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 - πΊπππππ
πͺππππ
Pages: 1 ... 373374375 376377 ... 1001
11221
« on: May 28, 2016, 11:00:22 PM »
or just call me an annoying idiot I can work with either
11222
« on: May 28, 2016, 10:05:18 PM »
born in Garden City, Michigan
11223
« on: May 28, 2016, 07:46:21 PM »
Depends who's putting it on and enforcing the rules
11224
« on: May 28, 2016, 02:51:14 PM »
If I had the means, sure.
Concepts and ideas exist. Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not real.
So, you would help one person if it meant subjecting 1000s of others to suffering?
What? How does the fact that I would help a kid escape from some sweatshop cause more suffering?
the ones who walk away from omelas is a story about a utopian society is only able to keep its utopian state due to one child suffering.
Oh, I didn't know you changed the topic, never heard of that movie. And yes, I would absolutely save that child. A utopia that thrives off of someone eternally suffering isn't a utopia, and has no right to exist, regardless of how good it is.
So you would let thousands of people suffer rather than just one person suffer? Yeah, that sure seems like the more moral option.
If the child being free causes everyone to suffer the same amount that the child did, then the moral option would be for them all to die.
11225
« on: May 28, 2016, 12:35:13 PM »
MY LOVE FOR YOU IS LIKE A TRUCK
BESERKER
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKING FUCK
BESERKER
I wasn't even supposed to be here today...
11226
« on: May 28, 2016, 12:22:25 PM »
When verbatim takes secondclass out back and shoots him
that would imply secondclass is on par with dogs, he's more like a house insect, just squish him in some tissue
oooh keep going please
11227
« on: May 28, 2016, 05:13:48 AM »
If I had the means, sure.
Concepts and ideas exist. Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not real.
So, you would help one person if it meant subjecting 1000s of others to suffering?
What? How does the fact that I would help a kid escape from some sweatshop cause more suffering?
the ones who walk away from omelas is a story about a utopian society is only able to keep its utopian state due to one child suffering.
Oh, I didn't know you changed the topic, never heard of that movie. And yes, I would absolutely save that child. A utopia that thrives off of someone eternally suffering isn't a utopia, and has no right to exist, regardless of how good it is.
11228
« on: May 28, 2016, 05:08:41 AM »
If I had the means, sure.
Concepts and ideas exist. Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not real.
So, you would help one person if it meant subjecting 1000s of others to suffering?
What? How does the fact that I would help a kid escape from some sweatshop cause more suffering? "Everything sucks"
"There's no point doing anything"
"I hope I die from all this oxycodone I'm taking"
I hate to have to bring things like that up, but I'm not going to let you lie and masquerade this death cult as some sort of gathering of intellectuals. Clinical depression is an actual disorder. It's caused by an inbalance of chemicals in the brain. I have more of a situational kind. And yeah, there was really no need to bring it up. I care about this solely because of the consent factor, and even if I didn't, I'm not barred from holding an opinion because of something happening in my personal life. No, it isn't. There are plenty of other factors which make morality such a grey area, not this black and white "let him drink bleach it doesn't affect you". No, there aren't. If you were the only creature on earth, morality wouldn't exist. It revolves around the interaction of suffering-capable organisms. Anything you do that only affects yourself can't be immoral or moral. There is no such thing as burden without existence, so existence itself can not be the burden. This doesn't make any sense. There are burdens in life, and life itself is also a burden. Living for no reason?
Maybe you do, but I don't. Find a purpose. Some people find their own unique purposes in life, but the institution of life itself is meaningless. As is creating it. You don't know if the life you're going to create even wants to start looking for meaning. Being brought into existence is a matter in which consent is irrelevant.
You're simply wrong. And wow, I did let myself get dragged into some huge argument. It's time for me to go to bed.
11229
« on: May 28, 2016, 04:47:24 AM »
If I had the means, sure.
Concepts and ideas exist. Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not real.
11230
« on: May 28, 2016, 04:38:47 AM »
Also, morality and human rights are a spook, just saying.
You keep using that word and I don't give a shit. I don't even know what it means, but if being concerned with morality and human rights makes me a spook, then that's what I am. I have no problems with that.
