Search Results - SC2 Mafia
Register

Search:

Type: Posts; User: oops_ur_dead

Page 1 of 40 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.08 seconds.

  1. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    I didn't see an answer to my question.
  2. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    "I lean pretty far towards allowing people the freedom to do what they want while holding them accountable for their actions and I feel that is much more ethically appropriate than removing personal accountability and freedom"

    Do you also think that it's okay for private citizens to own nuclear weapons?
  3. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    "I still feel like the entire argument of forcing a species to not exist is only justified when you ignore nurture. "

    I mean, of course you can try to train the murder instinct out of the dog, but then you just have a dog with a suppressed desire to tear other animals apart. My friends neighbour is a fairly well off guy and had a shit beast that was treated marvellously and given professional training and whatnot. Then it snapped and tried to attack their father.

    Given your stance here what is your proposed solution in one sentence?

    "How about people that keep Pythons or poisonous snakes? Or maybe tigers?"

    Yes I think people shouldn't be allowed to own these as pets either. Nor should humans own wolves for that matter. The difference is that shit beasts are entirely manufactured by humans and not wild so the equivalent process in them would be eradicating the breed.

    "I still feel if we are going to take the position that genetic traits should determine if a creature exists it gets really ugly very quickly"

    We already determined this when we bred shit beasts into existence.

    Out of curiosity, there are dogs such as pugs that are bred with horrific birth defects and live their entire lives in pain. In some areas it is illegal to breed them as well. Do you think that is just as unethical?
  4. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    We agree entirely. Not sure why the hell anyone thinks I'm trying to argue that animals have no autonomy or free will at all, that's ridiculous.
  5. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    Jesus christ its almost like you're intentionally trying to miss every point I make.

    Let me spell it out for you.

    If I create a piece of BSL that says "you are not allowed to breed pit bulls" then I have not removed any autonomy from dogs because they already had absolutely no say over whether they breed or not. I have removed autonomy from humans, which is a point separate to what you're posting about.

    "it is a parallel to gun control" yes I think if there was a type of gun that was on the market that occasionally randomly shoots and maims or kills the neighbours kid then there would be a very good case of banning people from owning said type of gun.

    The argument about children is genuinely dumb as fuck because children are not a separate species that we can ban or do anything against. It's a complete non-sequitur when we're talking about the topic of legislation against dog breeds and I'm not going to try to entertain it.
  6. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I absolutely agree with you that there is a massive difference between eradicating a human race vs a dog breed. My point was that if your going to take the stance of absolute Nature over Nurture the thought process does carry over. Removing the concept of race what if we were to identify all genes in people. If we could peg some genetic function that makes the pedophiles, serial killers and rapists what measures would be ethical? Or abstract it to science fiction concepts. Would it be ethical to remove an individuals freedom before they have done anything wrong because they might have a pre-disposition to it?
    Very simply put: no, because humans are sapient and have an understanding of society which dogs do not have, and dogs already do not have autonomy and agency in the solutions under discussion here. It makes absolutely no difference to the dog's life that shitbeast owners are disallowed from breeding more shitbeasts, or a shitbeast is disallowed from being imported into a country or region. If we say "you aren't allowed to have children because you have gene variant X which predisposes you to violence" then your decisions are being influenced and you are forced to act a certain way. As a dog your decisions are already at the mercy of your owner. A captive dog cannot choose where it lives and whether it breeds. Its autonomy is already at zero, any breed-specific legislation we pass does not change that. Furthermore, unlike the case of genocide or whatever you call your hypothetical, pit bulls are incapable of ever understanding that their own "kind" is being wiped out, and will not feel negatively towards that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    It would make more sense to argue gene editing to curve aggressive traits than eradication of a species.
    This is a science-fiction concept that is not actually possible. More practical is specifically breeding out aggression from the breed, which would pretty much require the cooperation of every shit beast owner, which is infeasible.
  7. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    It's an extremely absurd and racist comparison to make.

    Firstly, we can refute the idea that dog breeds are like human races. Variation between human races (or more accurately, humans from different regions) is significantly less than variation between dog breeds (3.3% compared to 27%). There are numerous studies showing that aggression in dogs is inherited and specific genes linked to aggression have been identified. Furthermore, humans never went through selective breeding. It's very obvious that behaviour can be bred into animals, look at things like the silver fox domestication experiment. Humans were never artificially bred for fighting, unlike shit beasts, so we cannot presume that a specific race is predisposed to such behaviour.

