heroin is deadly. But within groups of addicts unable to receive any social services, Heroin is a medicine used to treat withdrawal.

I can see how you'd interpret things that way.

>The above, but every field's interpretation of everything is either flawed or wrong to some degree. Except ours. We aren't perfect, but we're the ones you need to listen to. If you disagree with our version of things, you're either uneducated or a monster.

Okay, hold on.

Kyon-kun, denwa!