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 - challengerX
Pages: 1 ... 133513361337 13381339 ... 1398
40081
« on: September 24, 2014, 12:02:39 PM »
40082
« on: September 24, 2014, 12:00:16 PM »
ye
40083
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:57:49 AM »
tl;dr
40084
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:33:54 AM »
Some church fag.
40085
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:32:50 AM »
LOL What is that avatar?
40086
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:30:54 AM »
He made his brief return to b.net yesterday and it was glorious
Damn that sucks I missed it.
Sure it was really him?
Yeah. It was really him.
GOD FUCKING DAMN IT
40087
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:27:46 AM »
LOL It definitely isn't a group movie what the fuck.
40088
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:24:10 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.
Edit nevermind I haven't seen it. Anyways, I just think we shouldn't develop them in that direction. Otherwise we'll be forced to give them rights.
40089
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:17:05 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.
No, it wouldn't be right to force an android either. Which is why we shouldn't develop them in the first place.
40090
« on: September 24, 2014, 11:15:08 AM »
There has never been an archaic human of any sort without sentience.
That's why what he was saying was so confusing, but I thought it was a hypothetical. Is he being serious? I mean that's why I'm saying taking sentience is wrong, because there's no such thing as a human who never had it in the first place.
40091
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:33:58 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.
40092
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:28:28 AM »
Yeah it's fucking gross.
40093
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:23:43 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.
You are, though. You're breeding a species with no sentience that would have it otherwise.
40094
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:16:41 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?
It would be unethical to take their sentience.
40095
« on: September 24, 2014, 09:53:13 AM »
You should go to Saudi Arabia, PSU. Religious conservative heaven. Just change your cult and you're good to go.
Hmm, not sure if I can get a transfer out there. Do they play hockey in Saudi Arabia?
There's a first time for everything.
Who knows, maybe you'll go down in Arab history as the guy who invented sand hockey.
bro you're right. I could be an inventor like Leonardo DiCaprio.
Exactly. You'd be a modern day Michael Angelou.
40096
« on: September 24, 2014, 09:49:44 AM »
>congress refuses to act on things
>El Presidente utilizes military assets already operating in area to quell a growing potential threat and important issue of international affairs
I don't see a problem.
You forgot the part where he's black.
>still thinking the color of a person's skin has ANYTHING to do with politics
Fucking lol. This is EXACTLY why racism and division among people still exists to this day
It has everything to do with it, unfortunately. Only a racist would dislike Obama attacking ISIL. Especially when they wanted this a minute ago.
This is nothing but a political play.
I'll pary that you get over your draconian and archaic thinking
You see the thing is I like and support Obama and am not a racist.
If deflection is all you can come up with, I fear for your future my boy. 
You see the thing is that I'm not a childish and ignorant idiot who associates not liking a person's political ideals and actions as being "hur racest"
If playing the race card is all you can do to try to prove a point, the I fear for not only your future bu the world's future as your actions are the ones that promote racism and racial division
There's nothing childish about it. On the contrary, the children are the ones hating on Obama for doing something the Middle Eastern governments fully support. There is no other reason to dislike what Obama is doing right now unless you're racist. Unlike you, I don't live in a fantasy where racism only exists if a person calling out racists brings their racism up. THEY'RE being racist and taking actions against him. Me? I'm sitting here supporting Obama and calling out racists. Please, provide a reason other than "HURR DURR MUH ARCHAIC DEFINITION OF WAR OH GOD IM SO FUCKING RETARDED", and I'll take you seriously. Till then, I'm not Surprised Kinder, and I demand a refund for your predictable posts.
40097
« on: September 24, 2014, 09:44:50 AM »
Also, pretty sure that after recent regulations, foreigners aren't allowed to purchase weed anymore.
Yeah. Now citizens go in and sell to foreigners lol.
40098
« on: September 24, 2014, 09:42:50 AM »
Yeah no. It's a very conservative country
The Netherlands is pretty damn progressive man.
In some ways, in others it isn't.
40099
« on: September 24, 2014, 09:40:19 AM »
You should go to Saudi Arabia, PSU. Religious conservative heaven. Just change your cult and you're good to go.
Hmm, not sure if I can get a transfer out there. Do they play hockey in Saudi Arabia?
There's a first time for everything. Who knows, maybe you'll go down in Arab history as the guy who invented sand hockey.
40100
« on: September 24, 2014, 09:34:51 AM »
>congress refuses to act on things
>El Presidente utilizes military assets already operating in area to quell a growing potential threat and important issue of international affairs
I don't see a problem.
