flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
 Home   FAQ   Search   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
flat assembler > Heap > sleepsleep's vitally important things

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 114, 115, 116 ... 125, 126, 127  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

sleepsleep wrote:
YONG probably have zero positive hope on how we could solve those issues and maintain balance,

Well, I believe that technological advancement will one day grant immortality to some humans. But it will also give rise to the issues explored in many sci-fi movies, such as In Time (2011) and Jupiter Ascending (2015).

For a few to be immortal, many others must die.

Wink
Post 07 Sep 2017, 05:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

sleepsleep wrote:
i think in our context, respect is agree to disagree, this kind of attitude is very important and beautiful which actually could insight us more about the opposite views and yield a fruitful conclusion or discussion,

Well said.

If you brush up your grammar, you could be a good writer.

Wink
Post 07 Sep 2017, 05:56
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 861

YONG wrote:
No, it is NOT the same. I believe that in almost every developed countries, there is a relevant law prohibiting drunk driving. Yet, there is no law prohibiting people from having offspring and/or disqualifying them from receiving the "immortality" treatment (if it is available). You are judging those people based on your "logical justice", again.

If you reference an arbitrary law once again as an argument, then I will use religion to discredit everything you say.

I don't give a SHIT that you find the law more infallible or not. IT IS NOT A FUCKING ARGUMENT. I don't care it exists the way it does: plenty of bad stuff exists that doesn't mean they're a fucking argument. Yes I'm pissed off, you're beyond dense and a pathetic hypocrite (since you hate religion) and can't see the fact that it cannot be an argument (see below a stupid dialog example).

There's no laws to prevent offspring (except in China where it was, see, your STUPID LAW is/was not ABSOLUTE, so STOP USING IT as argument), that doesn't mean it's the right way. Instead, arguments resort to logical debates, not whether "dude X is done this way so it is the way it must be done". If someone argues it's a bad way to do it, you argue with them with logic, not "it's not bad cause it exists that way". Nothing would change with such idiot argumentation. That's why people discuss. That's how your beloved infallible law was even born in the first place -- through people discussing it, not through passive sheep just accepting it and re-iterating it.

Arguments must be of the absolute form, otherwise they're subjective garbage, and might as well use any religious argument, same thing in the end. I don't even CARE that you don't agree with me, that's fine, but I argue to learn stuff from people. Maybe if you had a logical argument I could learn why mine was flawed or not. But no you resort to "zealot" garbage tier argumentation.


Arguing with you is like:

Me: "I think X is bad, here's my arguments why the law should ban X, it's most logical."
You: "But the law doesn't ban X so your argument is wrong!!!"
Me: "Remind me what's the point to even argue with you about anything? I'm well aware how shit is, I'm looking for an intellectual debate, not preaching."

WTF?! Let's see:

Me: "I think believing in the Christian God doesn't make much sense since there's no real evidence, we should teach this to people." (assuming they don't know yet)
You: "But the Bible says he exists so your argument is wrong!!!"

Laws against drunk driving weren't always a thing. It became a thing because of people with arguments like me, not because of clueless passive sheep like you clinging to their old laws and using that as "unchanging argument".

"But the law doesn't prohibit drunk driving thus your arguments about safety is wrong!!!" is what you'd say if we didn't have it and I'd argue in favor of it. Probably your ancestor did, anyway.

Yes I'm damn pissed cause you don't get it, so whatever. Keep labeling me with your stupid bullshit (such as radical) if that makes you feel better about your illogical arguments. "Radical" and "heretic" is the same thing and have zero argumentative support, they're both fallacies. I guess it makes you think your position is much stronger than those of religious zealots by discrediting actual logic. Hey, at least you don't have to even think logically just label the one with proper arguments that you dislike as radical and that's it. Exactly what religious zealots do. Label people and their arguments by dismissing them since they clash with your passive archaic views -- and then feel good about ignorance.

And you know how pointless it is to argue anything with those religious preachers. What makes you any different?

Keep appealing to your "social" religion. You know I could preach my opinions too but I don't.