11231
« on: May 28, 2016, 04:37:18 AM »
Utility means NOTHING, in anything but a pragmatic sense. If something morally sound has utility, then great. If something morally wrong has utility, it doesn't matter - we can't do it. If we rounded up every homeless person and forced them into slave labor, quality of life would increase for the rest of us. But again, it would be wrong. That's the more important thing that matters.
And I try to avoid companies that outsource to other countries in general, but I'm not perfect.
11232
« on: May 28, 2016, 04:26:44 AM »
We created it, but that doesn't mean a thing. Just because we're intellectually capable of creating new souls doesn't mean we're morally capable of enslaving them.
Ah, arguing from morality, well spooked my property.
No, I'm talking about sentience. The ability to feel actual pain, emotions, and pleasure. Sapience goes without saying, it's an AI; of course it can think abstractly and make decisions. That's the point of this hypothetical creation, it can learn, think, and use logic like any human. That alone is enough to give it human rights, but when you add on sentience, it's even more deserving of them. Anything that can suffer has a moral consideration to it, let alone something that can think and knows that it exists. First off, unless we're giving these AI's the works with receptors on their bodies for pain and pleasure, they aren't going to think anything of those feelings. A sexbot AI without that would not feel anything from the person fucking them. Secondly, even if they do feel those emotions, so what? It doesn't change the fact that the AI was created for a specific purpose and if it doesn't fulfill that purpose, it's basically useless. Just saying, neither me nor you are doing anything to stop sweat shops that uses kids as a means of production and willingly use products from it. If AI hit the point of sapience and sentience, we'd turn the same blind eye with no sleep lost on our part.
And guess what - it's wrong that we turn a blind eye to kids in those sweatshops. Bad comparison. Not to mention that a true AI can definitely feel emotional suffering even if it has no capacity to feel physical pain. And a fucking bum stealing shit and living on the sidewalk is also useless. That doesn't mean he doesn't have human rights. Wait, so you antinatalist now too?
I wouldn't parade around and identify myself as such, but I'd probably be considered one.
11233
« on: May 28, 2016, 04:24:30 AM »
LOL Antinatalists
"It's bad to create life even if artificial to advance humanity"
No, no it isn't. Suffering is a part of life, get over it. That's just how the universe is.
I'm not going to sit here and have a big argument about consent with you, but the fact that life neccesitates suffering doesn't give a reason for making new life, it gives a reason against it.
Denying life to somebody is the ultimate crime, you never even give him/her/it the chance to experience it before "playing god" (or Satan more like) yourself and deco coding life is not worth living because you're clinically depressed.
I'm not depressed, not really sure what you're on about there. All it comes down to is that consent is the basis of morality, and the heaviest burden you can put on someone is existence, making them live out an entire life for no reason and shaming them if they don't want to live as long as they can. Doing that, and just assuming they'll give consent for it later, is wrong.
11234
« on: May 28, 2016, 04:17:31 AM »
LOL Antinatalists
"It's bad to create life even if artificial to advance humanity"
No, no it isn't. Suffering is a part of life, get over it. That's just how the universe is.
I'm not going to sit here and have a big argument about consent with you, but the fact that life necessitates suffering doesn't give a reason for making new life, it gives a reason against it.
11235
« on: May 28, 2016, 04:15:20 AM »
Probably, yes. I think the fears of an AI turning on us is not that justified.
it's more about the fact that creating a new species for the sake of SCIENCE! is wrong
lol what
How is creating AI wrong?
You're imposing sentience and existence on a previously inanimate thing for the sake of scientific progress.
>imposing
I'm granting it sentience. That's a good thing.
There's a fundamental difference of opinion here, then. Forcing a consciousness, life, on something without their consent is wrong.
11236
« on: May 28, 2016, 04:13:28 AM »
People who want sexbots or whatever are even worse than the general advocates of this. It would be literal rape.
Except a AI programed to be a sexbot would be literally coded for the purpose of providing sexual pleasure.
Humans are coded for the exact same thing, fucking and having kids. But since we're a sentient, intelligent species, we have free agency and can break that coding. An AI is no different. If you're talking about a true AI, one that learns and is self aware, then it will start to develop an opinion of whether or not it enjoys being a sex slave to gross, desperate old men.
