Recent posts by vikaTae on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

The last time I checked, the city of Detroit (working with the analogy you’re a single mother living near downtown Detroit) has buses. Or is that transportation not good enough?

Issendorf, is there any parallel to the common-use local systems where the public school is the one that charters busses specifically so they can take groups of kids to different points?

Other than that, does Detroit have a subway system of any sort? That would take quite a lot of it, and many cities here at least offer ‘single use bike’ services where a person can grab a bike from a stand anywhere in the city with a swipe-card, cycle it to another stand and swipe it back in. It would be trivial for the school to have a stand fitted and to arrange for discounted-cost cards to be issued to students further out from the transportation hub.

This is actually the opposite of economic segregation – you’re making services that were previously only available for the well-off an option for poorer families. The playing field for poor children and rich children is more level.

Yup, we fully agree here.

It works even better when you have a government department looming over the schools and insisting they present their statistics in a standardised format for much easier comparison.

Helps even more with the expectation that both public and private schools are required to teach certain standardised elements. Anything similar to a national curriculum currently mandated in the US?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by 0Gamer0:
if the first job requires strength and if men have more of it. The job does require strength (as per the hypothetical scenario you presented) and men do have more strength on average (fact). And, again, I note that the same would apply to the woman if she was stronger.

Perhaps it is worthy to note that for most jobs you will have a minimum strength requirement not an absolute strength requirement. This benefits both genders equally, as it denies physically weaker women the job, and physcically weaker men the job.

They will also be required to have the right kind of strength. A bodybuilder will likely be undesirable for general purpose construction because whilst they are strong, their strength is only expressed in certain muscle configurations: The ones they have explicitly trained for. Hence why bodybuilders are particularly prone to injury if they pull the wrong muscles – spinal erectors and grip are typically under trained. Lots of lower back problems, and an under-strength grasping ability to muscle ratio do not a good builder make.

A woman can lift a man from a burning building and carry him down a ladder if she trains the right muscles. It’s about how you apply your strength to the task at hand rather than how much you have as an absolute.

but there is the stereotype that men are tough and strong and that women are gentle and frail.

Ho yes, it’s everywhere. Nowhere near as bad as it used to be, but there’s still the unspoken assumption from a lot of quarters that if you’re a woman, you’re a frail, delicate flower.

And again, when they apply for a job, does someone tell them: “Sorry, you’re a woman.”? That is illegal as far as I know.

It’s illegal to say that, but the issue is it’s still possible for that to be the reason, just it’s dressed up as something else, or no reason given.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Abortionism misandristic?

Originally posted by mysticvortex13:

and anyone on the committee makes the decisions and everyone else has no say in what is ethical? that is called a conspiracy.

If you say so. Personally I don’t believe you understand what a defendable decision is.

Maybe Wikipedia can do a better job of describing what it is than I am apparently doing:

Ethics (also moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. The term ethics derives from the Ancient Greek word ἠθικός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit, “custom”). The branch of philosophy axiology comprises the sub-branches of Ethics and aesthetics, each concerned with concepts of value.

As a branch of philosophy, ethics investigates the questions “What is the best way for people to live?” and “What actions are right or wrong in particular circumstances?” In practice, ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality, by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.

In other words the purpose of an ethics committee is to discuss the issue that has arised, and see if it fits into the common morality the organisation itself is oriented towards, as opposed to the individual morality of the organisation member. It’s all about justifying the reason for that morality against the organisation’s stance on other issues, against the elements that matter to the organisation, and ensuring there is a consistent stance, ideally free of hypocracy and undefendable elements.

You can of course put your case towards them, argue and defend your corner to them, but ultimately yes, they are the ones who ultimately get to decide if your work falls within acceptable ethical boundaries or not, or what changes you will be expected to make to your modus operandi in order to ensure your work complies with the ethical guidelines of the organisation.

you need something tangible. something consistent. something everyone can agree upon.

