Ramshutu's avatar

Ramshutu

A member since

6
9
10
Topics Posts

Total posts: 2,768

Posted in:
It’s time to remember that we, the people are the government.
-->
@FLRW
"All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they’re doing. And stolen by the fake news media. That’s what they’ve done and what they’re doing. We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."   Donald Trump  Jan 6, 2021
I have some libertarian friends: the defining pathology of libertarians is the strict adherence to the narrative that both sides are equally bad. There seems to this odd undergirding assumption that no one ever speaks about that permeates modern politics - something along the lines of “you call us bad, but you are just as bad really”.

That’s kinda been broadly true with some small deviations - you defend your corner; the left bash tax cuts, the right bash’s spending.

But that just goes right out of the window today; as does any acknowledgement of it.

Sure, Trump is involved in dozens of investigations, has been implicated in fraud, obstruction of Justice, and fomenting insurrection - but look at Biden, his drug addict son may have traded of his fathers name.

Sure, Trump spent four years screaming fraud, did nothing: Absolved Russia of blame for election interference, and appears to have benefited from Russian interference; and has obstructed an investigation into it; and has leveraged military spending on desperate allies to assist him in his re-election campaign; AND appeared to try and cajole and strong arm state and federal election apparatus to try and overturn an election - but Biden once demanded something every other western nation wanted - and increased the likelihood of a company his son was involved would be investigated for fraud

And here: Sure, Trump was responsible for a huge push to undermine the credibility of an election and overthrow an unsatisfactory result, together with turning a significant fraction of the country into loyal adherents who believe the result was incorrect, to the point it has exerted pressure on local and state election apparatus to both restrict voting; and enact more plausible paths to override democratic results of a free and fair election - and went so far as to rile up a crowd and send them to the Capitol with the obvious expectation that the disruption or pressure would change the result in Congress: but omg - Biden is enacting vaccine mandates in the middle of the deadliest pandemic since Spanish flu.

It’s kinda nuts to have to explain that while, yes, Biden is enacting vaccine mandates, and yes, not everyone will agree with the premise and application of it, and yes; some people will think it heavy handed - no rational person will think clear and actual attempts to invalidate an election is comparable.

And yet we are here.





Created:
1
Posted in:
Tell me what has increased to over 1,000,000 incidents again this year
-->
@ILikePie5
Hell ya lets impeach George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for being slave owners!
I’m morbidly interested at this point with the thought process that goes in to posts like these.

So you kinda imply that impeachment shouldn’t apply to people who are a few weeks out of office, so you obviously just try and find the unreasonable sounding way of phrasing “impeaching a president who just left office to prevent him serving in public office again” - pretty standard rhetorical device - pawn to king 4 type stuff.

DR gives you a typical response - correcting lazy misrepresentation, with the correct representation. Fine. Again - expected  pawn to king 4 type stuff. Going through the troll motions.

So now you’re trying to figure out what to say;  and you have to obviously fine some way to make “the only way to prevent someone from serving in public trust at this level is through impeachment: so you want a system where you can still do that for crimes in office - even though an individual may have run out the clock” seem unreasonable.

This is where I’m morbidly curious as to your thinking process. Do you actually believe what you’re implying - that any single person on the entire planet is advocating for any form of the judicial system to apply to dead people - or that that not limiting impeachment to people in office would necessarily mean expansion of impeachment power expands to include even dead former officials: can you walk me through the logic of that. 

Or have you posted it not believing it; in which case I’m kinda interested on why you thought this is a good way of obviously misrepresenting doubles position; I mean, it’s so obviously nonsense, I can’t imagine any reality in which anyone would think it either convincing or valid.

It would seem if it’s the latter - this goes beyond typical run of the mill troll-jousting that happens all the time around the periphery of arguments - but really this weird sort of alternate reality trolling that appears to be ubiquitous now, where individuals throw out one liners without even pretending to be based on any semblance of reality. 

I mean seriously; why not go for “so we can impeach Clinton again” would probably get you much further.


Created:
0
Posted in:
Tiki Torches.
-->
@Double_R
**googles “Tucker Carlson Eric Swallwell”**

Ahhhhh okay. Yeah, this makes sense now.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Blue moon, and the failure of determinism
-->
@949havoc
we are arguing that thought and intelligence is somehow non existent, or can’t exist.

Where have I ever suggested that? My argument is that our intelligence produces thought and action on our own ability of free will, not by any external determination.

You suggested that here:

“according to your Secular buddy, that if-statement [if an artificial intelligence exists with the ability to think] is a non-sequitur:”
That is the only rational way I can interpret your statement.

Let’s break it down. Firstly; you don’t offer any sort of explanation or rationalization of why you think it’s a non sequitur. I find this fairly typical of people who either aren’t engaging in good faith, or just don’t understand the principles of how arguments work.

A non sequitor is typically when a conclusion doesn’t follow the premise. In this case, I’m not making an argument - I’m offering a thought experiment; so the term doesn’t really apply.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt and suggesting that you’re simply not using the right label - the only possibility is that you think, somehow, that thinking and intelligence are somehow not valid things or don’t follow in a deterministic universe. 

This matches up with the broad themes you’re arguing and your general incredulity.

If that’s not the case, then it’s completely unclear as to what your point is, which I guess could be the point. I mean, why bother constructing an argument where you can throw out a couple of assertions that don’t make sense then attack your opponent for not understanding when they point out it doesn’t make sense.

As to your thought experiment, you first suggested an AI. Then you suggested instructions; determinist-derived instructions. In other words, a program. Then you asked if the program - you specifically called it that - not the AI, had free will. So, what does the AI have to do with anything in your posit? Since you raise an AI, then discuss the instructions/program, then ask if the program has free will, the AI becomes irrelevant to your exercise. So the exercise description is flawed since thought/programming is irrelevant without an entity to convert the thought/program to action, because thoughts/programs do nothing of the sort without an entity to perform the thought/program. So, you leave the thought/program dangling in the wind, and who knows where the person/AI has gone. If you really are asking if the thought/program has free will of its own, no, it does not, simply because it has no means to carry out the action stipulated by the program. What sense of purpose does free will or determinism have if there is no action that can be performed?

So you’re argument here appears to be that I used both the words “program” and “artificial intelligence”, and you’re suggesting that these are totally different things; so AI has nothing to do with the program, and without an “entity” you can’t think.

So what you’re doing here is a simply a strawman, you’re just inventing a perceived error in the discussion, and attacking it; the error you manufacture is itself, beyond my ability to adequately ridicule.


There is no error at all: in my example, artificial intelligence is a form of computer program - a computer program that has the ability to learn and change based on its inputs and formulate novel outputs through adaptive algorithms. In most cases they are trying to emulate human decision making and thought. 

Googles deep learning, for example, or IBMs deep blue - are artificial intelligence, and are also computer programs.

As a software engineer, the distinction you draw makes absolutely no sense, and building an entire argument on the premise that two things are somehow different, is up there with my favourite interviewee when asked to name some issues with “multi-threaded software development”, is “the cpu may get hot and burn people”.

Finally; the main issue that appear to be the main issue with your approach here; is that you seem to be begging the question throughout.

