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 - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 306307308 309310 ... 502
9211
« on: January 03, 2015, 08:34:53 PM »
The only thing I take issue with here is that I wouldn't call Soviets Communists.
9212
« on: January 03, 2015, 08:16:02 PM »
pattern-identity hypothesis.
elaborate
9213
« on: January 03, 2015, 08:12:33 PM »
Now, I'm going to have to pigeonhole you--try to approach the terms in fairly broad, philosophical mindsets. First and foremost, let me know whether you consider yourself more liberal, conservative or libertarian (this, obviously, encompasses both social and economic views). Here's the quiz, answer with true, false or don't know: 1. Morality is objective, whether given by God or determined by humans. Answering "false" to this question essentially means that there are no moral facts, and statements about morality are a matter of opinion, emotion or sentiments. 2. There are some cultures which are objectively superior to others, the values of which should be upheld and preserved in the face of inferior cultures. 3. The Western world is, taken as an aggregate, the best place on Earth in terms of values and culture. 4. Regardless of your answer to the prior question: the Western world is currently in a state of moral or cultural decline or decadence. 5. Islamic fundamentalism is a bigger threat to world peace than any other geopolitical force currently in play. 6. Islamic fundamentalism is the worst kind of religious fundamentalism. 7. The State of Israel has a right to exist. 8. The Jewish people have a right to their own State. 9. Israel is morally superior to Hamas. 10. Muslims are currently persecuted/unfairly oppressed in the Western world, in a systemic manner. 11. Europeans (Germans, British, French, Dutch) are right to worry about the influence of Islamic values and traditions over their countries. 12. Islamic fundamentalism is more widespread than most people think/would have us believe. 13. Islam is inherently more violent than other religions. 14. America, Israel and the West are mostly responsible for the existence of groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Boko Haram. 15. I can understand and sympathise with the motives behind the 9/11 perpetrators. 16. The current state of Iraq is mostly the fault of the Coalition forces' intervention. 17. It was morally necessary to remove Saddam Hussein. 18. It would be unethical for the U.N. to try and formally declare the Iraq War to be illegal. 19. On the whole, it is a positive thing that the Iraq War happened. 20. Bashar al-Assad is heading a regime preferable to the one the Free Syrian Army would implement, if they gained power. 21. We should not allow Iran to have nuclear weaponry. 22. It might be necessary to consider a nuclear first-strike if a fundamentalist Islamic group or government somehow got hold of intercontinental nuclear missiles. 23. A Christian theocracy wouldn't be as morally reprehensible as a Muslim theocracy. 24. Christian fundamentalism isn't a problem in the world today. 25. It should be the right of everybody, including fundamentalist Christians like the WBC, to burn and deface a Qur'an without facing any criminal charges. For the record, here are my answers: Spoiler Conservative.
1. Morality is objective, whether given by God or determined by humans. Answering "false" to this question essentially means that there are no moral facts, and statements about morality are a matter of opinion, emotion or sentiments. TRUE
2. There are some cultures which are objectively superior to others, the values of which should be upheld and preserved in the face of inferior cultures. TRUE
3. The Western world is, taken as an aggregate, the best place on Earth in terms of values and culture. DON'T KNOW
4. Regardless of your answer to the prior question: the Western world is currently in a state of moral or cultural decline or decadence. TRUE
5. Islamic fundamentalism is a bigger threat to world peace than any other geopolitical force currently in play. DON'T KNOW