Not even going to address anything anymore since it's clear you're in denial and won't listen, just like a religious zealot.

Label me radical or "heretic" (my favorite) all you want to make you feel better, it won't change your ignorance.

The irony is that there's far more intellectual religious debates I've had with a few (but minority) people not preaching it in my face... so it's not that I hate or dislike them, only when they're preached as argument since it becomes pointless. I've actually started to see the real religion (not the preachers) in a different way (even if it's just about culture). That's a constructive argument, not this preaching bullshit, I'm done.

From now on there's only one way to discuss anything with you: just preach my opinion as fact, no reason at all to waste my time to justify it. Like children going "my word vs his word". Nothing else is worth with your ignorance.
Post 07 Sep 2017, 12:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
I don't give a SHIT that you find the law more infallible or not. IT IS NOT A FUCKING ARGUMENT. I don't care it exists the way it does: plenty of bad stuff exists that doesn't mean they're a fucking argument.

This is to show how frequently you use the F-word in your posts.

Exclamation
Post 07 Sep 2017, 13:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

Furs wrote:
Arguing with you is like:

Me: "I think X is bad, here's my arguments why the law should ban X, it's most logical."
You: "But the law doesn't ban X so your argument is wrong!!!"

Did I say that your argument was wrong?

I said that you were judging other people with your own law.

See, you were putting words in my mouth, again!

Exclamation
Post 07 Sep 2017, 13:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 861
Allow me to quote myself because you probably didn't read it cause it was too long (my fault a bit):

Furs wrote:
That's why people discuss. That's how your beloved infallible law was even born in the first place -- through people discussing it, not through passive sheep just accepting it and re-iterating it.

It doesn't matter if you think the argument is wrong or not. I judge people based on logic. Laws are also created based on arguments -- some good, some bad, and that's why you argue about the arguments.

You, on the other hand, judge them based on current law -- the law which was CREATED by people with arguments like me, NOT BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU who re-iterate it. There's nothing to re-iterate when the law didn't even exist in the first place, especially not in the shape it is now.

Law, being artificial, doesn't make it any more "better" than what someone can come up with BY ITSELF. The way you judge whether a law is better than another is with PROPER ARGUMENTS.

Something which you don't do. You re-iterate it as if it's absolute. Pure garbage.


Drunk driving did not exist as a law until it became a problem -> people argued about it, and it was made into law, because it SOLVED THE PROBLEM.

So what the FUCK IS YOUR POINT about this (immortality breeding) not being law? I want to ARGUE about it like those people. NOBODY WHO FUCKING ARGUED about drunk driving ever said "it's not in the law so let's not argue about it". Because with YOUR mentality, the law wouldn't be created at all.

And yes I use the F word a lot. I'm sick to death of preachers and to see you being one made me realize I'm just wasting my time with your stupid ignorance.

How many times exactly did I say it's a fallacy? And yet you still re-iterate your preaching. What else do you want me to say other than drop the F bomb?

Maybe i should copy paste myself until you understand what fallacy means.
Post 07 Sep 2017, 13:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
If you want a new law or want to change an existing law, put forward your arguments to the legislature and go through the law enactment or law amendment process properly.

This is the SECOND time I say so. Refer to:

https://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=199394#199394

Of course, you, as always, just ignored my post.

Exclamation
Post 07 Sep 2017, 13:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
Since you insist that your "logical justice" must apply to situations in real life, so be it. And I respect your reasoning.

Given all the F-words and name calling, I don't think that it makes any sense to discuss anything with you any more.

From now on, your posts will be ignored.

Exclamation
Post 07 Sep 2017, 13:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 861

YONG wrote:
If you want a new law or want to change an existing law, put forward your arguments to the legislature and go through the law enactment or law amendment process properly.

You should do the same with your AI thread then, since you're judging the potentially danger of something and trying to bring your JUSTICE to the people who develop it (i.e. to keep it under control), and there's currently no law dealing with AIs so...? Why talk about something that doesn't exist? Follow your own hypocritical advice, it's not in the law so all discussion of it is invalid.