You forgot the part where he's black.
>still thinking the color of a person's skin has ANYTHING to do with politics
Fucking lol. This is EXACTLY why racism and division among people still exists to this day
It has everything to do with it, unfortunately. Only a racist would dislike Obama attacking ISIL. Especially when they wanted this a minute ago.
This is nothing but a political play.
I'll pary that you get over your draconian and archaic thinking
You see the thing is I like and support Obama and am not a racist. If deflection is all you can come up with, I fear for your future my boy.
40101
« on: September 24, 2014, 09:27:34 AM »
You should go to Saudi Arabia, PSU. Religious conservative heaven. Just change your cult and you're good to go.
40102
« on: September 24, 2014, 09:25:28 AM »
>congress refuses to act on things
>El Presidente utilizes military assets already operating in area to quell a growing potential threat and important issue of international affairs
I don't see a problem.
You forgot the part where he's black.
>still thinking the color of a person's skin has ANYTHING to do with politics
Fucking lol. This is EXACTLY why racism and division among people still exists to this day
It has everything to do with it, unfortunately. Only a racist would dislike Obama attacking ISIL. Especially when they wanted this a minute ago. This is nothing but a political play.
40103
« on: September 24, 2014, 09:22:18 AM »
You don't seem to understand, Al Assad welcomes these airstrikes. Every government in the Middle East does. Getting technical about it and calling it a declaration of war to delay Obama to make him look like a "weak dictator" as you dumbshits like to say, is a cheap political tactic.
It isn't a war.
That's nice and all and good the international community is actually wanting the U.S help but the Constitution doesn't make mention that it's okay to bypass Congress if the international community is
wanting assistance. If Obama simply went to Congress then he would have got the go-ahead
No he wouldn't have gotten the go ahead. Why do you think these guys are so butthurt about this? They were hoping to stall him and make him look like an idiot. God you're dumb.
40104
« on: September 24, 2014, 08:39:35 AM »
>congress refuses to act on things
>El Presidente utilizes military assets already operating in area to quell a growing potential threat and important issue of international affairs
I don't see a problem.
You forgot the part where he's black.
oh shit, my bad.
Now I think you can understand this humongous problem.
40105
« on: September 24, 2014, 08:37:59 AM »
>congress refuses to act on things
>El Presidente utilizes military assets already operating in area to quell a growing potential threat and important issue of international affairs
I don't see a problem.
You forgot the part where he's black.
40106
« on: September 24, 2014, 08:37:18 AM »
You don't seem to understand, Al Assad welcomes these airstrikes. Every government in the Middle East does. Getting technical about it and calling it a declaration of war to delay Obama to make him look like a "weak dictator" as you dumbshits like to say, is a cheap political tactic.
It isn't a war.
40107
« on: September 24, 2014, 08:30:29 AM »
only Congress has the power to approve war But this isn't a war unless declared so.
It's the military attacking a group. That's war. Sugar coat it with all these fancy, pointless terms but at the end of the day war is war. People got bent out of shape when Bush did this but nobody is when Obama does it
No, this is a conflict. The US hasn't declared war since 1941. A constitutional amendment may be in order if this is so important to most Americans.
war
wôr/Submit
noun
1.
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
As I said, calling this a "conflict" is just sugarcoating it. Bush called the unauthorized "conflicts" in Iraq and Afghanistan as such but received tremendous public outcry
Because he was toppling a regime while lying about why he was doing so. Attacking a group of criminals under the request of the country's government is not and never will be war.
40108
« on: September 24, 2014, 08:29:02 AM »
Except it isn't war. No nation has declared war on another nation. Especially when said nation is assisting these other nations by eradicating criminals.
Does a soldier formally declare war on your family if he murders one of your relatives? Are you all of a sudden a nation under attack from an occupying force when your relative was already killing your family members and this soldier is helping you under your request?
40109
« on: September 24, 2014, 08:24:10 AM »
At the barbers, waiting to get a hair cut. I have job interview later.
Where? Good luck either way.
Thanks man.
It's at this big department store called Argos. Lol.
They're like Wal-Mart
Cool. Hope you get the job dude.
40110
« on: September 24, 2014, 08:23:08 AM »
Seeing how it isn't war and it's air strikes welcomed by the Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian governments, Mr Kaine can go fuck himself with a broomstick.
Pages: 1 ... 133513361337 13381339 ... 1398
|
Show Posts
