The commenter more or less admitted that they have no way of knowing that the algorithm is actually correct.

In your first analogy it would be like if text predictors pulled words from a thesaurus instead of a list of common words.

The mersenneforums have users solve an obscure (to a non-mathematician) but relatively simple number theory problem.

I struggle to find something more obnoxious than incorrectly employed formal logic.

There is no contradiction. The intersection of “native-sounding English” and “(English with) no grammatical errors” is not empty. So it’s actually perfectly possible to meet both criteria.

It also wouldn’t be a logical contradiction even if it wasn’t possible, since contradictions are conflicts of arguments that rely on different propositions being true, not the valuation of the actual propositions.

Your solution is worse.

As is, it is the responsibility of the content provider to make sure that they are distributing only to people who are legally allowed to have it.

With age-verification the user has to prove that they are allowed to access the content, then the site can distribute it to them.

Your approach is to distribute the content by default and only deny it to ChildDevices. In order for this to work at all, you have to mandate that children can only use ChildDevices. This is soooo much worse than simply requiring that adults who want to see certain content have to prove that they can legally access it. If adults have reservations about providing ID for pornography, the loss of such content seems to be much less than denying children Internet access. (Although, I’m sure that Lemmings would disagree for obvious reasons).

“I compare your argument to refusing to stop setting off firecrackers…”

Which would be in error because they are disanalogous. There is a substantial psychological difference between word substitution, and a reflexive reaction to similar sounds, that are then evaluated to be different later on. Just because it seems instantaneous to you, doesn’t mean that the individual does not actually believe they are under fire even momentarily, can you say the same for someone reading the word “suicide”?

“I argue just the way I like”

Which is logically unsound.

“I’m trying to be considerate… something you don’t understand.”

All you are doing is patting yourself on the back over something that doesn’t matter. You may think that you are helping people, but you simply aren’t.

“A life as nice as you are”

Thank you. I think you are confusing refusing to pander to idiocy, with being mean. You can be an extremely beneficial person to others without endorsing every single view or action they make.

“consideration to my fellow human beings”.

Because your fellow human beings are so profoundly stupid as to not understand that “delete” and “kill” have the same semantic value in that sentence?

If you are going to argue for word replacement it should be for stylistic reasons (rhyming, alliteration, humour, etc), or semantic reasons, as in actually changing the meaning of the statement.

Changing the wording of statement, while retaining the same semantic value, does nothing to reduce offense when the semantic value is what would cause offense.

But that’s not socialism, is it?

Also you can try to argue that some methods of welfare distribution are inefficient, but you can’t argue that the needs are being ignored.

But did Jesus proscribe government welfare programs? It seems to be that the basis for “Jesus was a socialist”, is based on his teachings on charity. But this can be done by personal charity, and infact those are the examples he gave. Nowhere in the Bible does it say “you should vote for needs-based welfare programs”.

The obvious response to this is “companions in guilt”. It’s a meta ethics argument that essentially points out that moral reasoning is no different than other types of reasoning. There is no need for “genetic memory”, when like logic it’s simply a consequence of how human minds are structured.

Automotive chips are probably engine and transmission components, nothing special used by autonomous vehicles.

Bad faith argumentation has nothing to do with honestly presenting your views. I can defend positions I don’t actually hold just fine, an argument doesn’t gain any special properties depending on who makes it. I could even claim that I held these beliefs and it would have no effect. Rather, bad faith argumentation has to do with how you engage with your opponents arguments, not your own. An example of bad faith would be if your opponent said that they liked Germany, and you then spun it into portraying them as a Nazi.

Later generations have more time to prepare for retirement, rather than simply axing the benefits of the people that have already retired.

You will be sorely missed with your worthless commentary… and your unwarranted arrogance… sorely missed the people weep the loss…

You’ve had plenty of time to prove your claim that marijuana is an important medicine and anyone who disagrees must be citing Fox news, and yet all you have been able to do is act incredulous that there might be a more effective methodology for finding relevant research than a keyword search. The amount of relevant high-quality papers is not in the thousands, it’s not even in the hundreds. You arrived at your conclusion by the most useless and sophmoric methodology and are acting smug because you (supposedly) teach an introductory class to highschool graduates. Guess what dipshit? We don’t use your shitty lessons.

