Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

A culture based on Emotions

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A culture based on Emotions


    Can laws accommodate emotions in a functional democracy, with equality and fairness to all?

    Comical yet serious! A must watch. The relevance to this topic starts at 3:22, but you might want to watch the whole thing. Other points that are delivered quite comically.

    https://video.search.yahoo.com/video..._21_ssg02&tt=b

    youtube.com
    Last edited by msc; 06-09-2016, 04:56 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by msc View Post
    Can laws accommodate emotions in a functional democracy, with equality and fairness to all?

    Comical yet serious! A must watch. The relevance to this topic starts at 3:22, but you might want to watch the whole thing. Other points that are delivered quite comically.

    https://video.search.yahoo.com/video..._21_ssg02&tt=b

    youtube.com
    No doubt some issues are driven by little more than emotions. The emotions comes first, and dictate what follows from it especially on social issues. But also in foreign relations. We would be much better off if one day after AI is developed that we allow the logic, reason and rationality, along with established law to dictate policy. Get the fickle and ideological driven emotions out of the equation. So that sane, rational decisions that affect a nation's people are devoid of ideological beliefs that are disconnected from reality, and the emotions that go along with that. We could alleviate a horde of screw ups. I have no doubt that if good economic data, historically was used, objectively by AI, we would never have allowed open borders free trade globalization, if the AI worked within the paradigm of what was good for the greatest number of people and their economic interests and security. The same goes for foreign relations, or perpetual war for perpetual peace. Humans, our rulers would still make the final decision, but what the AI dictated would be presented to the People, first, and what the rulers decided to do, second. We could then see just how an ideological belief and human emotions were incoherent and not acceptable, and it very will might get rid of the power of an ideological belief, and show it for what it actually is. INCOHERENT with reality.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
      No doubt some issues are driven by little more than emotions. The emotions comes first, and dictate what follows from it especially on social issues. But also in foreign relations. We would be much better off if one day after AI is developed that we allow the logic, reason and rationality, along with established law to dictate policy. Get the fickle and ideological driven emotions out of the equation. So that sane, rational decisions that affect a nation's people are devoid of ideological beliefs that are disconnected from reality, and the emotions that go along with that. We could alleviate a horde of screw ups. I have no doubt that if good economic data, historically was used, objectively by AI, we would never have allowed open borders free trade globalization, if the AI worked within the paradigm of what was good for the greatest number of people and their economic interests and security. The same goes for foreign relations, or perpetual war for perpetual peace. Humans, our rulers would still make the final decision, but what the AI dictated would be presented to the People, first, and what the rulers decided to do, second. We could then see just how an ideological belief and human emotions were incoherent and not acceptable, and it very will might get rid of the power of an ideological belief, and show it for what it actually is. INCOHERENT with reality.
      Thank goodness we have fiction to examine such ideas before they are put into practice...


      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

        No doubt some issues are driven by little more than emotions. The emotions comes first, and dictate what follows from it especially on social issues. But also in foreign relations. We would be much better off if one day after AI is developed that we allow the logic, reason and rationality, along with established law to dictate policy. Get the fickle and ideological driven emotions out of the equation. So that sane, rational decisions that affect a nation's people are devoid of ideological beliefs that are disconnected from reality, and the emotions that go along with that. We could alleviate a horde of screw ups. I have no doubt that if good economic data, historically was used, objectively by AI, we would never have allowed open borders free trade globalization, if the AI worked within the paradigm of what was good for the greatest number of people and their economic interests and security. The same goes for foreign relations, or perpetual war for perpetual peace. Humans, our rulers would still make the final decision, but what the AI dictated would be presented to the People, first, and what the rulers decided to do, second. We could then see just how an ideological belief and human emotions were incoherent and not acceptable, and it very will might get rid of the power of an ideological belief, and show it for what it actually is. INCOHERENT with reality.
        Talk about incoherent, LOL, I was just talking about making laws on the basis of people being offended. LOL!

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          He does have a point though.

          It overlooks the fact that pure, uninhibited logic will be at times inhumane and cruel - one doesn't have to imagine too hard to come up with examples.

          Still, he does say; "...Humans, our rulers would still make the final decision, but what the AI dictated would be presented to the People, first, and what the rulers decided to do, second. "

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            That video could go into so many threads here. Government regulation, gun control, government spending, etc. So many people need a nanny to protect them from the world. They have no self confidence, no self control, no self esteem, only the government to tell them what to do and how to do it.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
              He does have a point though.