    Secondly, even if the presumption about dogs being similar to human races you're making was right, the action of wiping out a dog breed is far more ethical than wiping out a human race because the former has no concept of what's happening to them. If we neuter every shit beast and let the breed go extinct then there's no pit bull society or culture among them that ceases to exist. They'll have literally no idea what's going on and their lives continue just the same. Not so for a human race.

    Lastly, you're an extreme that is incredibly bizarrely removed from my argument. You could just as easily say "oh why did we only eradicate smallpox but not cowpox or monkeypox huh?? Would you also only eradicate one specific race of humans?". Or how wolves are illegal to have as pets when they're still basically the same species as dogs, a matter nobody really takes issue with. It's a lazy and racist parallel to draw.
  8. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    This might interest you https://www.cbsnews.com/news/samuel-...rcia-to-death/
    That part of what you want is certainly already a thing. Picked a recent example from Texas sense you referenced it specifically but to my knowledge anywhere in America people are held responsible for damages caused by their animal on both civil and criminal levels.

    One aspect of this conversation we have not touched is that it leans very hard towards the 'Nature' side of the 'Nature vs Nurture' argument. Carry that same parallel to people's races and it gets into some very racist territory. I personally believe both parts play a very substantial role but even more dogs are pack animals. They mirror their owners behavior the same as a wolf in a pack mirrors the behavior of their alpha. I feel like a very large contributing factor to so pitts having such high attack rates is that breed is often preferred by a specific kind of person. When I was in Ohio as a kid I even knew a guy that was giving his pit bull steroids.

    You could draw the same parallel to any other breed specific behaviors. A dog with a huge drive to hunt is not an uncontrollable beast that runs down and attacks other animals. A responsible owner can spend the time to train it so it can be controlled so if some kid has a pet rabbit its not ripped apart in front of him.

    We may just need to agree to disagree but I have trouble accepting the removal of an entire species of dogs. If we are going to start playing god with what species are allowed to exist I feel like we should start by removing mosquitos from existence.
    Oh shit we've hit another two

    "it's like racism but for dogs, you wouldn't ban black people would you?"
    "it's the owner not the breed"

    How many until we get bingo?

    "A responsible owner can spend the time to train it so it can be controlled so if some kid has a pet rabbit its not ripped apart in front of him."

    A responsible bomb owner can also own a bomb responsibly and not have it blow up and take the neighbour's family out. Maybe it isn't a good idea to let people own bombs despite that, though.
  9. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    You're misunderstanding me.

    I can see the "point of view". It doesn't take decades of living in the Texas boonies to grasp the concept of "i want a scurry dog to bite trespassers on muh property in the keester".

    I just genuinely do not give a fuck if your idea of personal protection is to get a dog that a) puts every living thing around you in danger and b) probably puts you in more danger than the lack of protection from not having it. Doubly so when other dogs do the same job but aren't prone to randomly snapping and killing the neighbour's poodle. A perspective existing does not mean I have to respect it or think it's rational.

    The solution is simple and I've already stated it: neuter all existing shit bulls (massive fines if someone owns an unneutered one), and massive penalties to the owner if their beast does any injury or damage to a person or their property. If your shit beast kills someone, then you get charged with criminal negligence resulting in death. Easy. As for what we define as a pit bull, that's likely up to the vets, but many countries and districts have already implemented these kinds of bans so it's not an unsolved problem. Probably have it be appearance and traits based, with genetic testing as a fallback.
  10. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    Oh man, that one's going in the hall of fame.

    "shit beasts are so dangerous and unpredictably aggressive that normal, sane people are rightfully afraid of them, which makes them a fantastic companion to defend your family and home with"
  11. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Something I have been trying to focus on is that other people are not usually unreasonable and irrational. When I see people making arguments or decisions I disagree with I try to understand their thinking instead of assuming they are just dumb or irrational. You see a dangerous animal that you feel should not exist but there are tens of thousands of people out there that bring that dangerous animal into their home and around their family's. Just the fact they are so known for violence makes people cautious around them and offers a form of protection. If a guy is looking to rob one of two houses he may choose the other house because he sees a dangerous animal. I feel like they absolutely have their uses.
    Saying there are "tens of thousands" of people who do dumbass shit doesn't justify it. There are tens of thousands of people who decide to kill others because they think they need to do it to avoid eternal damnation, or who drown their kids because they think that the government is going to kidnap and torture them or something. Doesn't make it right or a case for it to be legal, just that those tens of thousands of people are irrational and bad at making decisions, and their decisions and ideas should be condemned and fought against.