I don't want to change existing law. I'm talking about why immortality is not a problem and how such problem could be solved with a LOGICAL and FAIR law that mirrors WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE (drunk driving law). After all, YOU mentioned a potential problem, and I solved it. I know it hurts that your "potential problem" got smashed to pieces. So I said it's not a problem, and gave you a reasoning as to why. The proper response would be to give a valid reasoning behind why you think it doesn't solve the problem, not what you did. That's what I was looking for, anyway. You have a serious problem for seeing this in any other way. Not once did I mention the existing law or changing it, YOU did, so cut the crap.

I know you can't accept the fact that some people outsmart your reasoning for calling immortality a "problem" -- and that some "solve" the problem and show how it could be solved in the future when we gain it (no doubt, there will be laws made around it, and people making those laws use the same arguments I do, they're not any more "special" unless again you resort to appeal to authority). I know the type of argumentation you want: state something, dislike someone clearly solves it and shows it as non-issue, label their solution as radical or heresy or appeal to authority or whatever other fallacious nonsense.

I mean, women rights not equal to men were once "a thing" so by extension anyone arguing to the contrary was "radical" wow, thanks for the insight, I'm ashamed of NOT being radical if it means agreeing to such stupid norms.

I don't care if you ignore me, you're a zealous nut to me anyway since your behavior is the exact same as one. Your authority is your stupid CURRENT social norms, their authority is the Pope or God or w/e, what's the difference?

I'm looking for logical debates: showing why the solutions I propose are not feasible, not whether they exist or not (hello? immortality doesn't exist either; what a crap excuse).


Last edited by Furs on 07 Sep 2017, 14:15; edited 1 time in total
Post 07 Sep 2017, 14:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15233
Location: 1I/ʻOumuamua
I don't see the "F-word" as a problem as long as it isn't directed towards someone. But one must also realise that it often distracts the reader from the rest of the words, leaving the reader only remembering the "F-word" and not taking in whatever it was that is surrounding it. It also mostly only reflects upon the poster as a tool to bludgeon the reader into feeling reluctant to respond. Sometimes it can be added for comedic effect, but it requires some quite adroit writing and a good frame of mind in both the poster and the reader. Perhaps one of the easiest-to-get-right uses is to express dismay or frustration when things are going badly, but usually this should be used in a way directed towards the poster to properly convey the intent; as in "fuck me, why can't I understand this?".
Post 07 Sep 2017, 14:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 861
Well, I tell him over and over again to stop appealing to authority or fallacies and he replies with the same thing over and over, yeah I exploded. In his world there's no argumentation possible: all things should be re-iterated how they currently are.

"Argumentation" is only allowed for authorities he worships, the rest of us just have to reiterate and follow what they decide. Only they can do such a thing, not mere mortals. Sounds awfully lot like you know what.

OMG if you even dare to question what authorities decided and give REASONING why it's dumb -- how dare you, radical piece of something! The world, in its current state, is perfect, there's nothing to argue about it cause it's a "bad thing" if it challenges current norms.

Current norms are divine.

If I am to apologize, I do so now for the rude words and F bombs, but definitely not for misunderstanding him, because everything I said (even if with mix of useless F words) is fact.
Post 07 Sep 2017, 14:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6948
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
f. me, i guess u guys are arguing on different thing, Embarassed

i guess that is fine too, it shows how limited and useless our language is to solve conflicts and issues,

thats why we must have nuclear weapon as stack, ai weapon, whatever f. weapon, because when people keep on f. around, we threat them,

shut the f. up or i nuke your whole place, Laughing
Post 07 Sep 2017, 15:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 861
I don't want him to "stfu" as you put it. I just want to have an intellectual discussion with arguments so I can improve mine. But when stuff like "dude it's not in the law so I dismiss it" so many times after being told it's a fallacy really gets to me. It doesn't help anyone.

I apologize for the rude language (and if YONG decides to not ignore this post), but what I said was still right (in meaning, not in rudeness).


I mean, I don't know why he thinks I post on here to make change or change the law or whatever other nonsense. This is an asm board in the off topic section -- nobody cares about it. I post to see what others think of my arguments or if they find flaws in them so I can improve them.