              It overlooks the fact that pure, uninhibited logic will be at times inhumane and cruel - one doesn't have to imagine too hard to come up with examples.

              Still, he does say; "...Humans, our rulers would still make the final decision, but what the AI dictated would be presented to the People, first, and what the rulers decided to do, second. "
              Well, I'm going to have to take the punches on this one. With the intention of making the title brief, I did not make my point clear. A culture run solely on AI is absurd, but a culture catering to all and "based" on the emotions of collective individuals can not exist in a fair and free, culture of equality. Never will a society exist where emotions can be catered to, without neglecting the emotions of others, and without trampling on the emotions and rights of others.

              This is where logic comes in. It's not logical to think you can accommodate every ones feelings. Emotions can certainly be a cause to have issues addressed, but when addressing the issue, we have to use our logic to determine how to deal with it in a democracy.

              Sometimes it's more logical for lawmakers to say, "well you're just have to going to suck it up!, can't accommodate your grievance without taking away the liberties of the mass."

              And it makes no sense for people within and creating a culture of behaviors, to believe that they can be nice to everyone equally and claim the title of a compassionate human being. Not when compassion for one is in turn uncompassionate to another. the other may have emotions as well in certain issues that are legitimate without the intent of hurting another's feelings. And that's the way it will "Always" be.

              A perfect example is laws and the intolerance of citizens to recognize the legitimate emotions of women who are uncomfortable with allowing biological men in women's bathrooms. While the laws and citizens show tolerance to accommodate the emotions of Transgenders because they are uncomfortable using a bathroom with other men. Two legitimate emotions at battle, neither side with the intention of hurting the other,yet accommodating one set of emotions will hurt the other set of emotions. You can not accommodate both.

              So now logic must determine the result of the conflicting grievances.
              First it is a safety issue for both. Which percentage of individuals is greater that will have their safety violated. When that is determined, as it has been, the ruling and mindset should favor the majority that will suffer.

              Second to consider is how can we secure the safety of the minority. That is important to consider as well, if it can be done. A logical and reasonable determination would be to have an accommodation where Transgenders don't have their safety threatened. A single stall or private place. This way the safety of Women and Transgenders are both accommodated. And the emotions of Women and Transgenders will also be accommodated as not feel uncomfortable. A win, win for both sides.

              So now we have an additional grievance/emotion coming from Transgenders. They want to be "included" in the female world in it's entirety, and being allowed in a women's bathroom will accommodate these emotions. Now this is where the comedian comes in with the insanity of making law and citizens believing they are righteous in making sure no one is offended. A subjective grievance. Nothing more than pure individual emotion that conflicts with the emotions of others. Both sides can not be accommodate. If the emotions of the Transgender is accommodated the safety of women will be infringed on in addition to the emotions of women. Yet if the women are accommodated and Transgenders have a private place, Transgenders safety will not be threatened.but their sad emotions will not be accommodated because they are offended that they can not be included in every aspect as biological females. When you weigh the needs, you have women suffering uncomfort and safety (2). You have Transgenders with (1) need on the scale, not to "feel: offended that they can't be included. The 2 outweighs the 1. At this point, laws and public opinion should dictate that the Transgenders will just have to suck it up. In this situation their emotions CAN NOT be accommodated. This grievance is simply a battle of two emotions, yet the emotions on one side do not threaten the safety of the other side. Yet the other one does.

              I found it necessary to go step by step to understand how this actually plays out. And how our culture can not function in a democracy when logic is not in play.
              Last edited by msc; 06-10-2016, 05:35 AM.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                He does have a point though.

                It overlooks the fact that pure, uninhibited logic will be at times inhumane and cruel - one doesn't have to imagine too hard to come up with examples.

                Still, he does say; "...Humans, our rulers would still make the final decision, but what the AI dictated would be presented to the People, first, and what the rulers decided to do, second. "
                I agree. Pure logic without reasonableness can indeed be cruel. Moral principles, human decency, the greater good has to be included. As laid out by Asimov in his 3 laws of robotics. My point still stands though. The corruption of rationality by ideological beliefs, in which so many are just beliefs that come from a refusal to acknowledge reality and ignore historical facts is a tremendous problem, historically, when it comes to policy and law. And the purer the ideology is, the more it tends to be created in opposition to reality, and this is driven by emotions, regardless if its left or right. So when an ideology is against serving he common good, the best interests of a population, AI would sift those out, and render them moot. And there is plenty on both the left and right that is against serving the best interests and the common good of the people in America. You can draw an analogy between AI devising a plan to get man to mars and back, with the common good being that those spacemen are not harmed by the means AI is using. That human survival is a driving factor and then AI moves from there, to devise the most efficient and intelligence driven plan which it then manages with no place for an ideology that would throw rocks in the gears. AI could do this, whereas human beings, with their emotions, their ideological beliefs which may be pure emotion driven nonsense would find it impossible to act with coherence. I know this requires us to use our brain in thinking about it, but too many of us hardly think at all. We knee jerk react, based upon ideological beliefs. Only AI could be above this.

