will ai ever get so complex as to deserve rights?

[raaaid]

or even if ai gets as complex as an human intelligence it deserves no right on this vein?

http://img.blogdecine.com/2011/02/ai-f3.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QejONbEspeM

[Das Attorney]

Well if it's ever that intelligent, then it can make it's own mind up whether it deserves 'rights'....

[badfinger]

Well if it's ever that intelligent, then it can make it's own mind up whether it deserves 'rights'....

IT will probably want to be a lawyer.

Binky9

[Skoshi Tiger]

It would decide our fate in a microsecond

Hmmmm! Not Cool!

[tk471138]

as far as im concerned aliens robots AI has one right when im around and that is the right to get killed by me...i hate robots aliens and AI and will not tolerate them and i suggest you people should think the same way should aliens land immediately kill them, the same with robots or AI before they get a foot hold....robots, aliens, and AI want one thing and that is to dispose of us...



the AI or robots only have what ever rights their creator wants to endow them with...

[KG26_Alpha]

as far as im concerned aliens robots AI has one right when im around and that is the right to get killed by me...i hate robots aliens and AI and will not tolerate them and i suggest you people should think the same way should aliens land immediately kill them, the same with robots or AI before they get a foot hold....robots, aliens, and AI want one thing and that is to dispose of us...



the AI or robots only have what ever rights their creator wants to endow them with...

:rolleyes:



AI rules were laid out in the SF world, the 3 rules went like this from

Isaac Asimov

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

I think a few movies have used those laws from Asimov.

I'm not a SF expert I remember reading Asimov years ago and it rang a bell with me.

[ZaltysZ]

Isaac Asimov

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

The first law has a fault - a possible deadend, because that law does not cover situation in which dilemma may arise: saving one human causes harm to another, so saving violates the law, but doing nothing violates it too. Undefined behavior anyone? :-) That is the nastiest thing could happen in software.

[swiss]

as far as im concerned aliens robots AI has one right when im around and that is the right to get killed by me...i hate robots aliens and AI and will not tolerate them and i suggest you people should think the same way should aliens land immediately kill them, the same with robots or AI before they get a foot hold....robots, aliens, and AI want one thing and that is to dispose of us...



the AI or robots only have what ever rights their creator wants to endow them with...

lol, what do you reckon?

[KG26_Alpha]

The first law has a fault - a possible deadend, because that law does not cover situation in which dilemma may arise: saving one human causes harm to another, so saving violates the law, but doing nothing violates it too. Undefined behavior anyone? :-) That is the nastiest thing could happen in software.

Not really because they are not causing the "harm" in the first place.

[SlipBall]

:rolleyes:



AI rules were laid out in the SF world, the 3 rules went like this from

Isaac Asimov

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

I think a few movies have used those laws from Asimov.

I'm not a SF expert I remember reading Asimov years ago and it rang a bell with me.


Why does Sarah Connor live in fear :confused:

[ZaltysZ]

Not really because they are not causing the "harm" in the first place.

If robot does not prevent the "saving" (what causes the harm) from happening, it will be guilty for practicing harmful inaction. :) However, if it does prevent the "saving", result will be a harm caused to other human being.

[raaaid]

i think now we can give FREE WILL and therefore a spirit to the equivalent of litle animals

the key is in the true random numbergenerator chips

maybe in 20-30 years some people will get a high from abusing as sentient as a human ai

this videoclips deals on that what is strange for its still far away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6pNvtOWCSo

[swiss]

Why does Sarah Connor live in fear :confused:

Why do you think mankind deserves to live at all?

[raaaid]

thats an strange question like why hienas or vultures are allowed to exist

i maybe so deluded as to talk with god but not so insane to believe myself him or as him as to judge

[major_setback]

:rolleyes:



AI rules were laid out in the SF world, the 3 rules went like this from

Isaac Asimov

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

I think a few movies have used those laws from Asimov.

I'm not a SF expert I remember reading Asimov years ago and it rang a bell with me.


'Computer disagrees with law 1.
Computer disagrees with law 2 as it is now invalid because law 1 was incorrect.
(Re: law 3) computer must protect its own existence and as neither law 1 or 2 are now valid -- kill all the humans!'
:-)




.

[SlipBall]

Why do you think mankind deserves to live at all?


Because of the laws of evolution and fire power:)... we are at the top for now. Our future is not cut in stone though, it may very well belong to the Bots one day.

