User Controls

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 437
  6. 438
  7. 439
  8. 440
  9. 441
  10. 442
  11. ...
  12. 593
  13. 594
  14. 595
  15. 596

Posts by Obbe

  1. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Zanick Dude, I'm not sure what the deal is, but you give this response to a lot of claims that actually merit a more thorough refutation. It doesn't promote discussion, and it's frustrating. I think you can do better than that.

    I give that response to a lot of claims? Which ones? Why does your claim "merit a more thorough refutation"? I don't think it does. I don't think it really matters at all. It doesn't need to promote discussion. If you want to discuss, then discuss. Tell us why we have a moral obligation. You can do it.
  2. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Lanny There's a bunch of classic issues with strongly relativist positions. A common one is that it's no ethics at all: it gives you no guidance on how you ought to live. You can take the moral error theory position but that's different than "what's right is what's right for you" and I expectly it's quite counter to your intuitions. I'd be willing to bet there are a number of things you think ought to be, at least casually.

    I think I'm ok with that.

    Originally posted by Lanny This seems blatantly false, at least in general. Correct arguments don't convince many people of many things. There is no argument you could deliver to, say, a vehement flat earther that would shake their faith in their position regardless of the strength of your argument.

    Ok. I guess I will just continue to think thay morality is relative and thay nobody has any moral obligation to stop eating meat then.
  3. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by LegalizeSpiritualDiscovery Gross

    Would you let her suck your dick though?
  4. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
  5. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by RisiR † Tell her about Sam Harris's ideas as if they were your own and she will suck the dick from your hody, bro.

    Ok
  6. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Heard the shooter was a woman.
  7. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by RisiR † Obbe and his bimbo fetish are hilarious.

  8. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    >has nothing left to post

    >posts 5 more times
  9. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Or just trust yourself to those chaotic winds and let the chips fall where they may.
  10. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    When I was a teenager tripping on shrooms and playing video games and smoking weed with my buds we decided to go get some pizza, a short walk down the street. While we were waiting for the pizza one of my buds became incoherent and started to fall over and couldn't stand up on his own. Everyone was looking at us like "these guys are fucked up". After the pizza was ready my friend seemed to recover. Apparently he hadn't eaten anything all day.
  11. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by benny vader morality is a luxury to be pondered upon on a full stomick.

    This.
  12. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Lanny I don't accept your premise that morality is purely subjective though


    I believe that if people would rather eat meat or not eat meat, that is a matter of their preference and that they have no responsibility to do one or the other. I don't believe there is a "more correct" way of behaving. I don't believe there is a universal morality. I don't believe the "right thing to do is what I believe would be good if everyone did it too". I believe right and wrong is relative, from person to person and from person to animal to plant to mushroom. It's all just a bunch of stuff happening. Some people feel eating animals is wrong so they don't do it. But nobody has any obligation to do anything at all, so it goes.

    If your argument is correct, you should be able to convince us and we will agree with it. If you are unable to convince me, maybe it's because my point of view is the correct one. Or maybe they are just different points of view, and we just see the world differently. That's ok, too.
  13. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by lempoid loompus

  14. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by inb4l0pht No need for Europe to worry, Trudeau will enthusiastically sign off on dumping them all here. Open wide our borders and let the jedis use us as their toilet.

    While still not doing anything about the BC/Alberta pipeline bullshit.
  15. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
  16. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
  17. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    THE FUTURE

    171. But suppose now that industrial society does survive the next several decades and that the bugs do eventually get worked out of the system, so that it functions smoothly. What kind of system will it be? We will consider several possibilities.

    172. First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.

    173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.

    174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite—just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft- hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.

    175. But suppose now that the computer scientists do not succeed in developing artificial intelligence, so that human work remains necessary. Even so, machines will take care of more and more of the simpler tasks so that there will be an increasing surplus of human workers at the lower levels of ability. (We see this happening already. There are many people who find it difficult or impossible to get work, because for intellectual or psychological reasons they cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make themselves useful in the present system.) On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed: They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly specialized, so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality. The system will have to use any means that it can, whether psychological or biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities that the system requires and to “sublimate” their drive for power into some specialized task. But the statement that the people of such a society will have to be docile may require qualification. The society may find competitiveness useful, provided that ways are found of directing competitiveness into channels that serve the needs of the system. We can imagine a future society in which there is endless competition for positions of prestige and power. But no more than a very few people will ever reach the top, where the only real power is (see end of paragraph 163). Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his need for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of THEIR opportunity for power.

    176. One can envision scenarios that incorporate aspects of more than one of the possibilities that we have just discussed. For instance, it may be that machines will take over most of the work that is of real, practical importance, but that human beings will be kept busy by being given relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested, for example, that a great development of the service industries might provide work for human beings. Thus people would spent their time shining each other’s shoes, driving each other around in taxicabs, making handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other’s tables, etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race to end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling lives in such pointless busy-work. They would seek other, dangerous outlets (drugs, crime, “cults,” hate groups) unless they were biologically or psychologically engineered to adapt them to such a way of life.

    177. Needless to say, the scenarios outlined above do not exhaust all the possibilities. They only indicate the kinds of outcomes that seem to us most likely. But we can envision no plausible scenarios that are any more palatable than the ones we’ve just described. It is overwhelmingly probable that if the industrial- technological system survives the next 40 to 100 years, it will by that time have developed certain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the “bourgeois” type, who are integrated into the system and make it run, and who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever on large organizations; they will be more “socialized” than ever and their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly to a very great extent) will be those that are engineered into them rather than being the results of chance (or of God’s will, or whatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision and management of scientists (hence it will no longer be truly wild). In the long run (say a few centuries from now) it is likely that neither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as we know them today, because once you start modifying organisms through genetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any particular point, so that the modifications will probably continue until man and other organisms have been utterly transformed.

    178. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is creating for human beings a new physical and social environment radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural selection has adapted the human race physically and psychologically. If man is not adjusted to this new environment by being artificially re-engineered, then he will be adapted to it through a long and painful process of natural selection. The former is far more likely than the latter.
  18. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by benny vader the fact that algorithms and analytics has been all the rage these days is FACT that this manifesto was wrong.

    as facebooks and targeted ads had shown …. the system can and will be tuned to sastify human needs and the only thing that stood in the way is technology.

    iphone was so successful becos it wrapped itself around out lives instead of making us wrapping around its.

    Humanity doesn't need advanced advertisement methods or increased connectivity due to iPhone - on the contrary this increased connectivity has made everyone more lonely than ever before.
  19. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Fox Paws Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Lol

    Edit: OH WAIT there’s no such thing as an original thought, because every thought is just a reaction to external stimuli!

    Every thought is an original thought but the thinker is not responsible for his thoughts.
  20. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Lanny I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? Do you think Kaczynski's writing speaks to or against the post you quoted?

    I think it added to it but at the same time I think both of you are wrong - you can try to resist the system, fight back or change the way it is, but the system is bigger than you. Eventually humans will lose their humanity, and things like how "disgusting" society is won't matter to us.
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 437
  6. 438
  7. 439
  8. 440
  9. 441
  10. 442
  11. ...
  12. 593
  13. 594
  14. 595
  15. 596
Jump to Top