|
On July 26 2016 23:43 JimmiC wrote:
This topic is the cat that came back the very next day... I keep thinking it's done and then the combatants write the exact same thing but think the other person is magically going to agree this time. Can you guys please start your own thread or take it PM. I'm pretty sure nothing is getting accomplished and feels way to serious for this thread.
Yeah, the politics threads are overflowing into other threads lately... (plexit?)
There's a reason I never open the politics threads, and I'd like that reason to not extend to the entire general forum.
|
People keep quoting philosophers and books they've read on difficult topics like society, religion, etc.
I haven't read any of that, honestly I just try to think about things.
Does that make me a dumbass (or more mildly put, does that make my views less valuable than those of someone who read through all that stuff)?
|
Dont you have to read some of those in school? I dont mean full books, just enough to know who is who
|
On July 27 2016 00:38 Incognoto wrote:
People keep quoting philosophers and books they've read on difficult topics like society, religion, etc.
I haven't read any of that, honestly I just try to think about things.
Does that make me a dumbass (or more mildly put, does that make my views less valuable than those of someone who read through all that stuff)?
To some it might, unfortunately having read something is no guarantee of comprehension. I don't think you could objectively say that it makes your opinion less valuable at least within in the context of messing around in a forum discussion.
|
On July 27 2016 00:38 Incognoto wrote:
People keep quoting philosophers and books they've read on difficult topics like society, religion, etc.
I haven't read any of that, honestly I just try to think about things.
Does that make me a dumbass (or more mildly put, does that make my views less valuable than those of someone who read through all that stuff)?
It doesn't make you a dumbass, but even though you think by yourself, it's likely that someone thought about that before you - and that he had more time than you to think deeper and study more. Thus reading & quoting. Although it should be noted that only reading & quoting, without thinking, is probably useless unless you just want to look good in society.
|
On July 27 2016 00:38 Incognoto wrote:
People keep quoting philosophers and books they've read on difficult topics like society, religion, etc.
I haven't read any of that, honestly I just try to think about things.
Does that make me a dumbass (or more mildly put, does that make my views less valuable than those of someone who read through all that stuff)?
Are you studying to become a politician? If not, then no. It's good for people to have a degree of knowledge and expertise in their major and profession, but as a personal interest, you can put as much or as little effort as you want into it, and that doesn't make you a dumbass.
|
On July 27 2016 00:38 Incognoto wrote:
People keep quoting philosophers and books they've read on difficult topics like society, religion, etc.
I haven't read any of that, honestly I just try to think about things.
Does that make me a dumbass (or more mildly put, does that make my views less valuable than those of someone who read through all that stuff)?
I find 95% of that to be just common sense attributed to someone to help people understand what they are talking about, or at least to help them look educated when invoking very basic arguments. 
So for example, instead of saying that you can't be mathematically 100% sure of anything, you refer to wussname that thought and therefore existed. I guess that helps a bit in getting everyone on the same page?
|
On July 27 2016 09:03 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 00:38 Incognoto wrote:
People keep quoting philosophers and books they've read on difficult topics like society, religion, etc.
I haven't read any of that, honestly I just try to think about things.
Does that make me a dumbass (or more mildly put, does that make my views less valuable than those of someone who read through all that stuff)? I find 95% of that to be just common sense attributed to someone to help people understand what they are talking about, or at least to help them look educated when invoking very basic arguments. So for example, instead of saying that you can't be mathematically 100% sure of anything, you refer to wussname that thought and therefore existed. I guess that helps a bit in getting everyone on the same page?
It's just the natural extension of what happens when you realize how figured out a lot of the world is. So first you make sure to reference who thought of/talked about the hard stuff (according to ____ this is how you derive ____ from ____), then you do it with the fun stuff (did you see ____ throw the ___ while he ____, I didn't know you could do that!), and then to the menial stuff (mother says don't talk to strangers)
We use referential value systems all the time in normal discourse. It's just the most efficient way to communicate with other people while instilling an objective 3rd party into the mix.
|
On July 23 2016 18:22 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 23:25 KwarK wrote:
I really cannot understand how you're possibly not getting this. I cannot conceive of any way an intelligent being could not understand this scenario but to give you the benefit of the doubt I'll try again.
