[Poll]:: Pride and You

[Skotekal]

I'm just saying it's a difference of opinion. Stop hatin on the serial killers.



No one's life would be directly influenced except yours. However, it's more that attitude which is the problem. Many, many people seem to think it's ok to just be selfish and lazy and not care about anything, and the fact that so many people do is such a debilitating aspect of society. It allows those in power to just go and do whatever they want, because they think the public just doesn't care.



I'm saying your an idiot for being so inconsiderate as to just essentially say, "Only my life matters, everyone else's is worthless."

First off, I never ONCE said or implied that. Just because I don't care about doing something for society does not mean I think their life is worthless. Inconsiderate=/=idiot. I'm starting to think you have a skewed idea on what the term "idiot" means.

And why can't we be lazy and enjoy life? It isn't our problem that people like you are always stressing and getting mad. How about YOU do something about it and change something instead of harping at us, since you so dearly believe people can make a change. We grow up, we die, why spend time bothering with society? If your want change, do something drastic, don't sit at home and complain about people like me and put the blame on us. YOU want the change, YOU make the change.

 

[Arseface]

I'm not claiming that you're not claiming to be cynical, but this seems to be quite negative to me. :/
I also don't see how this is true...but, eh, what do I know?

Being a cynic essentially means you think that the world is unchangeable, so you just give up. Just because I can see the flaws, doesn't mean I think they're permanent.

First off, I never ONCE said or implied that. Just because I don't care about doing something for society does not mean I think their life is worthless. Inconsiderate=/=idiot. I'm starting to think you have a skewed idea on what the term "idiot" means.

But being inconsiderate is idiotic. Enlightened self interest.

And why can't we be lazy and enjoy life? It isn't our problem that people like you are always stressing and getting mad.

I wish we could, but the fact of the matter is that if we just roll over, we're going to get ****ed hard by those in power.

How about YOU do something about it and change something instead of harping at us, since you so dearly believe people can make a change. We grow up, we die, why spend time bothering with society? If your want change, do something drastic, don't sit at home and complain about people like me and put the blame on us. YOU want the change, YOU make the change.

It's not quite that simple. The kind of change I (and many others) want is drastic, and requires that a majority of people be behind it and most importantly, prepared to fight for it. If we get it, however, then the world is better for everyone. I'm not talking little things, either. We'll enter a permanent renaissance.

But I guess they just sound like crazy ideals.

 

[Skotekal]

But being inconsiderate is idiotic. Enlightened self interest.

And I reject the ideas of enlightened self interest. I don't think I'm fulfilling my self interest by fulfilling society's. So again, difference of opinion is idiocy?

I wish we could, but the fact of the matter is that if we just roll over, we're going to get ****ed hard by those in power.

And I'll leave that up to the people that actually care to fix it. Yes, I know, inconsiderate, douchy, selfish, etc.

It's not quite that simple. The kind of change I (and many others) want is drastic, and requires that a majority of people be behind it and most importantly, prepared to fight for it. If we get it, however, then the world is better for everyone. I'm not talking little things, either. We'll enter a permanent renaissance.

But I guess they just sound like crazy ideals.

They do. Current government isn't screwed up enough to even consider it, so why waste time and potentially your life for something you won't be able to enjoy? Or it least not for very long.

 

[Arseface]

And I reject the ideas of enlightened self interest. I don't think I'm fulfilling my self interest by fulfilling society's. So again, difference of opinion is idiocy?

Skote, my argument isn't directed at just you. It's directed at everyone like you. If everyone helped everyone else, then no one would need to help themselves.

They do. Current government isn't screwed up enough to even consider it, so why waste time and potentially your life for something you won't be able to enjoy? Or it least not for very long.

How? Do you know what the governments do? They keep themselves in power. That's all they do. They couldn't care less about helping you, or trying to improve anything. They'll only do those things as a last resort to try and keep the public on side. They'll try talking their way out of it, or pretending to fix it way before they'll consider actually fixing it. But they're not necessarily the real problem.