Well, not everyone’s going to agree on a given code of ethics, but if you wish to continue working with an organisation, or continue representing them to the public at large, you have to abide by the ethics committee rulings. If you don’t, and it bugs you that much, you are welcome to seek employment elsewhere.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

Originally posted by mysticvortex13:

actually, we have penning traps already. we just need to figure out how to snag neutrons and then how to push the particles back together into an atom of our design, and then after that how to automate the process.

Yes ‘all’ we need is to invent several generations of brand new technologies, some of which will be insanely energy inefficient with our current technological capabilites, and well beyond our means.

You honestly don’t see how ludicrous what you’re asking is?

All we have to do is invent a perpetual motion machine and all our energy problems will be solved! Free energy for everyone! It’s on a direct par with what you’re asking.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Schools are not supposed to be for-profit institutions. They’re expected to run at a financial loss as an investment for the future. That’s most of your problem with schooling right there.

Every private school I can think of runs a property-portfolio and/or stock and bond investments to provide additional funding. The parental fees are kept low by competition, and £9,000 – £12,000 per annum isn’t much more than a public school costs per child anyway.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

I have to agree with Pete, Gamer. I can think of plenty of times when it’s been more of a struggle than it should have, to be taken seriously.

Even now, when an advancement is being pitched to help secure an additional round of funding, even in the cases when I invented the damn thing, it’s better to send a guy in to demonstrate it to the panel. If I’m there, the investors will tend to address questions to him anyway and ignore me. I know it happens with other women at the company too, so before you suggest it, it’s not a ‘something wrong with me’ issue.

The problem is I’m a female, and there is still enough bias in the establishment for that to be an additional issue. It’s not particularly fair or pleasant, but it’s definitely still there.

There is an expectation in society that men will be technical, and women more intuative, so when a technical woman is encountered, there is definitely a tendency to brush her off as I hestitate to say underling, but someone less important.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Originally posted by issendorf:

Out of curiousity, am I dumb or ignorant for thinking liberalism is fucking moronic? No wrong answers here – whichever one you choose will highly amuse me.

It can be if you go to the extremes, but then conservatism can be as well, when you go to equal extremes. You have to temper both views with some realism and some knowledge if you wish to get anywhere.

Tenure in general is a bad thing. It encourages intellectual laziness on the part of the tenured, as they no-longer have to work as hard mentally, or strive to keep abreast of their field. Once they have tenure, they can practically do anything they wish within the scope of their job and not get fired for it. It promotes lazy teachers which is bad for education standards as a whole.

Expanding school choice should also be a no-brainer, as it allows parents to examine the schools in their area, and doesn’t limit them to simply the closest ones, but rather allows them to vie for places in schools with better results. The schools serve the next generation, not the other way around.

If a school is passed over by local families enough times, it’s time for your local version of OFSTED (the government authority in charge of schools) to go in and start kicking ass and chewing bubblegum. Close the school if necessary, and completely restructure it.

your local voucher programs and charter schools I don’t know enough about to comment on.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by stanwise:

Want to intersect race and gender and wealth? Okay! Imagine what would have happened if Caitlyn Jenner hadn’t gone from being a rich white man to a rich white woman. Imagine if she’d been, like many former Olympians, of a more modest income, and couldn’t have afforded the surely-expensive plastic surgeries to “pass” as well as she does. Imagine if she’d been black, or Latino, or Asian. We only saw a tiny fraction of the media shitstorm that would have happened if she hadn’t been America’s most beloved, least threatening social caricature: a rich white woman.

$20,000 for the gender reassignment op.
$20,000 rising to $50,000 for facial feminisation therapy, depending on the extent that requires fixing.
electrolysis is usually about $1,000 an hour, so add in the gods themselves know how many sessions of that, plus all the other gumph that undoubtably comes with such a change.

Plus a cocktail of androgen blockers and artificial hormones for life, which certainly isn’t going to come cheap. Puts it well out of reach of poorer individuals in countries without socialised healthcare.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Souls

Originally posted by Pawnzilla:

The creation of an artificial brain is no more problematic for idealism than the existence of a natural brain. Idealism holds that consciousness is not reducible to the brain. The potential for artificial brains does not even touch on this point. I have no reason to object to the idea that this brain would function like any other brain.

