Recent posts by petesahooligan on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do we value authenticity?

I think that’s really interesting, IoD.

Uncanny Valley is certainly how we define monsters. Frankenstein and zombies are creepier than The Blob because of the distortion. It’s how we identify and define a “freak.” Humans are social and relate to other humans, and feel threatened by non-humans that appear to be trying to interrupt this organic relationship through disguise.

I can totally see that.

In non-human situations we still tend to prefer original objects over replicas.

If we were presented with two identical paintings by Degas and told that one was an imposter and the other was the original, why would we feel that the original were more valuable than the imposter? What is the inherent quality of “originality” that makes adds value? I don’t really understand that. (I’m not denying that original objects ARE more valuable; I’m just unclear on why.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do we value authenticity?

That you agree or disagree I think is irrelevant. I’m curious WHY you agree or disagree.

Why is “authentic” or “original” important to us?

(Extra credit: What does “authentic” or “original” mean?)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do we value authenticity?

Well, FlyingCat, should a replica be as valuable as an original if it were indistinguishable? If not, why not?

Elizabeth, I don’t think the “soul” argument is a strong one. There are lots of people that believe they have no souls, and there are certainly robots that could be programmed to be MORE comforting than most people.

But the bottom line is that “artificial is NOT artificial” because the opposite of “artificial” doesn’t really exist. If something is a copy of something else, both things exist in reality and provide the same characteristic value… yet things that are “required” to be original, such as signatures on official documents, are not valuable because the SIGNATURE has some quality but rather because the signature represents a greater abstract meaning that could be provided by any number of other means. In fact, some might argue that a signature is not the best way to ensure a person’s agreement to a contract.

I find it quite peculiar that you don’t find artificial and authentic to be any different than one another, or that is, you don’t really care.

I actually DO care why “authentic” objects or experiences are deemed more valuable than facsimiles. It’s why I asked the question in the first place.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do we value authenticity?

Your response, Elizabeth, got me thinking.

A robot’s message will be a crafted response designed for maximum effect based on the lowest common denominator or for the most common type of presumptive error. But what do humans excel at by comparison?

Is being comforted by a robot less satisfactory than being comforted by a human?

A robot creates a perfectly manicured messages. It lacks the “umms” and “aahs” of a human interaction… it can contribute to a sense of frustration that the caller is alone with their problems. That’s ONE effect, I suppose.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do we value authenticity?

I just got robocalled. It was kind of annoying but as far as robotic voices go, it was very good. It took me a minute to figure out that it wasn’t a real person.

That got me thinking about other situations where a phone conversation is a business exchange.

It may be a sex line.
It might be technical support.
Maybe it’s to answer questions about your taxes.

If these services are handled by robots that are indistinguishable from humans, does that matter?

If you watched a pornographic movie that was entirely CGI, would that diminish your feelings of arousal?

If a spokesperson to a large corporation were a “robot,” would that seem less authentic than a person?

If a live person performs more errors than a robotic assistant, which would you prefer?

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Youtube Logo

Here’s a good YouTube logo.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hog the outside lane

If speed limits were truly considered a functioning revenue stream, we’d see more of that here in the United States, Vika.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hog the outside lane

I don’t buy it. The argument that speed limits are low so that more revenue can be raised in tickets is sort of dumb for two reasons.

1. Speed limits are carefully calculated by the DoT and provided as standards to municipalities.
2. It costs more in police and court time than the tickets are worth.

Cities would be happy to never write speeding tickets and save those full-time-employee salaries if they could snap their fingers and make it so.

They would have better luck expanding REETs, exacting impact fees, and issuing bonds and levies, like they always do.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

But federal laws and state laws conflict all the time. I fail to see how this is really the hot-bed issue that it has become.

Texas has gun laws that contradict federal gun laws. Why aren’t the same people crying foul over gay marriage also crying foul over Texas’ liberal gun laws?

Basically, supremacy laws only apply to situations where the supreme court is being asked to rule on a conflict. There are lots of cases where federal and state laws are contradictory but it’s only those that have some kind of “cultural relevance” that are ever talked about.