An argument - discussion - debate - works by establishing commonly agreed truths, then present logical arguments to justify conclusions.

Reviewing this, and other arguments you make on this topic, it appears that this is not what you’re trying to do.

It appears that you “believe” your position - that’s fine; but are presenting arguments and positions that aren’t commonly agreed as if they are. You occasionally throw out a bunch of Jesuspeak; and assert things such as  thought requiring entities to generate them, and all other manner of things.

These aren’t agreed, and in most cases these assertions (I call them that because you don’t seem to provide justification for them, nor do you seem to want to defend their validity), are the very thing that allow you to draw the conclusions  that you do.

For example - way back in the dim distance past of an argument you dropped; I pointed out that in order for your decisions to produce truly free decisions - your mind, your thinking needs to produce results different than the physical objects in your head would had they obeyed the laws of physics. You didn’t really offer much of a defence to this; you merely offer watery declarations that it happens (without going into too much detail on the how). While I completely agree, that if your mind was a non physical entity that could violate the laws of physics - free will is possible - to assume that is the case in the absence of all evidence, is invalid.

The issue is that any time this is brought up, you retreat behind that assertion with burden of proof demands, or even just straight up ignoring it. It’s as if you know the weakness of your argument and are trying to avoid it.

That’s the primary issue, if you’re unwilling to address the central assumptions of your arguments - the central underpinning truths that are the source of everyone’s disagreement - then debate isn’t possible; it ceases to be debate, and becomes proselytizing masquerading as debate. 

This is the issue here, your argument is based on a whole load of central assumptions you will not defend, and don’t appear to like being challenged; you appear to believe the mind is non physical in some way, that thinking, thought and decisions somehow require agency. The issue here seems to be (and continues to be that you generally use those same assertions to shout down arguments that show those assertions are false)  that this approach inherently begging the question, and either by accident or design is the reason you prevent the conversation going anywhere.
Created:
2
Posted in:
The Death Tax
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Your social security money should be paying you back because that's what the government's taking it for. There's not enough money in there to pay back the people who paid into it where the hell did the money go. Is 17 people were paying in the social security there should be 17 people's worth of money in social security. Oh that's right the government takes money out of social security and doesn't put it back. I hate to break it to you but the generation paying into social security right now is a third the size of the generation that's collecting it. Which is why there won't be any there when I retire.
This is not actually the way social security works.

The way social security works is that you pay in, and the money paid in is used to pay the people claiming; that’s how it was able to be out in places almost overnight for everyone rather than anyone who was already 53 being screwed in 12 years because they had not paid in enough compared to someone who was 18. 

This has produced a surplus in payments in vs payments out over multiple decades until some of the baby boomers began retiring. Where the amount paid out exceeded the amount paid in 2010.

The big surplus generated over the preceding decades was invested in US treasury bonds; save for a default in debt payments - each month the social security fund receives interest on debt held, and returns the value when the bond matures; so the money hasn’t really disappeared any more than it would have if that money was simply placed in a bank savings account (which would then go on to invest that money in something else).

Created:
0
Posted in:
Tell me what has increased to over 1,000,000 incidents again this year
-->
@949havoc
Apparently, oromagi & Ramshutu can't be bothered, and then complain about it. Sure, right wing conspiracies. It's an easy excuse. Isn't that getting a little old? You've been complaining about that since before the Constitution was ratified, and before there were political parties. Rarely does a person smell their own flatulence. 
Who said anything about right wing conspiracies? 

I was referring to people on the right who appear to have a tendency to say things that sound true, but fall apart when analyzed.

For example when you analyze your post, and it’s clear that no one was talking about right wing conspiracies; the remainder of it makes little sense.

Additionally, arguing we can’t be bothered, when analyzed, also reveals that you made a post without identifying what you’re talking about, suggesting other people hunt down what you’re talking about; and it’s hardly a reasonable characterization to imply that our reaction to this nonsense is somehow unreasonable.

Finally; now that the underpinning claim is clear - we can actually show that doesn’t appear to be valid either.

Your claim is based on an estimate from a tracking site that appears to be taking the number of live births and using this to infer abortion numbers. The info isn’t driven of actual data, but the presumption that 1/4 pregnancies will end in abortion.

The last data I can find in the US, suggests the number of pregnancies that end in abortion is actually around  1/5 - 18% ; which if applied would bring that number down to….. high 800,000 as it appears to have been all along.
Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Well; it seems we got somewhere - refusing an offer of $300 to show he had actually made an argument he made!

It truly boggles my mind what goes through the heads of people like this.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Tiki Torches.
-->
@Double_R
Nah: it’s the DC elites running the country from DC that somehow are using their DC powers to make everything racist. Also they’re in DC.
Created:
3
Posted in:
Tell me what has increased to over 1,000,000 incidents again this year
Tell me what has increased to over 1,000,000 incidents again this year
Right wing people saying things that sound true, but after investigation, are revealed to grossly misrepresented basic facts and information so badly that the claim can’t really even be considered partly true?
Created:
3
Posted in:
Tiki Torches.
Hmm, it’s a tough one.

I think it probably depends on the context.

For example;  if I was using one as mood lighting for a  couple of beers with friends in my back garden: no.

If I was using one as mood lighting for a March of swastika emblazoned right wing Neo nazis screaming “Jews will not replace us” and “blood and soil”; it’s not quite as clear.
Created:
3
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
Obviously. You’re not going to reply to any significant chunk of the post above; so I’m going to outline the argument you’ve largely avoided to focus on minutiae:

There are people around the world that like to dress up in fury costumes and f**k each other. For many of them, it’s an important aspect of their life, and a way, I’m sure, that they can derive personal self worth or satisfaction. It has meaning to them.

Fury orgies occur not because there is some higher power that imparts some objective meaning - no God that sits down and determines that Jimmy dressing up in a chipmunk costume with a pink dress has some greater purpose or meaning.  But because Jimmy has emotions, and emotional interactions that end up manifesting in the way he weights or reacts the importance of things that happen around him. And these emotions end up making him feel like dry humping someone dressed as a Chinchilla, has some greater meaning.

Our brains are the results of a billion years of evolution. They consist of a complex neural network that forms connections and reinforces behaviour and connections between nodes through reward/punishment mechanisms, including the involvement of emotions, which are largely feedback mechanisms to avoid danger and to allow individuals to work in groups (I can happily explain the evolutionary imperative of this, but you can see similar emotional response and learned behaviour in all social animals). Emotional responses help define neural connections, and vice versa in a continual learned feedback loop.

Or to summarize, we give things meaning because of a complex learned behaviour response mediated by emotions that have evolved to constrain and promote behaviours beneficial to overall group survival.

Social animals that depend in part on their group for survival and success, behaviours and adaptations that improves group success can improve the individuals ability to reproduce successfully ; and thus creates an evolutionary imperative - a selective pressure in organisms that stems from some traits improving an organisms reproductive advantage - thus leading to certain variants having more copies than others due to that advantage; over time causing traits that produce more successful outcomes to become dominant over others over time. Emotions can be explained in an evolutionary narrative in these terms: traits and behaviours that would be selected for because they allow an organism to be more successful; through boosting the group the organism is part of: as a result of that success, that variant produces more copies in subsequent generations than other variants than - and thus becomes more prevalent over time.

