golden_zealot

golden_zealot, 2 months ago

Hahahaha, kids.

golden_zealot, 2 months ago

“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe… Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion… I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain… Time to die.”

golden_zealot, 3 months ago

Neil deGrasse Tyson is the living embodiment of “Ackchually”. Every time I hear anything about him, it’s because he’s never heard of suspension of disbelief and makes stupid comments “correcting” anything that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes.

golden_zealot, 3 months ago

As an example, I dont think anyone prompted him for a science answer on this.

twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1158074774297468928?…

I just think the guy can be pretty tone deaf, trying to make science the point of something when it very much has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

golden_zealot, 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

I disagree, that’s exactly what I had in mind when I made my original comment.

The gist of that tweet is such.

Everyone :“Hey a bunch of people were just killed in a mass shooting.”

NDG: “Well ackchually, that many people being killed in a mass shooting only really gets attention because its a spectacle, here’s a bunch of unrelated death counts.”

I don’t give a fuck if he’s right or wrong statistically, and neither did anyone else when he made the tweet. Per my last comment, the whole point is that the statistics have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Furthermore being consistent in this context is not necessarily a positive, again that is the entire crux of what I am getting at, not everything benefits from someone bringing up the science of something in all contexts, such as that tweet. These are reasons why I used it as an example.

golden_zealot, 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Philosophy:

The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.

Statistically he’s not wrong, it’s simply lacking humanity which makes it wrong.

So. What part of moral right and wrong and humanity doesn’t have to do with philosophy at its basest level?

So to answer your question, probably the part where he ignored the entire concept of humanity and moral right and wrong (moral values) in favour of presenting statistical data, which was pointed out as morally wrong by yourself actually. Probably the part where he ignored the entire philosophical concept that the murder of a whole bunch of people is a bad thing and making a comment belittling it was not moral.

You implied it was so morally wrong you wouldn’t even defend it, but here we are.

If you can’t understand what philosophy has to do with human death, and see the part where Neil ignored it in favor of statistics, you should probably do some reading. I’m done explaining it to you.

golden_zealot, 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Per edits on my last comment, if you cant find a link between mass murder and philosophy, then you should really do some reading. I’m not going to explain it to you because there are thousands of books which could be considered relevant to that.

Regarding suspension of disbelief, I never stated that every instance of NDG saying anything needed to contain both that and discrediting things that are artistic/philosophical.

because he’s never heard of suspension of disbelief and makes stupid comments

Your implication that the above excerpt at all means that any example I give must contain both of these in a single comment from NDG leads me to believe you have a tenuous grasp of the English language. The sentence is saying he does both of these things, but does not say he does both of them at the same time.

Your argument of trying to lock me into specific use of language instead of discussing the ideas at hand is not only lazy, but does not provide counter to the criticisms I have made about NDG and is arguably an amphiboly at this point.

If you want an example of him correcting something while ignoring suspension of disbelief, perhaps you should read the article linked in the post above.

Furthermore I’m not going to admit I had something else in mind because its not true in the slightest, even if it would make the strawman fallacy you are also trying to use work out better for you.

golden_zealot, 3 months ago

Fun fact, it actually does come up in the dialogue of part 1 when Paul and Jessica are running for the rocks from the sand worm, just before they meet the Fremen. It’s under some of the music/ambience but Paul steps onto some and there is an audible thump before he notes that it’s drum sand, so it is very briefly brought up.

You can see the scene here:

youtu.be/6hU78elkK6Q?t=84

golden_zealot, 3 months ago

I have no interest in going over this again.

I have explained myself in my previous comments, I have no interest in wasting my time with your circular reasoning further.

I don’t care if you believe me.

I have answered all of the above and doubling down on strawman, amphiboly, and now circular reasoning, blatantly re-raising points that have been asked and answered doesn’t make me care about anything you have to say further.

You can raise a valid counter argument to my criticisms of NDG at which point I’d be glad to discuss the actual matter further, or you can continue to try to selectively attack my use of language to both presume and attack my viewpoint again and again like your last 3 replies, but since I’ve answered all that, I won’t be replying further unless you raise something valid to the discussion that isn’t completely riddled with logical fallacies.

Since I believe you are incapable of that, the only thing I have left to say is goodbye.

golden_zealot, 3 months ago

The title is denoting that there was a rise in gun ownership among people who are not straight. What it has to do with the right is that gun ownership has always been a very common thing among that group, whereas it has not been common among the left and people who are not straight. It is pointing out a change in the status quo by juxtaposing the groups historical interests.

