Why is /Sci/ full of Ragers?

>>8698718
Research doesn't lend itself well to informal discussion

>>8698718
This is what is really bugging me personally. Why is nobody using Phi in general? Why the fuck is everyone using Pi?

What does everyone want to keep squaring shit? Goddamn.

>>8698737

There are tons of posts on /sci/ that aren't really /sci/ based but informal discussion based. This post is just honest about it.

>>8698737
Sorry totally misread that. I take back >>8698741.

>>8698718
>People are talking about actual important subjects
>In the middle of the conversation a stupid "philosopher" comes and says: "GUYS THIS IS TOTALLY A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION BECAUSE PHILOSOPHY IS ANYTHING THAT I WANT AND ALL MY YEARS INTO THAT ARE NOT WASTED SO LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT THIS BOOK WRITTEN FOR SOME DRUNK ASSHOLE 100 YEARS AGO WHERE HE MAKES SOME QUESTIONS, GIVES ANY RANDOM OPINION THAT COMES TO HIS FUCKING HEAD, LEAVES SOME WORDS IN THE AIR TO LOOK SMART AND NEVER ANSWERS ANYTHING.
>GUYS PHILOSOPHY IS A SCIENCE.
So yeah, you can shove your "uncalled" all the way in your ass.

>>8698718
>calls people ragers for reacting harshly to your stupidity
>I'M NOT CALLING FOR YOUR RAGE I SWEAR
if you feel /sci/ is angry it's not because the people who come here are angry, it's because they're angry at -you-
so next time you post, try not to be retarded

>>8698718
Let me guess, you got btfo in your latest "race realism" "science" thread?

>>8698783
All this post.

>>8698779
>>8698783
Oh look, we got two of them. Nice.
Tell me, you two, what exactly was it in the OP that made you rage? I think the first guy was faking it. But the second one, that one seems real.

Why would you even take the bait, and rage at a post about raging? It's nonesene, you're only proving the point of the OP.

>>8698790

Guy makes a post about rage, you accuse him of racism.