If you want a sex robot, some human looking thing that's programmed to move in a certain way and say certain things in reaction to an input, then whatever. But this goes far beyond that.
First off, everyone here needs to learn the difference between sentient and sapient. Being able to think abstractly and form opinions about scenarios is sapience. Second, even if it was able to form its own opinions, why should we afford something we created to serve us the same rights as us?
No, I'm talking about sentience. The ability to feel actual pain, emotions, and pleasure. Sapience goes without saying, it's an AI; of course it can think abstractly and make decisions. That's the point of this hypothetical creation, it can learn, think, and use logic like any human. That alone is enough to give it human rights, but when you add on sentience, it's even more deserving of them. Anything that can suffer has a moral consideration to it, let alone something that can think and knows that it exists. We created it, but that doesn't mean a thing. Just because we're intellectually capable of creating new souls doesn't mean we're morally capable of enslaving them.
11237
« on: May 28, 2016, 03:53:01 AM »
People who want sexbots or whatever are even worse than the general advocates of this. It would be literal rape.
Except a AI programed to be a sexbot would be literally coded for the purpose of providing sexual pleasure.
Humans are coded for the exact same thing, fucking and having kids. But since we're a sentient, intelligent species, we have free agency and can break that coding. An AI is no different. If you're talking about a true AI, one that learns and is self aware, then it will start to develop an opinion of whether or not it enjoys being a sex slave to gross, desperate old men. If you want a sex robot, some human looking thing that's programmed to move in a certain way and say certain things in reaction to an input, then whatever. But this goes far beyond that.
11238
« on: May 28, 2016, 03:27:10 AM »
I kinda want to know the answer to this now
11239
« on: May 28, 2016, 02:47:57 AM »
People who want sexbots or whatever are even worse than the general advocates of this. It would be literal rape.
11240
« on: May 28, 2016, 02:43:37 AM »
I think Class is assuming that the AI would be sentient, when that wouldn't necessarily be the case.
Creating a sentient AI would be pointless and evil, but what's the issue if it's not sentient?
That's the thing, you can't prove whether something is sentient or not. If you create a thinking, self-aware, learning, intelligent machine, you can't distinguish if it's truly sentient.
11241
« on: May 28, 2016, 12:03:48 AM »
yep. As long as our race is going to continue, having robots would seem to be the next big leap for us. Robot diplomats free from bribes - preventing corruption and wars, robot scientists working literally 24/7 - processing things far faster than any human could hope to - curing diseases, medically being more proficent than human doctors, etc.
Nice, literally create a slave race. I guess these machines will just work for us out of the kindness of their hearts. Nothing morally wrong with manufacturing intelligent life and then telling them their entire existence revolves around serving us.
11242
« on: May 27, 2016, 11:31:11 PM »
ok
11243
« on: May 27, 2016, 11:11:33 PM »
blech
11244
« on: May 27, 2016, 11:08:57 PM »
they're not even good anyway
Literally not manly enough to eat them, huh?
raspberries are way better
pineapple is like the second worst fruit
the worst being?
tomato
11245
« on: May 27, 2016, 11:02:23 PM »
they're not even good anyway
Literally not manly enough to eat them, huh?
raspberries are way better pineapple is like the second worst fruit
11246
« on: May 27, 2016, 10:58:12 PM »
they're not even good anyway
11247
« on: May 27, 2016, 10:20:57 PM »
11248
« on: May 27, 2016, 09:16:12 PM »
If you had seen every episode of American Dad you would have an amazing sense of humor.
I've seen every episode of every MacFarlane trio show American Dad is more character based and objectively the best, but Family Guy is more nostalgic for me and makes me laugh on a more regular basis.
11249
« on: May 27, 2016, 09:14:01 PM »
it's loser
11250
« on: May 27, 2016, 08:02:41 PM »
Probably, yes. I think the fears of an AI turning on us is not that justified.
it's more about the fact that creating a new species for the sake of SCIENCE! is wrong
lol what
How is creating AI wrong?
"playing god" meme
We play god every day, there's nothing wrong with that. We self-fertilize chicken eggs and breed better plants. It's about the fact that you're forcing intelligent life on something for no reason.
Pages: 1 ... 373374375 376377 ... 1001
|
Show Posts