MAD is a state of peace created between two hostile powers through the assurance that any attack will be met with the full destruction of your state, in the knowledge that it'll leave their state also destroyed. The purpose of MAD is not that both states are destroyed, it is that neither are destroyed. The goal is not mutually assured destruction, the goal is peace through the threat of destruction. Let us define it as follows "A state of peace maintained by an assurance of apocalyptic consequences should either party violate the peace".
Now, to the bit you're getting confused by.
If one party launches then at this point MAD has already failed. The objective of MAD is not to destroy both parties, it is to destroy neither party. Once one party has launched the peace is violated and MAD is obsolete. It doesn't matter why one party launched, maybe it was computer error, maybe they created an automated counteroffensive mechanism which had a buggy detection system, maybe they thought the moon was a NATO strike, maybe they just wanted everyone to die, at this point it doesn't make any difference at all. MAD is a strategy for avoiding a nuclear strike, if a nuclear strike has happened then the MAD rulebook no longer applies because no amount of proving that your second strike is every bit as apocalyptic can undo their first strike. Their first strike has already been launched.
I'm not saying that one ought not to follow the strategy of MAD to the utmost before the enemy has launched, making assurances of the dire consequences and ensuring full second strike capability with protocols in place to guarantee the destruction of the enemy should they strike. You should absolutely do that. MAD depends on that stuff to endure. But the success condition for MAD is "nobody launches". The entire policy of MAD has no success condition after one party has already launched due to causality.
This isn't philosophical or even very confusing. If the success condition for MAD has already been rendered unobtainable due to causality then continuing to follow it with no hope of achieving that success is absurd. No amount of launching a devastating second strike is going to unlaunch their first strike, at that point you're just killing people. That you'd still do it on principle, even when the stakes were escalated to the extinction of the entire species, is baffling to me. This isn't a complicated game theory situation. Hell, make a game theory box.
Box---------------------------------------Party A launches------------------Party A does not launch
Party B launches--------------------Extinction of humanity-----------Half humanity wiped out
Party B does not launch----------Half humanity wiped out--------Peace
Obviously you want the 4th box, peace. But once party A launches you're restricted to just picking your favourite of the two policies. I am really not sure how you can possibly not be understanding this. aergsaegscdtyjy. my MAD does not fail, ever; its success is inherent/intrinsic. so, i will never accept your fail MAD shenanigans because my MAD does not fail; it's an automatic counter response which can not fail. if you shoot, i shoot; success. the end. now, you can ditch you whole MAD bs and completely remove it from the argument; neither sides has heard nor dreamt of MAD but they're aware of each others capabilities. after one side shoots, i'd inquire whether or not the one/ones doing the shooting are representative of their entire population. - if at > 66% pro-bombing, i'll retaliate, no fucks given. - if at >33% but < 66% pro-bombing, i'll probably flip a goddamn coin. - if at < 33% pro-bombing(making the ones shooting some fucking retard extremists of sorts), i'll not retaliate. - if i won't know/i wouldn't be given the numbers, i will retaliate because i'll never leave a future in the hands of some Hitlers wannabees(out of principle and because your hopes and dreams will not convince me that they're worth saving). (note: the idea that i would be given bs numbers just because, is off the table). @farv + Show Spoiler +if i'll get a hard on while doing it, i'll tell you
MAD can not fail,it is not a defence system like a tomahawk or whatever,.
It has never been a goal to get into a mad situation to defend us.
The way people are arguing about it is so weird.
Mad was a situation in which we arrived as a result of the arms race. Part of an arms race is protecting your weapons so they put nukes on subs. This erased the window giving the first striker an significant advantage and both sides came to the conclusion that there was no way to win a war anymore.
This has never been the goal of the arms race though,it was just the result of it. A result that America actively tried to avoid/change when Ronald Reagan announced the development of a missile defence system aka starwars. (which never became reality due to technical difficulties,they are still working on it though and getting closer and closer)
Then arguing from a 100% destruction perspective is pointless other then intellectual masturbation.
There never will be 100% destruction and the military will not make its decision based on a scenario where there is 100% destruction.
If you take the 100% destruction scenario then the whole question becomes completely uninteresting.
Would you push a button if you die to kill your arch enemy, or will you not.
I guess some people will, and some people wont. Discussing what some people should do in such a scenario,i don't see the point in it.