                Of course we will use AI in every important field of endeavor one day, but it is doubtful it will ever make it into what is legislated and created in gov't. For besides the influence of big money in policy and law, there is also the ideology factor. AI would negate this from the get-go and men who want the power as a ruler, would be castrated under this paradigm. They will not allow it. LOL.

                This goes back to the powerful destructive forces that lie in human nature. You can create a system, like Marxism, that some would say looks fine on paper. Or even create a capitalistic system that looks great on paper, in that it would benefit the greatest number of people, but also keep your rich elites. But when you then add human nature, it will corrupt both systems so that the results from what was on paper, never happens. Human nature will corrupt any system that it is a part of. Only AI could transcend this, and create a logical, rational, reasonable system which would exclude human nature in the actual operation, and keep the corruption of the system at bay. It would not be perfect, nothing ever is, but minimizing the effect of human nature upon a system, which changes the system, is possible, if you have AI, and the will to actually do it.

                A Golden Age is only possible with the addition of AI. It is impossible without it. For we as thinking beings, with a deep human nature that has areas that are against the best interests of humanity, has not changed for at least 50,000 years. We are, psychologically unchanged, and we now know that we simply cannot change. So, if humanity is to change, for human nature has created, the poor, the perpetual war for perpetual peace, the societies and economies that the greed at the top inevitably will structure, we cannot depend upon man doing that. Only AI, which is not cursed with irrationality can do that. Which is not cursed with the pettiness of human nature can do that. It really is our only hope.
                Last edited by Blue Doggy; 06-10-2016, 06:49 AM.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                  I agree. Pure logic without reasonableness can indeed be cruel. Moral principles, human decency, the greater good has to be included. As laid out by Asimov in his 3 laws of robotics. My point still stands though. The corruption of rationality by ideological beliefs, in which so many are just beliefs that come from a refusal to acknowledge reality and ignore historical facts is a tremendous problem, historically, when it comes to policy and law. And the purer the ideology is, the more it tends to be created in opposition to reality, and this is driven by emotions, regardless if its left or right. So when an ideology is against serving he common good, the best interests of a population, AI would sift those out, and render them moot. And there is plenty on both the left and right that is against serving the best interests and the common good of the people in America. You can draw an analogy between AI devising a plan to get man to mars and back, with the common good being that those spacemen are not harmed by the means AI is using. That human survival is a driving factor and then AI moves from there, to devise the most efficient and intelligence driven plan which it then manages with no place for an ideology that would throw rocks in the gears. AI could do this, whereas human beings, with their emotions, their ideological beliefs which may be pure emotion driven nonsense would find it impossible to act with coherence. I know this requires us to use our brain in thinking about it, but too many of us hardly think at all. We knee jerk react, based upon ideological beliefs. Only AI could be above this.

                  Of course we will use AI in every important field of endeavor one day, but it is doubtful it will ever make it into what is legislated and created in gov't. For besides the influence of big money in policy and law, there is also the ideology factor. AI would negate this from the get-go and men who want the power as a ruler, would be castrated under this paradigm. They will not allow it. LOL.

                  This goes back to the powerful destructive forces that lie in human nature. You can create a system, like Marxism, that some would say looks fine on paper. Or even create a capitalistic system that looks great on paper, in that it would benefit the greatest number of people, but also keep your rich elites. But when you then add human nature, it will corrupt both systems so that the results from what was on paper, never happens. Human nature will corrupt any system that it is a part of. Only AI could transcend this, and create a logical, rational, reasonable system which would exclude human nature in the actual operation, and keep the corruption of the system at bay. It would not be perfect, nothing ever is, but minimizing the effect of human nature upon a system, which changes the system, is possible, if you have AI, and the will to actually do it.