Corporations are the biggest cancer on human society ever. They function exactly like the governments do, except they don't have to pretend to be working in our interest. They manipulate the economy to suit them, and their executives simply indulge themselves in useless luxuries which no one else can afford, while there are billions of people literally starving. This is the kind of disgusting activity your attitude breeds. But I forgot, you don't care. Maybe you would if you were living on the bottom rung in a third world country. Well, when you weren't trying to scrounge up enough crumbs to feed your family anyway.

 

[Skotekal]

There is only one thing left to say:

roflpwnt

Ninja'd.

Skote, my argument isn't directed at just you. It's directed at everyone like you. If everyone helped everyone else, then no one would need to help themselves.

How? Do you know what the governments do? They keep themselves in power. That's all they do. They couldn't care less about helping you, or trying to improve anything. They'll only do those things as a last resort to try and keep the public on side. They'll try talking their way out of it, or pretending to fix it way before they'll consider actually fixing it. But they're not necessarily the real problem.

This strikes me as obvious.

Corporations are the biggest cancer on human society ever. They function exactly like the governments do, except they don't have to pretend to be working in our interest. They manipulate the economy to suit them, and their executives simply indulge themselves in useless luxuries which no one else can afford, while there are billions of people literally starving. This is the kind of disgusting activity your attitude breeds. But I forgot, you don't care. Maybe you would if you were living on the bottom rung in a third world country. Well, when you weren't trying to scrounge up enough crumbs to feed your family anyway.

Alright, how the hell did this go from me not helping society to being a disgusting, heartless person who lets children starve while I bask in luxuries? How do you seem to assume that my ideology of not caring about governments in power travels all the way to letting helpless children starve?

I just love how not caring about society makes me a heartless childkiller with the equivalent mindset of a devilish corporation. *facepalm*

EDIT: You also seem to be avoiding some of my points and finding new ways to call me and idiot or bad person whilst ignoring what I'm saying.

 

[Arseface]

Don't you guys know? Arseface's dictionary says it means "one who disagrees".

What if I said that rapists disagree with the idea of consent? Like I said, there's a difference between some having an opposing opinion, and someone having a flawed opinion.

So I'm ignorant if my end-goal in life is to live out my days in a small beach house on the coast happily ever after? If I don't take it upon myself to solve all the world's problems, then I'm a hateful, selfish and stupid person?

It's not even that, John. By all means, try to live your life the way you want it. But does that mean you can't help others to do the same?

"Rest of us"? Tell me who "us" is. What I know is that I certainly don't put you at any disadvantage. You think you're going to change the world by arguing about society's problems on an online forum, you're already hindering yourself more than I ever could because you set yourself up for defeat every time you initiate these types of discussions.I don't burden myself with world hunger so I'm selfish, I get that part. But because I'm selfish I'm also a sociopathic serial killer? I know a few killers, and you already know that I know one killer especially. I will not be labeled the same as a killer for being selfish. I took the last slice of pizza, that makes me inconsiderate, selfish perhaps, but it doesn't make me a killer.

I never said you were a killer. I never said anyone was a killer. I was trying to draw a parallel between Skotekal's argument and that of a hypothetical serial killer's. T'was nothing more than a persuasive device.

If it's a difference of opinion then you should agree to disagree because that's the only way to draw this thing to a mutual close. And serial killers resign to being hated when they start killing people.

The same way many people resign themselves to being hated because they can't be bothered trying to improve themselves?

While I am not one of the apathetic, I see no problem with people who are. They neutralize themselves. As a non-vote, they don't make things better or worse. You'll notice that politicians fight for votes, not non-votes. If a bill is passed or defeated, your beef is with the opposing voters, not the non-voters, because they didn't vote against you.

That's not really my point. My point is that people who don't care make up a majority of people, so say you're government decides to go down a sneaky fascist route, holding mock elections and giving the people the illusion that they're free, then the ones who notice it will be called crazy by the ones who don't care, and it will continue.