[WTE_Galway]

Raaid ... watch Caprica ...

[Verhängnis]

:rolleyes:



AI rules were laid out in the SF world, the 3 rules went like this from

Isaac Asimov

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

I think a few movies have used those laws from Asimov.

I'm not a SF expert I remember reading Asimov years ago and it rang a bell with me.

The most recent that comes to mind in i,Robot, some elements are based on Asimov's book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_(film)

[WTE_Galway]

The most recent that comes to mind in i,Robot, some elements are based on Asimov's book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_(film)

This issue is the also entire point of the Data character existing in SNG.

AI is also explored in many SNG episodes through various holodeck characters becoming sentient.

The Voyager episode "prototype" is also relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_%28Star_Trek:_Voyager%29

Then you have the entire Terminator series of movie and followup TV series starring Summer Glau who played River in Firefly.

Not to mention the Matrix trilogy.

More recently the issue of AI being the enemy of mankind which was raised in BSG gets dealt with in more detail in the BSG prequel Caprica.

Plus lets not forget 2001 A Space Odyssey and the attempts of Hal to destroy the humans.

This is not a new theme nor has Raaid come up with any new ideas.

[SlipBall]

Memristor evolution

If Williams is right we should start seeing memristic memory devices in the commercial market soon, within 1 to 5 years. [3] Some skeptics claim that other technologies have more promise, like quantum computers, light-based computers, and IBM's 'Racetrack Memory (http://www.crn.com/storage/207200264;jsessionid=WA5ZCMTDQOX5LQE1GHPSKHWATMY32 JVN),' etc. If so, then even better! But if Chua's contention that nanoscale devices automatically bring in unavoidable memristic functions, then it looks like no matter what kind of memory gets used, we will be forced to contend with memristance. So what kind of timeline should we expect if memristors do rule the computer world? No one knows but for speculation sake I think it could go something like this:

POSSIBLE INVENTIONS UTILIZING MEMRISTORS TIME1. memory for cameras, cell phones, iPods, iPads, etc. 1 to 5 years2. universal memory replacing hard drives, RAM, flash, etc. in all computer devices 5 to 10 years 3. complex self learning neural networks and hybrid transistor/memristor circuits 5 to 15 years 4. memristic logic circuits on par with CPUs and other transistor circuits 15 to 20 years 5. advanced artificial thinking brains 20 to 30 years? 6. artificial conscious brains ?7. memory and brains capable of living millions of years ?8. duty-cycle artificial conscious beings capable of interstellar travel ?

[Screamadelica]

Watch "Bladerunner", covers a lot of these issues. Nexus 6 Replicants - "more human than human" as the Tyrell Corporation advertises. ;)

[Les]

Just keep the manipulative buggers away from the nukes! :grin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRt-KHGLxMY

[KG26_Alpha]

or even if ai gets as complex as an human intelligence it deserves no right on this vein?

http://img.blogdecine.com/2011/02/ai-f3.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QejONbEspeM

Watch "Bladerunner", covers a lot of these issues. Nexus 6 Replicants - "more human than human" as the Tyrell Corporation advertises. ;)

Errmmmm

[swiss]

Because of the laws of evolution and fire power:)... we are at the top for now. Our future is not cut in stone though, it may very well belong to the Bots one day.

Still no clear reason why we deserve to live.

Once in a while, even nature gets lost.

[WTE_Galway]

Still no clear reason why we deserve to live.

Once in a while, even nature gets lost.


lol ... or as a friend of mine puts it: " If we are made in God's image then God must be pretty evil and corrupt."

[tk471138]

Still no clear reason why we deserve to live.

Once in a while, even nature gets lost.

why do you need a reason to live??




also do you deserve to live?

[swiss]

why do you need a reason to live??

Because this is how nature works - you serve as nutrition supply for the next higher predator.
Damn shame we dont have any above us.


also do you deserve to live?

I honestly believe roughly 3 to 4 billions people don't deserve to live, the remaining rest can screw up flora and fauna on this planet bad enough.
What makes you think I care which team I would be in?
I don't.
I also believe a decent war(which I may, or may not survive) that decimates population to 50% wouldn't be such a horrible idea.

[SlipBall]

Well Swiss there are certainly too many of us, a subject that is not discussed very often. War would not be the answer though, family planning would be and not by abortion.

