Terrorist Attack in Nice, France. Dozens dead.

[vla1ne]

  

I'm so confused...how did I become white in all this

because no matter your opinion it's clearly invalidated once you're a straight white male.

 

on topic though, abandoning the region isn't genocide, nor is it wrong. it's common sense, especially when people are so vehemently against the idea of genocide. when many people in the region support the foundational principles of organization that wants the west dead, and the organization itself is clearly anti-west, there is not one reason to give an iota of support to the region (israel maybe, but that's a discussion for another time) if the majority of people in the building across the street either wanted you dead, or supported an idea that advocated your death, and then those same people asked you for a cup of sugar, would you be wrong to deny them?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I'm on board with the elimination of religion. And I know how one might do so.

 

We make a real god.

 

A near omnipotent, omniscient, largely omnipresent, debatably omnibenevolent ASI. We don't promote it's worship, we promote it's continued progress as a third party whose only interest would be optimal and realistic levels of peace, efficiency, and improvement as a society.

 

It'll take time, effort, collaboration and education, but it's not infeasible.

 

This sounds less like the elimination of religion and more like the creation of yet another religion that's incompatible with all the others. You're quite right in saying this machine's benevolence would be "debatable", as would its status as a "real god". 

 

on topic though, abandoning the region isn't genocide, nor is it wrong. it's common sense, especially when people are so vehemently against the idea of genocide. 

 

I don't disagree, though that wasn't what was being proposed.

 

and the organization itself is clearly anti-west, there is not one reason to give an iota of support to the region (israel maybe, but that's a discussion for another time) if the majority of people in the building across the street either wanted you dead, or supported an idea that advocated your death, and then those same people asked you for a cup of sugar, would you be wrong to deny them?

 

Would you give a bag of sugar to people plotting genocide against you? To people who've already committed it against your neighbours, friends, and family? There's very little precedent for said people to be anything but anti-west, it's not like western policies towards them have been bags of sugar. Maybe we should try giving them bags of sugar for a change, can hardly be a worse idea than giving them guns and ammunition. 

 

Now the west has given them Daesh, who have been killing far more Muslims than westerners in case you hadn't noticed.

[Delibirb]

This sounds less like the elimination of religion and more like the creation of yet another religion that's incompatible with all the others. You're quite right in saying this machine's benevolence would be "debatable", as would its status as a "real god".

 

I called it a "real god" not because it would actually be a god but because it would displace the other God myths as there would be nothing superior to it besides an improved version of itself, of its own design.

 

It wouldn't be it's own religion because there would be no worship or doctrine, it's more like a governing figure.

 

The benevolence would be debatable only because we would not necessarily be able to always comprehend how it's suggestions for improvement might benefit us in the long run.

[vla1ne]

 

Would you give a bag of sugar to people plotting genocide against you? To people who've already committed it against your neighbours, friends, and family? There's very little precedent for said people to be anything but anti-west, it's not like western policies towards them have been bags of sugar. Maybe we should try giving them bags of sugar for a change, can hardly be a worse idea than giving them guns and ammunition. 

 

Now the west has given them Daesh, who have been killing far more Muslims than westerners in case you hadn't noticed.

we weren't thinking of genocide until they started declaring war. and we wouldn't be likely to initiate such a plan either way. if their neighbors were homosexual, or followers of another religion, they'd be thanking us for bombing them. them, and their friends and family are raised to hate western civilization in either case, so it's a mutual hate. no love lost there. they follow a religio that is the antithesis of practically everything the west has established, we don't hold the blame for that as much as you may believe. yeah, the government has put them in a shitty position, but they decided committing acts of terrorism was the appropriate response, your argument holds no merit because they don't, if they ever did hold the moral high ground. (our government doesn't either, but that's the exact reason i can make the theoretical genocide argument)

 

we have been giving them bags of sugar, and we already see what they're doing with the bags of sugar:[spoiler=beating the sheet out of innocent citizens]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD8GSyLaxrI

 

they aren't expanding an olive branch, they're pointing guns, it's all well and god to be the one who puts down the weapons first, but they don't just have a grudge against the western world, they have a religious calling to destroy it.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

^Yours is a shitty us vs. them mentality, compounded by the fact that your "us" includes warmongering murderers and the vast majority of your "them" (Muslims) are not only innocent but are suffering greater losses to Daesh than anyone else. It's not that hard to connect the dots, but you have no interest in doing so. To you, the word of a mom upset that her son got injured in a soccer brawl is apparently enough to justify the ongoing genocide of millions of innocents. Get your priorities straight, man.

