Google/youtube building a future of automated censorship

[[DHT]Osiris]

It has been proven SCIENTIFICALLY that it is an evolved trait that can be observed in most if not all social animals. It is a mechanism for survival.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

If evolved, it cannot be innate to reality (observed or otherwise). Experience has shown me it's certainly not innate to humans (to any degree), unless you consider anyone who walks outside the bounds of your perceived innate morality to be inhuman. That opens up a whole new fun can of worms though.

 

[J.Wilkins]

It has been proven SCIENTIFICALLY that it is evolved trait that can be observed in most if not all social animals. It is a mechanism for survival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

First of all, nothing has ever been *proven* using science and second of all you're talking about empathy which IS an evolved trait. Morality as in "women shouldn't sleep around" has nothing what so ever to do with that.

I think it's better to not confuse empathy for morality and I don't think that there is an actual evolution of morality (rules of human behaviour beyond what does harm).

For example, the morality of murdering your child because they get a boyfriend outside of their faith exists apart from empathy (or rather in opposition to empathy) and yet it is thought as a moral duty amongst people of all faiths.

 

[agent00f]

It has been proven SCIENTIFICALLY that it is an evolved trait that can be observed in most if not all social animals. It is a mechanism for survival.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Bingo

Nobody is talking about reciprocated interests here. Just because the words happen to be spelled the same doesn't mean they refer to the same things.

Also just a tip for the future, if someone as comically dumb as realibrad agrees with you on anything, it's time to re-examine your assumptions.

 

[realibrad]

First of all, nothing has ever been *proven* using science and second of all you're talking about empathy which IS an evolved trait. Morality as in "women shouldn't sleep around" has nothing what so ever to do with that.

I think it's better to not confuse empathy for morality and I don't think that there is an actual evolution of morality (rules of human behaviour beyond what does harm).

For example, the morality of murdering your child because they get a boyfriend outside of their faith exists apart from empathy (or rather in opposition to empathy) and yet it is thought as a moral duty amongst people of all faiths.

Lol, science proves nothing.

 

[realibrad]

Nobody is talking about reciprocated interests here. Just because the words happen to be spelled the same doesn't mean they refer to the same things.

Also just a tip for the future, if someone as comically dumb as realibrad agrees with you on anything, it's time to re-examine your assumptions.

How lonely are you. Do you need someone to talk to?

 

[bshole]

First of all, nothing has ever been *proven* using science and second of all you're talking about empathy which IS an evolved trait. Morality as in "women shouldn't sleep around" has nothing what so ever to do with that.

I think it's better to not confuse empathy for morality and I don't think that there is an actual evolution of morality (rules of human behaviour beyond what does harm).

For example, the morality of murdering your child because they get a boyfriend outside of their faith exists apart from empathy (or rather in opposition to empathy) and yet it is thought as a moral duty amongst people of all faiths.

I have been thinking about morality quite often lately and I get more and more confused. For example, I subscribe to secular humanism. By that metric, whatever decreases human suffering and increases human happiness is good. Religion has almost always suppressed knowledge and interfered if not outright stopped scientific exploration. Religion kept humans from discovering the mechanisms for self-extinction for millennia. Secularists eventually overpowered the theocrats and discovered a way for man to wipe himself off the planet. If man does indeed end up wiping himself off the planet in the next few centuries, wouldn't theocracies be superior to secular humanism by the very definition that secular humanists use for morality?

 

[agent00f]

Lol, science proves nothing.

How lonely are you. Do you need someone to talk to?

That paper is talking about evolution of game strategies, which has nothing to do with the morality of youtube takedowns etc. Mocking dunning kruger posterkids forever motivated to never understand any of that is pretty fun.

 

[realibrad]

That paper is talking about evolution of game strategies, which has nothing to do with the morality of youtube takedowns etc. Mocking dunning kruger posterkids forever motivated to never understand any of that is pretty fun.

Aww buddy dont worry. Ill talk to how.

How has your day been going? Have the illuminati been wiretapping your forks again?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I have been thinking about morality quite often lately and I get more and more confused. For example, I subscribe to secular humanism. By that metric, whatever decreases human suffering and increases human happiness is good. Religion has almost always suppressed knowledge and interfered if not outright stopped scientific exploration. Religion kept humans from discovering the mechanisms for self-extinction for millennia. Secularists eventually overpowered the theocrats and discovered a way for man to wipe himself off the planet. If man does indeed end up wiping himself off the planet in the next few centuries, wouldn't theocracies be superior to secular humanism by the very definition that secular humanists use for morality?