Again, is there some kind of ethical or logistical reason why people object to gay marriage, or is it ONLY the principle that federal law would try to impose its will over the states, (like it does all the time anyway).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

I still haven’t heard anyone explain specifically why it’s a bad law.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hog the outside lane

Incidentally, people drive VERY fast in California (and Texas, and Montana). In the Los Angeles area it is perfectly common to drive 80 MPH and within a hair’s distance from the car in front of you. (Vika, if you tapped your brakes to warn a tailgater off, you’d be riding your brakes the entire time.)

The CHP don’t ticket for 80, (20 MPH over the legal speed limit). They will ticket for 90 MPH but people regularly do 90, too. I do. Lots of people do.

Is it unsafe? I don’t know. Doesn’t seem like it. Everyone’s flying along.

There’s nothing I dislike more than some vigilante trying to enforce some arbitrary speed limit on everyone else by going slow. It’s irritating, makes people angry (and more aggressive as a result), and is dangerous. Best just to try to do about what everyone else is doing and get to where you need to go.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hog the outside lane

It has been said that most car accidents happen close to home. In fact, a Progressive Insurance study from 2004 revealed that approximately 52% of all accidents occur within 5 miles from a person’s home.

Damn, I’d better move!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

That’s a good article, Stan.

As I see it, the deepest source of pity for the whole gay marriage issue lies in the fact that it just doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter who marries who. It doesn’t “redefine” marriage any more or less than the idea of divorce did (and I would argue that divorce does much more damage to the definition and institution of marriage than same-sex couples ever could). Most importantly, however, is that who your neighbor marries really shouldn’t be a community concern.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hog the outside lane

Most accidents occur in low-speed situations, like parking lots… where there are lots of pedestrians, obstacles, structures, narrow spaces, people backing up, and so on. People are typically doing 10 MPH or less.

Go figure.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Confederate Flag and Civil Liberties

I remember when America was great! I’m old enough.

When marijuana possession could land you a life sentence.
When cops in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles were openly corrupt and corruptible.
When there was no safe way to get an abortion.
When women could be abused in a marriage and if they left, had no legal protection.
When business owners could hire and fire people based on their race or gender.
When business owners could hire and fire people if they put out.
When they could ship you off to war if they had one going on.
When, once, they executed people suspected of witchcraft.
When they brought the world to the brink of global nuclear war.
When they became the only nation in the world to use a nuclear weapon in wartime.
When they started a war based on obscure political principles and thousands died.
When they started another war based on obscure political principles and thousands more died.
When they preferred to uphold “gun rights” even though it was literally killing their children.
When they were one of the last first-world nations to accept the need for tighter environmental regulations.
When the argument over the right to OWN people almost tore the nation into pieces.

I don’t really remember all of that… but that’s the country that we’re supposed to be patriotic for.

It’s ironic to me that “love it or leave it” is such a popular motif in juvenile right-wing rebuttals, and yet these same people are quick to discredit the value of migration. Does that mean that a patriotic Islamic Statesman is more valuable than an individual that hates ISIS because of that patriotism? Is that the “value” of patriotism… it’s just blind commitment to an idea and unconditional love of country?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should corporations be allowed to marry?

Bravo! Best SD topic ever. (Thanks for stepping it up, Mafefe. This is more like it.)

My answer: Hell yes. Corporations SHOULD be allowed to marry.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Canada Vs. United States

To answer your question as to why I didn’t mention Mexico, Mexico is only ranked 15th because of what they can siphon off the United States. Their economy seems to be based on the drugs they manufacture and the pushing of their poor on our almost depleted economy.

There’s still a lot of hyperbole going on here. The US isn’t “siphoning” off cheap labor from Mexico? I’m not sure what “siphoning” means in your message. I’m not sure where drugs fit into their economic health (and whether you mean pharms or illegal varieties), but I know that agriculture is still significant but automobile manufacturing is a growing sector. That’s pretty big for Mexico. Canada doesn’t manufacture automobiles. And Mexico continues to be a major global player in electronics… both in manufacturing and in research and development. Mexico produces oil though not as much as Canada. You probably quit reading when you got to the word “hyperbole” so I’ll just leave it at that.