6. Islamic fundamentalism is the worst kind of religious fundamentalism. TRUE
7. The State of Israel has a right to exist. TRUE
8. The Jewish people have a right to their own State. FALSE
9. Israel is morally superior to Hamas. TRUE
10. Muslims are currently persecuted/unfairly oppressed in the Western world, in a systemic manner. FALSE
11. Europeans (Germans, British, French, Dutch) are right to worry about the influence of Islamic values and traditions over their countries. TRUE
12. Islamic fundamentalism is more widespread than most people think/would have us believe. TRUE
13. Islam is inherently more violent than other religions. DON'T KNOW
14. America, Israel and the West are mostly responsible for the existence of groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Boko Haram. FALSE
15. I can understand and sympathise with the motives behind the 9/11 perpetrators. FALSE
16. The current state of Iraq is mostly the fault of the Coalition forces' intervention. FALSE
17. It was morally necessary to remove Saddam Hussein. TRUE
18. It would be unethical for the U.N. to try and formally declare the Iraq War to be illegal. TRUE
19. On the whole, it is a positive thing that the Iraq War happened. TRUE
20. Bashar al-Assad is heading a regime preferable to the one the Free Syrian Army would implement, if they gained power. TRUE
21. We should not allow Iran to have nuclear weaponry. TRUE
22. It might be necessary to consider a nuclear first-strike if a fundamentalist Islamic group or government somehow got hold of intercontinental nuclear missiles. TRUE
23. A Christian theocracy wouldn't be as morally reprehensible as a Muslim theocracy. TRUE
24. Christian fundamentalism isn't a problem in the world today. FALSE
25. It should be the right of everybody, including fundamentalist Christians like the WBC, to burn and deface a Qur'an without facing any criminal charges. TRUE
9214
« on: January 03, 2015, 07:31:15 PM »
So simply put, and I promise that I will revisit this after my honeymoon is over, the resurrection body is not the same one we had before, but a brand new one, one that is incapable of death and sin -- basically Human 2.0.
Sounds very similar to John Hick's Replica Theory (we don't have souls, God creates essentially creates an exact replica of our physical selves in the afterlife), which I have my own problems with >.>
9215
« on: January 03, 2015, 06:14:42 PM »
Oh my fucking God that's hard to watch.
9216
« on: January 03, 2015, 05:37:29 PM »
I appreciate the effort but literally everything can be justified in some way or another. All you're doing is giving the opportunity for the religious to defend their beliefs, win (not be convinced by your arguments), and be further dug into their beliefs.
I'll still sleep soundly knowing my worldview isn't grounded in some non-empirical stratum.
9217
« on: January 03, 2015, 04:58:28 PM »
Why does everybody automatically assume net neutrality is good?
Is nobody going to question why big companies like Google support net neutrality?
9218
« on: January 03, 2015, 01:21:13 PM »
>equally silly emotional appeal argument about them being nazis
Hamas explicitly endorsed The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which was fabricated in Tsarist Russia under Nicholas the II and later adopted by the Nazi Regime, and they've expressed explicitly genocidal intentions against the Jewish people.
9219
« on: January 03, 2015, 12:48:44 PM »
And Christianity wasn't spread by sword, violence, and torture? I don't remember ever claiming that. . . If it was such a barbarous religion then why isn't the millions of Muslims living in America attacking non-believers? Why are they not committing Jihad? You don't need to run around murdering people in order to be a fundamentalist. Luckily for America, the Muslim population is very moderate, yet 51pc of Mosques in the U.S. still have texts on-site recorded as advocating "extreme violence". Yeah, the O.E may not be what we call tolerant as based on the standards of Western nations, but it was still a very tolerant nation for it's place in time. I'm not denying that.