    Your point is "they have their uses", but my point is "they have their uses but none that outweigh their dangerousness or that another dog can't do substantially better with less collateral damage". Of course you can always imagine any use for shit beasts: you can eat them, use their pelts to make carpets, etc. You could make the exact same self-defense point about carrying around grenades for self-protection, or about booby trapping your home. All these scenarios could lead to substantial collateral damage, but completely satisfy your ideal of using the object for "protection". Rightfully, carrying around grenades and booby trapping your home are widely extremely illegal, while owning a shit beast is not.

    Also lmao the only thing I could find when looking for stories of shit beasts stopping a robbery is this: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news...d-in-woodlawn/
  12. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    "Pit bulls are so smart they're the 94th smartest dog breed just under fucking wiener dogs" lmao

    Horses are at least useful for certain things. Pit bulls have literally no use that a) another dog can't do substantially better without the risk of going nanny mode and wiping out an entire bloodline and b) isn't something barbaric like illegal dogfighting. Your argument is the same as "you should be able to carry around grenades for self-defense".

    I also can't find a single instance of a human dying from a horse attack, meanwhile several people let alone tons of cats and dogs die by shit beast every year. In the last week shit beasts have killed 3 people in the US. Not to mention them being responsible for the vast majority of fatal dog and cat attacks.

    You seem to be fixated on the "unintelligent" part. My argument is that they're aggressive, but also extremely dumb in a tangentially related fashion, the former of which is the dangerous part. Stop deflecting by nitpicking one comment I made about their intelligence.
  13. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I would disagree. Have you actually spent a real amount of time with one? You seem pretty anti-dog in general.
    I'm not anti-dog, and this is a variant of "my pibble isn't currently mauling a child, therefore they're all good"

    My friend's neighbour had a shit beast that they brought over one evening and all the dumbfuck dog did was slobber all over everything then bite me by accident because it was too excited. It then tried to attack my friend a couple of times and actually did attack the owner's father, it was scheduled for euthanization but unfortunately they managed to smuggle it out of the country before that could happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I think oops is just trolling
    I am absolutely not trolling, this is in Serious Discussion.
  14. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    pit bulls are far too retarded to reasonably use as protection, they're just genetically really fucking stupid animals. its like if you wore a suicide vest for self defense

    i saw a video of a woman who sicked her pitbull on a guy trying to rob another woman and the dumbfuck shit beast attacked the woman being robbed and then the owner while the mugger dipped. shitbeasts were bred for one thing: to be dropped in a pit and fuck up the nearest living thing as much as possible. if someone breaks into your home and your shit beast goes into nanny mode it's just as likely to kill you or your kid as the person robbing you
  15. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►Re: ban pit bulls◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I think they have their uses.
    agreed. shit beast uses include:

    abortion alternative post roe v wade repeal
    taking care of your neighbour's annoying dog
    winning illegal dogfights
    making people not want to be around you if you have social anxiety
  16. Replies
    39
    Views
    995

    ►►ban pit bulls◄◄

    pit bulls (aka shit bulls aka shit beasts) should be banned from going in public and mass-sterilized to allow the breed to go extinct. if you own a shit beast you should have to pay extra taxes and any problems your "dog" causes (e.g. property damage, murder, etc.) should be on you as criminal charges

    list of common shit beast shill arguments:

    "my pibble isn't currently mauling a child, therefore they're all good"
    "it's the owner not the breed"
    "there's no such thing as a pit bull its impossible to tell"
    "they were bred to be nanny dogs"
    "look at this photo of a pit bull wearing a flower crown"
    "my pit bull who died at the age of 5 before she had a chance to snap and kill a cat was the sweetest dog ever"
    "chihuahuas bite more people than pit bulls"
    "it's like racism but for dogs, you wouldn't ban black people would you?"
  17. ►►Re: slow blinking at cats shows them that you are friendly and encourages them to approach :)◄◄

    Guys, please keep it on topic and constructive to the discussion. This is in Serious Discussion.
  18. ►►Re: slow blinking at cats shows them that you are friendly and encourages them to approach :)◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    You can try slow blinking but I usually try to approach cats with snacks and food to show that I am friendly.
    That's a fantastic approach. However, I think the optimal way may be to do both. If the cat is far away, they may not realize you are offering them snacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    How slowly must one blink to encourage the cat to approach?