Then there’s your bold and unsubstantiated claim that the US economy is “almost depleted.” What does that mean? The US economy is the largest in the world and is BY A WIDE MARGIN larger than the world’s second-largest (China). There is $18-TRILLION in the US economy. China has about 10-trillion.

So to claim that Mexico is tanking the “almost depleted” US economy is kind of… umm… stupid. (Sorry I had to use that word. I couldn’t think of a better one.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Canada Vs. United States

That’s not necessarily it, jhco. I work for a nonprofit organization, (though I’m in Programs rather than in Development/Fundraising). I’ve seen lots of reasons why soliciting donations is difficult. It has very little to do with Christianity. There are over 350,000 religious congregations in the United States and within a body of people that large, there will be a typical cross-section of personalities… generous, greedy; engaged, aloof; etc.

Here are some of the factors I’ve seen first-hand:
• How does the potential donor relate to the deliverer
• Quality of your ask
• Who’s delivering the ask
• Does the incentive outweigh the cost
• How is the asking organization perceived
• Is the venue or environment appropriate and advantageous
• How many other people are asking
• What is being asked
• How many options is the potential donor being offered
• Is the donation process convenient for and aligned with the potential donor
• Is the value or outcome of the donation valuable

There are some common factors that go into a person’s decision to donate. You’ll note that none of them have anything to do with faith except for MAYBE the first one.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / which marriage will "progressives" "fight" for next?

Mandatory gay marriage and anal-sex-ed classes.

Meanwhile, Repugnicans are arguing for no sex between anyone except white men and their prostitutes using tax subsidies and offshore shelters.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What would Obama look like in a future U.S History Textbook?

ON TOPIC: Obama’s legacy will be that he was a conscientious and thoughtful president that communicated well with his colleagues in SPITE OF THE FACT that there were dipshits running around trying to disrupt progress with their ridiculous comments.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What would Obama look like in a future U.S History Textbook?

Seriously!? All of the bullshit sarcastic derails and circus sideshows that Mafefe tosses out get a pass, apparently.

SD stands for Sarcastic Disruptions.

I’m gonna take a trip. See y’all in a week or so.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Path to Peace

@Leia: You’ve missed the requirements of the OP. The whole point of this conversation is to presume that it IS possible. What’s the point of the conversation, you ask? Well… what’s the point of drawing a picture in your sketchbook?

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / What would Obama look like in a future U.S History Textbook?

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / If somebody fails to notify the buyers of a house of 'the crazy neighbor who harrases anyone liveing there', can the buyers of the house sue?

Ha, that’s a pic of a movie that you may be too young to get. It’s from The Jerk and that is Steve Martin, of course. In this scene there is an assassin in the woods across the street that is trying to kill Steve Martin’s character. He’s too dense to understand what’s going on; all he sees is someone shooting at the cans (“Somebody HATES these cans!”). The assassin is obviously missing his intended target.

The point of the picture is that what can seem like one target can actually be another, and since this harassment appears to have been targeted behavior, as opposed to those examples you bring up in your response, there’s reason to believe that the harassment would stop as soon as the “target” family left the area. In other words, it would be an outlandish assumption that the house itself were a target, like the cans in the photo.

The examples you bring up may be inexcusable for other reasons. I think that moving into Greek Row next to “Omega Party Hardy” would warrant some disclosure. But the others, I’m not so sure.

How much “harassment” would trigger an obligatory disclosure? It seems like a slippery slope.

• The neighbor has a loud dog.
• Sometimes the mail isn’t delivered on time.
• Vines on the property are invasive.
• The neighbor is a smoker and the fumes waft into your house.
Etc.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / If somebody fails to notify the buyers of a house of 'the crazy neighbor who harrases anyone liveing there', can the buyers of the house sue?

In my layman opinion there’s no case.

The crime, if there is one, does not appear to be any form of intentional deceit. The crime is in the harassment. The previous owners may have moved because they felt harassed, and they would be under no obligation to share that information with prospective buyers (any more than they would say that they’re selling the house due to divorce or a death in the family). The previous owners would need to be aware that their stalker was focused on the property rather than on the family… and what a strange thing that would be.