                  A Golden Age is only possible with the addition of AI. It is impossible without it. For we as thinking beings, with a deep human nature that has areas that are against the best interests of humanity, has not changed for at least 50,000 years. We are, psychologically unchanged, and we now know that we simply cannot change. So, if humanity is to change, for human nature has created, the poor, the perpetual war for perpetual peace, the societies and economies that the greed at the top inevitably will structure, we cannot depend upon man doing that. Only AI, which is not cursed with irrationality can do that. Which is not cursed with the pettiness of human nature can do that. It really is our only hope.
                  Ever see I Robot?

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                    That video could go into so many threads here. Government regulation, gun control, government spending, etc. So many people need a nanny to protect them from the world. They have no self confidence, no self control, no self esteem, only the government to tell them what to do and how to do it.
                    ....the "nanny" we've created for those in need or want of "protection",...

                    ...those of us with self confidence, self control & self esteem are now hindered by an all enveloping "state" function into nearly every aspect of what we do & how we live. We're inhibited by "the state" in so many ways "for the protection of others."

                    Do "they need to be protected" ... because people are inherently bad ? No ? Really ? Why do "they need to be protected" then ? And we're going to count on those protecting us, ALSO being spawn from an inherently bad creature ? This is why we have more problems now than we've ever had !!!

                    It makes the A1 thing almost sound good ! People would find a way around it, you can be sure - and we'd be right back here where we are . . . maybe with a robot going about its duty of making "justice" or "equality" or some such thing. . might be kinda ugly.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                      I agree. Pure logic without reasonableness can indeed be cruel. Moral principles, human decency, the greater good has to be included. As laid out by Asimov in his 3 laws of robotics. My point still stands though. The corruption of rationality by ideological beliefs, in which so many are just beliefs that come from a refusal to acknowledge reality and ignore historical facts is a tremendous problem, historically, when it comes to policy and law. And the purer the ideology is, the more it tends to be created in opposition to reality, and this is driven by emotions, regardless if its left or right. So when an ideology is against serving he common good, the best interests of a population, AI would sift those out, and render them moot. And there is plenty on both the left and right that is against serving the best interests and the common good of the people in America. You can draw an analogy between AI devising a plan to get man to mars and back, with the common good being that those spacemen are not harmed by the means AI is using. That human survival is a driving factor and then AI moves from there, to devise the most efficient and intelligence driven plan which it then manages with no place for an ideology that would throw rocks in the gears. AI could do this, whereas human beings, with their emotions, their ideological beliefs which may be pure emotion driven nonsense would find it impossible to act with coherence. I know this requires us to use our brain in thinking about it, but too many of us hardly think at all. We knee jerk react, based upon ideological beliefs. Only AI could be above this.


                      Of course we will use AI in every important field of endeavor one day, but it is doubtful it will ever make it into what is legislated and created in gov't. For besides the influence of big money in policy and law, there is also the ideology factor. AI would negate this from the get-go and men who want the power as a ruler, would be castrated under this paradigm. They will not allow it. LOL.

                      This goes back to the powerful destructive forces that lie in human nature. You can create a system, like Marxism, that some would say looks fine on paper. Or even create a capitalistic system that looks great on paper, in that it would benefit the greatest number of people, but also keep your rich elites. But when you then add human nature, it will corrupt both systems so that the results from what was on paper, never happens. Human nature will corrupt any system that it is a part of. Only AI could transcend this, and create a logical, rational, reasonable system which would exclude human nature in the actual operation, and keep the corruption of the system at bay. It would not be perfect, nothing ever is, but minimizing the effect of human nature upon a system, which changes the system, is possible, if you have AI, and the will to actually do it.

                      A Golden Age is only possible with the addition of AI. It is impossible without it. For we as thinking beings, with a deep human nature that has areas that are against the best interests of humanity, has not changed for at least 50,000 years. We are, psychologically unchanged, and we now know that we simply cannot change. So, if humanity is to change, for human nature has created, the poor, the perpetual war for perpetual peace, the societies and economies that the greed at the top inevitably will structure, we cannot depend upon man doing that. Only AI, which is not cursed with irrationality can do that. Which is not cursed with the pettiness of human nature can do that. It really is our only hope.
                      It sounds good.

                      But so many things that turn out bad do don't they ?

                      Maybe like many other forms of life, we'll go through big population booms and declines/die offs periodically, who knows ? Gods natural laws work with or without our belief or "approval."