Only if you assume that survival is the penultimate goal to aspire to. If growth, understanding, and thriving is your thing, freedom is required.

By the same metric, if mankind were to stay in a dark ages for a billion years under the rule of a god-emperor until a stray asteroid wipes us out, then theocracy failed, where secular humanism might have gotten us off this rock first (or at least gained the knowledge to change its path).

 

[agent00f]

Aww buddy dont worry. Ill talk to how.

How has your day been going? Have the illuminati been wiretapping your forks again?

What a trite mind.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I have been thinking about morality quite often lately and I get more and more confused. For example, I subscribe to secular humanism. By that metric, whatever decreases human suffering and increases human happiness is good. Religion has almost always suppressed knowledge and interfered if not outright stopped scientific exploration. Religion kept humans from discovering the mechanisms for self-extinction for millennia. Secularists eventually overpowered the theocrats and discovered a way for man to wipe himself off the planet. If man does indeed end up wiping himself off the planet in the next few centuries, wouldn't theocracies be superior to secular humanism by the very definition that secular humanists use for morality?

There is nothing in secular humanism that dictates anything but a peaceful understanding and respectful treatment of your fellow man.

Think about the Crusades, what would have happened if two sides had nuclear weapons and both sides longed for martyrdom?

I don't really see how nuclear proliferation is a humanist endeavour at all or how the force of secular humanism would lead to using them.

We are a curious species, we are always looking for answers but we are generally and for the most part just here to live in peace until forced to fight. Look at Alfred Nobel and his realization of what his product could do, it wasn't in the name of secular humanism he designed it and it wasn't in the name of Jesus he instituted the Nobel Peace Prize.

If I had a choice between living in ignorance and pain with the average life span being around 24 years I wouldn't even be here to contemplate this issue and neither would you.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Lol, science proves nothing.

Yup. Questions on that from the dullard?

 

[realibrad]

Yup. Questions on that from the dullard?

Perhaps proves is not the best word, but discover. That said, Science can prove some things as well. Depending on how pedantic you want to get about what "Science" is, what do you think proved the earth was round, or that light is effected by gravity?

 

[J.Wilkins]

Perhaps proves is not the best word, but discover. That said, Science can prove some things as well. Depending on how pedantic you want to get about what "Science" is, what do you think proved the earth was round, or that light is effected by gravity?

No you sixth grade level student, science deals in EVIDENCE, not proof.

This is not about being pedantic, this is about knowing the scientific method and how it works. You start out with an idea that if testable is a scientific hypothesis, this hypothesis makes predictions that are testable and if those tests do not work out the hypothesis is either remodelled or scrapped all together, if it pans out then that is EVIDENCE in favour of the hypothesis.

It's not proof because if something is proved, then you are done, no need to research anymore now that it's proven.

Observations, such as the shape of the earth, confirms the hypothesis but are not proof, they are further evidence of the theory. There are a number of confirmed observations regarded as scientific facts (evolution is one of them, gravity is not) but even that does not amount to proof.

Why? Because the scientific method does not allow for it so you literally cannot have it.

And this concludes my introduction to the scientific process post, you are welcome.

 

[realibrad]

No you sixth grade level student, science deals in EVIDENCE, not proof.

This is not about being pedantic, this is about knowing the scientific method and how it works. You start out with an idea that if testable is a scientific hypothesis, this hypothesis makes predictions that are testable and if those tests do not work out the hypothesis is either remodelled or scrapped all together, if it pans out then that is EVIDENCE in favour of the hypothesis.

It's not proof because if something is proved, then you are done, no need to research anymore now that it's proven.

Observations, such as the shape of the earth, confirms the hypothesis but are not proof, they are further evidence of the theory. There are a number of confirmed observations regarded as scientific facts (evolution is one of them, gravity is not) but even that does not amount to proof.

Why? Because the scientific method does not allow for it so you literally cannot have it.

And this concludes my introduction to the scientific process post, you are welcome.

Perhaps you are ignorant of the meaning of the word prove?

-demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

 

[agent00f]

Perhaps proves is not the best word, but discover. That said, Science can prove some things as well. Depending on how pedantic you want to get about what "Science" is, what do you think proved the earth was round, or that light is effected by gravity?