Taking this further: there’s a clear imperative for some emotions: the fear response helps to prep individuals for fights, avoid dangerous situations; social emotions such as disgust, anger, etc, help to mediate social interactions - they maintaining group cohesion by helping to produce behaviours that impart negative consequences on those that break the rules. Game theory also explains selfishness; pure altruism maximizes groups success, but harms individuals. Purely Selfish behaviour is good for the individuals, but decimates the group. The optimal behaviour is altruistic with selfishness; allowing focus on the individual to as much of a degree that it doesn’t harm the social grouping. Morality, emotions, ethics, can all be explained under this evolutionary unberella, learned behaviour drive by emotional motivations that have their basis in evolutionary imperitives.

I am not saying that people you need love to survive; but that we have “emotions that have evolved to constrain and promote behaviours beneficial to overall group survival.” So in this respect, while we don’t need love to survive: the emotion simply helps to promote behaviour that is beneficial to group survival - which is true.  Feelings of love for your family, and children; helps promote behaviour that is beneficial to your survival, your genetic legacy and consequently the group you’re in.

Moral standards change over time, ancient Aztecs and modern Norwegians have different moral standards. The ancient Israelites would be war criminals today. Morals are adaptable to the group one find oneself in.

In fact. Given the variation in morality and ethics over time, between countries, deviations within groups; and the overall zeitgeist: our moral and emotional behaviour as humans only makes sense as a learned behaviour based on evolved emotions: a higher authority being responsible for meaning and emotion makes no sense given the wild variability in them all over time.

Morality appears subjective, it’s mutable, it changes, it differs, and everyone thinks theirs is correct. There is also no objective standard that can be shown valid to judge them. Because of this, the only justifiable explanation, is that morality is subjective.

Subjective morality simply means the moral standard you have is learned, changes from generation to generation; with no objective standard by which we can determine which of the moral standards is “best”.

Why we emote and morality is best explained through this context of learned behaviour driven by evolved emotional feedback mechanisms if makes utterly no sense as the result of some manifestation of a higher authority’s command or will

You may not like that response - in fact I am sure you won’t; however it is certainly more complete, better supported, and can be better justified than “Magik man dunnit” 

Note: this is a comprehensive proof. And systematic - substantive - arguing that shows that what you’re arguing for is false, and what I am arguing is underpinned by reasoned argument. All of which were provided above - and to which I am still waiting for an argument against; as opposed 

Created:
1
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
We’ve exchanged over 100 posts combined, now; and despite accusing me of lies, hypocrisy, and dishonesty throughout; but you haven’t threatened to block me.

So what’s changed?

Through this entire exchange: you have repeatedly suggested, implied - and often outright stated - that you made arguments that you haven’t.

What I’m doing, is making it completely untenable for you to continue this dishonesty; by offering you something that, were you telling the truth, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for you not to take me up on it. Worse, you have a tendency to parrot my accusations; but the beautiful thing about this one; is if you parrot my claims and offer $100 to show something you said I haven’t provided - I’ll quote it, as whenever you’ve claimed I hadn’t said something - I actually had. Worse, you know that you will no longer be able to claim you did something when you didn’t - a broad staple of your replies here - because I will just repeat the strategy to call you out on these lies.


Given that you’ve been backed into a corner here; and no longer have a credible option to lie about anything any more; you have to save face, and find some way to not answer, thus you’re threatening to block me in some nebulous reason as the premise of the worst “good day, sir” 191 I have yet to see.

I mean, You can’t possibly think that anyone will believe that you’d come this far: and after me calling you out in nearly 200 fallacies, lies, and instances of dishonest behaviour; that somehow offering you money is what crosses the line. It’s incoherent 192


My offer still stands: you have strongly implied you have provided a justification for something, that you haven’t. 

With my challenge, I am setting you up for a reply that, should you simply quote the justification I described above, you have demonstrated that I am dishonest; you end the conversation dead, you win this exchange on the facts, and you will earn money for you and charity. It is not possible for an argument to be more substantive than that 193

Indeed the only reason for you to capitulate so completely, is because you know you’re being dishonest and can’t meet the offer, but you also know that not answering proves you’re being dishonest; and so we arrive here, needing to find some way out.
Created:
1
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
For what possible reason would you not be interested in $100 for charity, or $200? I’m not asking you to compete in a challenge - simply to post the justification you appear to have implied you have given 
Do you not understand English?
Yes, do you?

You get Free money - your favourite charity gets free money  -  I leave you alone - just for you quoting what you suggested that you had already written?

The simplest easiest thing in the world - no extra effort, no work - just go back, copy, paste, quote the post where you take the two quotes in their full context and provide a justification of how these quotes, in their full context  still contradict each other. 

In fact, the simplest and most obvious reason you have for refusing $300 - is because the quote doesn’t actually exist.




Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
I think I made it abundantly clear that I don’t care what you do in terms of that.
It’s literally free money. You don’t have to do ANYTHING other than to post the justification you seem to be implying you made:

I will pay $100 to a charity of your choice, $200 to you personally; I will never reply to you again, change my about status to “Tariks Bitch” and completely concede everything said so far: if you can quote the post where you take the two quotes in their full context and provide a justification of how these quotes, in their full context  still contradict each other.

For what possible reason would you not be interested in $100 for charity, or $200? I’m not asking you to compete in a challenge - simply to post the justification you appear to have implied you have given 
Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
So if the remainder of this discussion is us just referencing things we’ve said
And you’re back to the lies….

I will pay $100 to a charity of your choice, $200 to you personally; I will never reply to you again, change my about status to “Tariks Bitch” and completely concede everything said so far: if you can quote the post where you take the two quotes in their full context and provide a justification of how these quotes, in their full context  still contradict each other.
Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
That’s a stupid confirmation to ask, why would I quote it if I didn’t believe it was justifiable?
I told you exactly why and how the quote was out of context. You said you had refuted it - and are now saying you were in error.

I’m just confirming that you are agreeing that you did not provide any refutation to my point, right? No rebuttal, no challenge; I didn’t miss anything.
Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
If you need to reread post #198 go right ahead, I assure you I made no mistakes with that one.
I am trying to confirm with you - that you haven’t, at any point, provided any justification of why you’re quotes were valid and in the correct context…

Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
My mistake (you’ve made plenty throughout this discussion and wrote them off as splitting hairs, at least I show accountability/good faith) I meant 178, something tells me you wouldn’t have made that bet had I said 178.
So you’re agreeing that you haven’t, at any point, provided an argument or justification of why your quote was definitely valid and in context?
Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
I will concede everything I have said in this thread, if you provide a single quote from one of your posts after #176 where you have provides a justification of why your original quote was an accurate representation of my argument..
don’t care what you do or don’t concede, I know what you said and I know what what you said means period.

You said:

“Refuted 176 with 177 demonstrating my good faith”

I am literally going to concede this entire thread.

I will also pay $100 dollars to a charity of your choice.

You can PM me something for me to post In this thread, and I will promise to post itz

All you have to do is provide a single quote from one of your posts after #176 where you have provided a justification of why your original quote was an accurate representation of my argument

You literally just said you had refuted it.