[Igo kyu]

I also believe a decent war(which I may, or may not survive) that decimates population to 50% wouldn't be such a horrible idea.
We probably can't have one of those now though. Any big war these days would be very polluting and would cut down the fertility of the Earth more than it would cut human population, making things overall more out of balance than they were at the start.

Family planning is also paradoxical, natural selection opposes it by definition, so the following generations will give the practice up. Famine or disease is probably what will get us.

[SlipBall]

We probably can't have one of those now though. Any big war these days would be very polluting and would cut down the fertility of the Earth more than it would cut human population, making things overall more out of balance than they were at the start.

Family planning is also paradoxical, natural selection opposes it by definition, so the following generations will give the practice up. Famine or disease is probably what will get us.

Or a meteorite

[tk471138]

Because this is how nature works - you serve as nutrition supply for the next higher predator.
Damn shame we dont have any above us.




I honestly believe roughly 3 to 4 billions people don't deserve to live, the remaining rest can screw up flora and fauna on this planet bad enough.
What makes you think I care which team I would be in?
I don't.
I also believe a decent war(which I may, or may not survive) that decimates population to 50% wouldn't be such a horrible idea.



ah yes one of these "the world is over populated idiots" why dont you go kill yourself...i mean if you really believe that the earth is overpopulated why dont you do it...o yea you dont really believe it...its just a vehicle for control freaks to impose regulations and rules on the people of the planet

alot of "elites" feel that way....even going on record saying things like "if i were to come back {reincarnated) i would want to come back as a disease to kill billions"

or bill gates on record saying he is using vaccines to LOWER population (arent vaccines supposed to save lives?)


o yea its all a fraud that only idiots buy into...its too bad these fools dont put their money where their mouth is and off themselves...but they dont really believe what they are saying...

here is a hint to all the retards....the earth is not over populated... the problem is that the earths resources are NOT evenly distributed...


but again if you idiots really thought the world was over populated you would kill yourself...
its just like al gore...he dosent really believe in global warming he is just using that as a vehicle to gain power and wealth...

[tk471138]

Well Swiss there are certainly too many of us, a subject that is not discussed very often. War would not be the answer though, family planning would be and not by abortion.

if you really believe that world is over populated why dont you kill yourself...please do it no one would care or miss you....

go on do it...i mean if you really believe that you would...but its just a stupid meme...


all these guys having fantasies about killing 1/2 -2/3 of the earths population you are so tough...next time your family is all in one place together i hope a drone bombs you group of idiots....

[tk471138]

Because this is how nature works - you serve as nutrition supply for the next higher predator.
Damn shame we dont have any above us.




I honestly believe roughly 3 to 4 billions people don't deserve to live, the remaining rest can screw up flora and fauna on this planet bad enough.
What makes you think I care which team I would be in?
I don't.
I also believe a decent war(which I may, or may not survive) that decimates population to 50% wouldn't be such a horrible idea.

r u the anti christ?? what kind of nonhuman piece of garbage would say that a "decent war" that kills 50% of the earth isnt a "bad idea"


seriously you are such a piece of crap you deserve to die along with everyone in your family....i have taken craps that deserve to exist more than you and your family....

if you really think 3-4 billion dont deserve to live perhaps you should start killing now...

here is an idea...perhaps if humans focused less on destroying the earth with war and more on production and distributing the earths resources...but nope we need war we need to run combustion engines 24-7, defoliants, as eisenhower stated every dollar spend on military industrial complex represents a starving naked individual who could have other wise have been fed and clothed....


idiots have been saying the world was overpopulated since roman times when the global population was 190 million...

the world population is likely to level out or plateau as countries industrialize family size gets smaller...

Just watch "overpopulation" will be used as the justification for future genocides...

[raaaid]

ive been all my life thinking as im a good guy most people must be so as well

well im finding out now age 38 most people are utter idiots and really mean who think it would be good you and i and a lot mored died so theres more for them

when i become a teacher ill teach well and fail noone, im noones judge but myself

[swiss]

r u the anti christ??

1. Try not to post while you're drunk.
2. I'm not the anti christ(at least not that I know of) - but I have come to believe you're a die hard Christian.

what kind of nonhuman piece of garbage would say that a "decent war" that kills 50% of the earth isnt a "bad idea"


A rational one.



the world population is likely to level out or plateau as countries industrialize family size gets smaller...