This not particulary to xmz,as I actually do very much agree with most he says.
|
On July 27 2016 12:15 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2016 18:22 xM(Z wrote:On July 22 2016 23:25 KwarK wrote:
I really cannot understand how you're possibly not getting this. I cannot conceive of any way an intelligent being could not understand this scenario but to give you the benefit of the doubt I'll try again.
MAD is a state of peace created between two hostile powers through the assurance that any attack will be met with the full destruction of your state, in the knowledge that it'll leave their state also destroyed. The purpose of MAD is not that both states are destroyed, it is that neither are destroyed. The goal is not mutually assured destruction, the goal is peace through the threat of destruction. Let us define it as follows "A state of peace maintained by an assurance of apocalyptic consequences should either party violate the peace".
Now, to the bit you're getting confused by.
If one party launches then at this point MAD has already failed. The objective of MAD is not to destroy both parties, it is to destroy neither party. Once one party has launched the peace is violated and MAD is obsolete. It doesn't matter why one party launched, maybe it was computer error, maybe they created an automated counteroffensive mechanism which had a buggy detection system, maybe they thought the moon was a NATO strike, maybe they just wanted everyone to die, at this point it doesn't make any difference at all. MAD is a strategy for avoiding a nuclear strike, if a nuclear strike has happened then the MAD rulebook no longer applies because no amount of proving that your second strike is every bit as apocalyptic can undo their first strike. Their first strike has already been launched.
I'm not saying that one ought not to follow the strategy of MAD to the utmost before the enemy has launched, making assurances of the dire consequences and ensuring full second strike capability with protocols in place to guarantee the destruction of the enemy should they strike. You should absolutely do that. MAD depends on that stuff to endure. But the success condition for MAD is "nobody launches". The entire policy of MAD has no success condition after one party has already launched due to causality.
This isn't philosophical or even very confusing. If the success condition for MAD has already been rendered unobtainable due to causality then continuing to follow it with no hope of achieving that success is absurd. No amount of launching a devastating second strike is going to unlaunch their first strike, at that point you're just killing people. That you'd still do it on principle, even when the stakes were escalated to the extinction of the entire species, is baffling to me. This isn't a complicated game theory situation. Hell, make a game theory box.
Box---------------------------------------Party A launches------------------Party A does not launch
Party B launches--------------------Extinction of humanity-----------Half humanity wiped out
Party B does not launch----------Half humanity wiped out--------Peace
Obviously you want the 4th box, peace. But once party A launches you're restricted to just picking your favourite of the two policies. I am really not sure how you can possibly not be understanding this. aergsaegscdtyjy. my MAD does not fail, ever; its success is inherent/intrinsic. so, i will never accept your fail MAD shenanigans because my MAD does not fail; it's an automatic counter response which can not fail. if you shoot, i shoot; success. the end. now, you can ditch you whole MAD bs and completely remove it from the argument; neither sides has heard nor dreamt of MAD but they're aware of each others capabilities. after one side shoots, i'd inquire whether or not the one/ones doing the shooting are representative of their entire population. - if at > 66% pro-bombing, i'll retaliate, no fucks given. - if at >33% but < 66% pro-bombing, i'll probably flip a goddamn coin. - if at < 33% pro-bombing(making the ones shooting some fucking retard extremists of sorts), i'll not retaliate. - if i won't know/i wouldn't be given the numbers, i will retaliate because i'll never leave a future in the hands of some Hitlers wannabees(out of principle and because your hopes and dreams will not convince me that they're worth saving). (note: the idea that i would be given bs numbers just because, is off the table). @farv + Show Spoiler +if i'll get a hard on while doing it, i'll tell you MAD can not fail,it is not a defence system like a tomahawk or whatever,. It has never been a goal to get into a mad situation to defend us. The way people are arguing about it is so weird. Mad was a situation in which we arrived as a result of the arms race. Part of an arms race is protecting your weapons so they put nukes on subs. This erased the window giving the first striker an significant advantage and both sides came to the conclusion that there was no way to win a war anymore. This has never been the goal of the arms race though,it was just the result of it. A result that America actively tried to avoid/change when Ronald Reagan announced the development of a missile defence system aka starwars. (which never became reality due to technical difficulties,they are still working on it though and getting closer and closer) Then arguing from a 100% destruction perspective is pointless other then intellectual masturbation. There never will be 100% destruction and the military will not make its decision based on a scenario where there is 100% destruction. If you take the 100% destruction scenario then the whole question becomes completely uninteresting. Would you push a button if you die to kill your arch enemy, or will you not. I guess some people will, and some people wont. Discussing what some people should do in such a scenario,i don't see the point in it. This not particulary to xmz,as I actually do very much agree with most he says.
