>>9271
I had actually started doing that in my reply, but then I asked myself "if you've answered these questions once before only to have your responses ignored, what good would repeating yourself do?"

>>9281
You can't do a simple copy paste to prove your claims, but yet you have no problem repeatedly typing out responses about why you chose to stop arguing. You're full of shit. You never answered the questions.

File 135804784994.gif - (10.93KB , 334x426 , bender.gif )

Thought this was funny:
IBM forced to wipe hard drive after machine downloaded Urban Dictionary.
The gameshow winning supercomputer, Watson, couldn’t stop saying ‘bullshit'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2260784/IBM-wipes-supercomputers-hard-drives-bid-stop-potty-mouthed-machine-uttering-obscenities.html

Probably more suited for /b/ to be honest, but I can't speak for what the mods want.

Can't really relate/give advice other than I want to be in a straight relationship with someone I can be with forever, but most females under the age of 26 are stupid. I'm assuming you're containing any urges pretty well, closest I could relate to is jailbait but I just stray away from that by reminding myself that getting my ass pounded in prison is not worth it at any cost.

Good luck to ya mate.

This seems more personal than a philosophical kind of discussion but I'd feel bad if I didn't respond to this considering I like little girls and I can relate to you a bit.

I don't quite understand your question though, what does being attracted to young boys have to do with dating someone your age?

If they really love you they can listen to you and how you feel without letting it get in the way of your relationship, you probably know that already though.

But I hope you can love someone your age and be happy with them, I really do. I no longer feel capable of love since I'm emotionally attracted to young girls and I never see any, it's a dead feeling. So keep it fresh while you can.

And mods, I'm sorry for breaking the rules and getting off topic with this post but if you ban me then so be it. I just really felt the need to reply to this since he doesn't seem to be getting much support.

I'll try not to drag this out too much, peace. Take it easy.

do you have monotonous sexual attraction?

Pedophile means child lover. Most sexual abuse done to children is done by heterophiles. Children have had active sexual lives since forever. Pedosexuality is a stupid word. Pedophiles should move to promote love and caring for children in opposition to the retardation of children carried out by hetero-normative society at large. Sexuality plays a part in this, but making it the sole focus of a pedophile movement is unhelpful to everyone except the power hungry patriarchal heterophile predators that would undoubtedly usurp any such movement. This is more /pol/ than /phi/ though.

Good thread. I appreciate the open-mindedness here but I shouldn't even be surprised considering this is /phi/ but still.

One thing I think is funny is how modern society adds extra baggage to sex. The general backup argument to choosing sex with a child is "You're psychologically harming them!" even though the only thing that harms the child is the emotional baggage that society puts on sex.

"It's not just a penis going in a vagina!"
Yes it is. It's whatever you make of it. It can be anything. You can't define such a thing.

Also:
Let's say young 15-year-old Mindy has sex with a hot football playing 16-year-old boy and then he dumps her and she had strings attached and is emotionally hurt by it.
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Mindy, so why do they put so much attention on the 9-year-old who is "psychologically damaged".

Because we're grown to have some stupid psychological "number of sex" that determines whether you are capable of being hurt or not. It's fucking bloody nonsense.

P.S. I'm pedo and proud. Well, come to think of it... I'm not really proud for being born a certain way, but I'm certainly not a self-degrading moronic asshole!

>>9295
Just read your last paragraph and oh man, I love your examples. I can't agree anymore, man. It's so difficult to define whether something is sexual or not, it's ridiculous. I really wonder when people will drop this nonsense let alone fucking REALIZE it!

>>8302
>>8854
>>8860
The problem is you can't truly prove that the chair exists. You can never completely prove anything, because we might be in a world like the matrix, where everything you experience is an illusion. You could be a brain in a tub, experiencing stimulation from electrodes, or a part of a large computer simulation, or a small organism tripping really hard. The only thing you can prove is that you exist, "I think therefore I am".

Seems a bit off topic though.

>>9288
I get your point. However, lets assume you were to prove the professor didn't exist. Can you (according to your logic) prove he doesn't exist while the professor himself can say "I think and therefor I am"? I mean, you don't think FOR the professor, which means he doesn't exist for you but does for himself.

I have been asking that question a lot to myself, OP.

When I was little, I sometimes used to think that everyone, except me, was a robot, or that I was in a simulation controlled by unknown beings. Because the idea of someone else having their own experiences and perspectives of life was just.. Weird.

Think about it for a minute. You live in a country where politicians and law enforcement have taken the time to think about animal rights and how to enforce them. They have not done that in the stead of human rights, but rather in addition to.

Be glad you live in such an enormously wealthy country.

Whether I agree with this judge depends on the severity of the fine. Overkill would be pretty easy in this situation.

That said, suffering is suffering, human or animal. Please never own pets.

*>>9292
Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi

File 13568692891.png - (13.47KB , 414x372 , plush toy holding backpack.png )

>>9194

Then usually some goal that I seek that is conditional on their behavior is impeded or delayed.

You're clearly combative, and you're clearly emotional. Stop those things. Your response is to go on the defensive. Don't. You're just repeating yourself and getting yourself flustered. Instead, invite them to go on the offensive by asking them to explain what they mean because you, in your immense ignorance, cannot figure out your own mistake and must be led step by step through the thought processes they went through in order to come to the rejection of your idea. If you're as right as you believe yourself to be, you just have to wait until they cut themselves to pieces on their own illogical arguments. Read your Socrates.

I've never heard "projection" used correctly in a rational sense. The only time I might agree with a projection accuser is when I'm upset or angry and I assume someone else in the group is.

>>9179

I have a pretty bad vocabulary, and even looking up those words makes it hard for me to see exactly what is wrong with cognitive perspectives, except that it 'is wrong', 'non factual' etc.

It can be tested empirically, by constructing a paradigm and testing it at different nodes - this is how all cognitive psychology is done.

It is further supported from the reverse level (anti-reductionist) by some phenomenon being mappable to cognitive neuroscience. This has yet to be achieved in non-neuroscientific hard science fields, except for those explicitly known of how it is linked to the brain, like optical phenomenon and such.

Please clarify, and thanks for answer.

>>9183
We can test these things at certain nodes, but everything can be reduced to neurons fire y/n. A discrete function. But we can enter another level of complexity within pathways and specific neurotransmitter response. The number of pathways a 'thought' can travel are theoretically infinite, which is why the relative and continuous perspectives have such a great following. However, the only tests in this area we can do are either micro or macro, the micro reducing everything to a 1/0 equation and the macro flooding in so much information that it's impossible to actually process. The micro level experimentation supporting absolute/discrete hypothesis is dismissed as being an oversimplification. Following this process to the level of complexity required to simulate an actual thought would be more time-consumptive than mapping the genome would have been twenty years ago, and less rewarding because it would have to be done countless times over to produce truly generalizable results. The macro level experimentation leads to the prevailing opinion on continuous and relative thought processes due to its obvious complexity, but the opposition claims that these seemingly continuous processes can be reduced to a chain of super-complex discrete processes.

Finally, whether human thought processes are discrete or continuous doesn't really matter in the final outcome of human thought. A complex sequence of discrete processes can be made to seem continuous, and continuous processes don't limit the mind from reasoning out discrete computations.

>>9186
thanks, you've clarified my underlying error :)