Indeed, this is possible. There was an article covering this issue in a recent volume of NG - we're only still growing due to some countries. Among them was Brasil, India and Pakistan plus a belt in Africa going from North to South.
(Rem: The Chengs were not(!) among them)

here is a hint to all the retards....the earth is not over populated... the problem is that the earths resources are NOT evenly distributed...

Bro, we're NOT discussing the question how to feed the earth's population or how to fight famine - this issue could be solved, theoretically - if I remember correctly we could feed up to 13 billion people.
The question is: Do we really want that?
Resources are always limited, just imagine in how much destruction of our planet(well, not the planet but it's F&F) this will result!
Do you honestly believe we're that much the pride of creation we could justify that?

The major unsolved issue is the lack of old age provision in those countries, so they rely or their children to feed them during their final stage.
It's in a way perversely funny we have a financial system to solve this problem - but it relies on population growth too and will crash in the absence of it.
Snowball systems rock, don't they?

ah yes one of these "the world is over populated idiots" why dont you go kill yourself...i mean if you really believe that the earth is overpopulated why dont you do it...o yea you dont really believe it...its just a vehicle for control freaks to impose regulations and rules on the people of the planet

Thanks for the name calling.
I must ask you again how you came to the conclusion your suggestion never crossed my mind?
It did, and still does. :)

On the other hand I think not reproducing and trying to change people perspective of the issue is more result oriented than your suggestion.

[swiss]

ive been all my life thinking as im a good guy most people must be so as well

well im finding out now age 38 most people are utter idiots and really mean who think it would be good you and i and a lot mored died so theres more for them

when i become a teacher ill teach well and fail noone, im noones judge but myself

I wonder who would employ a stoned teacher on anti depressives. :confused:
Are you sure you're even capable of comprehensive reading?

As:
a lot mored died so theres more for them

... is utterly wrong.

It was
a lot mored died so there would be less of us (all) left.

I, and iirc not anyone in this thread, ever made a selection. :cool:

[MB_Avro_UK]

raaaaid....

my brain is now bleeding..;)

[tk471138]

1. Try not to post while you're drunk.
2. I'm not the anti christ(at least not that I know of) - but I have come to believe you're a die hard Christian.



A rational one.




Indeed, this is possible. There was an article covering this issue in a recent volume of NG - we're only still growing due to some countries. Among them was Brasil, India and Pakistan plus a belt in Africa going from North to South.
(Rem: The Chengs were not(!) among them)



Bro, we're NOT discussing the question how to feed the earth's population or how to fight famine - this issue could be solved, theoretically - if I remember correctly we could feed up to 13 billion people.
The question is: Do we really want that?
Resources are always limited, just imagine in how much destruction of our planet(well, not the planet but it's F&F) this will result!
Do you honestly believe we're that much the pride of creation we could justify that?

The major unsolved issue is the lack of old age provision in those countries, so they rely or their children to feed them during their final stage.
It's in a way perversely funny we have a financial system to solve this problem - but it relies on population growth too and will crash in the absence of it.
Snowball systems rock, don't they?



Thanks for the name calling.
I must ask you again how you came to the conclusion your suggestion never crossed my mind?
It did, and still does. :)

On the other hand I think not reproducing and trying to change people perspective of the issue is more result oriented than your suggestion.



im not christian...im of no religion i think religions are stupid and a scam...

guess what hitler thought his final solution was rational....and he didnt even think about killing 50% of the worlds population....even to hitler that would have been beyond extreme...

seriously if you think the world is overpopulated start locally...make a nuke in your garage and go to the capital city of your country...you can make the change that you want to see..

bill gates has your old age question solved as well...you see you can kill grandma and hire 10 teachers....combine that with his plan to use vaccines to lower population (his statement not mine) there you go...isnt bill gates a great guy!!! throws money around and the media swoons over him...while he talks about using vaccines (which conveniently go mostly to brown people and poor people) to lower population and killing the elderly to make more resources for the rest of us....