Quote where you “refuted it”

Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
pointless responding anymore it wont go anywhere.
At this point I’m replying out of a combination of morbid curiosity as to how far he will go; and interest to see whether I can find get him to implode.

I’m the type of guy who tries to see whether he can get telesales people who are unable to hang up to hang up.
Created:
1
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
your moral decisions are not youe choice; 
our moral standard is not something we change on whim, we cannot simply decide to think murder is okay tommorow.

But morality isn’t consistent… it keeps changing Over time and from society to society. … try to keep up…
Parroting #187.

Also Nope - sorry you don’t get to dodge this one. The bold parts are where you deliberately quoted me out of context Clear and plain as day, you lying, dishonest, quote mining, cretin #187.

You have not contested it, in fact - I will concede everything I have said in this thread, if you provide a single quote from one of your posts after #176 where you have provides a justification of why your original quote was an accurate representation of my argument..


Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
No your lying, I literally copied and pasted those contradicting words.
Parroting #184

So you are telling me that someone in an argument needs to specifically offer justification and examples of all their claims and statements?
They do if they’re accusing the person they’re arguing with that they’re quoting them out of context, oh wait you are so prey tell what context am I missing?
Covered in 176. Obviously you ignored it, as you are incapable of engaging in good faith #185

your moral decisions are not youe choice;
our moral standard is not something we change on whim, we cannot simply decide to think murder is okay tommorow.

But morality isn’t consistent… it keeps changing Over time and from society to society. … try to keep up…
The bold parts are the parts you quoted: note that they are in the middle of sentences that go on to say more things. This contest makes it clear I’m talking about two separate things - Clear and plain as day, you lying, dishonest, quote mining, cretin #186.


Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
Me paraphrasing to emphasize a greater point isn’t equivalent to missing context,
You weren’t paraphrasing you were lying #173.

and its interesting how you keep saying I’m quoting you out of context yet you don’t inform me of what context is missing 🤔.
So you are telling me that someone in an argument needs to specifically offer justification and examples of all their claims and statements? 

 


Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
Your confusing me with you (see #174) you refuted yourself.
No; because that was a grotesque straw man #170 you manufactured by dishonestly quoting me out of context #171. Which you appear not be contesting any more; because you can’t.

You completely forgot what we were arguing, and ended up trying to refute my argument that morality isn’t changed in a whim - by arguing that morality can be changed in a whim… refuting yourself.

This is hilarious; I am unsurprised you’re refusing to even acknowledge the argument three times how #172; because frankly I am embarrassed for you.
Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
Let me refresh you:

It appears you’re trying to argue that morality can be changed by personal preference - to refute my position that it can’t - but that which would make it subjective your definition a few posts ago.

Do you think what we find moral or not can be changed on a whim of personal preference?

If yes: you’ve basically conceded you’re entire argument, as you’re conceding morality is subjective, and a product of personal choice not higher authority

If no: the point you’re arguing against stands.

I’m arguing that morality isn’t subject to whim: you went from criticizing subjective morality to being subjective to personal preference to now trying to argue that I am wrong because morality is actually subject to personal preference… it’s hilarious you’re refuting your own position #156

It’s pretty simple: If morality isn’t subject to personal preference - the claim you’re arguing against is correct.  If not,  morality is subjective by your definition.

You’re trying to argue the second - and you know it: which is why you’ve chopped that part out twice.

I’ve explained it three times:

You’re so desperate to prove me wrong; you accidentally refuted your own position.

Let me try and explain it a fourth time; though I don’t know why I bother because you just ignore it and assert i’m wrong.

You: subjective morality means x is true.

Me: no it doesn’t, x is false.

You: but look at y That shows x is true.

Oops!









Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
you’re refuting your own position #156
You said all this already, I already explained why I’m not.
Black knighting. Massive lie: #158 You just repeated your assertion.

It’s pretty simple: If morality isn’t subject to personal preference - the claim you’re arguing against is correct.  If not,  morality is subjective by your definition. 

You’re trying to argue the second - and you know it: which is why you’ve chopped that part out twice. 

they are completely different things being used in completely different contexts for completely different reasons
No personal preference is just that personal preference there is no difference.
I just explained why your argument is dumb #159. Refer to my previous post.

Your argument is like calling me a hypocrite for pointing out you’re using a strawman: because I used wikipedia - which contains an articles on strawman.

Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
It appears you’re trying to argue that morality can be changed by personal preference
No, I exposed your hypocrisy in post #174 you tried to clarify your hypocrisy but all you ended up doing was telling more falsehoods that I mentioned in post #178.
Oh stop the nonsense lol; that’s a big fat lie #154,you’ve just been  dishonestly quote mining #155

I’m arguing that morality isn’t subject to whim: you went from criticizing subjective morality to being subjective to personal preference to now trying to argue that I am wrong because morality is actually subject to personal preference… it’s hilarious you’re refuting your own position #156




personal preference is sort of a side note.
It’s splitting hairs because it takes away from the larger point, which is you can’t criticize me for personal preference when that’s included (according to you) in morality that you don’t keep that same energy for, it’s hypocritical whether that be the core or a side note it’s still included period.
Good god, really? You are making me explain this to you? You’re being a complete cretin #157.

I criticized your argument because you were using your own personal preference to argue one thing made sense over another; you’re criticizing me, because one aspect of subjective morality involves personal preference; other than the two things using the same words; they are completely different things being used in completely different contexts for completely different reasons… I mean come on lol if I have to explain this to you, I’m impressed That you haven’t choked in your phone.


Created:
0
Posted in:
Blotto - Ram vs RM
If RMs this angry about it, we can rematch with deep brown next week

The bot made a wrong move last two rounds: because it isn’t applying a balancing factor correctly- it should be weighting certain moves as more preferable than it is given the number of zones needed to flip together with current maximums -  it’s losing the weighting because of tied maxima - that isn’t an issue on the 5/4/3/2/1 placements in the original: It has an issue with its move randomizer too; but that’s less of an issue. 

If RM is pooping his pants over this; we can call deep brown as a DNF here


Created:
0
Posted in:
Blotto - Ram vs RM
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Going to take me a little while; I have spotted an error; not going to be able to have time to sit down and fix it for a few days. I know what it’s doing wrong, and what the right answer is - just can’t figure out how to make the code do it yet.

Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
In the first I am talking about our moral standard we have as individuals: which is not something WE change
People change their minds about things all the time, you even said it yourself

An argument is “a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong
So if people can be persuaded then what does that tell you?
This made me lol. You’re accidentally trying to refute your own position. This is why picking peanuts out of poop #153 is such a bad strategy.

It appears you’re trying to argue that morality can be changed by personal preference - to refute my position that it can’t - but that which would make it subjective your definition a few posts ago.

Do you think what we find moral or not can be changed on a whim of personal preference?