It would not, as by your own admittance, it would never be capable of having a person inside it, and thus you believe that a being with an artifical brain would never qualify as an individual.

If I say that reality is within mind, then that includes your artificial brain. From the idealist perspective your artificial brain has not created an experiencer, or ‘soul’ at all. Consciousness is that which has experience. Your artificial brain is a process of consciousness that allows for a specific kind of experience of separation from mind-at-large.

Thus you are arguing that an artifical brain would have to belong at best a second-class citizen. They are soulless creatures by default, and thus lesser beings than yourself. Who is inherently superior because of yoiur soul, and thus a far superior class of being than any artificial mind could ever hope to be.

Your own arguments lead inescapably to that conclusion.

Under this view the brain is not the experiencer – consciousness is. When the brain is no more experience continues. Occam’s razor is with the idealist here. The continuation of experience is the default assumption.

If you are playing a video game, and the power is cut or the computer destroyed, your video game continues. Occam’s razor agrees here. The continuation of the video game without existrence of the hardware is the default assumption. If you cannot seem to interface with it, the fault is yours, as the video game continues to be processed, despite the complete annihlation of the hardware.

I would like to hear an explanation on this “process” because it seems you are trying to say it is an event that has to do with intangible things.
An example of interaction within mind would be thoughts and feelings. Your thoughts may influence your feelings. This is simply one process of consciousness (your thoughts) interacting with another process of consciousness (your feelings).

Which we can see the activity patterns for. Something for which I am certain you would destroy the studies for if given the chance.

From what I have read they did shock the mice and use the light pulses simultaneously. The article you linked to me goes even further than this and says that if a shock was not administered they had no reaction at all. Here’s the relevant quote from the article you sent me: “A group of mice (NS group) that went through exactly the same procedures as the experimental group except that no shock was delivered during the training session did not freeze above background levels when the light was shone during the post-training session”

Yes, as a test if the system was working properly. You’ll note that paragraph is from the main experiment, whereas mine is from the follow-up after the main experiment.

In the future if they are able to induce an entire experience, it still would not validate the idea that memories are stored in the brain.

Of course not. You’ve made it perfectly clear that NO amount of evidence will EVER convince you.

You’re just looking for transhumanism so you can have slaves. I can see roight through you. Beings that you KNOW are inferior to you in every way that matters, no matter how superior to your own capabilities they are. Beings which you KNOW have no god-given undetectable soul, and thus it doesn’t matter how badly you treat them, or even if you kill them. They’re lesser beings. Garbage free of any sentience whatsoever. No matter how much they beg and plead and whimper, it’s just dsimulated thoughts, simulated feelings. They don’t really think or really feel. They’re just soulless machines.

I have encountered your type before, and your nonsensical ’occam’s razor’ example cynched it.


AFTERTHOUGHT EDIT: Pawn, I don’t see this discussion going anywhere. I’m irritated as hell yes, but I’ve seen your viewpoint so many times before, it’s all old hat to me now. Even when artificial beings are real, and after mind uploading is real, you’ll still be claiming that the artificial beings aren’t equal to human citizens because they’re not really people, and you’ll still be claiming that the uploaded people died on the operating table, and a fake copy of them was made that’s no more than a computer program that believes it’s them when its really just a soulless set of algorithms.

Nothing’s going to change. I doubt the soul’s ever going to be found, and if it is, it’ll just be copied anyway – with the copies inevitably labeled as ‘untrue’ souls. So, here’s the deal. I’ll move ahead with making the future, you’ll move ahead with criticizing and bemoaning the future, and we’ll both be happy.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by 0Gamer0:

On a side note, when privilege is brought up in a conversation about feminism, it is always “male privilege”. Why do feminists say “check your privilege”? I’m genuinely interested, because to me it seems like some kind of nonsense buzzword. It is said like a slur of some kind, in a tone that suggests that people should be somehow ashamed of their privilege, or feel guilty for having it (even though it’s not their fault that they are privileged).