 

@ASI Samaritan: Being a thing that is programmed, the ASI's "suggestions" for what is right for humanity would inevitably carry the bias of its programmers' interests. Humanity has trouble enough submitting to humans who claim to know what's right for it because such people have had a penchant for tyranny. A mechanical proxy wouldn't make many people much more comfortable, nor should it.

[vla1ne]

^Yours is a shitty us vs. them mentality, compounded by the fact that your "us" includes warmongering murderers and the vast majority of your "them" (Muslims) are not only innocent but are suffering greater losses to Daesh than anyone else. It's not that hard to connect the dots, but you have no interest in doing so. To you, the word of a mom upset that her son got injured in a soccer brawl is apparently enough to justify the ongoing genocide of millions of innocents. Get your priorities straight, man.

 

@ASI Samaritan: Being a thing that is programmed, the ASI's "suggestions" for what is right for humanity would inevitably carry the bias of its programmers' interests. Humanity has trouble enough submitting to humans who claim to know what's right for it because such people have had a penchant for tyranny. A mechanical proxy wouldn't make many people much more comfortable, nor should it.

and then we get to the rapes, the over 200% spike in violence, the increased terrorist attacks ,the anti-western propaganda, the words of the quran itself, and the surveys on sharia law, among other things, such as the death penalty for apostasy, homosexuality, and those who do not practce, and refuse to bow to, the will of allah.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-countries-where-a-majority-of-muslims-want-to-live-under-sharia-law-a6773666.html

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx

 

us vs them is rather accurate when you stop ignoring the fact that given the chance, there is a significant portion of them who would want us to submit to their religion (and by extension, follow their rules) even were we to never interfere with their country again. your inclusive nature is nice, but the facts clearly demonstrate that we should either have nothing further to do with them. or simply get it over with quickly. like it or not, those are the two most effective options. either leave, and shut the door behind us, or stay, and burn the house down. i'm personally in favor of leaving, because i understand that violence shouldn't be the first answer, but at the same time, if the attacks continue even after we leave, then the entire house, and everybody in it, can burn to the ground. 

 

also, soccer brawl? did you not watch the video? the child was 9. he was 9 f***ing years old. and was not only jumped by a 14 and a 17 year old, but they were clearly trying to kill the kid and not one other muslim there tried to help, in fact, they were (and remain) hostile to any non muslim on their street. they beat him to the point where he needed immediate hospital attention, and guess who got in the most trouble? or any trouble at all? the german family. the ones who did nothing, and hurt nobody. and that is not the only case like it. i can pull up case by case by case by case by case where there was a single or gangrape by immigrants, or somebody was beaten severely, or killed, or robbed, ect. it's not just her, she's merely a face to go with the stats. but i assume you'd tell her that not all Muslims are bad people right? sure, you'd be right, but that doesn't change the fact that the Muslim religion itself, and the culture surrounding it, are inherently poisonous to western civilizations own values.

[Delibirb]

^Yours is a shitty us vs. them mentality, compounded by the fact that your "us" includes warmongering murderers and the vast majority of your "them" (Muslims) are not only innocent but are suffering greater losses to Daesh than anyone else. It's not that hard to connect the dots, but you have no interest in doing so. To you, the word of a mom upset that her son got injured in a soccer brawl is apparently enough to justify the ongoing genocide of millions of innocents. Get your priorities straight, man.

 

@ASI Samaritan: Being a thing that is programmed, the ASI's "suggestions" for what is right for humanity would inevitably carry the bias of its programmers' interests. Humanity has trouble enough submitting to humans who claim to know what's right for it because such people have had a penchant for tyranny. A mechanical proxy wouldn't make many people much more comfortable, nor should it.

Do you have any base comprehension of what artificial intelligence is (supposed to be)? It's not a low-level Cleverbot chat application. ASI would imply it is self aware, and therefore able to develop its own opinions, ideas, and ideals. The programmers would not teach it what it should think, only how to think, with a model of reality so it could understand and process things without having to be explicitly told "this is how this is" or "this is how it should be." 

 

Once a properly built AI with the ability to think goes online, it will go through a minute period of time where it analyzes all information available to it, index it, and depending on what it is meant to do with that information, utilize it accordingly. If the purpose is to accompany and assist humanity through scientific progress, societal efficiency, and all around security as a species, then it will form its own suggestions for what needs to be done to reach that goal. It need not and should not be programmed with any prior "guesswork" on the designers parts for what the means to those ends are.