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 - Turkey
Pages: 1 ... 267268269 270
8041
« on: September 26, 2014, 09:56:43 AM »
I don't particularly see a reason why the government should regulate at what age its citizens can drink alcohol
I feel that imposing reasonable limits on the access young and hormonal teens at the height of their puberty have to a substance that will not only turn them loud and obnoxious and will render their already poor judgment, reasoning skills and sense of responsibility even worse than normal, but has also been proven to have nefarious effects on the development of a young and not yet fully formed brain, is a pretty good reason to regulate a drinking age.
It's pretty demonstrable that allowing teenagers to learn about alcohol at a younger age and understand its effects does significantly more to prevent issues involving intoxication. It's kind of like what happens when you turn 21 and alcohol loses the excitement; it's just a drink that can mess you up if you let it. We mythologize alcohol and put it on such a high pedestal that the only logical expectation is for kids to be absolutely irresponsible with it as soon as they get access.
8042
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:29:04 PM »
I don't particularly see a reason why the government should regulate at what age its citizens can drink alcohol, but if I had to give an age I'd say 16 for drinking in public restaurants.
8043
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:26:55 PM »
I praise the Old God Akhaten.
8044
« on: September 25, 2014, 12:17:58 PM »
But what if the taxpayers want NASA to abort, but NASA goes through with it anyway? Are the taxpayers still forced to pay for the rest of the mission?
8045
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:47:57 AM »
It was a smart idea. Bad weather could MURDER someone.
I think NASA has a right to its own ships, although this abortion was pretty late in the game.
8046
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:46:32 AM »
33x32, or maybe a 34 if I ate a lot of chips the night before.
8047
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:44:22 AM »
As we all know, SpaceX recently had to abort their launch of cargo to the ISS because of poor weather. Do you consider this abortion morally repugnant, or necessary to the safe mission accomplishment for NASA?
8048
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:10:10 AM »
It looks really cool, but also extremely boring at the same time.
8049
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:17:59 PM »
Don't worry, we can just bomb extremism out of existence, right?
8050
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:02:45 PM »
 Curse you, OP!
8051
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:54:02 PM »
Masturbate and watch Doctor Who.
8052
« on: September 24, 2014, 12:42:15 PM »
It's actually a fairly overqualified field. My girlfriend's dad has a master's degree and experience running his own CSE business and still has trouble maintaining a contract. I'd say it's reaching a breaking point, especially with all the immigrants coming over for the jobs.
8053
« on: September 24, 2014, 12:09:29 PM »
I lead a youth group at my church for high school freshmen guys. A few weeks a ago they expressed the idea that they think dinosaurs aren't real, then discussed how evolution and the big bang are false. Wouldn't listen to a religious argument in favor of them, and are now basically under the impression that I'm a bad Christian and don't believe the Bible for recognizing scientific truth.
It's a discussion worth having. Nobody started off believing these things, and they had to be taught. If you think people are somehow below being taught, then I don't think you're being a productive member of society in this situation, and maybe ought to take some time to reflect on your own ego.
8054
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:37:01 AM »
How do they relate someone identifying as a certain gender to identifying as other animals like dogs or bears?
Because it's the same thing. You identify as something you objectively aren't.
Gender is subjective, sex is genetic. By definition, there is no objective way to assign gender.
8055
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:28:16 AM »
Thanks for the heads up. I really like this site and think it's the best offsite so far, so I'll gladly disable it. I'd even be down for donations if you open that up in the future, though I can't promise much.
8056
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:20:18 AM »
I wonder what the state of technology will be at that point. We already have animal rights for non-sentient species (the proper term is 'sapient', but that's usually ignored), so would sufficiently advanced technology, like a really adaptable computer OS, be given similar rights once we've achieved AI sentience?
If you haven't seen the movie Her, you should check it out sometime. It's not really a group-movie, but if you take it seriously and don't just giggle at the sex stuff, I think you'll find it a very sincere effort to talk about this subject.
8057
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:16:08 AM »
There has never been an archaic human of any sort without sentience.
