kvnchrist

You guys do know that you are discussing something that doesn't exist, and have no idea what if at all it will ultimately become. A sentient being or another empty sci-fi subject of fiction. You ask if these imaginary beings should have the same rights as human beings, and them some have claimed prejudice because they won't automatically except these imaginary beings as something deserving of equality. I think no one would be able to fully except anything as equal to them, unless they actually experience personal contact. Without personal interaction there is no way anybody can actually determine what they will think about the subject. Judging anyone's reactions here is like judging the reactions to any black person, before they have ever met one.

I'm terribly sorry, I hate tyrants and control freaks. I've got them in my family. I would like to touch on the idea that elderly people are almost forgotten in our society, for the most part. We push them into things called retirement communities, which is another name for a glorified storage shed to warehouse them until they remove themselves from their children's lives.

I'm not sure, really how to set this up. It seems that there are a considerably younger audience here at this site, than I am. I'm not saying that everybody younger than I feels differently. I wouldn't be that insulting to those I know only so well. What I am saying is that there is a very good chance that the experiences that those younger than me are so different, than those I've had, in my youth, that the changes I've seen, have been unseen by you. I'm not saying that when I was growing up, that things were perfect. Far from it. We can see, with the advent of the internet, that horrible acts that were once hidden, revealed. A lot of the false security we deluded ourselves with and the semblance of freedom we believed in was a fairytale we told ourselves. What I am asking is if being a member of a family holds more or less of a bond than it has held in the past? Is being a family means sticking together or sticking it to each other. Are family members more comfortable in taking advantage of their own family than they are of strangers. Do these types prey on their family counting on the idea of being part of a family to excuse their actions.

How and when was this.

The government opened the door but banks prospered by it and had an out for less than scrupulous behavior. What got me is the commissions from the bailout money, we gave them, to save their butts, were paid to their executives for them screwing up. The people at the Fed had a hankering for porno, if I remember right. So they were looking the other way. Our tax dollars in action. Now, this unholy alliance is trying to get us out of a hole they have left us in, when they were the only ones to benefit by it. To big to fail means they are too big.

I'm getting tired of these simple, small little things that separate us, from turf wars in congress to snot nosed snipe-fests by people trying to exult their ideals over others. As 9/11 brought all this pettiness to end, however short, I'd like to set up a hypothetical that would bring the world together. Knowing human nature, I know, as soon as large scale catastrophes pass, we get back to the same nit-picking that so many are fond of. I was thinking, The ultimate catastrophe was the possibility extinction of all of us as a race. I would ask, If such a thing were to present itself, would we have the capability to deal with the situation and what, if anything could we have as a contingency plan, If we could not alter the trajectory, or destroy the thing.

There is no allegation. The term was posted. That is factual. Your opinions of what is important are duly noted. My opinion is that everybody is entitled to theirs, without being attributed to something derogatory. That too is factual.

True, which is the problem with it in the first place. Its just a hypothetical situation. Then why are people calling others bigots for not agreeing with them. I bowed out of this thread because I was getting angry and didn't want to start getting snotty with people, but that's just me! I didn't call anyone a bigot. As I said, its a hypothetical situation that is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon. I'm not talking about you. If I was I would have used a P. M.

True, which is the problem with it in the first place. Its just a hypothetical situation. Then why are people calling others bigots for not agreeing with them. I bowed out of this thread because I was getting angry and didn't want to start getting snotty with people, but that's just me!

I doubt very much in the count there was 20,000. This was war, we were in. These are supposed to be these great military minds that are going to save us from evil. Heck, a common thief concerns himself with the defenses of the home, he's breaking into more that these idiots.

As far as I'm concerned. War is war. If you are in for a penny, you are in for a pound. The people who are bombed don't care if you have boots on the ground or not. they are just as dead. Their relative are just as angry at you and these might be the very people that have these weapons. This goes directly back to my thread on ARE WE THE WORLD'S POLICE.! The ramifications of this will be heard, most likely for decades to come, untill these weapons are too old to be effective, at all. The idea that commercial airliners would install expensive anti-aircraft missile technology is maddening and was quite preventable. The expense would be enormous, and the price would be passed down to the consumer. This will effect our travel industry far more than 9/11 ever thought of being. The decision to enter into this, and the decision to not have boots on the ground, were both a political decision. The buck stops at the Whitehorse and I'm sure the every time a airliner comes down in flames, the opposition will not be shy in pointing this out. Just like the blunders in the last administration's wars, we are now stuck in a situation that we can't fully, ever extricate ourselves. This just keeps on getting better and better, doesn't it.

