flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > sleepsleep's vitally important things

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 113, 114, 115 ... 244, 245, 246  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
That article is just as retarded, it assumes culture "diversity" or "uniqueness" is something factually good, but it's not, it's just an opinion.
Well, it's just an opinion, but it is the opinion, or stance, of UNESCO!

(Yeah, I know, I am "appealing to authority", again.)

That's why I find your argument radical. You show no respect at all to other people's opinions. Make no mistake. It is perfectly okay for you to have vastly-different views on issues. Yet, it is offensive to call other people or their views "retarded".

What makes you think that your opinion is any better?

Exclamation
Post 06 Sep 2017, 05:50
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
YONG
Furs wrote:
I'm not the one forcing my views and indoctrinating others about the "value" of something ...
Yes, you are.

You are always forcing other forum members to accept your radical definitions and arguments. Whenever they challenge your definitions and/or arguments, you simply claim that they are wrong.

As I mentioned earlier, you are acting like a self-appointed lawmaker cum judge -- you, based on your own law, keep judging other people.

What's the point of discussing any issues with you?

Exclamation
Post 06 Sep 2017, 06:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8882
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
maybe it is important to display all your ideas instead of executing them? maybe,

since typing and pressing the submit button somehow make us happy?

idk much about culture, but is it something good and worth bringing into next generation?

who actually on earth, decide what is best for human and what is not?

those who hold nuclear? i guess that is the answer,

lets burn the earth, Laughing
Post 06 Sep 2017, 10:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8882
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
somehow i recalled back what i was intended to write,

it was something we called empathy,
define:the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

it was a kind of feeling that you feel like you wanna help those in mind focused, those that move you, those that causes you to feel you want to assist,

but how real is such feeling?

because why i don't feel such feeling when seeing dead animals bodies by the road, or hit by car, or etc,

or i only feel empathy when it somehow displays i got empathy? just one of the main hypocrite feelings that masked very well among human?

imagine there are several dead bodies now, in front of me, i think i feel nothing, maybe i should feel something?

or several dead bodies of our own family members? did i beyond such feeling? cause i think i will feel nothing,

maybe something is wrong with me, Embarassed
Post 06 Sep 2017, 11:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1469
Furs
YONG wrote:
You show no respect at all to other people's opinions.
Why would I show respect to opinions that force upon others?

If your opinion is that immortality is bad, and thus you won't want to become immortal, then keep it to yourself (the latter part, not the opinion). If you said from the start that you don't consider immortality good, so you won't become immortal given the choice, I'd have zero problems with it.

What I have a problem with is when you FORCE it like this:

"Immortality is bad for me because of X... thus it should not be allowed on others who don't share my viewpoints on X either"

I will NEVER respect such authoritarian opinions. It's not me deciding for others, it's you or people you quote/articles link. Why can't you see this obvious fact?

YONG wrote:
You are always forcing other forum members to accept your radical definitions and arguments. Whenever they challenge your definitions and/or arguments, you simply claim that they are wrong.
I don't force anyone to accept anything and I don't care what they accept as long as they don't force shit on me. See above.

I'm not going to argue about why you, personally, don't want immortality. Nor will I argue with anyone who shares your viewpoint about it. It's your choice, I respect your freedom of choice, you don't respect mine.

But, since you insist, let's make it simpler for you.

I, personally, couldn't care less about cultures, having offspring, and whatever other arguments you had -- other people can, but it's their job, not mine, keep me out of it.

So, how is immortality bad for me, again?

  • I don't contribute to the planet's downfall since I won't breed, in fact, I'll use less resources than someone who breeds (they'll have to feed two mouths at some point in time). So in this respect, I'm better than them for helping the planet.
  • I couldn't care less about culture diversity. Non-issue to me. I won't help preserve it given any choice at all, cause I don't care. It's my choice. If you care about it, then you help preserve it. If you think immortality is bad for it, then you simply don't become immortal, nobody is forcing you. Stop telling others (and indoctrinating children into it) what to do just because you're afraid it will eventually die off. If it dies, it's due to free choice of others, so what's the problem again? Stop telling others what they should care for. Nobody is ACTIVELY destroying a culture, they just don't help in preserving it cause they don't care. Yeah, it's their choice and opinion. Accept it.
Thus I nullified your arguments. How more simple can I make it?