They didn’t use “People buy guns” as the title because that title doesn’t tell you the objective point of what the article is about and could mean too many other things.

I agree that in a perfect world where humanity is unified, we wouldn’t need such labels and could just use “people” for stuff like this, but it isn’t the world we live in right now unfortunately and the context is important to this specific articles content. When it’s possible to not use labels though, I agree, we shouldn’t.

golden_zealot, 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Fellas

edit: please correct me if you believe I am wrong, I am open to discussion.

golden_zealot, 3 months ago

Not inherently to my knowledge.

It is a modification of ‘fellows’, fellows etymology coming from ‘late Old English fēolaga ‘a partner or colleague’ (literally ‘one who lays down money in a joint enterprise’), from Old Norse félagi, from fé ‘cattle, property, money’ + the Germanic base of lay1.’

Colloquially, the term might often reference men, but I cant find any evidence it is exclusive to them.

golden_zealot, 3 months ago

No worries, have a good day :)

golden_zealot, 3 months ago

I see, I think this is true colloquially, just not in definition.

golden_zealot, 3 months ago

For businesses it may exist, but for individuals I have never heard of a such a thing in North America.

The closest thing I am aware of is having an attorney on retainer, but this is so costly no one does it unless they are a millionaire in the least.

golden_zealot, 3 months ago

Can anyone explain how all of these people aren’t being sent to prison for straight up treason? Isn’t blatantly and loudly stating that you’re intending to overthrow the united states government an enormous crime?

golden_zealot, 3 months ago

Nothing can really kill reddit, but as far as content goes I expect it will follow the same path facebook did where the only people who eventually really interact on it will be conspiracy theorists and moms.

golden_zealot, 4 months ago

Selling user data, selling top posts and comments to corporate marketing accounts, selling control of dialogue about any subject to sway public opinion, reddit gold, making the platform more ass.

golden_zealot, 4 months ago

Attention seeking behavior in a healthcare environment including faking a medical condition, or intentionally worsening a real condition are pretty glaring symptoms of Munchausens.

So they are acting this way because they are sick, just not in the way you’re accustomed to.

The ethical thing to do here is to put them into contact with mental professionals.

golden_zealot, 4 months ago

They already fucked me on this years ago. One day I logged into Uplay and Battlefield 3 and my 2 other games were just fucking gone. Haven’t touched them with a 10 foot pole since.

golden_zealot, 4 months ago

This is comparable to most real-world biometric security mechanisms. Finger print readers for example operate identically to what you describe; they don’t actually store your fingerprint, they use an algorithm to generate a hash which is reproduced from that specific fingerprint.

You could research real world examples of people’s opinions on such technology for inspirations. I think in this context a good thing to look at is the real world proposals of RFID tagging people to achieve a similar result.

Questions which I would have if I were working on the concept might include stuff such as:

1. How is the algorithm used to generate the hashes protected? Is is possible it could be reproduced or stolen, and if someone could do that, would they be able to find a way in some cases to feed the hash directly into a system to bypass the security?
2. If this technology is used for all credentials such as drivers licences, passports, healthcare etc, then surely if someone were capable of spoofing your hash, the identity theft would be completely crushing. What would the implications of this happening be? As a result, are there any routes provided through the government or third party insurers which deal with such cases of identity theft, and what would that look like.
3. How much data is this and how is it stored? Depending on the population of your world, even if you were not storing the DNA sequences, how large are the hashes, and how many of them are stored. How many data centres would be required to store this?
4. What political implications exist as a result? Surely there would be individuals or even political entities that are against such technology. What do these factions look like, and what else do they believe in?
5. How accurate is the hashing algorithm? Identical twins can share the vast majority of their DNA sequence, but something like 15% have a “substantial” difference as they acquire mutations when in the womb. Depending on the accuracy of the algorithm, is it possible it could confuse one twin for another?
6. Given your world is science-fantasy, if anyone has invented cloning, depending on how they are doing it, it could have enormous implications here as well.

I think that a system like this is vastly superior when it comes to convenience, but could have major security, financial, technical, ethical, and political implications.

While I’m here, I’m also going to have to cast my vote for the vulpine government.

golden_zealot, 5 months ago

I didn’t make the statement that it’s their property, I made the statement that it’s being displayed through their application.

golden_zealot, 5 months ago

I suppose that is correct per the definition, thanks for the correction.

golden_zealot, 4 months ago

Awesome, thank you.

golden_zealot, 5 months ago

Shrimp > Prawn > Lobster