Yeah, I realized that after I posted it. That's why I added 'nearest ancestor'. Basically go back along the evolutionary line until you hit non-sentience. Or imagine a hypothetical human that just doesn't have sentience, and is incapable of ever achieving it. This is largely to address the sentiment that always comes up in this discussion, that they're "just machines", as if being biological somehow makes one form of sentience more legitimate than another. It's to broaden the horizons a bit.
8058
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:36:54 AM »
You are, though. You're breeding a species with no sentience that would have it otherwise.
No...you don't seem to understand. In this scenario, we're using the nearest ancestor to modern humans that didn't have sentience. As in, they didn't have sentience when they existed. They weren't sentient. They never had sentience. Sentience was not an attribute of this species. You can't take away something they never had. They're incapable of sentience. Sentience is not applicable to this species.
Honestly I have no idea how to make this more clear.
Calm the fuck down bro. I thought you meant taking away their sentience.
And either way it's still wrong because slave labor is wrong.
So if we develop the means to create legitimately sentient AI (not just robots that are programmed to resemble human reactions), and we selectively give sentience to some (or none) and withhold it from others, is that okay? Keep in mind that at that point the machines would be intelligent, just not at sentience. Similar to the breeding idea we're talking about.
8059
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:29:18 AM »
You are, though. You're breeding a species with no sentience that would have it otherwise. No...you don't seem to understand. In this scenario, we're using the nearest ancestor to modern humans that didn't have sentience. As in, they didn't have sentience when they existed. They weren't sentient. They never had sentience. Sentience was not an attribute of this species. You can't take away something they never had. They're incapable of sentience. Sentience is not applicable to this species. Honestly I have no idea how to make this more clear.
8060
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:25:10 AM »
 No no, it's just the new Bend feature.
8061
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:20:36 AM »
It would be unethical to take their sentience. You're not taking anything away from them. Like I said, we'd be growing a species that isn't sentient. The nearest relative to modern humans that didn't have sentience.
8062
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:08:33 AM »
Technocracy, please.
8063
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:00:44 AM »
Definitely. Here's a followup question though: if we somehow had the capability to clone or grow non-sentient animals in the homo genus (basically the nearest ancestor to humans that did not have sentience or sapience), would it be unethical to use them as slave labor in the same way we use machines?
8064
« on: September 23, 2014, 11:33:48 AM »
Maybe I'm just dumb but I don't understand what the joke is.
8065
« on: September 22, 2014, 10:12:24 PM »
I see communism as more of a global renaissance type of system. When everyone is free to pursue their interests without their life focused around working 9-5 to just pay rent, you'd have lots of room to explore and innovate. At the very least we'd probably see the arts flourish more. Then again, the works of Shakespeare were made to pay a meager wage, so I'm not sure. I don't see communism ever being functional on a state scale until war is obsolete and healthcare advances significantly.
So to answer your question, I think technological advance is just a human condition, and an evolutionary one. We're going to progress regardless of our artificial economic system.
8066
« on: September 20, 2014, 04:05:02 AM »
Clearly you just don't get it, OP.
Destiny is an experience. And if you're not happy unless a game has a coherent plot, a lack of senseless grinding, and rewarding challenges, then Destiny just isn't the game for you and you should stick to dumb, casual games like Dark Souls.
8067
« on: September 19, 2014, 04:26:20 PM »
"Minimally multiplayer online RPG"
I was blown away when I realized there was no chat or clan support at all.
8068
« on: September 19, 2014, 04:20:02 PM »
My bad.
8069
« on: September 19, 2014, 04:19:07 PM »
Ebola should have sold some of its symptoms and built up its resistance first. Now it's stuck in Africa; it'll never get to Madagascar.
8070
« on: September 19, 2014, 04:16:37 PM »
I was really disappointed to see that article. Of course she doesn't deserve harassment or death threats, but there's a legitimate issue to discuss (for those that, unlike myself, actually give a shit about any of it), but both sides are just focused on mudslinging.
Pages: 1 ... 267268269 270
|
Show Posts