Well, this was meant to be a light hearted look at wacked out science trying to explain human nature. The whole thing reminded me of Jerry Lewis's nutty professors character. I envisioned Carl Rove morphing into Jerry Garcia. I never meant it as a put down to anyone. If it offends people it needs to be closed. I ask that it be so, immediately. I will not post another like this one. I apologize to those that were offended.

The left doesn't have a monopoly on emotionally lead responses. Try dropping a crucifix in a glass of urine. You will see a fairly emotional response from the right as well. Can you say ballistic!

I am more worried about civilian aircraft. Military aircraft have safeguards, like white phosphorus flairs and exhaust dampening. Civilian aircraft are far more vulnerable. Imagine 10,000 9/11's without the world trade center, happening all over the world. This reaches far wider than just the few countries that looked the other way.

The main reason we are in this economic crisis is because the government got involved in areas it shouldn't be getting involved in. Like telling banks who they should be loaning more money to. Right, because the government regulating banks is what caused the crisis. I am sure someone else can reply to that better then I can. HeyYou and others can tell you why that is the complete opposite of what happened. If no one else replies I guess I will, but I am pretty terrible at writing about economic things. If you look at history, I think the Carter Administration started policies which helped low income people get housing they could not otherwise afford. I'm sure the banks were delighted to get government money to subsidize these loans, but just as with any good intention, the government didn't follow through and regulate the use of this policy. They gave guidelines that the banks, in their zeal for profit staked the deck against us all and the deck fell on all of us. Community_Reinvestment_Act. All this began a long time ago, with a very good intending President. The bureaucrats care only for job security, theirs, and the banks care only for their bottom line.

This topic was made under a set of assumptions. It doesn't even matter if it has a off switch or not. Humans also have off switches, it has nothing to do with it. AI do not require a off switch. No machine requires a off switch. I also don't see your question as important, but I will answer it. It depends on the importance of the human and the AI. I would go through the same process I would if I was deciding to save one human over another human. Being human is not about flesh and blood. You are saying organs is what makes a human. Guess what is also a organ? Skin. The topic was about giving rights. What is more important than the right to exist. The right to survive. I asked yoiu who you would save? You keep on repeating the same old argument, but you fail to give any particulars. I asked you what switch a human has that would turn them completely off indefinitely just like a T.V. or an AI construct and months, or years letter turn them back on, and you've sidestepped the question. I have not said that organs make us human. I said being human makes us human. We are more than the sum of our entrails. Life is more than thinking and reasoning. It is compassion, concern and every emotion, ideal and action that we as human beings take for granted. These things, if we were to create this AI will have to be programed into them. They are, if they existed a creation of metal and wires. Nothing man-made can be equal to man, and if we grant them the same rights as humans, then we degrade humanity to that of a machine. If you have to stop and make a choice between saving a human or a machine, then I am very sorry for you. I know that no matter how important a piece of machinery is, to me, I know that I could always create another. I can't create the same human, even thought I might procreate 1000 times. We are all unique and If I found you in a situation as I've prescribed, I wouldn't hesitate to save you. I'm sorry that you would pause to do the same in return. I think I will bow out of this thread. It is too demeaning to those that breath.