If yes: you’ve basically conceded you’re entire argument, as you’re conceding morality is subjective, and a product of personal choice not higher authority

If no: the point you’re arguing against stands.

you can’t really call that the “core” of subjective morality, that’s a footnote at best
Now who’s splitting hairs 🤔?
False: #154 Splitting hairs is where you draw a distinction on something that is so trivially separated that the difference is actually relevant. The distinction here is huge. When a moral framework is constructed by and interpreted through an individuals personal preference, that would be core: a moral framework that is constructed by and interpreted through learned behaviour and experience; with personal preference only appearing as a factor in behaviour important by parents  - personal preference is sort of a side note.

Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
moral standard is not something we change

But morality isn’t consistent… it keeps changing
Contradiction at its finest 🥱.
Only if you’re obtusely dishonest #147; which it seems you are.

In the first I am talking about our moral standard we have as individuals: which is not something WE change; as in, we don’t decide what is moral on a whim, or simply decide that something is moral. 

In the second; I am talking about collective moral standards of societies as a whole; which change over time. 

So yeah. If you ignore everything I’ve said up until now, cherry pick #148  two quotes out of context, and deliberate misrepresent what I’ve said #149 - you could make that argument… but it would be a a grotesque straw man; #150


but it’s the choice, or personal preference in deciding what is moral that I am objecting to.
Then why’d you criticize me for argument from personal preference?
The argument from personal preference was directed at your argument that good people going to a good place and bad people makes more sense (in one interpretation of ambiguous language). You’re losing track of your own arguments #151

You later said I claimed “the core of “subjective morality” is personal preference” - which I didn’t: and given that you agree the only real aspect of subjective morality that could arguably be called personal preference, is what that parents teach their kids morality they prefer; you can’t really call that the “core” of subjective morality, that’s a footnote at best; so I don’t mind you throwing the baby out with the bathwater #152 with that clarification.






Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
You keep saying that; yet you have not once been able to explain why. Just more meaningless assertions #144 I provided an explanation in post 97; fleshed out some of the aspects in post 126, 128, 132, (when I finally dragged you back), way more detail in 134. So please don’t. This is comprehensive denial of reality. Just because you ignore everything - does not mean the argument is not there…
That sure shut you up didn’t it. It’s awesome watching you magically stop responding to a train of argument the moment  I specifically point out the arguments you claim I didn’t make… gone to your Happy Place #145


Subjective morality simply means the moral standard you have is learned
But you can only learn what your taught and you would only teach what you prefer (hence my preference argument you now want to shoot down).
Excellent - so you’re agreeing  that in a subjective morality - your moral decisions are not youe choice; our  moral standard is not something we change on whim, we cannot simply decide to think murder is okay tommorow.

Awesome. That’s what I was objecting to.

If you want to argue that parents could potentially teach kids that murder is okay - they can: I don’t think they do; parents generally teach their own current morality - but it’s the choice, or personal preference in deciding what is moral that I am objecting to. As you to be conceding that. I have no other issue

You keep saying that; yet you have not once been able to explain why.
If your arguing about a particular issue in regards to morality and someone says your argument is inconsistent there also saying it’s incoherent because your contradicting yourself by talking on both sides of your mouth, it’s a dishonest self refuting hypocrisy, a cognitive dissonance of sorts. Can I be anymore redundant?
I think everyone can agree that you have gone dozens of posts telling me that my argument is inconsistent, incoherent, contradicting yada , yada. Argument by Assertion #146

But, that’s all you do. I’ve been prompting you to explain why for three pages now… at this point; still waiting..

Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
Saying different cultures have different moral standards is saying that what different cultures consider right or wrong is different. 
No it’s not.
He asserts..#139

Yea it is you ridiculous cretin. This is just completely ridiculous #140

“A moral standard refers to the norms which we have about the types of actions which we believe to be morally acceptable and morally unacceptable


“Moral standards are those concerned with or relating to human behaviour , especially the distinction between good and bad behaviour. Moral standards involves the rules people have about the kinds of actions they believe are morally right and wrong.”




But morality isn’t consistent… it keeps changing Over time and from society to society
Like I said many times before inconsistency makes no sense.
Firstly, yes it does: I explained why (learned morality would be subjective, inconsistent and ever changing). 

You keep changing your mind what your argument. First it was that morality is consistent (it’s not), that my argument requires morality to be consistent (if doesn’t), and that inconsistency makes no sense (it does - but it is consistent)

All of them are just ridiculous nonsense #141



Black knighting #129: oh come on. It’s literally all there. Written repeatedly in all my posts in the last page. Both above and below post 144. This is obscene denial… seriously; you keep saying outrageously false Stuff like this. Who are you saying or for? Not you or me: we both know this claim is ridiculous nonsense: and literally no rational person reading this thread would make that conclusion.
I edited my previous post in case you missed it.

is preferable” - the forner: but would be argument from personal preference #125
Now your just being a hypocrite because according to you the core of “subjective morality” is personal preference but when I ask you a question that reference your preference you shoot it down, miss me with that.
Stop with the ridiculous straw men: #142 saying “according to you” is a bit fat lie #143 - I have not said anything of the like. Ever. Stop making stuff up. Stop pretending I’ve said things I haven’t. It’s getting ridiculous - and is the third time you’ve done it in 3 posts.

Subjective morality simply means the moral standard you have is learned, changes from generation to generation; with no objective standard by which we can determine which of the moral standards is “best”

as I have explained how it could arise, and used that framework to make sense of all sorts of aspects of morality.
Correction YOU CLAIMED it could arise you’ve yet to explain anything, big difference. Like I said before if it isn’t consistent it doesn’t make sense period.
You keep saying that; yet you have not once been able to explain why. Just more meaningless assertions #144 I provided an explanation in post 97; fleshed out some of the aspects in post 126, 128, 132, (when I finally dragged you back), way more detail in 134. So please don’t. This is comprehensive denial of reality. Just because you ignore everything - does not mean the argument is not there…

Created:
0
Posted in:
Blotto - Ram vs RM
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
4.) RM needs 3 to flip zone 7. If he does that; then then DeepBrown will simply be +3 in the middle 5, meaning a flip of zone 7 simply guarantee a matching flip in the Center. Which will not change the overall score.
Zone 7 goes From +2 to +1; as RM plays one less army in the Center to play on zone 7, it simply swaps the +2 zone from zone 7 to one in the Center.
Created:
1
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
Who on earth said all cultures and societies should be “considered moral”?
You did when you said

different cultures and different times have different moral standards.
Key word “moral” it’s the second to last word in the quote above, your delusion is ridiculous.
Oh my lord. This is hilarious.

You do realize that saying that different cultures have different moral standards doesn’t mean all cultures should be considered moral. 

I cannot express the utter buffoonery of this statement; you’ve gone from dishonest to complete clown.

Let me see if I can dumb this down for you.

A moral standard, is a framework that can be used to make moral determinations..

Saying different cultures have different moral standards is saying that what different cultures consider right or wrong is different. 

Saying this; makes absolute no statement about and is no way suggesting, implying or making any actual moral determinations about any of them; I mean wtf lol.