You'll have to come up with some better arguments against immortality that applies to everyone and not just you.

Stop fucking forcing your opinion on MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE as an argument.

Just because some morons drink while driving doesn't mean you have to ban driving for EVERYONE. How fucking retarded is that? And you have the audacity to call ME "imposing my opinions on others", that's disgusting. Drunk driving is indeed a problem that affects innocents -- this is why you punish the drunk driver. Take away his driving/drinking rights or even jail him. Punish him for contributing to a problem. It makes ZERO sense to punish a normal driver. Replace "drunk driving" with "immortal breeding" and you got the context.

And just because some people care about culture diversity doesn't mean I do. Thus I can choose immortality with absolutely no bad side effect for me.
Post 06 Sep 2017, 11:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
it was something we called empathy,

it was a kind of feeling that you feel like you wanna help those in mind focused, those that move you, those that causes you to feel you want to assist,

but how real is such feeling?
You should try it out.

For example, you know that one of the forum members is seeking ways to earn Bitcoins. You, out of empathy, email him/her 1 Bitcoin. Of course, he/she will not even thank you afterwards, which, according to you, is very normal these days. Then, you will understand the true feeling of being empathetic.

Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 13:30
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
YONG
Furs wrote:
I will NEVER respect such authoritarian opinions.
If so, how come you keep judging other people based on your own law? Clearly, you are neither a lawmaker nor a judge!

Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 13:34
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
YONG
Furs wrote:
you don't respect mine.
If I didn't respect your point of view, I would ignore your "unconventional" arguments right from the beginning. How come I am still discussing with you -- right now?!

Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 13:39
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
YONG
Furs wrote:
I don't contribute to the planet's downfall since I won't breed, in fact, I'll use less resources than someone who breeds (they'll have to feed two mouths at some point in time). So in this respect, I'm better than them for helping the planet.
So what? Many hardcore environmentalists do the same thing.

So, you are suggesting that you should be automatically qualified for immortality if you go green? And those who don't go green should be disqualified?

Again, you are arguing based on your own law. As I mentioned, there is no law that prohibits the "wrongdoing" of those people.

Make no mistake. I do respect your freedom of choice.

Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 13:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1469
Furs
YONG wrote:
If so, how come you keep judging other people based on your own law?
I don't judge people based on my own law. I judge people based on logic / qualities. If you cause a problem by yourself, you're the only one solely responsible for it, and equal punishment is called "logical justice". No matter how some people find it "wrong" or not or too punishing, the fact is, such wrongdoing was already done so it deserves, by logic, equal treatment in return. I'm aware the real world is far from logical and has retarded unfair laws and justice systems. But well, it's not me who's in love with the "social norms" after all so it's not my problem cause I'm not rooting for it. Wink

YONG wrote:
If I didn't respect your point of view, I would ignore your "unconventional" arguments right from the beginning. How come I am still discussing with you -- right now?!
I meant it in a different way in this case. "Respect" as in respecting my freedom of choice (i.e. respecting what my opinion entails, not the opinion itself). Well, I'm speaking in general. It's not just *me* obviously, but everyone who agrees with me (and when I argue with you, consequently, everyone who shares your viewpoints).

YONG wrote:
So what? Many hardcore environmentalists do the same thing.

So, you are suggesting that you should be automatically qualified for immortality if you go green? And those who don't go green should be disqualified?
I think I realized the problem now. You have it completely backwards.

One does not need to qualify for something in order to have freedom to use it, that's backwards and tyrannical. Instead, things are artificially limited if they have or cause obvious problems (for example, gun control, but that's another topic).

If X (i.e. immortality) has no negative consequences in the hands of user Y, then it's valid. It's not a question of "whitelisting" things (i.e. qualifying). It's a case of *blacklisting* things (i.e. disqualify dangerous stuff). Immortality is not one of them, at least for people with my views, so there's no point in blacklisting it.

I do understand some people want to have offspring. Nobody forces them to be immortal since it causes issues and thus disqualifies them from it (same as alcohol disqualifies someone from driving by law). It's really simple.