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by msc View Post

                        Well, I'm going to have to take the punches on this one. With the intention of making the title brief, I did not make my point clear. A culture run solely on AI is absurd, but a culture catering to all and "based" on the emotions of collective individuals can not exist in a fair and free, culture of equality. Never will a society exist where emotions can be catered to, without neglecting the emotions of others, and without trampling on the emotions and rights of others.

                        This is where logic comes in. It's not logical to think you can accommodate every ones feelings. Emotions can certainly be a cause to have issues addressed, but when addressing the issue, we have to use our logic to determine how to deal with it in a democracy.

                        Sometimes it's more logical for lawmakers to say, "well you're just have to going to suck it up!, can't accommodate your grievance without taking away the liberties of the mass."

                        And it makes no sense for people within and creating a culture of behaviors, to believe that they can be nice to everyone equally and claim the title of a compassionate human being. Not when compassion for one is in turn uncompassionate to another. the other may have emotions as well in certain issues that are legitimate without the intent of hurting another's feelings. And that's the way it will "Always" be.

                        A perfect example is laws and the intolerance of citizens to recognize the legitimate emotions of women who are uncomfortable with allowing biological men in women's bathrooms. While the laws and citizens show tolerance to accommodate the emotions of Transgenders because they are uncomfortable using a bathroom with other men. Two legitimate emotions at battle, neither side with the intention of hurting the other,yet accommodating one set of emotions will hurt the other set of emotions. You can not accommodate both.

                        So now logic must determine the result of the conflicting grievances.
                        First it is a safety issue for both. Which percentage of individuals is greater that will have their safety violated. When that is determined, as it has been, the ruling and mindset should favor the majority that will suffer.

                        Second to consider is how can we secure the safety of the minority. That is important to consider as well, if it can be done. A logical and reasonable determination would be to have an accommodation where Transgenders don't have their safety threatened. A single stall or private place. This way the safety of Women and Transgenders are both accommodated. And the emotions of Women and Transgenders will also be accommodated as not feel uncomfortable. A win, win for both sides.

                        So now we have an additional grievance/emotion coming from Transgenders. They want to be "included" in the female world in it's entirety, and being allowed in a women's bathroom will accommodate these emotions. Now this is where the comedian comes in with the insanity of making law and citizens believing they are righteous in making sure no one is offended. A subjective grievance. Nothing more than pure individual emotion that conflicts with the emotions of others. Both sides can not be accommodate. If the emotions of the Transgender is accommodated the safety of women will be infringed on in addition to the emotions of women. Yet if the women are accommodated and Transgenders have a private place, Transgenders safety will not be threatened.but their sad emotions will not be accommodated because they are offended that they can not be included in every aspect as biological females. When you weigh the needs, you have women suffering uncomfort and safety (2). You have Transgenders with (1) need on the scale, not to "feel: offended that they can't be included. The 2 outweighs the 1. At this point, laws and public opinion should dictate that the Transgenders will just have to suck it up. In this situation their emotions CAN NOT be accommodated. This grievance is simply a battle of two emotions, yet the emotions on one side do not threaten the safety of the other side. Yet the other one does.

                        I found it necessary to go step by step to understand how this actually plays out. And how our culture can not function in a democracy when logic is not in play.
                        The dream of 'equality' for everyone will always, only be a dream.

                        That is a good thing actually. That diversity that liberals yap and mutter about constantly ... as they do everything opposing it !

                        Sure, there are people we're all envious and jealous of - as we ourselves are viewed this way by others - it doesn't matter.

                        We're all going to die, in this we're equal, and beyond that our pride and envies here are a waste of good life energy.

                        If we can be happy and accept that everyone isn't the same, there's simply no reason for making strange, outlandish or pointless "accommodations" for political reasons or social statements. Creating new "grievance groups" to distract ourselves with every few months only makes fools out of us.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                          The dream of 'equality' for everyone will always, only be a dream.

                          That is a good thing actually. That diversity that liberals yap and mutter about constantly ... as they do everything opposing it !

                          Sure, there are people we're all envious and jealous of - as we ourselves are viewed this way by others - it doesn't matter.

                          We're all going to die, in this we're equal, and beyond that our pride and envies here are a waste of good life energy.

                          If we can be happy and accept that everyone isn't the same, there's simply no reason for making strange, outlandish or pointless "accommodations" for political reasons or social statements. Creating new "grievance groups" to distract ourselves with every few months only makes fools out of us.
                          So true. Our constitution insists that we all be treated equally under the law. It does not express that all individual be treated equally by fellow citizens. Perhaps our forefathers were aware that we can never force a society of individuals to share like emotions, share like causes, share like opinion, share like faith. And as a free society we should have no law giving the federal gov't authority to pick and choose which emotions, causes, opinions, and faith are righteous.