9220
« on: January 03, 2015, 12:36:36 PM »
I've done a lot of filthy Zionist Muslim-bashing recently, so I'd like to turn my attention to Christianity. It seems to me that the fundamental tenet of Christianity is the afterlife; the soul of personal identity and continued existence. And of course, Christian moral teaching is all in the defence of the purity of our souls, in order to secure us a righteous place at God's side following our physical demise. However, it seems to me to be the case that this isn't the canonical afterlife. The continued existence promised to Christians (and Jews) is one of physical, bodily resurrection and reconstitution and further examination of such an idea should reveal it as logically impossible. First, let me establish that my claim to a bodily resurrection is supportable--if not absolute. It is true to say that most Christians believe in the soul and a spiritual, non-physical afterlife; this belief pervades 80pc of American Christians. Most Christians seem to believe that upon the moment of death they'll travel to heaven and leave their physical bodies behind; yet most Christian denominations (Catholicism and Lutheranism, to name two) believe that Judgement happens in one fell swoop at the End Times. However, the idea of bodily resurrection seems better supported that this nebulous, spiritual idea. The only source I'm aware of which promulgates spiritual resurrection are the writings of St. Paul (mainly in Corinthians). However, the NT Gospels, the Book of Isaiah, the writings of the Jewish scholar Maimonides and St. Augustine's book City of God all profess a physical afterlife. It's difficult to tell how even an omnipotent God would be able to sort this out, we go through a near-complete cellular reconstitution every decade or so and we have atoms belonging to us that existed within the bodies of Edgar Allen Poe, Napoleon, Goethe or any other great person you could name--it's difficult to see how this physical recreation could be logically accomplished. St. Augustine, luckily for us, however, goes into great detail about the nature of this physical resurrection. Apparently, everybody will be resurrected as they would've been at age thirty (emulating Jesus) and, he says of other things: That all bodily blemishes which mar human beauty in this life shall be removed in the resurrection, the natural substance of the body remaining, but the quality and quantity of it being altered so as to produce beauty.
What am I to say now about the hair and nails? Once it is understood that no part of the body shall so perish as to produce deformity in the body, it is at the same time understood that such things as would have produced a deformity by their excessive proportions shall be added to the total bulk of the body, not to parts in which the beauty of the proportion would thus be marred. How did he know this? The man was either dishonest or a lunatic, and we should probably disregard what he says either way. However, given the fact that the 325 Council of Nicaea gave no ruling on the nature of resurrection (and no other ecumenical council has done since, to my knowledge) it seems very unsettling for the Christian faith that they cannot decide on what sort of resurrection awaits them, and that the side which has the most scriptural and historical weight is the one which seems logically impossible.
9221
« on: January 03, 2015, 12:16:54 PM »
I would support the establishment of a new, single state. It would be a representative democracy, with a section of the parliament's seats set aside for every ethnic group in the country. In this way, you can prevent tyranny of the majority.
Why not just make it a federal democracy?
9222
« on: January 03, 2015, 11:29:11 AM »
Well America plays a part as to why the Middle-East is such as shithole.
America created Islam?
That has to do with what?
Islam is an inherently barbarous religions; hell, it was spread by the sword in the first place. Don't buy into the PC myth of this brilliant Ottoman Empire which was both peaceful and tolerant.
9223
« on: January 03, 2015, 08:38:28 AM »
More BS from Metas bias mouth. Lol
So I've presented you with evidence regarding just how Palestinians are largely fundamentalist (I can provide the links, if you like) and all you have to say is that I'm biased? Really? Did it not occur to you, maybe, that I came to support Israel over Hamas and the Palestinians--despite the fact I still believe in a two-state solution--precisely because of the abhorrent nature of the Palestinians' beliefs and the practices of Hamas? This seems to be the best explanation, considering I used to vociferously hate Israel a few years ago. You can accuse me of bias all you like--I could do the same to you--but I'd much rather you actually present an argument. We are in Serious, you know.
9224
« on: January 03, 2015, 08:35:29 AM »
First and foremost I posted this in Serious because I'd like it to lead into a more general conversation.
Basically, I have exams next week--one of which is Monday afternoon--and I just don't feel prepared at all. I have the rest of today (it's 2.30pm) to revise and Monday morning, although I won't be getting up that early. And then between Monday and my next exam, all I have is the Tuesday.
If I skipped work tomorrow, and rang in ill, I'd have an extra day to revise and keep myself up to speed with the content I need to know in order to get a decent grade. The thing is, these are "mock" exams--preparations for the real thing later in the year--but my college is still putting a lot of emphasis on them and, basically, if I fuck up it could really throw my education into the shitter; the faculty have been making a lot of noise about doing well, as it apparently determines the rest of our year.
Unfortunately, in terms of work, I'm still on my initial probation--which actually ends tomorrow--and the company reserves the right to terminate my employment for whatever reason. However, I've only ever had one other absence, and the only person who was fired for absences on probation had like 6-8. I'm not entirely sure whether I should take tomorrow off work.