Well -- other than money/resources obviously. I mean in the immortality process itself, if it's expensive because it is a difficult process (again, I'm talking about the immortality process itself, not what effects it has). I never asked for it for free unless it's a really cheap process (who knows?).
Post 06 Sep 2017, 14:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ProphetOfDoom



Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 120
Location: UK
ProphetOfDoom
Immortality in this plane of reality is impossible anyway. Rolling Eyes Even if nanotechnolgy kept you perfectly young, fit and healthy, and you had a backup of your mind stored on a computer on Mars, there could easily be an interplanetary thermonuclear war that would destroy both your body and mind instantly. I'm sure whatever steps you took, someone could theorise a catastrophe that would render them useless. So by immortality you really just mean "living for a very long time" (which, compared to eternity, is actually an infinitesimally short period of time).
On top of that, today's advocates of paradise-engineering are no different from 20th century eugenicists. It was lethal injections all round for "defective" babies in WW2. Paradise-engineering would inevitably lead to birth defects, infanticide, beings that were "debatably-human" and thus would have no human rights, and indescribable suffering for such beings.
Incidentally, the only major organisation that opposed eugenics in the beginning of the last century was the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Which is also the only organisation that can really impart everlasting life.
Post 06 Sep 2017, 14:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ProphetOfDoom



Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 120
Location: UK
ProphetOfDoom
Oh **** I've posted on "sleepsleep's vitally important things". I swore I'd never sink to such degradation. Sad
Post 06 Sep 2017, 14:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8882
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Furs wrote:

What I have a problem with is when you FORCE it like this:

"Immortality is bad for me because of X... thus it should not be allowed on others who don't share my viewpoints on X either"

idk why such statement could becomes an issue,
because,

if YONG doesn't like immortality, YONG prefers to die before 120 or 130, i am fine with that, that is his own choice,

YONG said, others shouldn't be allowed to extend their life, become cyborg, transhuman, or etc term that could live longer than 120, because there are no enough resources for them, or they create stagnant in creativity and etc, (basically all the negative impact)

what he said probably is true, there are always issues when people live longer (after all, this is all uncharted territory, nobody f.know yet ),

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

since YONG choose to fly under 120 category, i guess that is good for me, because i want to be over 120, YONG category is part of the solution Laughing thank you again, Embarassed

since YONG already join the under 120 group, basically, this thing works like religion, you want others to join under 120 group too, Laughing (it is actually quite logic, because you don't want to be the only one under 120 group)

idk why you can't see through YONG logic? Idea

Furs wrote:
I don't force anyone to accept anything and I don't care what they accept as long as they don't force shit on me. See above.

how about ~ maybe you think they are forcing shit on you?

you use the word respect, but what that actually means?

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,

now question to Furs,
1. are you easily getting into emotion swing by reading what others people wrote? why?
Post 06 Sep 2017, 17:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8882
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
welcome ProphetOfDoom,
this is one of the hell long thread , Embarassed

maybe one day we will figure out how to hide inside 4d through 10d? Wink

ProphetOfDoom wrote:

So by immortality you really just mean "living for a very long time" (which, compared to eternity, is actually an infinitesimally short period of time).

yah, like 1000 years, or 5000 years, everything will progress and reach almost like magic lifestyle, provided we human don't nuke earth into pieces, Laughing

year, 2017 + 5000 = 6017, i am coming for you, Smile
Post 06 Sep 2017, 18:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8882
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
out of excitement, i accidentally live less 1000 years, Laughing
Post 06 Sep 2017, 18:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8882
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i think it would be really cool, if you send your own satellite up there and enjoy the view, hopefully i could see a sphere ball, Laughing

viewing all the moving clouds, sun shines, moon light, that would be really cool,

find cheaper way to get cubesat up there, like USD 1k? maybe,
Post 06 Sep 2017, 18:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8882
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
12 truths I learned from life and writing | Anne Lamott
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X41iulkRqZU

i guess this thread is my version of thing, Wink
Post 06 Sep 2017, 19:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1469
Furs
sleepsleep wrote:
now question to Furs,
1. are you easily getting into emotion swing by reading what others people wrote? why?
Well, because he called my argument as "authoritative" or "deciding for others" when it's the most logical out of them all and has zero bias (because it applies universally, no arbitrary rules). Meanwhile his argument is about restricting stuff for others (e.g. immortality) for things he find bad with it (which is fine cause his opinion, but I don't like it when people call *my* argument something that *theirs* actually possesses)