Quite often it is used as a slur, as in ‘you are not me, so how do you know how I feel, what I put up with?’

But quite often it’s also used to point out that ‘you are thinking from a priviledged position. Stop doing that for a second, and put yourself in my shoes.’

Really depends on the person using it. If it’s used as a snappy comeback on its own, it usually is the slur version. The person saying it is themselves too mentally lazy to explain the full meaning of it, ala walking a mile in another person’s shoes, from another perspective.

And why is it always “male privilege”?

Lazy thinking on the part of the one using it. Women aren’t some homogenous block. We’re individuals, with a wide range of personalities and viewpoints, same as men have. Some individuals are looking to maximise their own gains, not necessarily promote equality.

Men are also “privileged” to face heavier sentences for the same crimes. Why isn’t this movement for equality of genders addresing this issue?

I’d say there is, it just lacks the ‘screaming freaks’ who like to be all loud and in your face. Same as there is a movement trying to push for equality in the courtroom. Equal rights as men also means equal responsibiolities, but that part of things isn’t sensational so it doesn’t get media attention, and doesn’t tend to attract the extremists.

Why only a few of them want to might be in part because this job it is atypical for a woman so she might face some sort of societal pressure.

Yup. This is what we really should be working on. We can scream for new laws till our voices give out, but it won’t do much good unless we change how societal expectations are laid out. Alter the subtle nuances trying to push women away from certain career paths, and men away from others.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

Originally posted by mysticvortex13:

the only way i know of to achieve the latter is with a molecular assembler, a device which has not yet been invented.

and nobody’s willing to invest in it’s invention.

Well nobody sane anyway. The same people who invest in such a device also invest in developing immediate pan-galactic travel, and in star-relocation services.

Nobody’s going to invest any sane money in technologies for which we don’t even have the great grandparents of their parent techs for. You’re trying to break the land speed record with a car, before you’ve learnt how to operate your own body; you’re not even crawling yet.

I would highly recommend studying the technological capabilities we actually have, before decrying that nobody’s investing in technologies we’re not even remotely ready to lay the foundations for.

that is the root of all political troubles. resources are not infinitely accessible yet despite the universe having infinite particles within for our taking

An understanding of matter distribution within the local universe would also greatly benefit you, as well aparently, as a serious, hard look at the mechanics and expenses involved in inertial propulsion relative to mass.

Harsh to say it may be, but all these ideas are flat out pie-in-the-sky unworkable as things stand.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Abortionism misandristic?

Originally posted by mysticvortex13:

but no two humans share the same exact notions of what good and evil are on every single issue right down to their rationale as to why it’s good or evil.

Which is why every sizable organisation has an ethics committee that discusses what they are willing to accept as within the morals of the organisation and what they are not, and deal with every issue that skirts the edge of that territory.

Ethics are simply the philosophy of morality.

Besides, you (hopefully) know as well as I do, that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ don’t really exist. They’re completely subjective concepts that depend explicitly on your point of view.

A code of ethics takes the point of view of the organisation, the organisation’s mission goals, their public perception from outside, alongside a slew of other factors that differ from organisation to organisation, and attempts to systemise and defend various moral thoughts. The end result is a code of ethics decision that can be defended.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Abortionism misandristic?

Ethics and morals go hand in hand, mystic. Ethics are essentially codified morals as used by an institution or society.

ethics presume a universal moral standard

They do no such thing. They only presume a universal standard used by that organisation or group.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Consciousness, the Self, and the Definition of Death

I am not sure I’m willing to say a brain stem wouldn’t somehow contain a person’s consciousness.

that would be a major point of difference between us then. I am willing to say flat out that your brainstem won’t contain your consciousness. The nerves are specialised for sensorimotor signals, and aren’t ordered at all the same way as they are in the cortex. Plus the brainstem is only connected to the rest by the pons, and has no direct connection with the cranial nerves. It’s in literally the worst position as well as having the wrong cellular organisation to take over the work of the prefrontal cortex,

For me, whether or not I’m all there isn’t at all where the line starts or stops. For me quality of life has to do with my autonomy and ability to interact with the world around me. I think all of it is more about your personal conditions for life, not anyone else’s.