                          AI will be the only option and result for a society/culture based on emotions. All emotions will be suppressed as not to offend any individual. So what's left after all emotions are suppressed? AI.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            This (below) is actually a critique of a book that explains the dangers of this new world of narcissists. The elite & the media feed off this and create new "realities" rather quickly. Realities that are accepted as good, healthy, moral and right . . . anyone questioning these "new realities" is belittled and sneered at - treated like an imbecile.

                            Whispers - truth is, imbeciles are those willing to be so easily persuaded to believe ANYTHING !!! ... masses of people can be made to beleive anything, no matter how dangerous & opposed to reality they are.

                            Some proofs: Man caused "global warming," "gay marriage," "transgender bathrooms," "diversity"

                            ...

                            ----------------------------------

                            I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn't Already

                            Why do few people change their political views "even in the face of literally earthshaking world events" like 9/11?

                            .....

                            An illustration of moral narcissism not employed by Simon is the Seinfeld character Elaine – a woman whose sense of moral worth is derived from opinions that coincide with fashionable progressivism (Greenpeace activism, contempt for pro-lifers, contempt for her boyfriend's "Jesus fish," contempt for Christian music radio presets, contempt for women wearing fur coats). Despite a largely self-centered, shallow, and promiscuous life, Elaine is convinced she's a "good humanitarian" and proves it by self-consciously complimenting her waitress on "doing a great job."

                            The examples provided by Simon, unfortunately, aren't fictional and have had disastrous, perhaps fatal, consequences for the nation – fashionable anti-capitalist Marxism (espoused by thousands of well compensated professors as well as Pope Francis); a nostalgia for racism that stokes racial hatred by inventing micro-aggressions that supposedly explain and thus excuse black criminality; climate change ideologues who declare the issue settled (a ridiculously anti-scientific assertion) and who label anyone who dissents from the media-enforced consensus (even MIT's premier climatologist, Richard Lindzen) a "denier."

                            ....

                            The primary goal of moral narcissism is not "to do" good, but rather "to feel" good about oneself for having "the right opinion" – i.e. opinions promulgated by those who deem themselves superior by virtue of their "enlightened" views. These moral mandarins consist primarily of left-wing politicians, leftist academicians, the mainstream media, and almost all the entertainment industry. As with Seinfeld's Elaine, it isn't how one lives one's life that counts; it's the political and moral slogans one mouths. Indeed, the moral stature gained from being politically au courant serves as absolution for what used to count as personal moral failings – an arena where non-judgmentalism is demanded by political correctness, at least with respect to ideological soul mates.

                            Sympathy for Fidel Castro boosts one's moral standing, since Castro supposedly believes in a utopian socialist state where folks contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs. Never mind that the dictator lives "a lifestyle, including yachts and private islands, that would be the envy of George Soros, while his citizens suffer in penury under constant surveillance, the specter of imprisonment looming." Identifying with various victim groups and spouting politically correct mantras likewise "allows Hillary Clinton to go from undergraduate Alinskyite to Chappaqua plutocrat with a net worth in the tens of millions without missing a beat." The destructive consequences of leftist policies for minorities aren't what matter. What matters is that Hillary and the current narcissist-in-chief feel morally superior to rubes in flyover country.

                            ...


                            "Moral narcissism ... is a way of explaining away evil, blaming all ills on social causes and therefore pushing back the necessity of examining the human soul or one's own, of not seeing the possible darkness within[.] ... [M]oral narcissism obscures reality and therefore threatens democracy. That not everything is perfectible, that there is evil in the world, and that evil is likely to remain forever." In short, self-scrutiny is replaced with verbal orthodoxies promulgated by an American nomenklatura eager to secure moral status, financial perquisites, and a stream of personal indulgences by endlessly repeating politically correct slogans that are overwhelmingly destructive when applied to the real world – slogans that promise financial and personal retribution for "bigoted" dissenters.


                            ...

                            http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rcissists.html

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Yes everyone should be treated equally under the law except Hillary Clinton of course. She should be imprisoned based on the reckless lies of an idiot and the chants of a roomful of fools. Who needs the FBI and local police or courts when we have Trump to tell us who must go to jail..

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X