Also, for the more general conversation; is education (at least for people my age 16-18--maybe into the 20s if they attend university) more important than having a job and learning responsibility? And, do you think most places treat young employees unfairly in comparison to adults?
9225
« on: January 03, 2015, 08:25:39 AM »
I'm not going to argue that the state of Islamic Asia deteriorated as the Ottomans lost power, but you can't possibly deny that American intervention in the Middle-East during the 50s didn't somehow influence the radicalization of Muslims.
Even if that's the case I really don't care. We are, always have been, and always will be, operating on the moral high ground.
lol no
lol yes 32pc of Palestinians once voiced their support in favour of slaughtering a Jewish family, including the children. 83pc of Palestinians support some or most of the groups which attack America. 89pc of Palestinians support Hamas. 51pc of Palestinians supported Osama bin Laden. Don't try and tell me we aren't operating on the moral high ground in this instance, fighting Hamas and the other fundamentalists who absolutely oppose the principles that our civilisation is built upon. You can surrender and sell your soul to the unspeakable barbarism these groups support and carry out, but you can fuck off if you even think for a second that I'll condone your opinion or even take you seriously.
9226
« on: January 03, 2015, 08:07:26 AM »
Considering the amount of psychopaths the CEO population has in comparison to the general populace, it isn't a good idea to allow them to have nukes. . .
9227
« on: January 03, 2015, 08:06:11 AM »
Israel clearly has the moral superiority over Hamas, and I'll support them until that is no longer the case.
B-b-but m-my white ph-ph-phosphorus
Yeah, fuck you, the Israelis aren't fucking genocidal Nazis with a Qur'an.
No they're genocidal nazis with a torah and America as an ally.
Yeah that's why they extent suffrage to Arabs, allow Arabs in the Knesset and have a Palestinian Arab on the Supreme Court.
9228
« on: January 03, 2015, 08:02:49 AM »
Yet when Islamic fundamentalists are willing to hit the wall at 400mph--as well as blow each other up, commit genocide in Northwest Iraq, be in league with a Middle-Eastern demagogue and psychopath, shoot little girls for wanting an education, call for the death of apostates, fire rockets from beside schools and hospitals, air anti-Semitic cartoons and murder Australian tourists for not being allowed to commit annexation and genocide--it is somehow the fault of American and Zionist imperialism?
Who said that?
Every single liberal person I've spoke to on the issue of American foreign policy--and a lot of libertarians--with the exception of some high profile liberals like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.
9229
« on: January 03, 2015, 05:55:04 AM »
I'm not going to argue that the state of Islamic Asia deteriorated as the Ottomans lost power, but you can't possibly deny that American intervention in the Middle-East during the 50s didn't somehow influence the radicalization of Muslims.
Even if that's the case I really don't care. We are, always have been, and always will be, operating on the moral high ground.
9230
« on: January 03, 2015, 05:52:19 AM »
Israel clearly has the moral superiority over Hamas, and I'll support them until that is no longer the case.
B-b-but m-my white ph-ph-phosphorus
Yeah, fuck you, the Israelis aren't fucking genocidal Nazis with a Qur'an.
9231
« on: January 02, 2015, 07:50:29 PM »
Muslims aren't nearly the threat the Nazis were. The Nazis were 30 years ahead of the rest of the world technologically speaking and their genocide was mechanical and efficient. Muslims just aren't that smart, in fact they're rather pitiable in how third world and pathetic they are.
You're overselling the Reich, there. The Nazis were a horribly inefficient mess who managed to put on a good show. Nonetheless, this has nothing to do with various threat levels. It's to do with the connection between beliefs and action; why do we keep making excuses for fundamentalist Islam?
9232
« on: January 02, 2015, 07:39:33 PM »
Why is it when Nazis murder Jews and other minorities by the millions it's a product of their ideology.