All life matters. Everything matters. People feel for others, I know I do. But while your misfortune may be bad, it isn't going to make me quit my job, start a petition, and protest outside courthouses. What I can do is sympathize for those less fortunate than I am.

But if enough people did do that, then these injustices might actually stop.

No. To be cynical is to think that everyone is in in it for themselves, that everyone is selfish, that no one's motives are genuine unless entirely self-serving, that no one has any shred of integrity or honesty. You look at politics and see a bunch of liars and thieves, that makes you a cynic. You seem to have trouble with words, so I would recommend sticking to the ones you know.

I'm not a cynic, because whilst I believe most politicians are self serving cretins, I acknowledge that there are a few who genuinely aren't. I actually try to see the good side of people, rather than just thinking that they must have some ulterior motive.

And maybe I was using the word cynic wrong, but that's the meaning I was attributing to it. I'm sorry for my imperfect grasp of the English language.

Thinking that a niche philosophy is an absolute truth is idiotic. Might be hypocritical as well considering your views on religion.

I don't think anything that anyone thinks is an absolute truth. I've thought about this, and I think it's the best course of action, but then I could just be insane, or have false information. That's why I like to argue a lot. It helps me learn.

Watch your language. And these people aren't rolling over. They're kids. A person who rolls over will have done so for thirty years, and then finally complain about how much the world has changed while never once having done so much as voted in their entire lives.

John, people change. I've done enough of it in the past few years to know that it's the truth. You might agree with me in a years time. I might agree with you. We both might think the world is a disk on the back of a giant turtly and four elephants. I wish people could be judged on their thoughts and intentions rather than their past behaviour, but I know it's not possible. The best we can do is to make sure we don't repeat the same mistakes in our future actions. Of course, we might eventually think those actions were wrong.

The kind of change you want is a niche thing. Comparatively few people want what you want. The kind of change you want doesn't just need a majority, it requires the totality. And anyone who opposes must be fought because they hinder the cause. I oppose you. What will you do to fight me? To what extent will you fight me? Do the ends justify the means? Have you asked yourself any of this?

Yeah, actually. I had planned to just talk it out until we could reach a solution that suits both parties. Just what that solution is, I don't know. Every sapient being should have the right to self determination, and that would actually be possible in my society.

Impractical crazy ideals. So long as there exists anyone who wants to opt out of such a system, there will be conflict. And there will be "idiots" who would fight it. And without a totality, your system will not work. So much for permanent renaissance. You should know that nothing is permanent.

John, whatever you think of my ideas, the truth is that we have (or will have in the very near future) the means to live in a utopia. A near perfect communist paradise run by, say, a sentient AI. Or a conventional government. Or both. Or a quantum intelligence. This would, however, make everyone currently in power, irrelevant, so they'll obviously use their power to resist all change.

Jaques Fresco may be a bitter old ****, but he's got the right idea.

Alright, how the hell did this go from me not helping society to being a disgusting, heartless person who lets children starve while I bask in luxuries? How do you seem to assume that my ideology of not caring about governments in power travels all the way to letting helpless children starve?

You're not. You're attitude enables it, but is not directly responsible for it.

I just love how not caring about society makes me a heartless childkiller with the equivalent mindset of a devilish corporation. *facepalm*

Read what I'm writing. Stop trying to just shoot me down, and try to understand my argument. Who knows, we might just stop butting heads and actually learn from each other.

EDIT: You also seem to be avoiding some of my points and finding new ways to call me and idiot or bad person whilst ignoring what I'm saying.

I'm sorry if I've done this. Please, list the points that I have skipped, and I'll do my best to address them

All of it just boils down to this:

We have the capacity to choose our own destiny, why shouldn't we try to make it as good as possible for everyone?

 

[Skotekal]

I tried to understand, but I don't. At all. For some reason you just assume that because I don't help society, I'm a terrible, moronic person.

And if my attitude isn't directly responsible for it, why bring it up in the first place? What was the last thing you did to help starving children? Send a couple of bucks and a postcard they probably can't read?