The topic in question, why immortality is bad or not, it's not whether it's legal or not. He came up with a problem, and I solved it in a simple straightforward manner, which also mirrors how some other problems are solved (drunk driving), and now he gives stuff like "but it's not in the law!"?? And continues to do it, despite anything I say or link him that it's a fallacy. What sense does that make? That's why I exploded. (not that I justify it, just explaining why)

Nothing was in the law at the beginning. The law was created to solve problems, and someone had to think the solutions up first. That someone is a human like us, not a "divine authority" you can use as a superior argument. (appeal to authority). Not have them dismissed because "they're not in the law". Immortality doesn't even exist anyway yet, what kind of nonsense argument is that, wtf.
Post 07 Sep 2017, 22:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6948
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
law,
a set of rules that we came up to prevent something, through threat (prison, death penalty, fine and etc)

the essence of law (afaik) is not to educate, it was something that we designed to control, ~ mass population, human, slaves, idiots, etc term you prefer,

so laws are designed and maybe debated by some group of people that most people usually got no f. idea who they are, Laughing (this is actually the most funny part)

probably if we can't settle to any law if we got 10k voices? idk, if this is issue then we should come up with solution,

do we bother who control and process what ideas become laws? afaik, most people don't care, and this is the reason there will be one day, each of us need to pay oxygen breathing tax, Laughing i kid you not,


Furs wrote:
I apologize for the rude language


i believe this is the correct attitude to yield a fruitful discussion, :thumbs up: for you
Post 08 Sep 2017, 00:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

sleepsleep wrote:
shut the f. up or i nuke your whole place,

You can't do that if your opponent/enemy is your neighbor. Refer to:

Nuclear fallout
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout

Wink
Post 08 Sep 2017, 01:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6948
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
Space Station Clowns Busted 100% undebunkable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b_GCZhPlq8

sudden 0g in space station, cool, Laughing


YONG wrote:

You can't do that if your opponent/enemy is your neighbor. Refer to:


i think, most likely chemical warfare in north korea,
Post 08 Sep 2017, 02:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6948
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
http://www.androidauthority.com/xiaomi-mi-a1-review-798864/

first xiaomi with stock android, no clutter, no bloats

Quote:
The Mi A1 is powered by stock Android, and comes with Android 7.1.2 out of the box. As an Android One smartphone, it aims to offer pure Android Nougat experience with a guarantee of Android Oreo update before the end of this year. In a surprise announcement at the launch, it was shared that the Mi A1 will also receive the Android P update, whenever it’s available.



i hope to get this, i am still using my 4 years old motorola,
Post 08 Sep 2017, 21:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E

sleepsleep wrote:
http://www.androidauthority.com/xiaomi-mi-a1-review-798864/

$235 is a big price tag!

BTW, shouldn't you post your message on the "mobile phone" thread?

Wink
Post 09 Sep 2017, 01:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6948
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

YONG wrote:

$235 is a big price tag!

BTW, shouldn't you post your message on the "mobile phone" thread?


agree, $235 is quite steep in my country's currency,
235 USD = 986.212MYR

yah, i probably should post this in mobile phone, Wink

10th september 2017 (early morning)
- another 14 days to us 23th september, probably some huge events, idk, lets see

- a few errands today, weather is rainy, change my tyre,

- wonder what happened in you all life?
Post 09 Sep 2017, 17:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15233
Location: 1I/ʻOumuamua

sleepsleep wrote:
agree, $235 is quite steep in my country's currency,
235 USD = 986.212MYR

sleepsleep is so rich. sleepsleep can afford to regularly buy expensive phones when sleepsleep gets tired of the previous model.

I'm glad to see life is working out for you sleepsleep Smile You only have to keep it up for the next infinity years (due to being immortal).
Post 09 Sep 2017, 17:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 114, 115, 116 ... 125, 126, 127  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2005 phpBB Group.

Main index   Download   Documentation   Examples   Message board
Copyright © 2004-2016, Tomasz Grysztar.