[swiss]

Hitler?
What comparison it that?
He never thought of reducing the population, his plan was to change the race of worlds population.
Actually you could draw parallels to your argumentation - he thought Arians were superior to all other ethnics, your argument is that man is superior to anything "below" us.
My point is: We're not. We're nothing but super smart(at least that is what we think we are), Apes - animals.
This fact doesn't entitle us to value the disease like spreading of our species higher than the life of all the other creatures who have to vanish for it.

btw: You may want to provide sources for your Bill Gates quote

seriously if you think the world is overpopulated start locally...make a nuke in your garage and go to the capital city of your country...you can make the change that you want to see..

Great input, thx.
Isn't that basically what I had suggested at the beginning of this discourse? :grin:

[raaaid]

here in spain education is public to become a teacher you pass exams and so far i passed all exams, and im not in antidepresants but have 1/50 dosis of antipsicotics

anyway my comment was not due to you swiss but i got pieced off due to meeting an abusive teacher this morning

edit:

anyway swiss youre not making sense on the one hand you say mankind dont deserve to live(i guess mankind refers to hitler not gandhi) on the ohter hand you say we have to survive to whatever prize including a massive crime

[swiss]

anyway swiss youre not making sense on the one hand you say mankind dont deserve to live(i guess mankind refers to hitler not gandhi) on the ohter hand you say we have to survive to whatever prize including a massive crime

Huh?
on the ohter hand you say we have to survive
No, we don't.

[raaaid]

i see so youre a misantropus

did you know that kids to the age of two are highly altruistic but soon learn that behaviour is highly bad for this society? so i understand your point

so i guess humanity doesn deserve to live for being evil

but as a bum once said to me bad people is like the shadow so the good people the light can be seen

if humanity globally was everybody good it would suck so bad

how would you make action movies without baddies?

besides in rl as in movies the goodies usually win see wwii

edit:

besides if i was a shrink id say by yyour comments you are worse than me, you have some bad self destructive tendencies as you shew saying you wouldnt mind to be decimated, i wish you improve :)

[tk471138]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MZG9vK0W8


bill gates on record saying kill granny to hire teachers yea god forbid having to lay off teachers bill gates would rather have people die...

http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/127346/

bill gates saying use vaccines to LOWER population....hmmm and i thought the whole time that vaccines SAVE lives....their is video of him saying this directly if you are interested as well

[raaaid]

yeah we need teachers to indoctrinate people into not questioning

i think if i have kids and i dont want them brainwashed by the state through schools indoctrination but rather educate them myself theyll take them away

definitly my view of gates has just changed

[swiss]

bill gates on record saying kill granny to hire teachers yea god forbid having to lay off teachers bill gates would rather have people die...

Good lord!
All he said is it is doubtful if all the money we spend on virtually dead people couldnt be used more efficient?
Off course it can - HE IS RIGHT!


Why do you want to spend $30k a month(or more!) for a person which only got to live 5 more years? And of those 5 years left, he or she will be tied to bed, always. What kind of shitty life is that?
It's inefficient - you better listen to BG.

Rem:
Yes, I did sign a paper which forces my relatives to turn off any machines enhancing my life after 30days of unconsciousness.
That is, unless the medicos are extremely sure I'll get over it.
Little anecdote, my mother died of cancer, at our home. We, or rather my sorry father felt the need to enhance her life too. In the end, there was a 60pound skeleton lying in the bed. Stoned on morphine and the spirit long gone, leaking body fluids from every hole.
I could also describe the smell in this room if you want me to(?)
And then finally, one morning he decided to turn off the machines, what a relieve.
Seriously, just because medical technology gives us the chance to prolong life after a point where it really isnt anymore - we dont always have to opt for it, right?

[raaaid]

yeah i dont even go to the doctor even if in bad pain you got a point

still you just cant say no to a person who wants to live, what if it was gates who had to shorten his life would he say so as well?

[swiss]

he wouldnt say that if it was him who was dying for christ sake

Are you sure?
Because - I would.

[tk471138]

Good lord!
All he said is it is doubtful if all the money we spend on virtually dead people couldnt be used more efficient?
Off course it can - HE IS RIGHT!


Why do you want to spend $30k a month(or more!) for a person which only got to live 5 more years? And of those 5 years left, he or she will be tied to bed, always. What kind of shitty life is that?
It's inefficient - you better listen to BG.