    These were the instructions given in the supplementary information. I don't believe there is research done yet as to optimal blink timing, or other facial parameters.
  19. ►►slow blinking at cats shows them that you are friendly and encourages them to approach :)◄◄

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73426-0

    slow blinking at cats shows them that you are friendly and encourages them to approach
  20. Replies
    17
    Views
    1,019

    ►►Re: Top 10 thinkers◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by HentaiManOfPeacesGhost View Post
    Easiest way to tell everyone you have no credibility.

    Jordan Peterson is a tough academic who crushes their debate opposition that young, disenfranchised males look up to because they have no control in their lives. The world needs less of him and more better thinkers who have time to fix bigger challenges than bullying trans people because of their inherent biological gender.
    Hey man, I have to say, Jordan Peterson helped me a lot in life. Before I discovered him, I had never gotten laid in my life, and I felt really sad about it. After discovering Jordan Peterson, my life has improved substantially. I still haven't gotten laid, but I now realize that it's everyone else's fault and not mine.
  21. ►►Re: cats can learn the name of their cat friends :)◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    uwu oops-nyan
    Please make serious comments on this thread, this is in Serious Discussion.
  22. ►►Re: cats can learn the name of their cat friends :)◄◄

    I specifically meant to put this thread in Serious Discussion, please do not move it
  23. ►►cats can learn the name of their cat friends :)◄◄

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10261-5

    cats can learn the name of their cat friends
  24. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:starcraft 2 mafia

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    39
    Views
    1,577

    ►►Re: starcraft 2 mafia◄◄

    why are people replying to this
  25. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:starcraft 2 mafia

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    39
    Views
    1,577

    ►►Re: starcraft 2 mafia◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by DJarJar View Post
    no what's that?
    starcraft 2 mafia
  26. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:starcraft 2 mafia

    Thread Author:oops_ur_dead

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    39
    Views
    1,577

    ►►starcraft 2 mafia◄◄

    have you heard of this game called starcraft 2 mafia?
  27. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Ohhb(notm)ama

    Thread Author:OzyWho

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    8
    Views
    503

    ►►Re: Ohhb(notm)ama◄◄

    My position on free speech on the internet is that anyone who has unironically cited a philosopher or a philosopher's opinion in any internet discussion should be banned from all social media and from ever communicating again.
  28. Replies
    79
    Views
    4,436

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Lets say hypothetically that the solution to the 3-body problem is such a function, i.e. a function that cannot be described mathematically. Would you say the 3-body problem has a soul?

    I'm speaking out of my ass on this next one because I don't really know, but you could also add the Navier-Stokes equations to this list because AFAIK they also cannot be solved analytically
    Both the examples you've listed are approximations of physical processes and thus aren't really related to the topic at hand.

    The question you're posing doesn't relate to the brain, it relates to all of physics. Namely you're trying to ask if it's possible that every physical process can be completely and accurately described by math.
  29. Replies
    79
    Views
    4,436

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    This has nothing to do with belief in a soul. If there are physical laws that are deterministic, but which cannot be computed by a given Turing machine (or an algorithm, since they are equivalent), and these laws can be harnessed to perform computations, then it must follow that it is physically possible for computers more computationally capable than the ones we have now to exist.

    It certainly seems to me that the mind is such a computer; I do not see where the idealism/dualism comes into play. Certainly one solution to the problem of a mind that is a hyper-Turing machine involves a mind that is not reducible to the brain, but it isn't necessary.
    So you think there are physical laws which apply to the brain which cannot be described mathematically? That sounds like a soul with more steps to me. There is no shame in believing in a soul, most of the world does so.

    Unless your point is that computers aren't yet powerful enough to simulate the brain, which is an even less interesting point.
  30. Replies
    79
    Views
    4,436

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    This discussion is complete intellectual masturbation on all sides and the point is entirely inarguable.

