Very good, Calrid =D> - You’ve touched on a couple areas of mathematics that could be subject to prejudism: axoims and methods. Of course, there are plenty of arguments put forwards by mathematicians why one method is better than another (say because it takes fewer steps), and their reasons seem pretty objective. But there I would be cautious. There’s a difference between an objective fact (ex. one method takes fewer steps than another) and being ‘better’ (ex. one method is better because it takes fewer steps) - and therein lies the prejudice. On the side of axioms, one could argue that the prejudice is in favor of our intuition (i.e. that we accept these axioms because they seem intuitively to be right), but then again, Einstein showed us, and over two thousand years worth of scholarship, that two parallel lines may in fact meet somewhere.
Still, if you grant the axioms - and don’t worry too much about the best method - I can’t see how one could be so prejudiced as to insist that 2 + 2 = 5. I mean, he would really have to hate the number 4, wouldn’t he?
disproof for what dude? lol -this is referring to my original statement- why would i disprove my own statement- furthermore my statement can not be disproven- if you would like to disprove it then very well, but i do not have time for more of your trivial games only-humean…you should sign up as a worker at the olympics or something- or go listen to An Ending (Ascent) while you stare at your glasses. your out of your league here little eno fan
ummmm …yea it was dude- you’re now telling me how i think?- you think you’re capable of handling my thoughts bro?
wanna see my original statement bro- scroll up- can you see it? dont squint, here let me help you out…
can you see this quote above? -this is my quote- it is also my original statement- can you see it? do you see the bolded portion- do you see what it says? what does it say only humean? does it not say something i later simply repeated- REFERRING BACK TO MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT?
the evidence is right in front of you now- argue with yourself bro lol…your attempts to disprove anything i say have failed miserably once again
I’m clearly saying that you haven’t disproved cheegster’s statement. Repeating your original statement is not a disproof. Watch:
“It’s raining”
“No, it’s sunny, look out of the window, it’s dry”
“It’s raining”.
Nothing is proved or disproved by repeating initial premises. This is a discussion forum, and you’re not discussing. Seems a waste of everybody’s time.
You are an angry little bunny, aren’t you, dude? I took your ‘original’ to mean the original statement in the discussion with cheegster (as is quite clear in my reply), rather than the original statement in the thread. A misunderstanding. Nothing worth losing one’s temper about, really - it means you miss out on the details of what people are saying to you.
I’m not even sure I understand what you are saying here. You need to elaborate - no room for anything at the point of love/understanding? What do you have to say about my previous following two statements?
So the first statement - from the very first moment we are born we are engineered to attach ideas to things, we do it mostly subconsciously.
And the second statement; love is not the core of all existence as it is reducible to only some life forms.
People like you do not belong on a philosophy forum. Not only do you rarely have any input to a debate, any input you do have is incredibly, incredibly bad philosophy.
your out of your league here little eno fan 