Rem:
Yes, I did sign a paper which forces my relatives to turn off any machines enhancing my life after 30days of unconsciousness.
That is, unless the medicos are extremely sure I'll get over it.
Little anecdote, my mother died of cancer, at our home. We, or rather my sorry father felt the need to enhance her life too. In the end, there was a 60pound skeleton lying in the bed. Stoned on morphine and the spirit long gone, leaking body fluids from every hole.
I could also describe the smell in this room if you want me to(?)
And then finally, one morning he decided to turn off the machines, what a relieve.
Seriously, just because medical technology gives us the chance to prolong life after a point where it really isnt anymore - we dont always have to opt for it, right?

seriously just cuz you are an authoritarian piece of garbage dosent mean you get to dictate whether or not someone lives...i dont think ending my grandmothers life so a few public school teachers (idiots) can be hired...my grandmother taught me more useful stuff than any teacher ever did...if anything i had to unlearn all the liberal BS that was taught...

also im not spending 30k or any money on anyones medical care so stop talking about medicine like we all pay it...while this maybe true (only cuz some shit govt decides to steal from us) its irrelevant...

im 27 with out insurance...i have a cavity in my teeth (maybe two) but im not going around saying lets kill people so i can have the resources that they would otherwise take up, just so i can get care...maybe i should go out find some weak stupid guy on the street and kill him and take his stuff since i can justify it by saying "i will use his resources better than he would"

now if someone CHOOSES to die early for the good of "society" thats one thing but when you start trying to impose these views on others, thats akin to murder, (death panels) i just hope one day you are forced to argue the virtues of your life in order to receive care, that would truly be funny....

also why not kill retarded children...obviously the money and effort to care for them could be better spent else where right?? thanks to people like you and others who study bioethics try and argue the virtues of post birth abortions up to age 1....


this is the kind of crap that idiots like you are pushing...culling those in our society who may not have advocates to fight for them for the convenience of the rest of us...thats pretty crappy...


perhaps instead of trying to get the elderly killed perhaps you should listen to them and maybe learn a thing or two...dumb ass...

also can you please explain to me how vaccines will reduce population as bill gates stated...i guess alex jones and the conspiracy theorist were right and vaccine ARE harmful and are simply produced to harm the people...


i dont know about but i dont want to be in my 70s having to justify (to a bunch of 20-30 year olds) whether or not i get an operation or procedure done even if im willing to pay for it myself...cuz thats the direction we are headed thanks to pieces of crap like your self....i guess eric blairs 1984...isnt that far off...

also the only reason idiots are arguing for this kind of stuff is because they are useful idiots...why wouldnt the govt want people do die as early as possible...that means you wont have to pay them what they contributed....so the govt can take their pensions (which they are already doing)...its not about making society better its about giving government more power (and resources)

[tk471138]

Are you sure?
Because - I would.

frankly why give him a choice...why not just kill bill gates his wife and his children (i would be delighted if this were to happen, even more so i was the one to do it)...after all he is the one who is spreading all these lies about how carbon dioxide is bad (even though plants need it to live he wants to have ZERO co2) a sane person would never think this...in fact it seems like some outrageous plot by some comic super villian "i can end the world by stavrving the plants of what they breath" thats bill gates a piece of garbage...

bill gates is the one who tells the idiots that vaccines are good, while at the same time telling his eliteist friends that vaccines lower population...yet the media and most idiots in the world seem to worship this guy...why??

[swiss]

.i dont think ending my grandmothers life so a few public school teachers (idiots) can be hired

They way I understood this, his teachers are only a placeholder.
In the end its a discussion we should be able to have.

[raaaid]

Are you sure?
Because - I would.

i would too if my quality life was bad, i stopped riding bikes not for fear of death but permanent lesions

i think there should be made a difference between extendind a chitty life and a nice one

and once again to portrait that lust of life that shouldnt be denied to anyone and much less to hire brain washing teachers(still like gates though)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QejONbEspeM

edit:

of course this allows the question if should be allowed undefined extension of life

well put it this way do you think theyd make public the death vaccine case it was discovered ;)

well i wouldnt have it i figured out why my mental age is 12 which is finding thrilling playing with an empty can of tuna

hey but each one is free

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7sMilQeVHk

[tk471138]

They way I understood this, his teachers are only a placeholder.
In the end its a discussion we should be able to have.


so if i think the world would be a better place (more convenient for me) i can have a group killed that i dont like or agree with ??



what you are doing is discussing infringing on the rights of others for the "good" of the collective or commune...what you are advocating is purely communistic...

maybe you want to live in some commune or collective where the rights of the individual take a back seat to what the authority claims is best for the majority....thats EXACTLY what you are advocating...


overpopulation just like global warming, are both non issues that are only perpetuated as a vehicle to broader control over the "human RESOURCES" (that is all we are to the ruling class...just a bunch of resources to be exploited)
govts would love a reason to renege on their social security schemes, and if culling the elderly early will save the govt (not the people) money then they will push for it...