“Then we can talk”

You already admitted that you don’t understand pharmacology so what exactly do you think you’re going to talk about? How you still don’t understand how to perform graph traversal to find related studies?

No there is not. There is a few hundred, and most of then don’t even cover efficacy in vivo which is the subject matter.

Keep LARPing as an academic, lets see how stupid you really are.

This attitude is why you’re still a moron.

When you encounter a lengthy description of why something is true or false, your response is “OMG so many words!”

Guess what buddy? Life isn’t about punchy one-liners and vapid analysis.

“the past 30 days”

So you literally don’t know how drug tests work? Marijuana clears an oral test in about a day, most jobs that test for it simply tell you to come back the next day. This is in legal state, and covers the vast majority of jobs. If you can’t be sober for a full 24-hrs before a pre-employment check you’re an addict. This would be like if someone admitted to being drunk the morning of an interview.

“Neither of those details speaks to sobriety at work”

Again you’re confused by the efficacy of drug tests. If you can’t be sober for 1 or 2 days to get your job that you applied for, it’s far less likely that you are going to be sober on the clock. (Few places do uranalysis, and I’ve literally never heard of a blood or hair test which are the ones that actually can reliably test that far back).

Strictly speaking you cannot prove that the person who shot heroin during your interview, is also going to do drugs on the clock. It is however a very good indicator that they are unprofessional, will be a bad employee and are quite likely to drugs on the clock. Companies don’t just spend thousands of dollars a year to be cruel to employees.

1. Weak arguments aren’t going to be effective in leading to any train of thought. They are going to be immediately refuted.

2. Your arguments are popular and extremely stupid. This is because the vast majority of people spend little time on ethics, ontology, and formal reasoning. This is like producing a theory of QM, when you flunked Calculus. Anyone can do it, everyone makes the same serious mistakes, and I have to hear the same arguments every single time.

“Once we acknowledge”…

How do we acknowledge something that isn’t clearly true? (i.e not a tautology) First we must prove it to be true, then we can draw conclusions from it. As I already pointed out trying to prove that “human tissue only has value if it is thinking” fails because it’s actually false.

Here’s a formalisation of your reasoning.

1. An entity has no value unless it is thinking. Or less value than the mere desires of a thinking entity.
2. Fetuses do not think, therefore they have no value.

Problem is first premise is false and we can see that by determining what “thinking” is. Thinking or consciousness is a categorisation of intermittent and emergent behaviour. No human continously thinks, and even if they did it would not make sense to be able to classify them as thinking at any specific point of time. Individual firing of neurons is not thought, it is required for thought but it is not consciousness itself. It requires a system of neurons engaging in electrochemical action that meets some definition of thought (the exact definition doesn’t matter, what matters is that it is emergent not instantaneous).

Your assertion leads to the claim that human moral value must collapse when they are in a non-thinking state. But as already shown every human regularly satisfies this condition, so it must therefore be permissible to kill them. In other words if abortion is permissible by your criteria, so is killing the mother.

Of course we can avoid this clearly immoral conclusion by changing the criteria by which we value humans to “members of a rational class”. (Cancer cells clearly aren’t this). This completely avoids the problems of killing people arbitrarily, killing people who don’t solve a puzzle as fast as a rat, eating babies because we eat pork, all of which are logical conclusions of systems that only value thinking. (If you think this is motivated reasoning, simply research how moral systems are constructed and analytic descriptivism. You also used analytic descriptivism, you just horribly botched it by assuming that unproven premises were true).

Of course the only problem with this new system is that it doesn’t permit killing fetuses (except to save another human life), which you really, really want.

“Just because cancer cells…”

I can’t believe people delude themselves into thinking that this is a strong argument (again a very trite and silly argument). I fervently believe that we need government-mandated academic philosophers screaming into people’s ears every time they say stupid shit like this. Or maybe get shocked by their keyboard.

Or maybe protected status is based on species membership, and not level of thought.

Keep in mind that infants have a lower level of thought than pigs. If it is permissible to kill and eat pigs based on their low capacity for thought, then it surely applies to infant humans as well? After all anything otherwise is “specieism” which is totally the same as racism Singer argues. (Referring to Peter Singer who makes the same dipshit argument albeit more effectively than you).

It’s a funny story, I just don’t know why you give it any credibility given how many highly improbable things have to be true. It’s far more likely that it was a story told solely for humourous reasons, or it was a minor fib that became more humourous over time.