That's a fair point. I don't think Ford should say he's going to do x, y, and z unless he actually intends to do x, y, and z when negotiations fail. But I still hold to my original point that Canada shouldn't just do whatever the US demands even if the US has made credible threats. I think that kind of strategy just leads to more and more increasing threats because other countries know know they will give in.
That's why you negotiate instead of making idle threats against a superpower.
Maybe I'm missing context. What specific threats are you referring to? Canada did retaliatory tariffs, but that's not an idle threat if they actually did it.
If Canada gives in now because they have more to lose, then everyone knows they can just take advantage of Canada. That's why it's not a good long term strategy to give in to threats, even if the threat is significant.
It's not rage bait if it's motivated by genuine discussion rather than a desire to enrage people. You specifically phrase things in a way for the purpose of making people mad. If you want, I can rephrase your titles/posts for you so they mean the same thing but aren't rage bait.
Is it possible for an opinion to be socially right wing (defined as the values of the American republican party) and NOT have it to be Rage Bait?
If so, then give examples.
Not saying I agree with all of those, but they are socially conservative and not rage bait if defended sincerely.
I am more worried about AI reaching point of singularity.
"Technological Singularity: A hypothetical future event where artificial intelligence surpasses human cognitive capability, enters a loop of self-improvement, and accelerates technological growth beyond human control or comprehension."
Yes, that's the point I've been trying to make when I talk about ASI being an existential threat to humanity. Basically AGI (AI that can do anything a human can do, including program) could become superintelligent within a matter of hours.
This specific scenario seems like more of a case of "the AI was dumb" than a case of "the AI was working toward a specific goal and wanted to kill humanity." If anything though, I think it is further evidence that there are plenty of avenues for ASI to harm humanity, if harming humanity ever helps it achieve some particular goal.
I especially like the new "Opinions" section. Whoever came up with that is a genius.
That was Kohai. It's based on a similar thing on ddo. We were a bit conflicted about adding it earlier seeing as it might attract the lowest common denominator, but the user base here seems a bit more mature.
RemyBrown wrote:
The difference between Lindsay Clancy and Jeffery Epstein is that Jeffery Epstein would never be sadistic enough to rape his own kids.
Clancy didn't rape her own kids either.
Something could be honorable and moral, but I think it's circumstance-dependent. Honor itself can be a contradiction, because what if the leader tells you to attack an unarmed opponent?
What did you change? Don't want to spend a ton of time poring over it.
If your justification for banning sex isn't that it's not consensual, why wouldn't you also want to ban anyone who's under 21 from having sex at all?
I didn't see what you changed, maybe it was one or two lines?
I mean, given that we're not preventing 18 year olds from having sex with each other, does your plan really solve the defects problem?
Couldn't the same be said for any age? What makes 21 special?
SatanLucy wrote:
As far as I remember, at age 18 I was extremely stupid. The fact that other 18 year olds were impressed by my intelligence at the time, tells me that they were even dumber than me.
I mean this is likely true, but I'd really love to see an age of consent discussion that uses emperical studies instead of rely on anecdotes and stereotypes. I guess I'm part of the problem for not providing any studies right now, but maybe another time.
Christian Nationalism is un-Americann
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [...]"
Depending on the implications of "preserving and promoting Christianity," I think Christian nationalism may or may not be unconstitutional. Politicians can and have justified a lot of political policies ex post facto by saying they "uphold Christian values" (anything from helping the poor to banning abortions). That doesn't automatically make the policy unconstitutional though. Additionally, amending the constitution is itself constitutional, which makes designating things as unamerican this way a bit fraught. And even if we could, I'm not sure American-ness is a great proxy for policies being good or bad. Slavery was at one point American and constitutionally protected.
And all that being said, I probably agree that separation of church and state is necessary to avoid a lot of problems. But not due to it being American; I think that's dangerously close to trying to get an ought from an is.
I was wrong. It's this one primarily.
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/debatecraft/posts/z8/what-questions-would-you-like-to-see-on-next-coc-survey
I believe community surveys are linked in one of the pinned threads under DebateCraft.com category.
Sure, I'm fine with some govt intervention
That's not how the community voted to treat offensive speech.
If you are logged out offensive threads don't show up
No, then more people could be banned.
Incels (in his mind) want to rape women but don't because of the law.
Again did he explicitly say this? And if he said it about incels not all men then it's not enough to be bannable.
Then it would be even more subjective. Anything someone might consider offensive could be considered harassment.
Did he explicitly say men are assumed to want to rape women, or is that your interpretation of his words?
The majority of mods are left of center, so it's going to be biased against conservatives.
I'm aware that bias may be an issue, but "reasonable person" was the most concrete compromise we could come to.
RemyBrown wrote:
The CoC has 2 prohibited sections; merge them.
But what I found was:
In gray areas, a post would be considered a personal attack if a reasonable person would consider the post primarily motivated by an attempt to offend or attack the target user, rather than an earnest belief that may happen to also be offensive.
Define, "reasonable person" or eliminate this sentence from the CoC.
It's hard to strictly define but it was as close to an agreement the mods could come to without seeing a specific case. Basically we would decide on a case by case basis by majority vote using our own interpretations of "reasonable person."
The offensive stuff (unless you add more bc it's not a comprehensive list) is
What you listed is the bannable stuff (aside from defending stuff in the abstract), not the offensive stuff.
I don't really see how someone with bunch of money would live a worse life by donating some of it
This isn't really anti-employment then, it's pro-charity. Implies Bezos should squeeze as much out of his employees as he can and then redistribute to those who need it more. And that if a business owner isn't wealthy, it's fine for them to hire people and not offer more if it would significantly affect their own quality of life.