This is one of the stupidest and most logically incoherent thing you’ve said thus far: grotesquely idiotic #126. Indeed, saying something so profoundly stupid, while attempting to sound superior is again somehow shooting your self in both feet with a rake: #127






Who in earth said morality is consistent? It wasn’t me
Your right it’s me, morality is consistent and consistency makes sense.
But morality isn’t consistent… it keeps changing Over time and from society to society. … try to keep up…


If “which fits the facts” the latter - as I showed in all the posts you keep ignoring.
No you haven’t, stop lying.
Black knighting #129: oh come on. It’s literally all there. Written repeatedly in all my posts in the last page. Both above and below post 144. This is obscene denial… seriously; you keep saying outrageously false Stuff like this. Who are you saying or for? Not you or me: we both know this claim is ridiculous nonsense: and literally no rational person reading this thread would make that conclusion.


Created:
0
Posted in:
Blotto - Ram vs RM
Here’s my prediction.

1.) DeepBrown has a +1 advantage in the Center 5 zones. And it will remain that way.

2.) As Zone 1 and zone 7 go each way; that means that RM will likely draw 4 lose 1 zone in the Center, and lose 2:1 / 3:2 / 4:3 best case depending solely on luck. 

3.) DeepBrown spreads armies out evenly; so won’t ever place armies on zone to give a result greater than +2; meaning that those Center 5 zones will always be +1; gaurenteing deep brown wins 1 more Center zone than RM

4.) RM needs 3 to flip zone 7. If he does that; then then DeepBrown will simply be +3 in the middle 5, meaning a flip of zone 7 simply guarantee a matching flip in the Center. Which will not change the overall score.


Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
subtly different
Lol understatement of the century, they were more than different they were polar opposites, miss me with that.
Not really: both involve using perceived slight in order to justify lack of interaction; the difference is whether it’s required to be total. So, that would be false #122


This is not really a claim: it is an indisputable and undeniable matter of fact.
You can claim facts (but that’s not the hear nor there), and just because people have different cultures that doesn’t mean they should all be considered moral (hence my very relevant question that I just now brought extra context for you which you still haven’t answered BTW).
Who on earth said all cultures and societies should be “considered moral”? It certainly wasn’t me. As you’re misrepresenting my argument as saying something it’s not, then attacking the conclusion: it makes this a straw man #123

why is suggesting that morality is subjective; and acknowledging that morality varies in societies and cultures “inconsistent”
Because consistency doesn’t vary, they’re literally opposite terms, read a book 😛 .
Who in earth said morality is consistent? It wasn’t me: I’m arguing morality is learnt and thus variable…  you’re misrepresenting my argument and then attacking the result. That’a another straw man #124.

Your dishonesty and failure to defend your position is starting to make sense; as it seems whenever you talk about the actual point, you manage to do the equivalent of managing shooting yourself in both feet whilst holding only a rake: like - I’m impressed you managed to f**k that badly, I still don’t get how you did it,  but you still shot yourself in both feet…


so there doesn’t seem to be anything inconsistent there, and it seems to make sense too
So between good people going to a good place and evil people going to an evil place or this crazy notion that you can love and help people and end up in the same place as someone who lies, steals, and kills, which concept makes more sense to you? The former by far.
Depends what you mean by “makes more sense”.

If “which fits the facts” the latter - as I showed in all the posts you keep ignoring.

If “which is preferable” - the forner: but would be argument from personal preference #125

If “which is logically consistent”, again the latter; as I have explained how it could arise, and used that framework to make sense of all sorts of aspects of morality.


I mean - given that you have dedicated exactly 0 characters thus far to justify that conclusion; thus again renders this an argument by assertion #125




Created:
0
Posted in:
Blotto - Ram vs RM
I’m away from my laptop right now. Will be 30 minutes. 

I am 95% at this point RM lost; I mean to call it last round. I can even explain the specific move that lost the match.
Created:
0
Posted in:
I actually want to be watched by my government 24/7(clickbait)
-->
@Intelligence_06
If all surveillance was managed and mediates by AI, that would flag only illegal actions; and warranted requested, and would self destruct if tampered with - would surveillance be okay?
Created:
1
Posted in:
Blotto's Game
Interestingly, I started by trying to generate a vector containing all the possible R1 moves; of which there are 92378, it’s a non-trivial algorithm to generate - as there are millions of potential duplicate moves. Even though I didn’t end up using it for a min-max algorithm: I was very happy with myself that it could generate the full set of combinations in less than 20 seconds.
Created:
0
Posted in:
Blotto - Ram vs RM
#DeepBrown for the win

Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
It is clear, to any honest, somewhat intelligent individual, that what I’m referring to, is your frankly ridiculous attempt at telling me what a thing I have unilaterally defined means something other than how I define it .
That’s not the case at all in fact I have no idea what your phrase means because judging BY YOUR WORDS ALONE the definitions contradict each other and contradictions make no sense,
So you’ve conceded that you’re being flagrantly dishonest with the quote mine, and the misrepresentation. Awesome.

So just to explain something that you may not fully grasp: is that when someone explains what they mean, they sometimes clarify areas of uncertainty challenge later.

For example, they may have said something one way at one point, or perhaps talked about something in a manner that was incomplete.

Clarification is a huge part of arguments; where arguments and meanings maybe clarified in a back and forth when, Say, one side doesn’t quite understand the meaning, or one side is colossally dishonest and is deliberately trying to pick fault in meaningless trivia.

A clarification - and the original being subtly different: does not mean that the two are contradictory; rather one mops up ambiguity or issues if challenge.

So what you’re really doing is stamping your feet 109: irrationally asserting that the definition must only be exactly as I said originally, and cannot possibly ever be clarified. Of course, it’s plain old nonsense; and, as is par for the course, wholly dishonest #110


kinda like your outwardly view on morality.
Argument by assertion #111: still waiting for the proof on that; or indeed anything more than hand waving and chest beating. Maybe soon; given that after 30 posts you keep getting drawn back to the place you started driving off on tangents…

Despite your ridiculous denial of reality, I do all three
It’s fundamentally impossible to do all three but coming from you that response doesn’t surprise me because you’ve uttered a lot of things that made no sense.
What utter bullshit #112 of course it’s possible to show a question is irrelevant, loaded and still answered the question; mainly because none of those things are contradictory. You don’t even explain how you came to that conclusion, meaning that as well as being bullshit, it’s also argument by assertion #113


I can also tell, because I clearly and obviously did all three.

I can even do it again.

“When did you stop beating your wife?”

We’re not talking about your wife, or your actions: so the question is irrelevant: it presupposes you beat your wife, so is loaded; and you appear to be 7 given you’re logical reasoning and behaviour, so you clearly have never been married in the first place, so you never had a wife for which to beat or not.

First off all the context of the moral argument started with me and zedvictor4, you just decided to make yourself a participant,
Correct: you made a statement that wasn’t a completely fabrication! That’s #1!

so if anybody understands it it’s me.
So close: given that we are having an exchange based on specific things we said: we should both understand how this exchange started.

Second the reason I asked such a question is if you for once considered morality and immorality then maybe you wouldn’t have made the ridiculous  claim in regards to the variations of morality
My “claims” in terms of variations of morality was that different cultures and different times have different moral standards.

This is not really a claim: it is an indisputable and undeniable matter of fact.

So in this regards: stating this is a “ridiculous” claim is a flat out lie #115. Moreover; I am still waiting for you explain why you think the claim is ridiculous - you have only made an argument by assertion #116; loudly asserting it so.

