"Straight white men are having wrong opinions about TV shows," it's something like "Bisexual trans women are hypocritical for not wanting China to annex New Zealand."
When have I ever criticized a group for an opinion on a movie?
The first quote is something the Guardian would say, the second is something you would say.
The LGBT ppl on TikTok are the main ones doing this.
I guess if you've seen it then it must be out there. I've just never seen what you're describing so it felt out of the blue to see it taken as a given.
Remy posts are just the opposite of a Guardian article with the same mad libs format. Instead of a headline like, "Straight white men are having wrong opinions about TV shows," it's something like "Bisexual trans women are hypocritical for not wanting China to annex New Zealand."
They will say, "AI art is real art" and then want to ban data centers
Your rage bait is getting lazy, dude. Who supports AI art but wants to ban data centers? And what do LGBTQ ppl have to do with this?
One more ultrarated debate needs a vote before it can start. I believe you haven't voted on that one yet.
https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/bn/resolved-the-justices-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-ought-to-be-term-limited
Shining wrote:
Leave it to twitter rightoids to have some of the most insane takes on this election. I doubt the Dems can capitalize on this win, but Republicans are going to spin their wheels in the mud and probably lose in 2028. Starting the Iran war was retarded and its unbelievable that people genuinely like the likes of Rubio and Hegseth.
I could understand not liking Rubio's politics, but putting him next to Hegseth is a stretch.
If you go to profile then badges and ask it to assign you one, it should link to the debate in the notification.
E gives me the rest, or at least most of them depending on what counts as a skill.
I feel like I'd be repeating myself at this point (not saying you haven't addressed my arguments, just that I don't think there's much ground we haven't covered) or just be posting a wall of possibly nitpicking, and I do get why you might see my position that way.
I should mention, you have the perfect opportunity to submit your view to the argument database, where I have also elaborated my position in a lot of words. Haven't been able to spur much activity there, but it's always open.
It's still a relatively arbitrary choice of which the macro structures matter. The fetus' body is a macro structure that develops consciousness. I guess the problem could be avoided by strictly defining the structures that matter, but somehow that feels arbitrary to me. Maybe that does seem like splitting hairs though.
The line for sufficient architecture here seems arbitrary to me. Comatose people don't have all the neurons or structures needed to be conscious or they wouldn't be comatose. They have more of them, maybe even most, but there are still stages of development in many cases that need to happen to rebuild the full architecture.
The complete absence of the biological capacity for experience means no internal state can be recovered as no subjective experience has begun to exist.
I think we've debated this "capacity" standard before, but my biggest problem with it is that it seems rather arbitrary. An unconscious person could wake up, which doesn't take much, but that's still a biological change. With comatose people with significant brain damage the changes needed to realize the capacity for consciousness are a bit more significant. Once we're saying people can have the capacity for consciousness even if biological processes will need to occur to realize it, I don't think we can say with confidence that the fetus does not meet this standard.
no subjective experience has begun to exist.
Is the standard past consciousness/experiences then? If yes, then I think this raises dilemmas with a hypothetical comatose infant, but some people are willing to bite the bullet on that.
Looks fine I guess. Although with AI code now, the bar for super impressive code is higher.
When your a woman and have any possibility of being in that position/circumstances, then you will have validity of opinion
There are pregnant women who are against abortion. Hypothetically speaking, if one of them was saying all the exact same things I was saying (and many of them are), then how would you respond to them? The argument still exists and is out there, regardless of whatever issues you have with me as an individual. If your position is correct, then in theory at least, you should be capable of rebutting the argument.
A child is a born-out human individual independent from the womans body.
A child is biological offspring, which includes stages in utero.
A fetus is an organism of the womans body.
A fetus is an organism depending on the woman's body, but also a child.
That's why there would need to be some verification or punishment method in place to enforce the treaty. It's difficult, but different people have written about how it could be done. The sale of compute, for example, could be monitored and limited.
SatanLucy wrote:
Do you think this scenario is avoidable?
Maybe if we can make a global treaty to slow down frontier AI development. That doesn't seem super popular at the moment though.
High gas prices help to combat climate change
It's better if the high price comes from taxes on gas though, cause then the money can actually be spent on things. If something gets harder to produce, there is more deadweight loss.
the moment someone says, “Hey; there are a lot of AI companies already in existence, investing in this one in particular is a waste of money; it won’t beat the bigger models.”, THEN carney censors you (and the thing with censorship is the only person who knows they got censored is the censored individual and the censoring government).