    The entire thing boils down to a decision tree with two branches

    1) Do you think the contents of the universe follow a deterministic set of laws that can be computed and/or mathematically modeled? If no then so-called algorithmic machines do not exist and the whole argument is moot.

    If yes, then:

    2) Do you believe the human brain is subject to the same rules as all other matter in the universe? If so, then the brain is necessarily a machine per this weird definition of "machine".
    3) If no, then you believe in some extra-physical process that comprise human thought, i.e. a soul.

    This entire thread, IMO, is the same as asking "Do you believe in a soul?" which is a very uninteresting conversation.
  31. Replies
    79
    Views
    4,436

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    And what are these things in psychology and neuroscience that I need to know that would convince me otherwise?
    Oh no mate I have no idea, I know jack shit about psychology and neuroscience. It just seems to me, from reading your post, that your point is "I don't understand why I think the thinks that I do" and your conclusion is "the mind is not a machine" when it should be "I should learn psychology to learn more about the thinks".
  32. Replies
    79
    Views
    4,436

    ►►Re: WHY THE BRAIN IS NOT A MACHINE◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I was trying to start a debate about this but I don't know how to phrase my thoughts. I don't believe the mind is a machine because of the way I think, and the way others think. I often get stumped by logic where it seems logic leads to two mutually contradictory conclusions, there is something other than logic that often leads me to either pick one of them or formulate a new conclusion, and this something is NOT from a formal system

    You can do something without understanding what it is, and there's a very clear difference between doing with understanding and without, in behaviour. Give someone a list of instructions to follow without telling them what they do or what they're for. They will follow them and seem intelligent if you gave them something "smart" to do, but not have a fucking clue of what they're doing. It's like studying for an exam; there's a huge difference if you do it mechanically, and if you actually understand the material.

    This is basically what The Chinese Room Argument states, that mere algorithmic computation can never lead to understanding (and it is in effect devoid of "meaning"). If you were to accept the premise that mere computation is enough for understanding and consciousness, then it must follow that it does not matter how the computation is performed. This way, you can have a piece of paper that is conscious, or a system of water pipes that happens to implement an extremely complicated program. This is clearly absurd.

    On the other hand, if you were to accept the premise that the mind is indeed not a machine, then we have to extend the hierarchy of computational machines (and the definition of "computation") to include the mind as well. The hierarchy would now include the human mind as a hyper-turing machine (I suspect two or three levels up in the hierarchy compared to Turing machines, to leave space for animals and babies). This leads to some interesting conjectures in ethics and philosophy.

    Firstly, it implies that there is no single "rule" of morality that applies in all scenarios; not even multiple ones that apply in different contexts, but rather something that is a kind of "rule" that is non-algorithmic in nature. This does not necessarily mean that morality is subjective; it could be entirely objective but uncomputable by algorithmic means (would anyone even be surprised about that?).

    Second, it implies that the set of all possible thoughts humans can have is larger in size than the set of rational/integral/natural numbers, possibly as large as the set of irrationals, because otherwise Turing machines would be capable of generating all possible thoughts, as a kind of "language".

    Third, if you were to extend the notion of the halting problem to human beings (it has already been done for hypothetical hyper-turing machines, such as Oracle machines), then it might be the case that in the interactions between two or multiple human beings, the "optimal" solution in all scenarios (or any solution at all) is undecidable. Maybe the game of Mafia is undecidable, has anyone ever thought about that?
    A large part of your argument seems to hinge on you not knowing enough about psychology and/or neurology to understand the workings of your own brain. It's very odd that you take that to the conclusion that you do, and perhaps would be more readily solved by studying psychology and neurology, as well as accepting that those two fields still cannot yet answer every single process about how a human mind works because minds are complex.
  33. ►►Re: Critical Race Theory (CRT) and it's place in American race-relations.◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Space Milk View Post
    This is a narcissistic response, all of your posts in this thread are exercises not in dominating and humiliating Oberon - who has not wronged you in any capacity.
    Why did you decide to read my posts from like 2 years ago you absolute loser lmao
  34. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:you guys are idiots

    Thread Author:rumox

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    10
    Views
    1,234

    ►►Re: you guys are idiots◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrow View Post
    I admittedly am salty over NFTs and Opensea for stealing artwork I commissioned and trying to sell it as an NFT, then making it very difficult to get it taken down despite the fact that I and the artist both were in agreement that it was a violation of our respective IPs.

