This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Dustin
Pages: 1 ... 111112113 114115 ... 194
3361
« on: October 29, 2014, 12:14:53 PM »
I agree with you there. Although of you look at my liberal thread it's quite clear why it so easily devolves that way >.>
That video just screamed trigger though. I'm just glad I passed the point where I get offended off of political opinions that disagreed with my own.
3362
« on: October 29, 2014, 12:09:59 PM »
From what I hear, the US adoption system is quite shitty, so I'm on the fence.
Newborns are easily adopted, it's the older kids that can't find parents. Plus the fact that people generally only adopt kids that look like them (meaning ethnic minority orphans are harder to find parents for).
3363
« on: October 29, 2014, 12:05:59 PM »
Bring back corporal punishment
Beat them if they get pregnant or beat them until they're not pregnant?
3364
« on: October 29, 2014, 12:02:52 PM »
Should be left up to the families. If they have the capacity to care for it, and want to keep it, then no.
If they can't, then yes. Kill it.
Also, yeah, vaccines absolutely should be mandatory and to deny a child aich medication should be a criminal offence.
What if they planned on putting it up for adoption?
3365
« on: October 29, 2014, 11:59:23 AM »
The debates aren't so much a dog pile on Kinder as him saying something blatantly wrong and pretty much everyone else calling it out. Even then, I don't think it's that common.
But there's no reason why they have to turn into people shouting insults as loud as they can at each other.
3366
« on: October 29, 2014, 11:56:24 AM »
I was talking to my friend the other day and she started ranting about childhood pregnancy. Essentially she wanted mandatory abortions for anyone under 18 because she was disgusted with all the teen pregnancies happening today and how it was destroying their lives and future.
Do you agree with her or is that too radical? We already mandate education for minors (and we probably should mandate vaccines too), so is it really that far of a step to take to require abortions considering how child pregnancy can mess up your entire life?
3367
« on: October 29, 2014, 11:43:51 AM »
Mods, please edit posts that call people out and act in an immature behavior. It will not be tolerated in this thread and I'd like us to practice the kind of behavior we should all, unsubjectively, try to attain.
lol
LOLOLOLOL
[Inset le meme here]
But seriously, you aren't one to talk on this matter when you frequently bait the forum. Unless you are game for me editing out all of your bait that is, in which case we get to play subjectivity debate 24/7 edition.
The rules might be enforceable but that would require so much absurd nannying that you might want to consider moving to the UK where the state can hold your hand all day.
However, the guidelines are all good and if people stuck to something like that then I'm sure the serious board would be a much better place. I would also add in 'No baiting in the serious forum' to your guidelines though, for raisins.
Playing devil's advocate, even if not openly, is completely harmless. I won't deny that I find it really funny, but it's still relayed in a mature manner and it's explicitly different from utter spam and shitposting. Seeing as the majority of the debates here are just a dog pile on kinder, it really doesn't hurt to add some variety. And as I said, there really isn't anyone on Serious who follows the kind of format for an actual, formal debate board (even though you weren't supposed to call other people out in this thread, I made it clear that we can all improve to some degree), which essentially is what this board is meant to be. It's not just a place for religious and political topics; there's a much higher standard for behavior, yet that standard is not held. The rules might be enforceable but that would require so much absurd nannying I don't think so. The Serious board is rather slow and if people can self regulate it should make things easier. The bottom line is that if the behavior here is the same as it is in the Flood, then there's no point in having a separate board and pretend that it's actually the "serious" board.
3368
« on: October 29, 2014, 09:46:41 AM »
>No more reaction images, general insults, and deconstructive replies I don't agree with this. Way too vague. Is calling some ignorant an insult? Only if they want to make it that way. Calling people dense, stupid, ignorant or moronic is understandable if they repeatedly ignore your points or can't seem to grasp it. If they're calling you a shitflinging mongoloid, or telling you to kill yourself or something to that effect then, yes, that should be censored.
I'd say you shouldn't directly call the user ignorant, but it should be fine to say that what they say is ignorant of x. >No more self defense to someone else's insults; replying to someone trying to start an unlawful fight with you puts you in the wrong as well Completely disagree. I should be able to call out somebody for intentionally insulting me or saying inflammatory things, and I should expect either an apology or an explanation. If, by this, you mean no insults in retaliation, then yes I completely agree.
That's understandable. >Don't assume getting the last post in a debate means you won the debate; debates are won when a compromise has been made, the argument comes down to a difference in ethics, or a final conclusion cannot be reached with available evidence Meh.