(logical in the sense that, if X causes issues for Y, then X (and only X!!) should be managed so that it doesn't cause issues for Y -- enforce it by law if needed -- anything else is anti-logic to me and *injustice*; just as we find it absurd to put to jail an innocent because someone else did something, it's only natural and logical we follow it everywhere)

ProphetOfDoom wrote:
Immortality in this plane of reality is impossible anyway. Rolling Eyes Even if nanotechnolgy kept you perfectly young, fit and healthy, and you had a backup of your mind stored on a computer on Mars, there could easily be an interplanetary thermonuclear war that would destroy both your body and mind instantly. I'm sure whatever steps you took, someone could theorise a catastrophe that would render them useless. So by immortality you really just mean "living for a very long time" (which, compared to eternity, is actually an infinitesimally short period of time).
On top of that, today's advocates of paradise-engineering are no different from 20th century eugenicists. It was lethal injections all round for "defective" babies in WW2. Paradise-engineering would inevitably lead to birth defects, infanticide, beings that were "debatably-human" and thus would have no human rights, and indescribable suffering for such beings.
Incidentally, the only major organisation that opposed eugenics in the beginning of the last century was the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Which is also the only organisation that can really impart everlasting life.
Well you're right, I'm not speaking about the "true immortality". When I refer to immortality I think of just "stopping aging" and that's it Smile

No doubt, even if it becomes reality and affordable, you'll still require periodic "maintenance" to keep your body from aging. I don't really believe that a "real" immortality with no maintenance whatsoever is even realistic. I mean, it's not even a biological thing, even computers age and die off if they're not maintained or have parts replaced (but as long as the data is copied, it's fine).

Note that when I say data is copied I don't refer to "cloning yourself" here. Your body's cells undergo copies all the time as you live, even normally.
Post 06 Sep 2017, 21:26
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
I don't judge people based on my own law. I judge people based on logic / qualities.
Well, you are just changing the name. Besides, you are talking about your "logic". See below.

Furs wrote:
If you cause a problem by yourself, you're the only one solely responsible for it, and equal punishment is called "logical justice".
I should have pointed out something important right from the very beginning, which would have saved us a lot of time. I am sorry that I did not.

Refer to:
https://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=196905#196905

Recap:
- You said that "absolute proof could not exist".
- I pointed out that it could and gave you a mathematical example.
- You said that "you were NOT talking about logical/mathematical proof".

THAT is exactly the problem of your argument here. Let me explain.

You are applying mathematical logic to situations in real life, and you believe that it is okay to do so. But the truth is that it is NOT okay.

Refer to:
https://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=199437#199437

I know what you are going to say. My example is an exceptional one because no-one can -- or is willing to -- mess with Uncle Sam given its military prowess.

So, let me give you another example.

- Person Y occupies, without permission, part of the land owned by Person F.
- According to your "logical justice", person Y must be "wrong" and should be "punished".
- That is just partially true.
- If person Y keeps doing so and person F does not bother to take any legal action against it, the law says that person Y, after a period of time, can apply to the court for the title (ownership) of the land occupied.
- See, the wrongdoer can actually benefit from his/her "wrongdoing" and the victim actually gets punished in the end.

Refer to:

Adverse possession
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

Here is the deal:

If you insist that your "logical justice" must apply to situations in real life, so be it and I respect your reasoning.

If you now understand that your "logical justice" may or may not apply to situations in real life, you should also understand my stance -- why I keep saying that you are judging other people based on your own law since other people may or may not accept your "logical justice".

Wink
Post 07 Sep 2017, 03:26
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
YONG
Furs wrote:
I do understand some people want to have offspring. Nobody forces them to be immortal since it causes issues and thus disqualifies them from it. It's really simple.
Furs wrote:
... same as alcohol disqualifies someone from driving by law ...
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.

Wink
Post 07 Sep 2017, 05:42
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 ... 113, 114, 115 ... 244, 245, 246  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


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.