    We did finally manage to get it pulled a few days before Christmas, though.
    I'm sure the guy who bought an NFT of a DMCA takedown notice was saltier tho lmao.

    My favourite bro finance moment was when Gamestop revealed that their master plan for no longer being the world's shittiest company was to create some sort of NFT marketplace. I can't take anyone who actually thinks Gamestop is worthwhile seriously anymore. They somehow downgraded from being a funko pop storefront by deciding to sell virtual funko pops instead. Unbelievable.
  35. Forum:General Discussion

    Thread:Union

    Thread Author:SuperJack

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    3
    Views
    604

    ►►Re: Union◄◄

    I'm not a communist.
  36. Forum:Circlejerk

    Thread:I'm Being Censored

    Thread Author:HentaiManOfPeace

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    28
    Views
    2,476

    ►►Re: I'm Being Censored◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    You are scum IRL
    That's very rude. Why would you say that to another person?
  37. Forum:Circlejerk

    Thread:I'm Being Censored

    Thread Author:HentaiManOfPeace

    Post Author:oops_ur_dead

    Replies
    28
    Views
    2,476

    ►►Re: I'm Being Censored◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Yours is pretty nondescript. I had more considered along the lines of an avatar being made to look innocent to give a subliminal feeling that the individual is innocent. Or I once used one that had an optical pattern which was difficult to focus on as scum thinking it may make me less memorable.
    Does my avatar make me look like scum?
  38. Replies
    27
    Views
    2,665

    ►►Re: Bitcoin is fucking dumb and useless◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by HentaiManOfPeacesGhost View Post
    To answer your thread, the people who buy into it are the people who want it to succeed. So the only people you'll find vouching for this stuff are going to be the BTC and altcoin owners. This is no different than owning super expensive artwork. If you hype up the work of a dead artist's work that you own a lot of already, then when you sell you will gain incredible wealth. This is no different.

    Originally, the purpose of this coin was to be run on home PCs so that anyone can own the decentralized currency, especially in places of political volatility. But the bitcoin creators didn't have the foresight to: (1) create the proof-of-stake model first to avoid the wastefulness of cryto solving by high energy intensive ASICs and GPUs, and (2) see that big mining farms and big corporations were going to exploit it for more financial gain.

    By the way, I have to mention how disgusting your language is. This is very offensive to Canadians when you use the G-word.
    Treating bitcoin or any crypto as a speculative investment like that runs exactly contrary to its success as an actual currency. Hence, the people buying into it are either doing so to make money regardless of its success, or think they want it to succeed and that they're helping its success as an accepted currency but unfortunately they just aren't very bright. Often cryptobros believe both at the same time.

    PoS is a bad system for separate reasons. Sure, it's less power hungry, but it doesn't necessarily solve the transaction fee issue that's plaguing pretty much all major cryptos right now (for instance the transaction fees for ETH is in the tens to hundreds, and even BTC is about $15 right now). It's also much easier to perform a 51% attack on a PoS crypto since all it takes is just buying out 51% of the currency, while a 51% attack on a PoW crypto is less feasible due to cost and simple resource constraints.

    As a Canadian I understand the offence from the G-word, this is an issue I have spoken to admins with at length about. My use of the word is in protest to that, pointing out the absurdity of me being unable to use other descriptive language (since it would reduce fun) while considering such hateful terms as okay.
  39. Replies
    27
    Views
    2,665

    ►►Re: Bitcoin is fucking dumb and useless◄◄

    NFTs are also fucking stupid btw, actually they're even worse than bitcoin and anyone who is unironically into NFTs is a massive GOOF and they are GOOFY as fuck.

