359 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir DeLoria]

pirate1802 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

Necanor wrote...

They don't evolve, they aren't subject to natural selection or competition and are essentially immortal. I'm not saying they shouldn't exist, but rather that they should not be seen as living beings.

I don't believe that this really makes them abominable. If a machine expresses traits of a conscious being, the fact that it can't express its genes in future generations and is not subject to cellular exhaustion and death as we experience it shouldn't make it an object of fear and disgust.

A very Quarian-like thinking isn't it? We are what we bang.. 

:lol:That post just made my day.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Necanor wrote...
One could argue, that organics are natural, we have been designed by evolution over the process of millions of years.

That is the threshold of stupid post for today.

I have the same view as you and defend the same argument, my wording just sucks early in the morning.

I don't think organics are superior to synthetics.

I don't think Steelcan also thinks that synthetics are an 'abomination'.

I said abomination against nature. Don't take things out of context.

'Abomination against nature'...

You realize how terrible that sounds right? There's really no such thing.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

StreetMagic wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...



'Abomination against nature'...

You realize how terrible that sounds right? There's really no such thing.

Well, there's your face...


Don't mind me. Just had to use that.

The face that launched a thousand ships maybe...

[Sir DeLoria]

StreetMagic wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


'Abomination against nature'...

You realize how terrible that sounds right? There's really no such thing.

Well, there's your face...


Don't mind me. Just had to use that.

Damn, beat me to it. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


'Abomination against nature'...

You realize how terrible that sounds right? There's really no such thing.

Well, there's your face...


Don't mind me. Just had to use that.

Damn, beat me to it. 

Should I make a retort, or should I report you for malicious content?

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Necanor wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

'Abomination against nature'...

You realize how terrible that sounds right? There's really no such thing.

Well, there's your face...
Don't mind me. Just had to use that.

Damn, beat me to it. 

Should I make a retort, or should I report you for malicious content?

So a bad cynical joke is now 'malicious content'? Well, I should've reported a couple people then. Nah, I'm joking I'd never report anyone.

[Reorte]

Robosexual wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Why? That requires either some value judgement on existence, which requires emotion, or a hard-coded response to exist.

Or logical choice.

So you claim but I ask again - why? Where's the logic? It's only a logic choice if you want to live and wanting to live is emotional. Wanting to do anything beyond responding to hardcoded reactions is emotional.

You don't need to appreciate life to see the logic in existence vs nothing. Your drive for existence would be the pointlessness, the illogic, in the end of existence.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

You don't need to appreciate life to make a logical choice to continue to exist, when the alternative is cessation of existence for literally no reason. That's illogical.

Why is it illogical? Why should a purely logical, emotionless being care one way or the other about existence? It would be illogical to actively try to end its existence but that's not the same thing.

Modifié par Reorte, 04 août 2013 - 04:41 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Necanor wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

'Abomination against nature'...

You realize how terrible that sounds right? There's really no such thing.

Well, there's your face...
Don't mind me. Just had to use that.

Damn, beat me to it. 

Should I make a retort, or should I report you for malicious content?

So a bad cynical joke is now 'malicious content'? Well, I should've reported a couple people then. Nah, I'm joking I'd never report anyone.

Well, you've shown before that you aren't actually able to stand up against my arguments, and have displayed in the past genetic fallacies against me that question my character and disposition and use that as a reason for discrediting my arguments. Is it really that much of a stretch to think you'd resort to silly ad hominems against me?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 04 août 2013 - 04:48 .

[Clayless]

Reorte wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Or logical choice.

So you claim but I ask again - why? Where's the logic? It's only a logic choice if you want to live and wanting to live is emotional. Wanting to do anything beyond responding to hardcoded reactions is emotional.

No it's not, you're applying emotion to logic and claiming it's emotional.

Why is it illogical? Why should a purely logical, emotionless being care one way or the other about existence? It would be illogical to actively try to end its existence but that's not the same thing.

Because nothing is gained. The choice is existence vs nothing. Lack of existence for literally no reason is illogical when you can choose existence.