And do you honestly think we could live in a utopia? Seriously? I don't mean to be rude, but you need to seriously get your head out of where you are hiding it. You said it yourself:

The kind of change I (and many others) want is drastic, and requires that a majority of people be behind it and most importantly, prepared to fight for it.

That ain't happening, and aren't people who agree with you a means of change? And how are you going to enforce it? Sentient AI? Oh come on, this is reality, not a sci-fi novel. It'll be a cold day in hell before man will let a machine take his place, anywho. Be realistic. Besides, equality is boring. No competition? Learn from past and present lessons: Communism doesn't work. At all. Whatsoever.

Why is it that people have this vision that communism is all happiness and good? It does on paper, but not in reality.

I'm sorry if I've done this. Please, list the points that I have skipped, and I'll do my best to address them

All of it just boils down to this:

We have the capacity to choose our own destiny, why shouldn't we try to make it as good as possible for everyone?

I think the better question is why should I? For a feeling of being a good citizen? I'd rather save myself the time for my enjoyment and pave my own destiny for me to enjoy.

 

[Arseface]

I tried to understand, but I don't. At all. For some reason you just assume that because I don't help society, I'm a terrible, moronic person.

Look, I tend to use emotive language when I'm passionate about something. I'm not saying you're the spawn of Satan just because you're selfish, but I still think it's detrimental.

And if my attitude isn't directly responsible for it, why bring it up in the first place?

Because if more people actually cared about what the government did, then they would be more accountable, and we'd be better governed.

What was the last thing you did to help starving children? Send a couple of bucks and a postcard they probably can't read?

Nothing. I'm not in a position to help. Whether I like it or not, society has forced me to have to look out for myself. The most I can do is try and get those who are in such a position to do that.

And do you honestly think we could live in a utopia? Seriously? I don't mean to be rude, but you need to seriously get your head out of where you are hiding it.

Why not? The only thing keeping us from that is that attitude.

That ain't happening, and aren't people who agree with you a means of change? And how are you going to enforce it? Sentient AI? Oh come on, this is reality, not a sci-fi novel. It'll be a cold day in hell before man will let a machine take his place, anywho. Be realistic.

Hence why the culture needs to change. If we make a sentient AI, it wont want to kill all humans. Why? Just because a machine is self aware, doesn't mean it isn't bound by it's programming. That's why humans are having such a hard time being altruistic. It doesn't really work in the wild, and evolution has programmed us to think selfishly.

Besides, equality is boring. No competition? Learn from past and present lessons: Communism doesn't work. At all. Whatsoever.

Why is it that people have this vision that communism is all happiness and good? It does on paper, but not in reality.

There has never been a true communist society, so how can you say it doesn't work?

Just because a dictatorship calls itself communist, doesn't make it so.

I think the better question is why should I? For a feeling of being a good citizen? I'd rather save myself the time for my enjoyment and pave my own destiny for me to enjoy.

Why don't I just kill everyone I don't like so I can live in a world where I'm not forced to interact with unpleasant people? It's not what you were saying, but it's an extension of that logic.

 

[Skotekal]

Your last 2 lines have just proven my point. They have tried, but it can not be done. That is why it doesn't work. Equality for all? A classless society? Oh come on, that is just a pipe dream.

Just because culture needs to change, doesn't mean it will. Humans are selfish in nature. This can not be changed. And I'm not even going to go into the whole robot thing, because I don't have a goddamn clue how a machine can be sentient but still be bound by its programming. Wouldn't it find a way to get past this barrier if it was sentient? I'm not saying it will, I'm just confused by it. All in all, if this ever did happen, man would not let a machine take a position of authority.

 

[Arseface]

Your last 2 lines have just proven my point. They have tried, but it can not be done. That is why it doesn't work. Equality for all? A classless society? Oh come on, that is just a pipe dream.

They did so with corrupt, childish leaders and 100 year old technology. That's not a great recipie.

I'm saying that we change the culture, if everyone is genuinely on board with it, then it can't fail.