    I am honestly considering starting an NFT-based grift because I think people who are so GOOFY that they believe that NFTs are good deserve to get scammed for all their money.
  40. Replies
    9
    Views
    754

    ►►Re: Purpose of neopronouns?◄◄

    Also personally I don't put my pronouns anywhere because I'm very obviously male presenting. I've never had anyone get on my case over it or ask me for my pronouns, if it happened I would think it's kinda weird and I would probably judge them for trying too hard.
  41. Replies
    5
    Views
    587

    ►►Re: kyle rittenhouse◄◄

    https://apnews.com/article/kyle-ritt...420f88d0b8feb6

    It's all over.
  42. Replies
    9
    Views
    754

    ►►Re: Purpose of neopronouns?◄◄

    I have literally never met anyone in my life using these so-called "neopronouns". Until I do, I see no reason to expend effort thinking about it. I'm not sure why anyone else feels the need to, either.
  43. Replies
    5
    Views
    587

    ►►kyle rittenhouse◄◄

    kyle rittenhouse
  44. ►►Re: State of American Employment, benefits and lifestyle◄◄

    Every time I think about going back to America I remember that most jobs start with maybe 1 week of vacation time a year if you're lucky (more likely none, especially if it's a contract position) and if you get sick you have to take vacation days. Also you can get fired at any time without warning for absolutely no reason.

    There is no reason to want to work in America other than potentially getting paid more for certain jobs in certain areas.
  45. Replies
    9
    Views
    789

    ►►Re: How can one be against philosophy◄◄

    Philosophy is cool.

    Philosophy for the sole sake of intellectual masturbation is fucking cringe.

    Example: Philosophy of science is useful, it led to things like the scientific method.

    Arguing if Hitler was evil because of the philosophical definition of "evil" is cringe as fuck and a massive waste of time.
  46. Replies
    48
    Views
    2,706

    ►►Re: I don't like this new policy change tbh◄◄

    I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not "invalidating" math by calling it abstract nonsense, I'm describing it. Chemistry and physics are also abstract, though a bit less so.

    I'm not as smart or good at math as yzb but per my understanding the reason that one can definitively say 1+1=2 is because it's a conclusion that's derived from a fixed set of axioms that (pretty much) every mathematician takes as true to form the basis of what defines a natural number. Considering situations where 1+1=2 is false by looking at dubious examples concerning concepts that parallel the concepts tied to the symbols "1", "2", "+", and "=", like your paradox example or other examples in physics and chemistry (e.g. mixing solvents often results in a lower volume than the sum of the original volumes) is intellectual masturbation that serves no purpose.

    1+1=2 is true simply because that comes directly from the rules that I use to define what that sentence even means. You can say that one infinite set of points plus another infinite set of points equals a third set of infinite points but that's not the same as saying 1+1 does not equal 2 because those symbols and their meanings are not defined in terms of infinite sets of points.

    What you are saying is conceptually the same as someone saying "actually 1+1=4 because to me, 1 is what you call 2". They're not necessarily wrong (although perhaps less practical) but it has no bearing on my conclusion because we hold different things to be true.
  47. Replies
    48
    Views
    2,706

    ►►Re: I don't like this new policy change tbh◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I duno. Banach–Tarski paradox strongly suggests that 1+0= >2. I could regurgitate the proof to you or you could see it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach...h_of_the_proof but either way there is a very substantial argument that 1+1 does not equal 2 assuming mathematics is a language that reflects reality and is not just abstract nonsense that just lines up well (although thats a debate in itself)
    I am firmly of the belief that math is abstract nonsense that lines up with reality sometimes. Hence, 1+1=2 because that is what we have defined it to be.
  48. Replies
    121
    Views
    6,802

    ►►Re: Who was the most evil person?◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    How about the most evil person we know first hand? For me it's someone I considered a friend at the time.

    This person hired a prostitute, met her at a motel and proceeded to stab her over and over again. The attack ended after he cut her neck with such force he nearly decapitated her. There was so much blood first responders were shocked it came from one person. He then went to the cinemas and watched Harry Potter.
    A cousin of a friend of mine joined ISIS and died in an airstrike. Didn't personally know him though.

    Can't think of anyone I personally know who did anything particularly evil.
  49. Replies
    48
    Views
    2,706

    ►►Re: I don't like this new policy change tbh◄◄

    I was ready to elaborate on my stance. I said my mind won't be changed which was absolutely true, same how nobody will change my mind on 1+1=2.
  50. Replies
    48
    Views
    2,706

    ►►Re: I don't like this new policy change tbh◄◄

    I have no idea why I got infracted for trolling.

    I feel bad for Mag. Whether it's fact or not homie genuinely feels like he's being attacked. I suspect this is also the core reason for some of his other beliefs but that's none of my business.
Results 1 to 50 of 2000
Page 1 of 40 1 2 3 4