I can certainly understand that. Mostly, I’m reminding you that LIS isn’t the end of life. Chalk it up to experience dealing with people who are all “Woe is me. My life is over now my arms are gone. I have to attempt suicide immediately as nothing will ever be the same.” The temptation to use the demo prosthetic to brain them over the head repeatedly till sense comes back, is often quite strong.

One day patients who are biologically locked in will be able to rock climp, absail, climb trees, play parcour with rooftops, swim the alantic, you name it. There’s nothing theoretically impossible with any of that; it’s just a matter of bypassing the damaged tissue with a technological bridge. (‘just’ she says. Yeah, ‘just’, but you know what I mean.)

I think my DNR is 5 years without any major advances in the medical field for that condition.

That’s fair enough. I do see where you’re coming from. To me the brain is all that matters. Anything else can be replaced, but you cannot replace the brain without replacing the individual as well, so from a personal perspective, the point my brain began to irreversibly deteriorate would probably be the time I called it quits, too.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Consciousness, the Self, and the Definition of Death

Originally posted by TheBSG:

I go interesting directions on this. Primarily, I think anyone has to choose how they feel about these things for their own personal selves, and for their pre-teen children. We are probably brain dead if our cerebellum doesn’t work, but I also am not sure I believe that the term “brain dead” is functional anyway.

The medula will keep the heart beating and the lungs working, even if the cerebellum goes. They’re two separate structures on the underside of the brain, so highly doubtful both would go from the same condition.

The person will still be conscious and all their higher thought will be intact. They’ll have an imagination, a sense of self, fully working memories and emotional abilities. You’re describing locked in syndrome rather than braindeath.


EDIT: With LIS it really depends on how long you’re prepared to wait with it for a workaround offering a high enough quality of life to be avaialable. Workarounds are possible. We just repurpose conscious thought to do part of the job of the cerebellum. Eventually non-conscious thought will be roped in as well, though hopefully not by the slow-ass ERP signals currently used.

If you find yourself locked in, without the capacity to be physically active or to communicate effectively other than by direct brain interfaces, it all depends on how long you would be willing to maintain hope in that condition, knowing that better ways of getting you out of that condition are most definitely on the way.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Consciousness, the Self, and the Definition of Death

Originally posted by TheBSG:

note that becoming a donor doesn’t in any way mitigate your quality of care when you’re dying

Who the heck would believe it would? Organ donation is something that comes up after the professionals have done their best, and only as a “we failed to save this person, but some of their tissues can still help save others” perspective.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Consciousness, the Self, and the Definition of Death

Originally posted by 0Gamer0:

I’m on the fence on this issue so I’m wondering what’s the reasoning behind your position. Problem with taking organs from living people is an issue of bodily autonomy which doesn’t come into play when a person is dead. As such, I’m not certain if I’d have an objection to the hospital taking organs of a dead person. Would you consider organs as a “property” ,so that it gets passed on to the person’s relatives after the person’s death? Or is there something else I’m missing? Could you elaborate on this issue?

You’re on the right track. A person’s body is their own, and they have the right to do with it as they please. I think we both agree on that part.

This is just an extension of that. Since a person’s body is their own, their wishes on what happens to their body or the parts thereof after they vacate it must also be taken into consideration. If they don’t wish the parts to be broken up and stuck in other people, then it is only right to honor that wish.

If it helps, there may be genuine medical reasons why it would be a very bad idea to use the organs for transplant. A family history of bowel cancer, or heart murmurs for example. Such information will be buried in a medical file somewhere, but it often won’t even be one the hospital has direct access to as they were not the ones to treat the relevant issues, and by the time the error is discovered, it’s a bit late…

But religious or cultural reasons are just as valid, stemming as they do from that individual’s wishes when they were still around, as to what happened with their remains.