The numbers is important actually.
So you begin the discussion at 100% death on either side.
Will the answers be the same if its 90% death on either side?
What if its just you and one other person? He poisons you, and now you have a chance to kill him. You'll die regardless--the question becomes "is killing a human life worth it because you're angry he killed you"
Its only masturbatory if you don't play with the parameters after getting to relatively fixed opinions on the opening parameters.
|
Can you guys please move to a different thread? This is starting to get annoying.
|
On July 27 2016 17:11 Khalum wrote:
Can you guys please move to a different thread? This is starting to get annoying.
Agreed
|
Haters gonna hate!.
On July 27 2016 15:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
"is killing a human life worth it because you're angry he killed you"
is there a chance for you to consider any reasons other than feelings, for that action there?.
you dudes went with spite, hate, anger ... etc, as if emotions is all you understand, all you value(you know, like Trump&Co. at their convention).
|
On July 27 2016 18:46 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 17:11 Khalum wrote:
Can you guys please move to a different thread? This is starting to get annoying. Agreed
Thirded.
Vote #MADexit for a better future of the stupid questions thread.
|
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful?
|
We allready have?
They are called Bikes, Trams, Scooters, Trains and Subways. I know plenty of people that don't own a car.
The car is way better when you don't live in a City or often want to visit places not nicely connected by public transport.
+Its fun.
|
On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful?
Something like what they did in the Minority Report movie, or Irobot movie?
|
On July 27 2016 19:16 xM(Z wrote:Haters gonna hate!. Show nested quote +On July 27 2016 15:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
"is killing a human life worth it because you're angry he killed you" is there a chance for you to consider any reasons other than feelings, for that action there?. you dudes went with spite, hate, anger ... etc, as if emotions is all you understand, all you value(you know, like Trump&Co. at their convention).
What valid reason would you have to kill a life if you're already dead anyway? There will be -1 humans regardless, why be the cause for there to be -2 humans?
|
On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful?
Because
>Cars are a symbol of one's freedom, power and wealth
>Cars are mostly inefficient inside a city but much more efficient outside cities (and the world does not only contain cities)
>Cars can be fun to drive
>Most people prefer the comfort of a car to the overcrowding of buses/trains/etc
>Most people prefer not having to spend their own energy to move (walk, bikes)
Erc etc
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On July 27 2016 22:07 Simberto wrote:
Instead of talking about MAXIT, just bring up some silly questions of your own. Here is mine:
Why are cars still a thing?
Cars are incredibly inefficient. Even if you commute a long way and use your car a lot, i doubt that you will on average drive more than 3-4 hours a day. Most people drive a lot less. That means that even in a best case analysis, the car is standing around doing nothing for at least 80% of the time.
If you live in a city, it is even worse. Because the car actually blocks traffic for other people while standing around. Pretty much all streets around here have one row of cars on each side at any point in time. That means that they usually lose about half the lanes and a lot of convenience, just because cars are so ineffective. And it becomes even worse, because then you get the delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc... who now have to park in the second row to do their job. Which means that it is now barely possible for other cars to pass through that road. So the cars move even slower.
I know that in my part of the city, you are a lot faster if you go by bike than if you go by car. And yet a bike provides the same efficiency problem, it also stands around doing nothing most of the time.
Now, i have been thinking about this for a while, and there simply has to be a better way to manage transportation in a city than cars. Something that does not go to waste for 80% of the time blocking traffic for everyone else.
I am thinking of fleets of self-driving cars, Sci-Fi style conveyor belts, or basically anything else but cars.
Why have we not figured something better out yet, when it is so obvious that cars are so incredibly inefficient and wasteful?
cars are a necessity in America due to how spread out everything is, especially if you live in rural & suburban areas. Public transportation for the most part suck here and having a car gifts you the freedom to go where you want when you want, instead of having to follow a schedule created by someone else (public transportation)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