So if I were trying to convince you that 2 + 2 = 5, and I kept replying after you gave up, would that mean you lost the argument? >If you believe someone is being completely unreasonable, stop replying, do not continue on a string of replies that isn't getting you anywhere Well that's just totally inconsequential. I don't want the mods deciding for me whether the threshold for "unreasonableness" has been crossed, even if I call somebody out as unreasonable. Debates and discussions are as much for everybody's benefit, not just the parties involved. The two parties should be able to carry on a debate for as long as they wish, so long as it doesn't transgress the rules mentioned above.
That wasn't meant to be a rule per say, just a guideline for how you should act seeing as it's not enforceable.
3369
« on: October 29, 2014, 09:40:00 AM »
They already have bacteria can convert plastic into useable fuel and into other environmentally stable materials.
3370
« on: October 29, 2014, 09:36:45 AM »
That might sound bad, but filtering out that many people to that point is actually pretty impressive, regardless of what you think about the NSA.
3371
« on: October 29, 2014, 09:33:36 AM »
A little bit of fun is fine, but it's slowly gotten worse and worse over time and at this point it's just awful. No one should pretend that we've all perfectly behaved in a logical and mannerly behavior (even Meta), but certainly some users are worse than others, and that essentially means we need to update the rules. So here's a few things I thought up and you can add to them if you'd like.
Enforceable rules:
>No more posting 'memes' as arguments
>No more reaction images, general insults, and deconstructive replies
>No more quoting a post and saying "lol" or "LOLOLOL," especially not when that's the only content in the post
>No more self defense to someone else's insults; replying to someone trying to start an unlawful fight with you puts you in the wrong as well
Guidelines:
>Don't judge arguments based on what you think about the OP
>Don't get offended over opinions you don't like
>Don't assume getting the last post in a debate means you won the debate; debates are won when a compromise has been made, the argument comes down to a difference in ethics, or a final conclusion cannot be reached with available evidence
>If you believe someone is being completely unreasonable, stop replying, do not continue on a string of replies that isn't getting you anywhere
Mods, please edit posts that call people out and act in an immature behavior. It will not be tolerated in this thread and I'd like us to practice the kind of behavior we should all, unsubjectively, try to attain.
3372
« on: October 29, 2014, 09:06:07 AM »
It's not female oppression, it's hot people oppression. Unattractive feminists shouldn't convince themselves otherwise.
3373
« on: October 29, 2014, 08:06:04 AM »
This could have disastrous consequences if allowed to come to fruition
It's overwhelmingly beneficial, actually.
Only if you expect the politics to cooperate.
That only counts for the short-run.
The things that automation enable in the medium- to long-run is economically and socially brilliant.
Considering the short-run is our life time...
3374
« on: October 29, 2014, 08:03:37 AM »
Reported for continuing to make threads on already locked topics.
Did you win court by getting the last word? We all know whoever speaks the last wins, of course.
3375
« on: October 29, 2014, 08:00:40 AM »
This could have disastrous consequences if allowed to come to fruition
It's overwhelmingly beneficial, actually.
Only if you expect the politics to cooperate.
3376
« on: October 29, 2014, 07:58:42 AM »
>hallowe'en
Autist detected
3377
« on: October 29, 2014, 12:19:33 AM »
I love the white theme
3378
« on: October 28, 2014, 10:00:46 PM »
Kinder's cat is so adorable.
3379
« on: October 28, 2014, 09:29:34 PM »
All shitposters shitpost. All shitposts come from shitposters. All shitposts are obnoxious. Obnoxious people cannot shitpost. The universe is a square. Fat people have stretchy belly buttons. Snape kills Dumbledoor. Challenger believes the last person to post wins the argument. Therefore, I should probably finish my homework.
3380
« on: October 28, 2014, 09:17:54 PM »
Meta, would you still disagree with Kinder if you made the distinction between political communism and theoretical communism?
3381
« on: October 28, 2014, 08:27:34 PM »
If you think it's impossible for humanity to progress at a rate fast enough to automate the majority of jobs way before a thousand years time
a thousand years
Nope.
Compare 100 years ago to today and we're going at a pace that's almost unprecedented.
And again, it will slow down. How hard is that to understand? Even Moore's Law is expected to die in a few decades.
The death of Moore's law doesn't mean the death of exponential increases in processing power.
Only initially. Eventually it'll decrease.
Dunno bout that mang.
Once you get to quantum computing, there's not much more you can do to fit more transistors onto a chip.
Miniaturizing transistors isn't the only way to increase computing power. Software optimization is much more important.
Still that can't just exponentially increase forever. It may take a long time, but eventually there's not much more you can do.
3382
« on: October 28, 2014, 08:25:26 PM »
What do consider to be 'supernatural'?
Anything that defies our current understanding of the laws of physics.
3383
« on: October 28, 2014, 08:20:39 PM »
If you think it's impossible for humanity to progress at a rate fast enough to automate the majority of jobs way before a thousand years time
a thousand years
Nope.