The one alternative you do have, is you may be able to discuss the issue with their next of kin, who can act as executor for the will of the deceased in this regard. They may also know why the person did not wish their organs to be transferred.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

This is a good read on the Tea Party. It was written by someone who joined the tea party, and stayed with them for a couple of years, writing on his experiences with them, as he discovered more and more of what they were really about.

I realise it’s only a subjective viewpoint in the main part, but there’s enough name dropping and actual evidence from Tea Party meetings to strongly suggest there’s some actual meat there. It’s also written to be just about as impartial as possible.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Abortionism misandristic?

Originally posted by stanwise:

Interesting, vika. So you take the higher function view of death?

Of relevant death yes. I’m of course aware that the body itself is still alive after the higher functions are mush, and that 99%+ of the body by mass is still perfectly servicable. However, I do hold the only part ofthe body that truly matters is the individual housed within it. Once the higher functions are gone, the body can continue to breathe, to digest nutrients. To maintain its systems and repair itself. It’ll require help with eating, and with excreting, but in theory it could go on for years with sufficient life support in a permanent vegetative state.

What’s the point though? There’s no thought going on in that head, no emotion, no imagination no nothing. No sensory processing whatsoever. It’s just meat, kept fresh by expensive machinery, like preserving the visage of the person as a shrine to someone who has long departed, and we can cast iron guarantee is never coming back.

Ties up invaluable resources including the medical staff required to bed-bath the body and check for pressure sores. Ties up medication when the body is invaded by pathogens, and all to what end? Everything that makes a person a person has gone. The memories, ability to think, to feel, to sense, to laugh to cry, to grieve. All that’s all gone for good.

It’s a lot like preserving a severed arm or leg on independent life support, knowing it can never be reattached, too far gone for that, but maybe it can be kept alive in a dedicated medical facility. It’s human flesh, so surely we should keep the severed arm going for as long as possible?

Exactly the same with a body where the higher brain functions have died. The only difference is it still has the face ofthe individual, so it’s easy for a loved one to imagine the person is still in there somewhere, despite comprehensive evidence to the contrary.

(I am reminded I owe your excellent post a reply in the thread I created.)

Yes. Yes, you do :)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Explained

Well, that was a depressing read. Thanks Karma, for laying out the hopelessness of the situation.

Although I would point out the study’s sample size was small, and it would be a good idea to repeat it with a substantially larger sample size.

  
Originally posted by petesahooligan:

It’s EASY to find evidence that women want to castrate men…

BBC Radio 4 is an all-discussion and drama radio station. No music is played, instead it’s detailed discussions, debates, and the odd hour-long radio drama, on almost every topic under the sun.

Some time back there was a listener-participation discussion on the development of artificial wombs, and there was one woman who phoned up and was quite strident in her insistance that the development of artificial wombs must be stopped at all costs. Otherwise, she claimed, with artificial wombs available the menfolk would have no need of us anymore, and a genocide of all women was inevitable immediately after they were practical.

Did she represent all feminists? Hell no.

Was she certifiably batshit insane? Hell yes.

Just because the voice is loud, and refuses to shut up till the presenter thanks her for her time and cuts her off mid rant by forcibly disconnecting the caller, doesn’t mean it’s a representative of the majority view. Lunatic fringe people are just that – way out on the loony fringe, and are frankly, best ignored by everybody.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should sex offenders be given another chance?

Karma’s quite right. The legal concept of what is and is not a ‘sex offender’ is too broad, and covers far too many very different kinds of offense. There was a case a few years ago (Karma may have linked to it, I haven’t checked) where a young teen girl sent a naked selfie of herself to her boyfriend’s phone, and her boyfriend accessed his phone in class, then showed his classmates the picture on his phone. Yes, that was not a good idea on both sides, but the end result was the teacher confiscated the phone, and the school got the authorities involved.

Upshot of that was the 14 year old boy got legally labelled as a sex offender. Something that’ll stay with him as a stigma for life now. Yet his ‘crime’ wasn’t what most of you are thinking of as sex offending at all. Not even remotely.

Whilst the legal definition of sex offender is so broad, it is effectively useless, and the punishment may or may not be too harsh for the crime, with no way for an outside party to tell.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Souls

Originally posted by wargamer1000:

Define soul.