No you sixth grade level student, science deals in EVIDENCE, not proof.

This is not about being pedantic, this is about knowing the scientific method and how it works. You start out with an idea that if testable is a scientific hypothesis, this hypothesis makes predictions that are testable and if those tests do not work out the hypothesis is either remodelled or scrapped all together, if it pans out then that is EVIDENCE in favour of the hypothesis.

It's not proof because if something is proved, then you are done, no need to research anymore now that it's proven.

Observations, such as the shape of the earth, confirms the hypothesis but are not proof, they are further evidence of the theory. There are a number of confirmed observations regarded as scientific facts (evolution is one of them, gravity is not) but even that does not amount to proof.

Why? Because the scientific method does not allow for it so you literally cannot have it.

And this concludes my introduction to the scientific process post, you are welcome.

tard fight

 

[J.Wilkins]

Perhaps you are ignorant of the meaning of the word prove?

-demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

Not in the least, but you apparently have no clue what so ever what science is or how the scientific method works.

Science NEVER demonstrates "the truth" nor does it make proclamations about "the truth".

It seems like you have no idea what so ever what the scientific method is or how it works and you are completely unwilling to learn anything at any point at any time because you have decided that you are right no matter what.

Here's a quote for you to memorize: "proof is for maths and beverage alcohol, in science we deal with evidence" - Michael Mann

 

[realibrad]

tard fight

Are you an only child? You seem to crave attention desperately. It must drive you nuts and all the stupid people around you look down upon you when you are far superior to them.

 

[agent00f]

Are you an only child? You seem to crave attention desperately. It must drive you nuts and all the stupid people around you look down upon you when you are far superior to them.

Fortunately I don't take validation from tards' respect.

 

[realibrad]

Not in the least, but you apparently have no clue what so ever what science is or how the scientific method works.

Science NEVER demonstrates "the truth" nor does it make proclamations about "the truth".

It seems like you have no idea what so ever what the scientific method is or how it works and you are completely unwilling to learn anything at any point at any time because you have decided that you are right no matter what.

Here's a quote for you to memorize: "proof is for maths and beverage alcohol, in science we deal with evidence" - Michael Mann

Pretty amazing to have learned all this about me from a few posts. Quite bold.

Ill let you in on a little secret, which is or is a very important word there. See, depending on the context the word can be used when demonstrating truth OR existence. See, when you use the other part, it fully fits.

 

[realibrad]

Fortunately I don't take validation from tards' respect.

Oh, and who is on your level that you do respect. I would bet there is not a single person on here that you engage with.

 

[agent00f]

Oh, and who is on your level that you do respect. I would bet there is not a single person on here that you engage with.

Just because someone like you can't understand those interactions doesn't mean much.

 

[realibrad]

Just because someone like you can't understand those interactions doesn't mean much.

As I suspected. I figured there was nobody smart as you here. Weird though that you spend so much time dealing with us lowly people.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Pretty amazing to have learned all this about me from a few posts. Quite bold.

Ill let you in on a little secret, which is or is a very important word there. See, depending on the context the word can be used when demonstrating truth OR existence. See, when you use the other part, it fully fits.

Holy fuck you are a measly little idiot. You are using the word prove and I'm correcting you so you use the definition but not the whole definition but part of it to play pretend that you are not wrong because as a wilfully little ignorant moron you simply cannot ever be wrong.

Well here's the deal little moron, science cannot prove the existence of anything either, it can show evidence of the existence of something but then we are right back where we started from, it's evidence based and not based on proof which is an absolute.

You refuse to learn anything about what science even is and continuously erroneously proclaim what it is.

I think there is something very wrong with your brain.

 

[agent00f]

Speaking of mouthing off despite never understanding much:

As I suspected. I figured there was nobody smart as you here. Weird though that you spend so much time dealing with us lowly people.

Holy fuck you are a measly little idiot. You are using the word prove and I'm correcting you so you use the definition but not the whole definition but part of it to play pretend that you are not wrong because as a wilfully little ignorant moron you simply cannot ever be wrong.

Well here's the deal little moron, science cannot prove the existence of anything either, it can show evidence of the existence of something but then we are right back where we started from, it's evidence based and not based on proof which is an absolute.

You refuse to learn anything about what science even is and continuously erroneously proclaim what it is.

I think there is something very wrong with your brain.

It's like the special olympics over here.