Compare 100 years ago to today and we're going at a pace that's almost unprecedented.
And again, it will slow down. How hard is that to understand? Even Moore's Law is expected to die in a few decades.
The death of Moore's law doesn't mean the death of exponential increases in processing power.
Only initially. Eventually it'll decrease.
Dunno bout that mang.
Once you get to quantum computing, there's not much more you can do to fit more transistors onto a chip.
3384
« on: October 28, 2014, 08:14:07 PM »
If you think it's impossible for humanity to progress at a rate fast enough to automate the majority of jobs way before a thousand years time
a thousand years
Nope.
Compare 100 years ago to today and we're going at a pace that's almost unprecedented.
And again, it will slow down. How hard is that to understand? Even Moore's Law is expected to die in a few decades.
The death of Moore's law doesn't mean the death of exponential increases in processing power.
Only initially. Eventually it'll decrease.
3385
« on: October 28, 2014, 08:11:34 PM »
My original, and only, assertion is that we will see the abolition of a substantial portion of the labour force in the next half-century.
I don't disagree with that. But I'm still leaving it at a few hundred to a thousand years before we fully automate, at least in my amateur opinion.
Full automation seems like a bit of an inconsequential bar to measure, well, anything by really.
The only things I can imagine staying "human" for that length of time is things like the police force and the courts. Even then, a lot of the work would probably still be automated, with humans being there for the sake of social necessity.
Nonetheless, it remains a question as to how much economic benefit such "jobs" would bring. Considering the removal of at least half of the workforce would push capitalism to collapse, I'm not sure what sort of monetary system you could use which would represent the higher value generated by these workers. But that's just an aside consideration.
Well you're the politician, what would you do if you were PM and the unemployment rate was at 40 or 60%? Imagine riots in the streets, literal attacks on downtown areas, and extreme poverty. You can only hope that resource efficiency and collection advances as fast as automation can so you can feed those people.
3386
« on: October 28, 2014, 08:04:41 PM »
If you think it's impossible for humanity to progress at a rate fast enough to automate the majority of jobs way before a thousand years time
a thousand years
Nope.
Compare 100 years ago to today and we're going at a pace that's almost unprecedented.
And again, it will slow down. How hard is that to understand? Even Moore's Law is expected to die in a few decades.
3387
« on: October 28, 2014, 08:02:47 PM »
My original, and only, assertion is that we will see the abolition of a substantial portion of the labour force in the next half-century.
I don't disagree with that. But I'm still leaving it at a few hundred to a thousand years before we fully automate, at least in my amateur opinion.
3388
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:59:24 PM »
If you think it's impossible for humanity to progress at a rate fast enough to automate the majority of jobs way before a thousand years time
A few hundred years to a thousand years, not over a thousand years. You don't have hike it up every time you reply. I'll still leave the option out there to provide an exponential trend that doesn't slow down if you want to prove me wrong.
3389
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:55:38 PM »
Isn't that sentence a tad redundant? You have to program robots to learn, they don't just evolve on their own.
Well, if you had a robot intelligent enough to re-write its source-code, it could.
That wasn't my point, however. My point is that the human labour involved in programming a robot to learn is miniscule in comparison to programming a robot to be a doctor - if you see my point. You're creating a bit of kit with the capacity to develop, not one rolling off the assembly line already developed. And, of course, it should go without saying that the labour involved in creating such robots could itself be automated.
Intelligence doesn't correlate with creativity.
Well, it is, if only minimally.
However, I don't exactly understand what your point is.
I'm sure you can ask Goji or RC, but I'm pretty sure you're being too optimistic about how fast software develops. Ever heard of the software crisis? It represents a mess of issues, but it's partly about how software engineers are expected to do incredibly difficult tasks and projects because the public generally don't understand the complexity behind it. And at the same time, software advances much faster than hardware.
3390
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:49:05 PM »
That progress will all but stop completely because "trends flat off".
Not completely, but close.
Exponential trends don't last forever in real life, everything eventually slows down. You're welcome to "prove me wrong" and find me exponential trend that lasts forever. Good luck, even the size of the universe will eventually slow and retract.
>cherry picking
It's not going to take anywhere close to a thousand years for the majority of jobs to be automated. 500 years is a ridiculous amount of time. It doesn't take humanity that long to progress. And the more time goes on, the less conflicts there are, the more advanced people get, progress is even more. Save your graphs. The future is unknown and the speed at which we reach thee unknowns is astonishingly fast. The breakthroughs we've made over the course of history would defy any graph detailing the slowing of progress. To even look at the progress of our species like that is closed minded.
Again, you're welcome to show me an exponential trend that doesn't slow down. Otherwise you're just assuming an impossible scenario.
Pages: 1 ... 111112113 114115 ... 194
|
Show Posts