What the heck are these people who run our military and those who run the military thinking? Can they see past their own noses with this stuff. I just heard after we used thousands of bombs, smart bombs and guided missiles, hundreds of sorties to take out Gaddafi's armor and troops, things that could do no harm outside their own country, Nato moronically forgot about the weapons supply depots and Army bases that housed several thousand of lethal weaponry that could very well cause terrible destruction, all over the world. How could these people not know what Gaddafi had purchased for his military and why did they not dispose of these armaments depots if they couldn't airdrop troops to guard these facilities. I know President Obama wanted to have no boots on the ground, but what about the Nato countries placing troops to guard these facilities, or at least blow them up. Now we have potentially 20,000 shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles floating around somewhere and will most likely be the item to buy on the black market. How could these morons not look out for the welfare of their own countries, while jumping to the aid of people we have no clue about. Anti-aircraft missiles. I was in the military for 8.5 years and worked as an air defense personel. I never fired a stinger, but I've seen them fired up close and personal. In the Battery, which is a artillery company. 5 -7 solders per squad, formed into 4 separate squads, makes up a platoon, and on the average 3-4 platoons, plus a maintenance platoon makes up a battery. Anyway our battery had 3 platoons of platformed fired anti-aircraft and a platoon of stinger missile personnel. I have held a stinger on my shoulder and can tell you, you can carry 2-3 on a motorcycle, easily. You can stop, set up and fire a stinger missile in less than a minute, if you practice and dissappear just as quickly These things have an effective range of up to 15,700 feet (4,800 m) and at altitudes between 600 and 12,500 feet (180 and 3,800 m. These things are devastating and have proximity fuses, so if they miss close enough, they can easily take down a jet liner. stinger missils I kinow they are saying that he had Russian missiles, but who is to say if they aren't equivalent to the stingers.

An AI could dream and contemplate things it would like to do as well. An AI does not have to have a off switch. Human begins are mechanisms. Not metal ones, but they are mechanisms. Living organisms are flesh and blood. Why does flesh and blood matter so much over what the mind is? A AI with a mind exactly the same as a human is not equal? In what world? Just because it is made out of different materiel or because it looks different does not mean it should be denied equal rights. You can imagine these AI constructs will be able to do as much as you want, to paint them as close to human as you wish. The idea that a construct has no off switch is ludicrous. Every mechanism known to man, and all those of science fiction, which is all you really have to go with, have had off switches. Flesh and blood matter, because they are human and humanity is what brings we as humans together. I like how you simply ignored me point about saving or rescuing people. Are you telling me that you would not chose to save a human beings life over saving an AI construct, if not saving the construct would result in the total destruction of the construct. It is the height of humanity to care for each other. To see another person as important. I know there are people out there that wouldn't lift a finger to help anuone, but I am confident you would do what you could. Which would you choose and why?

Your a battery as well, you recharge from eating and drinking. We can, and we will in the future. Even if we couldn't that is not what the topic is about. If the machines have a equal mind, why not? Which switch turns me off. We can dream and contemplate things we would like to do. It is what this topic is about. You are talking about a mechanism here. Not a human being. I praise you for you compassion for other things. You bring up some interesting ideas, but the fact that their is a difference between living organisms and machines can't be discounted. If you had the choice between saving your cat or dog and saving an AI robot, which would you do? Would it be any different between saving a human being and one of your animals. I think the humans would win out before your animals and the animals would win out before the robot. To have equal rights, they have to be equal, and they aren't anything even close. That's what I'm saying.

Yea, lets give a battery the right to procreate and set back and watch them. Mankind could never come up with something with the mental capacity, the ability for creative thought. Talking about giving equal right to machines is ludicrous. That's like saying these internet is equal to the real world. Anything you can turn off with a flip of a switch will never be equal to anything living and breathing.

My question is who much influence does these corporations have on these departments. The pharmaceutical drug companies, for one are a big lobby group in Washington. They, as well as the health insurance companies were intimately involved in Obamacare, which is why I'm so skeptical of that.

Yea, but how do they know any of this. Thus the question in my original post. Personally, I believe they are just trying to spark a little controversy here, and probably get some more funding. Having convictions aren't, to me genetics, but social interest comes from being aware and being willing to point out descripencies It is the strength of those convictions and the courage to stand for them that really decides wither a person is a true liberal or conservative, and not just a politician, looking to get elected.

One of the most frightening things I can think about is have a government bureaucracy to look into what we eat and the drugs we take into our bodies. Seeing that they are apart of government and that money and big businesses run this country, the idea that something somewhat like Stevie Wonder as a school crossing guard is standing as a watchdog for an industry that is so vital to the American citizen. Has this department been on the leading edge of healthier foods or making sure that the new drugs don't kill us, by their side effects, while they try to save us from something far less severe. Are we paying for a bloated government department that takes it's job as seriously as those who were supposed to check the emergency shutdown equipment on the B.P. oil well, or those who concocted the Fast and Furious fiasco?

I beg your pardon!

This is an old report but it brings up something interesting Please read the following link Liberal Gene.