Perhaps you meant that explaining the deviations and changes in moral standards through the ages and through various cultures is explained by morality being learned and subjective? Well you haven’t really said why (argument by assertion #117), and it seems that morality being a learned behaviour stemming from evolutionary imperatives does pretty nearly explain the facts as they stand…


(which is inconsistent and makes no sense at all) but judging by all the other idiotic things you’ve said you probably still would have anyway (can’t blame a guy for trying).
Again, foot stamping #118 and assertion #119: why is suggesting that morality is subjective; and acknowledging that morality varies in societies and cultures “inconsistent” - and for what reason so you think it makes “no sense at all”? It’s not clear and you won’t say.

Varying moralities over time is exactly what you would expect in a system where morality is learned; and as I explained way back in the dim distant past, evolutionary imperatives explain why they could exist - so there doesn’t seem to be anything inconsistent there, and it seems to make sense too - in fact it matches pretty closely with what we observe.

So while I am here constantly explaining, justifying: and trying to drag you by the hair back to the original point: you’re just throwing out all these unsubstantiated accusations, that are clearly complete bullshit #120, and as a result of your argumential impotence; you’ve now gone 40 or so posts trying to make me play “hunt the argument” #121







Created:
0
Posted in:
Blotto's Game
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It can be programmed with any starting board.

I hard code an array and the number of counters to be placed. And printf the solution

Lazy AF and proud
Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
I don’t even know how that works!
You don’t know how exposing dishonesty/bad faith works? Weird considering you’ve accused me of that over the course of this discussion 🤔 .

I know exactly how exposing intellectual dishonest works. Let me give you an example:

What I said was “If you want to tell me that a definition I have personally come up with and clarified is somehow incorrect - go right ahead. I don’t even know how that works!”

It is clear, to any honest, somewhat intelligent individual, that what I’m referring to, is your frankly ridiculous attempt at telling me what a thing I have unilaterally defined means something other than how I define it . I don’t know why on earth you think that is logical.


So to expose intellectual dishonesty: I identify what you did : which was to deliberately take words out of context in order to pretend I’m saying something that I did not: which is a straw man #101, and I identify how you presented this to make it seem like it was reasonable - by quoting it out of context - QuoteMining #102; and to also point out that you have ignored every other part of the argument that attacks your position which in this case is objecting stating “But I can can wipe my own arse”

I can also pick up multiple deliberate lies #103 you have made where it is clear and obvious I have provided something that you claim I have not ; and repeated attempts to pretend reality is other than it is when responding.

This means that not only is your statement also another of a long list of lies #104 it demonstrates beautifully your profound intellectual dishonesty.

I asked a question, so the only responsive response to a question is an answer (which I still didn’t get BTW) so your dishonesty/bad faith is apparent in post #144 when you blatantly ignored my question, considering you retired the “good day sir” label on me I guess I’ll pick it up and use it against you to expose your hypocrisy because you basically said “good day sir” in regards to my question.
Black knighting #104. Brazen denial of reality. You’re claiming I’m ignoring a question that I addressed in three different ways.

Lie #105: A good day sir, requires the person not to have presented an argument, and to blame the other person for that failure.

Ridiculously false #106: there is three valid responses to a question. 1.) showing the question is irrelevant and the answer doesn’t matter, 2.) Answering it, 3.) showing the question is dishonest and shouldn’t be answered.


Despite your ridiculous denial of reality, I so all three

Let’s refer back:

[1]So the issue is that on its face, the facts we observe do not make sense in the context of a greater authority: and is fully explainable without it.  This comprehensively refutes your position; and frankly - as you made no attempt to bother to explain how a greater authority is a better explanation: your continued lack of argument effectively concedes this point. [2]As I have been suggesting throughout; morality appears subjective, it’s mutable, it changes, it differs, and everyone thinks theirs is correct. There is also no objective standard that can be shown valid to judge them. Because of this, the only justifiable explanation, is that morality is subjective[2]. Of course, with peanut poop picking, you’ve implicitly conceded that point too.

The itself question therefore is really fallacy: begging the question #32. [2]For one morality to be true and another false: there must be an objective standard between them. [3]So you’re question really is “what if there is an objective standard”. Given that my argument is that there clearly doesn’t appear to be an objective standard; replying “but what if there is an objective standard?” is just ridiculously incoherent. Worse though, I am only wrong if you assume there is an objective standard; but that assumption is what you appear to be using to justify the higher authority: so you’re assuming your own conclusion.
Let’s look break down the answers here: more context can be found in 144:

[1] The question is irrelevant and need not be answered in the context of the argument: (the context of the argument was that emotion/morality is explainable without a higher authority - which it is: this question doesn’t challenge that explanation (only asks what if its wrong).

[2] I actually go on to answer the question. Twice!

[3] I show how the question is loaded and based on a dishonest premise with your assumed conclusion.

This is just pure dishonest insanity #107 at this point! you’re claiming I didn’t respond to your question whereas in fact, I comprehensively dismantled the question in two ways; and still answered the question.


I already pointed out the specific issue with it multiple posts ago; you even quoted the part where I pointed out exactly why the main point doesn’t work.
Did you? Well in that case feel free to point me in that direction (if such direction exists that is) otherwise just saying you did so means nothing.
Insanity #108: The bolded part you quoted is where I literally pointed you in the direction in the original posy

the only reason to take issue with the question is if your of the belief that immorality is nonexistent that’s why, and if you don’t like my assessment of the answer then feel free to answer it yourself.

I have pointed out exactly why I took issue with this in my previous post: it’s a ridiculous straw man: #85
Annnnnmd back to post 144 and the one prior which  explains the straw man and clarifies the point in detail.

Seriously, perhaps if you didn’t ignore everything; you’d not make such silly error



Created:
0
Posted in:
Blotto's Game
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If someone is willing to host the game board: I can do it whenever.

I’ve played it to a draw multiple times; not beaten it yet.
Created:
0
Posted in:
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
-->
@Tarik
You don’t have to leave to be a good day dir; 
Now your just expressing dishonesty/bad faith because according to this quote

When someone is incapable of arguing, and after exhausting other rhetorical techniques - picks some perceived slight, or issue and then cries “good day, sir” and leave
Leaving is imperative, I mean it’s literally the last word in the quote.
Ridiculous Lie #89: This is getting pretty ridiculous now. A “Good day sir”, is a name I have come up with to refer to behaviour I am describing.

If you want to tell me that a definition I have personally come up with and clarified is somehow incorrect - go right ahead. I don’t even know how that works!

You’re not contesting #90 at all, that you’re incapable and unwilling of defending any of your arguments. 

Nor are you contesting #91 at all that your just dishonestly trying to blame me for your own inability to argue.

So regardless it’s still this ridiculous form of picking peanuts out of poop #92: where you don’t bother to contest any of the major issues, and focus on some minor semantic nonsense. It’s getting ridiculous.


So frankly, that concession on the main points is more than enough for me. 

Imagine for a moment someone was being called an idiot, smelly, socially inept, unimaginative, buffoon, who is incapable of wiping their own arse, and is incapable of engaging in a conversation with words of more than 2 syllables; and the person replies:

“That’s completely wrong, I can wipe my own arse”

That’s like you.