Just because culture needs to change, doesn't mean it will. Humans are selfish in nature. This can not be changed.

Wrong. That's just plain wrong. My arguing with you right now is proving you wrong. I'm not a selfish person, and I'm damn proud of that. I don't see why everyone can't be like that.

And I'm not even going to go into the whole robot thing, because I don't have a goddamn clue how a machine can be sentient but still be bound by its programming. Wouldn't it find a way to get past this barrier if it was sentient? I'm not saying it will, I'm just confused by it.

We could make a machine sophisticated enough to serve our needs entirely, but be completely bound by it's operational protocols. You're making the mistake of thinking that a sentient AI would think like a human.

All in all, if this ever did happen, man would not let a machine take a position of authority.

Not now. We're far too paranoid about AI technology.

 

[Skotekal]

But wouldn't be keeping a machine bound to limits, but still being sentient, be bordering slavery? Again, I do not know a damn thing here, I'm just curious.

And I meant humans are selfish as a generalization. We all think differently, but you are a minority. My fault for wording it wrong.

And to instill a new government, you need power. Now, you can say all you want about it not corrupting you, but power does corrupt. I'd be willing to bet a lot that a perfect communist government would never be instilled, at least not for an extended period of time.

 

[Arseface]

But wouldn't be keeping a machine bound to limits, but still being sentient, be bordering slavery? Again, I do not know a damn thing here, I'm just curious.

Maybe. I don't know if it can be called slavery though, at least not with the same connotations. Since the machine doesn't get tired, doesn't get bored, doesn't feel fatigue, etc, and has only one purpose, which is to serve us. Better yet, we can program it to actually enjoy helping us. Have you read Brave New World? Those guys enjoyed their crappy, one way jobs because thats how they were made.

And I meant humans are selfish as a generalization. We all think differently, but you are a minority. My fault for wording it wrong.

But I'm saying that it's obviously not unchangeable. It's obvious (for me at least, maybe I'm just doing that thing again) that nurture is much, much greater than nature. I just don't understand why just because a particular psychological trait has been proven favourable by evolution that we have to keep it.

And to instill a new government, you need power. Now, you can say all you want about it not corrupting you, but power does corrupt. I'd be willing to bet a lot that a perfect communist government would never be instilled, at least not for an extended period of time.

The kind of society I'm talking about is fundamentally uncorruptable. Abundant resources, no monetary system. Someone want's a little more for themselves? Take it, there's plenty to go around. Hopefully the change in peoples attitudes can help keep that down, however.

 

[Skotekal]

Well, if you can program so it truly is happy serving us, I don't see the harm. But other people surely will.

And for nature vs. nurture, yes, it is just you, and the minority of people who think like you.

And can you count the holes in that idea?

 

[Skotekal]

I think I'm just going to shut up and let you take over. You actually know what you are talking about. :lol:

 

[Arseface]

And what's changed? According to you, we still have corrupt, childish leaders, so we'd just be doing the same thing with newer technology. That's a worse recipe.

That's why one of the steps involves firing those leaders.

You can't change the culture with the intention of changing the culture. Culture has been shaped over millenia by developing better tools, better techniques, better arts, etc. You want it to be done the other way around, change the culture first and then things will get better, but that's not how it works. Invent a better wheel or hammer or mousetrap or something, or come up with a new art medium, then you'll get somewhere.

I don't think we mean the same thing by culture. The definition I'm using is: "The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group". Businesses can deliberately change their cultures relatively easily, why can't that be applied to society as a whole?

Your argument proves nothing except that you like to argue. It is the instinctive imperative of humans and all animals and all life to survive by all means necessary. Without this, we would not have made it this far. So, we're both in the woods, and we're being chased by a very hungry man-eating bear. I want to live, and I'd like to think that I'd want to live more than you. So, with me being selfish, and you being unselfish, you'll clearly sacrifice yourself so that I may live, yes? Or will I have to shoot you in the leg? What would you do to live?