Yet when Islamic fundamentalists are willing to hit the wall at 400mph--as well as blow each other up, commit genocide in Northwest Iraq, be in league with a Middle-Eastern demagogue and psychopath, shoot little girls for wanting an education, call for the death of apostates, fire rockets from beside schools and hospitals, air anti-Semitic cartoons and murder Australian tourists for not being allowed to commit annexation and genocide--it is somehow the fault of American and Zionist imperialism?
Pure masochistic bullshit.
9233
« on: January 02, 2015, 03:33:53 PM »
Didn't we already talk about this in a prior thread? Low level information gathering and administrative stuff?
I'm pretty sure that's what the article is talking about. Nobody's claiming that robots will be able to pull of lawyering in a court-room.
9234
« on: January 02, 2015, 02:15:34 PM »
Aha, fucking barbarians.
I hope this cripples them.
9235
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:38:55 PM »
Only thing I'm pulling out of my pockets is money
AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
9236
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:25:53 PM »
pretty disgusting to look at naked
Speak for yourself. Love me some landwhales.
9237
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:17:36 PM »
Lawyers are basically 10% smarts and 90% emotion-jerkers. Unless if a AI can give the same effect of emotion pulling as a real person can, then they won't be effective. Besides, there are plenty or organizations that will prevent this because everywhere you look there's a lawyer always outside a police station, hospital, or running a garage-made commercial on local TV
It's like you didn't even read the article.
9238
« on: January 02, 2015, 11:55:34 AM »
From HackedAccording to Jomati Consultants LLP, artificial intelligence and robotics will change the entire legal landscape in just over a decade.
Tony Williams, the founder of the British-based legal consulting firm, said that law firms will see nearly all their process work handled by artificial intelligence robots. The robotic undertaking will revolutionize the industry, “completely upending the traditional associate leverage model.”
“In this report, ‘Civilisation 2030: The Near Future for Law Firms’ we explore what will be the impact on clients and law firms of three key factors that shape the global economy: demographics, the growth of global cities and megacities, as well as the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics into both the industrial and professional sectors. The report closely analysed macro-economic data and key trends then considered how these will develop to 2030.”
The report predicts that the artificial intelligence technology will replace all the work involving processing information, along with a wide variety of overturned policies.
“AI bots could foreseeably take over any work with a systemic component that involves the processing of information. That includes low-level knowledge economy work, like due diligence, that is currently
performed by very junior lawyers.”
Williams also said that these knowledge bots would go beyond the retrieval function of today’s “knowledge management” software and work on the material, impacting associate and paralegals majorly.
While the report leans heavily toward the artificial intelligence technology, not everyone believes every facet of the legal structure can be automated. Ken Chasse, a lawyer at Barrister & Solicitor for more than 48 years, wrote an independent report in October 2014 that says legal advice cannot be automated, by nature.
9239
« on: January 01, 2015, 08:29:54 PM »
>meta
>gender
Fuck you, heretic.
9240
« on: January 01, 2015, 04:13:00 PM »
A Democracy is different, as it employs the majority of the populace to rule and thus a rule by majority
Well that's just not true since we don't have a constitutional form of democracy, yet we have parliamentary sovereignty.
If you vote for your representatives, you're a representative democracy; there really is no two ways about it.
I'm assuming you're referring to the UK? You have a Constitutional Monarchy
And while rep. democracies and cons. republics are similar, the former is governed by a constitution
I didn't say we don't have a constitutional monarchy; I'm aware we have a queen. You're missing the point that democracies and republics and monarchies aren't at all exclusive to each other. The only point at which it becomes exclusive is when you're discussing direct democracy only, which very few countries actually realise. My constitutional monarchy, and your constitutional republic, are still both representative democracies in that they are governed--in principle--by way of citizens comprising an electorate which makes up a body of representatives. Just because the notional of constitutionality in your country, and parliamentary sovereignty in mine, constrains the nature of democracy relative to direct democracy, it still doesn't mean it's any less a democracy. It's just different.
Pages: 1 ... 306307308 309310 ... 502
|
Show Posts