In fact, I like that analogy so much; i’m going to label extreme forms of PPooP as “But I can wipe my own arse #92 from now on. Replacing the one above.

While we’re on that topic though; just for you, I will invent a brand new name for this subset of “Good Day Sir”ing. Figuring out the best name is why this post has taken so long.

I shall call it: “argumentile Dysfunction. #93”

Argumentile dysfunction, is when someone has substantial argumental impotence; they are unable to rise to the occasion and penetrate their opponents position, or show their own arguments actually work till completion… their inability to perform, or for their arguments to satisfy a minimum standard.

Their argumental impotence is fully their own issue, it’s their problem, and is down to them alone; nonetheless, those suffering from argumentile dysfunction will nonetheless make up a series of excuses and place blame on others for why they aren’t performing. “I’m not in the mood hun”, or “I ate a lot earlier, and am feeling bloated” and “you’re arguments don’t make sense anyway; Im going to ignore them.


 


ignoring everything you don’t like
You mean like I did with the rest of that quote lol?
Cherry picking #94: actually no.

I mean, that you’ve ignored the original point; you dishonestly shifting blame, but also ignoring where I point out it’s my definition, and ignoring when I clarify what I mean twice, or where I point out that you’ve already conceded your main argument. Etc.

In fact, you can only make this argument if you ignore everything else I’ve said.

my response has everything to do with your question about immorality; I explained exactly why over the course of the last dozen posts.
Well the last dozen posts wasn’t the initial response so which one is it?
Black Knighting #95: denial of reality - the initial response and all the posts subsequent to it all make the same argument; and one which you keep ignoring. You can refer back to when I called it a straw man, and explained exactly why (which you have not contested)

I mean seriously; all these incoherent accusations, and repeated posts can be avoided if you just stopped pretending I haven’t made an argument.

Also: this is technically “But I can wipe my own arse” #96


You’re inability to argue here is being treated for what it is - capitulation on the point.
Right back at ya bud 😉. 
Parroting #97. Again. You’re not 7. I’m rubber, you’re glue.

Black Knighting #98. You’re in a completely alternate reality, that is clearly not this reality if you believe that  I am not arguing or defending my points. 

Moving the goalposts is when you demand a particular standard, and then when it is met, demand a different standard.
I’ll concede that I used the term moving the goalposts for lack of a better term at the time (because I’m big enough to do that) but for someone who’s all about mentioning splitting hairs this is a perfect example of that because regardless of what term I use the main point still stands and that’s

the only reason to take issue with the question is if your of the belief that immorality is nonexistent that’s why, and if you don’t like my assessment of the answer then feel free to answer it yourself.
Black Knighting  #99: but the main point doesn’t still stand… I already pointed out the specific issue with it multiple posts ago; you even quoted the part where I pointed out exactly why the main point doesn’t work.

How is it possible to argue with someone to whom I can literally explain why they’re wrong; and then whilst quoting my explanation - tells me I haven’t provided an explanation of why they’re wrong?



I have pointed out exactly why I took issue with this in my previous post: it’s a ridiculous straw man: #85
Calling something a straw man when it’s not isn’t an explanation it’s just a baseless claim that any idiot can do try again.

Black Knighting #100 again.: Absolutely. That’s why in my previous post when I called it a straw man - I explained exactly why.

Quite frankly - you’re losing your grip on reality - it is not possible to have a rational coherent argument with someone who is unwilling to even acknowledge another person has presented an argument.

If I present you an argument; and you ignore it; and then later tell me I have never made an argument - how is possible to engage in a rational discussion?

Created:
0
Posted in:
Blue moon, and the failure of determinism
-->
@949havoc
You just cannot avoid being un civil, can you?  "...you engage in ridiculous straw man...?" That's me, not my argument, as you stated before was your method, so, no, it is, rathwer, your method to ridicule your opponents. 
I’m actually calling your argument a ridiculous strawman; because it is.

You’re argument suggests that by virtue of being caused by random events, or deterministic laws - that we are arguing that thought and intelligence is somehow non existent, or can’t exist.

This is just absurd; that’s neither what any of us is arguing, nor is there any implication from our arguments that this is the case. The reality is that functional intelligence and thought exists - of course it exists: only that our conscious control over decisions is an illusion. 

That you presume that we are arguing intelligence and thought does not exist - is indeed a ridiculous strawman.

And you ask if the program has free will?

And you counter that I am throwing up a stawman? Absurd. Let's use your word: ridiculous. That's your strawman , my friend.
I’m going to deal with this one first. So one tactic I have seen from those that are, shall we say, argumentally challenged, is to throw out accusations of fallacies - without any explanation. It’s sort of this lazy approach. Invariably, they get it wrong.

For instance: you accuse me of a straw man. But don’t really explain how.

To be a strawman, I must misrepresent your position - and attack the misrepresentation : like you did in your last post.

While I am indeed asking a question with intent: I’m not attacking your position, nor am I making any representation of it at all.

Your position is that free will exists; I’m not asserting that free will existing means that computers have free will, I’m not actually suggesting anything at all.

So; really nothing I said was a straw man and the accusation is just silly.

The answer? No. The program does not have free will, it is already defined as determinist.
Now we come to the guts of the argument; so let’s get to the point.

The question was really a thought experiment - there is no reason to believe that we can’t make AGI. There is no fundamental reason why we can’t make software that can reason, can learn, can interact and converse, that is aware of its own thinking and which can make complex reasoned decisions

Of course it won’t have free will; I completely agree. The issue here is - what’s the difference? The software would be incredibly intelligent,  could talk and act just like us, could make decisions based on their own inclinations - all just like us.


Why I raised this, is that such an AI could act like us, decide like us, and feel like it’s free to act as it wishes: but it is all an illusion, because it’s underlying programming is deterministic.

We don’t have a software program - we have neurones, and electrochemical interactions in our heads that broadly obey deterministic rules every bit as much as the computer program.

The reason the question is relevant is this:

If that AI can make intelligent choices and be intelligent, thoughtful and self aware - and feels like it is in control of its own decisions - without actual free agency: why can’t the same be true of us?



Created:
1
Posted in:
Blotto's Game
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I have V0.1 beta of my Blotto Bot ready to go.

If anyone wants to challenge deep brown to a game, let me know!

Created:
0
Posted in:
Blue moon, and the failure of determinism
-->
@949havoc
according to your Secular buddy, that if-statement is a non-sequitur:
No it’s not: not unless you engage in ridiculous idiotic straw man that completely misunderstands intelligence and thinking.

But hey. I’m not talking about my secular buddy, I’m talking about what you, in your world think about an AI that reasoned, made decisions and appeared intelligent. 

In your world: would this AI have free will?
Created:
1
Posted in:
COLONEL BLOTTO: DISCIPULUS_DIDICIT (Xs) vs. RATIONALMADMAN (Os)
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
RM was above 3/4/5 in zones 8,9,10 throughout. You were +4/5 in zones 1,2 throughout.

This means you had a +3 advantage in the remaining 5 zones throughout  the game.


Created:
0