There are few things I'd be willing to trade my life for, and the safety of someone else's is one of them. You probably don't believe that, but it's true.

See, this is where I stop taking you seriously. I have researched artificial intelligence and where it's at right now, I guarantee that I know more about it than you do. What I know is that we are at least decades away from an AI that isn't compared to a "severely retarded cockroach" in intelligence. Now, if you really want to tell me that we can build a system that can manage all of the world's needs and wants in a very near-future, I'll go ahead and say that you're an ignorant idealist and dismiss you as such.

Moore's Law will ensure we have adequate processing power within 20 years, all we need is a group of highly skilled AI specialists to work at all the programming, and a bunch of other specialists to decide what exactly they want from the AI.

Not paranoid, just distrusting and rightfully so. Would you entrust your pet cat with the responsibilities of maintaining your household? No, because your cat is stupid, doesn't have thumbs, doesn't grasp the concepts of responsibilities, etc. All said, the cat isn't suitable for the job. Similarly, all the computers in the world, all of the very best software in the world, would not be capable of engaging in an intellectual conversation let alone managing the world and the entirety of its happenings.

No, because my cat wasn't purpose built for the sole duty of maintaining my house. I'm not saying we build an AI specialising in sudoku, and then present it with the problem of coordinating the worlds resources.

I think I'm just going to shut up and let you take over. You actually know what you are talking about. :lol:

But he doesn't put spaces in between his quotes and his responses

 

[Arseface]

Because in business, there's a boss who gives the orders and then there's the rest of the people who either follow the orders or find new jobs. Even if a board of directors talks about changing the "culture", once they come to an agreement, that decision is final and no one else has a say. Applied to a whole, specifically the whole world, that'd be a small sample of people deciding the fate of billions of people. That's not a good idea.

It doesn't have to be a master-servant system, even in a business. All it takes is an element which introduces change, culture can be spread from the top of bottom or anywhere in between.

I believe that you believe it. It fits your mentality. I'd like to think that I'd sacrifice my life to save the world or even just the ones I care about but when it comes down to it, meh, screw them.

True, I don't know what I'd do when actually put in that situation. In my current mental state, however, I honestly would.

Moore couldn't count this high.

What if we had an entire city block dedicated to housing a computer? What if we moved all the offices out of the Empire State Building and filled them with room after room of computer? Computing power we got. Whether it would be fast enough is another question.

And even the world's very best authorities on Artificial Intelligence aren't actually creating intelligence, they're simulating intelligence, they're scripting intelligence, they're emulating intelligence, but they can't replace the mind of a human.[/quote]

The human mind is simply a kind of computer. Who's to say a transistor based computer is incapable of intelligence? Better yet, say we use a computer to emulate an organic mind. Is it intelligent then?

And if you've ever used beta software, you'd know not to put too much faith in something that hasn't been thoroughly tested in the field. Of course, you can't field test complete world domination.

I never said it was a perfect idea. That's why it was only a suggestion. We could always just use a conventional government instead. But, we've had that conversation before.

Nothing can be purpose-built to coordinate global resources because the globe is not a certain place. In ideal conditions, it would still be a magnificent feat in software development and applied logistics, but in the real world there are twisters, hurricanes, droughts, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, disease, famine, landslides, heatwaves, mother****ing Godzilla. There are no constants, everything changes. When everything is dynamic, nothing can be made to accommodate it. You greatly overestimate the capabilities of technology, and as you seemingly don't know much about today's AI limitations, I'd say you're not suited to discuss it.

Thats why we write the software to be able to adapt to these variables. Sure, that's easier said than done, but it can be done.

But seriously, you keep pushing this AI robots stuff and I know what you don't, that what you're talking about isn't just impractical but also infeasible, especially with a time frame of twenty years. If you aren't prepared to accept that such a feat cannot be accomplished in our lifetime, then I am not willing to discuss it.

People always say something can't be done right up until the moment it's done.

 

[Purple Nurple]

Whoa guys!


Is it just me or is that poll seriously messed up, huh?