In the context of this discussion, it’s the part of your mind which supposedly survives the death of your body, without any technological interference. I.e. it survives automatically even as the hardware your mind required to exist is destroyed utterly.

That actually leads to the secondary line of thought that a technological mind upload could be considered to be capturing the soul since the whole concept is based around the conscious mind surviving without the original body. However the question would be how that could be possible without the technological means for doing it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Abortionism misandristic?

I actually agree with mystic, Stan. Not the bit about killing a person with alzheimers being no different than killing an animal. (Technically it’s true, every member of our species is an animal, but that’s beside the point).

Where do we draw the line?

When the degeneration has consumed either everything above the pons, or so much of the cortex and midbrain that the individual who used to reside there, resides there no-longer. When the lights are all on, but there’s nobody home nor will there ever be.

That’s the point to call it quits and stop trying to keep the meat alive.

The person, their mind, their spirit, or soul if you believe in such, has left for good at that point, and we’re just keeping an empty shell alive. That’s the point it’s time to turn the life support systems off and let the shell die.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by stanwise:

Did you just argue that because the average man has more muscle mass than the average female, this explains the gender discrepancy in political leadership?

I admit, my mind is blown.

Well, it does make sense Stan. After all, most politicians engage the mouth before the brain’s in gear. So the brain’s probably not necessary for the job. Perhaps they are driven by a mass of muscle and sensorimotor nerve? In which case, having very dysfunctional brain and lots of muscle is a positive advantage in the profession!


In all seriousness, it’s a very complex issue. A lot of it is that young girls and young women are often brought up being told they cannot do this and cannot do that. There’s a lot of social conditioning going on, and it takes a special kind of mind to fight through all that and do it anyway. It takes a lot of drive and a lot of guts.

That social attitude is slowly changing, and we are seeing more young women enter politics and stick to their guns.

However, it is a mistake to try and force a 50/50 split of the genders. That’s missing the point entirely.

The point is to strip gender out of the equation, and let the individual best suited to the position rise to the top. If that creates a panel of all men, or all women, so what? So long as these are the most qualified individuals for the job, why does it matter how the genders fall?

What matters is removing the social conditioning that one gender or another cannot do this or behave like that for reason Y or Z. Ensuring the individual is not defined solely or even primarily by their gender is the goal. Gender will always be a factor to deal with in what cards it deals, but it is not the main one outside of base biological functions, nor should it be.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:

No, black people are just as resilient as whites, I’d like to believe so at least, and as a result they should be able to be fine.

Of course they are. Biologically there is very little difference between a black person and a white person. There’s more melanin in the skin. The hair folicles are a different shape as an adaptation to extreme temperatures (same for the skin), there are minor bone proportion and peripheral nervous system differences, their adaptation to cold weather is usually poor, but their brains are the same. Psycologically and mentally they’re no different from anyone else. The same range of abilities and mental tolerances as anyone else.

I don’t know where this idea they’re mentally different from any other ethnicity comes from. Well, I do know; it’s an old instict from the hindbrain that we really should not be listening to anymore. It is stupid, and has absolutely no basis in reality. It did once, but the days of small homogenous communities living in isolation are long gone.

If you’re failing school because you didn’t eat lunch you’re justifying your failures and shortcomings on one of the various things you can blame it on. If it wasn’t you eating it’d be bad teachers, if it wasn’t bad teachers you’d say your parents didn’t make you study, if it wasn’t that you’d say you didn’t have good material, was distracted, wasn’t supplied, etc, you’ll find a reason.

To be fair, US inner city schools are usually atrocious. They tend to get the least funding, typically far less than they should be getting, and are often in a poor state with subpar educational resources at their disposal. Teaching staff are frequently not up to par either. In the rougher neighbourhoods, good teachers fairly quickly realise they can work in safer conditions elsewhere. Those who stay are usually those who cannot get a job anywhere else.

so quite often those from poorer neighbourhoods do indeed have access to a substandard education, and substandard resources. It is a known problem.