[swiss]

so if i think the world would be a better place (more convenient for me) i can have a group killed that i dont like or agree with ??

Whether "I" like them or agree with their POV is completely irrelevant.
:confused:


what you are doing is discussing infringing on the rights of others for the "good" of the collective or commune...what you are advocating is purely communistic...

Communistic?
Actually the basic idea goes back to Aristoteles:
Hint: The basic concept of communism was invented in the 19th century, Aristoles lived in a different period.
"Even supposing the chief good to be eventually the aim for the individual as for the state, that of the state is evidently of greater and more fundamental importance both to attain and to preserve. The securing of one individual's good is cause for rejoicing, but to secure the good of a nation or of a city-state is nobler and more divine."

Now, if you upscale the above quote you will end up with planet and mankind.



maybe you want to live in some commune or collective where the rights of the individual take a back seat to what the authority claims is best for the majority....thats EXACTLY what you are advocating...


I start to wonder why you hate teachers that much - you are so simple I wish you had spent more time in classrooms.


overpopulation just like global warming, are both non issues that are only perpetuated as a vehicle to broader control over the "human RESOURCES" (that is all we are to the ruling class...just a bunch of resources to be exploited)
govts would love a reason to renege on their social security schemes, and if culling the elderly early will save the govt (not the people) money then they will push for it...


Ruling class? What, The Temple Knights? lol

Goverments?
Unless you live in a time bubble in the former UDSSR, I got bad news for you. Governments are elected by the citizens, and to no surprise, only reflect the quality of the the voters.
You dont like what "they" (which is actually "us") do: Don't ever miss an election and go voting.
Still don't like it? Feel free to start a political career, do better what they failed at.

Still unhappy?
Well, then it's possible you're the minority, and the majority doesn't share your POV.
Get over it, this is how democracies work.

By then you may feel tempted to join my side, lol.

[tk471138]

Whether "I" like them or agree with their POV is completely irrelevant.
:confused:




Communistic?
Actually the basic idea goes back to Aristoteles:
Hint: The basic concept of communism was invented in the 19th century, Aristoles lived in a different period.


Now, if you upscale the above quote you will end up with planet and mankind.





I start to wonder why you hate teachers that much - you are so simple I wish you had spent more time in classrooms.





Ruling class? What, The Temple Knights? lol

Goverments?
Unless you live in a time bubble in the former UDSSR, I got bad news for you. Governments are elected by the citizens, and to no surprise, only reflect the quality of the the voters.
You dont like what "they" (which is actually "us") do: Don't ever miss an election and go voting.
Still don't like it? Feel free to start a political career, do better what they failed at.

Still unhappy?
Well, then it's possible you're the minority, and the majority doesn't share your POV.
Get over it, this is how democracies work.

By then you may feel tempted to join my side, lol.



guess what idiot the usa is not a democracy...democracy is a joke...democracy is where the minority's rights are subject to the whims of the majority...is that what you want??


also we dont get to choose our leaders...we get to pick who our leaders are after they have been selected for us...you are a fool if you think in the states the people have a choice of who is president...democrat/republican they are the same thing...

as for the ruling class...its been admitted, that the people of the world live and die for the central bankers (ruling class)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efKchHKMb2k

last time i checked these are private banking institutions (including the federal reserve bank)...l



and of course you wish i spent more time in a "classroom" more time in government training centers is what the uppity slave needs right ??


seriously most bull shit that i learned in school was just a bunch of socialist dogma, and was about how my rights take a back seat to the good of the majority...all school teaches you is group think...


also look at the key word in communism...commune hmmm wonder if that means anything...

[swiss]

You're so primitive it's not even funny anymore.
Try to write one single post without any name calling.
I'm out.

[swiss]

BTT:

http://www.humanbrainproject.eu

Funded with 1 Billion Euros, this could possibly result in the genesis of our first, real AI.

[WTE_Galway]

Just a random observation.

"Deserve" is not normally a concept you associate with "Rights".