So how do you know about this? Are you the censored individual? You don't seem very censored, and you're not even in Carney's jurisdiction.
Fair.
"We only wish trump was less effective enacting harm to the country"
Said by some side show clown libertarian
There are people who want him to be more effective at harming the country? Aside from his supporters? Not sure if they count though, cause they wouldn't consider it harm.
This is about the most-doomed-to-fail high-effort low-impact schemes one could come up with.
I agree, but are we fine with a system that allows someone to submit a few fraudulent votes with enough effort? Most elections aren't won by single-digit vote counts, but some of them are if we look beyond just presidential elections.
This strategy takes 2 people to get up to 8 votes.
So, 6 more votes than they should be allowed to get?
Assuming, for the sake of argument, this were employed in 2020, you would need something like 1.5 million people to achieve the ~6 million votes Biden won the popular vote by.
Al Gore lost Florida by 537 votes. Henry Clay won Maryland by 4 votes. Grover Cleveland's victory was decided by 1,149 individual votes in New York.
Libertarians love government shutdowns. If anything, they're the only people for whom it makes sense to support dysfunction in the government. I actually think Trump's biggest problem is that he's a bit too effective at enacting policies harmful to the country.
I'd probably be more disturbed if you were excited by the idea of Hell.
If God can enjoy hell, why can't person A?
Because given the context of the rest of your posts and the fact that you are converting because you dislike people, I suspect you would not be excited for virtuous reasons.
Me not wanting others to burn in hell forever is me being nice.
Well, it's good that you're nice. Step in the right direction.
In response to Trump basically crashing the market a few times, is was said by many that people who voted for him should have seen this coming. Maybe not that exact tariff policy, but surely ones very similar to it. I'm skeptical of this though, because if it was obvious that Trump's policies would cause the market to go down, then this should have been priced in, and the market should have crashed as soon as he was elected. Instead, it went up significantly. You could say that investors are just dumb, but the market naturally weeds out dumb investors as they keep losing money on investments. It's extremely difficult to predict market movements, and only a few people in the world can reliably do it. If you knew the market was about to go down, you could just short it and wait for Trump to do something stupid. Or at least withdraw money from the market during his term.
Now, maybe the argument is that all Trump's actions that didn't affect the market were predictable, but I'm skeptical of that as well. His other policies don't seem much more predictable than the tariff stuff. And the tariff policies specifically are one that a lot of people were saying we should have seen coming. I'm open to the idea that we should have anticipated some tariff-themed policy, but not one that would move the market unless we were smarter than Warren Buffett.
One look at his theology is enough to tell me he’s the biggest phony in Texas.
A lot of people with that theology genuinely believe it though. Wouldn't be surprised if he does as well.
I don’t love god; I just view him as better than most people.
I mean, presumably you care about other people enough to not like the idea of Hell. And to be honest, I'd probably be more disturbed if you were excited by the idea of Hell. I don't think people are "good," strictly speaking, but hating them doesn't punish them, it punishes you.
Then I'm confused by what you mean by "I've converted to Christianity." You don't worship Jesus?
Then I realized how many liberals who thought that would want to burn others in hell forever for things like misgendering, any comment they deem as misogynistic, etc (and they still want worship). You see how many trans people and women want men to worship them (trans men want normal men to admire them (aka worship))?
Jesus wants you to submit to him out of love, not out of hatred. If this is your entire reason for becoming a Christian, you're not likely to stick with it for very long.
I agree but I doubt Trump would allow him to distance himself
Rubio's biggest chance is if Trump dies. Which is why it's surprising to me that anyone on the left would want Trump's death. I think it's a minority of Dems, but even if you hate the guy, I think it's pretty clear he's a massive liability to Republicans.
it will be little Marco Rubio, he will lose by a smaller margin than JD will lose by
I could see a path to victory for Rubio, but it depends on a lot of things. If Republicans get stomped in the midterms, they may be less able to shoot themselves in the foot, and when bad stuff does happen, the Democrats can be blamed. If Rubio can distance himself from Trump and the challenger is someone like AOC who is more polarizing, he might have the upper hand.
