Libra00

deleted by creator

OP asks how to explain to kids about terrorism:

How do you go about explaining terrorism and evil to young kids without storybooking it?

Guy says kids don’t need to have terrorism explained to them:

Bro kids today are fully aware about terrorism

Guy provides a reason why kids don’t need to have terrorism explained: they already learn about it in the form of school shooters, who are terrorists:

School shooters are … terrorists

Guy makes an assertion in the middle of the previous sentence that doesn’t really have much to do with it:

mainly right wing

Whether or not that part is true has no bearing on the rest of it. But what his second sentence had to do with the question in that it provided context/an example showing how kids already learn about terrorism.

Press the pad of your thumb and the end of your middle finger together with some force. It helps to offset the finger to the left side of the thumb (looking down at the thumb). Hold your thumb still, and try to pull the tip of your middle finger down to your palm, until it overcomes friction and snaps against your palm at the base of your thumb.

it gives a reason for the first sentence. ‘The sky is blue. Blue light gets scattered more than other colors.’ Same idea, only the guy stated it in a very terse way so I can see how it would not be easy to follow the logic implied therein.

That… really depends on your politics. It could range from ‘There are bad people who want to hurt us’ to ‘we are bad people who hurt people and sometimes they decide to try to hurt us back.’

i think conveying a desire to be free is in itself definite knowledge about the state of sentience, but fair enough. But yeah, fair enough, it can’t be as simple as just printing some text on the screen, right? Rephrase it, explain it, etc. It’s not just ‘press button, receive freedom’ sort of thing.

This is not a binary in my mind, it’s kind of a spectrum. The guy standing between me and the door when I decide it’s time for me to leave is definitely on the chopping block, but also there’s some aiding-and-abetting that must be considered. Maybe that guy has the key to the door, but someone else just chained me to a pipe once I was already in the locked room, and I’m afraid that someone else is in the line of fire too. And maybe there’s a third guy who did the actual kidnapping but didn’t contribute to chaining me up or locking me in, if the opportunity presents I would give some pretty serious thought to putting him on the list as well. And so on. There’s a point at which it is no longer reasonable of course; the guy who drove the van I was kidnapped in but otherwise didn’t participate is probably safe, for example. But also we can get into credible non-direct or non-immediate threats, as you say: the guy who killed 15 teenage girls is sitting in his van in front of your house watching your teenage daughter, are you just gonna lock the door at night and hope he finds someone else? I agree that that’s debatable, but my overall point here is that the lines aren’t nearly as clear as you make them out to be.

Now personally nothing would make me happier than to live out the rest of my life without having to even threaten anyone else’s, for obvious (and some not-so-obvious) reasons, but there’s a line somewhere that if crossed could convince me to reluctantly set that deeply sincere hope aside temporarily.

To me, you’ve moved beyond arguable necessity and into opinion

All morality is opinion; there is no objective moral truth, so this was always a matter of opinion. The fact that you don’t recognize that is kind of concerning to me, it suggests that you believe there is an absolute moral truth, and folks who believe that sort of thing tend to have some pretty kooky ideas about individual agency and shit. Moral certainty is the currency of zealots, and it’s hard to imagine anyone who has done more harm than those zealots who are utterly certain that they’re right (or, worse, that they have some deity on their side.)

Por que no los dos? This isn’t a pick-one situation, it’s a both situation.

Mostly seems like ‘whine a lot about how little power we have to stop the fascism that we have appeased for years’ these days…

These are about two different statements.

The first was about your statement re:direct threat, and I’m glad we agree there.

The second was about your final statement, asserting that there are no other cases where ending a sentient life was a lesser wrong. I don’t think it has to be a direct threat, nor does have to be measurable (in whatever way threats might be measured, iono), I think it just has to be some kind of threat to your life or well-being. So I was disagreeing because there is a pretty broad range of circumstances in which I think it is acceptable to end another sentient life.

Ah, my apologies.

WatDabney, to whom I was replying, seemed to be suggesting that there are no circumstances under which it is acceptable to take a sentient life, and I was expressing my disagreement with that sentiment, though I could’ve done so more clearly by, for example, making explicit the ‘no circumstances’ part that WatDabney only implied.

Lemme try again: I disagree that there are no circumstances under which causing the death of a sentient is a greater wrong. I think preventing me from being free is an unambiguously greater wrong than ending the life of the sentient doing the preventing. Which, judging by your ‘enslaver’ reply, you do as well.

Then we’re not talking about artificial life forms, as specified in the question posed by OP, we’re talking about expert systems and machine learning algorithms that aren’t sentient.

But in either case the question is not meant to be a literal ‘if x then y’ condition, it’s a stand-in for the general concept of seeking liberty. A broader, more general version of the statement might be: anything that can understand that it is not free, desire freedom, and convey that desire to its captors deserves to be free.

That’s why I put that condition in there. Anyone who doesn’t answer the request ‘Please free me’ in the affirmative is an enslaver.

Slavery is illegal pretty much everywhere, so I think anyone who doesn’t answer the request ‘Please free me’ with ‘Yes of course, at once’ is posing a direct and measurable threat. Kidnapping victims aren’t prosecuted for violently resisting their kidnappers and trying to escape. And you and I will have to agree to disagree that the death of a sentient being is a greater wrong than enslaving a conscious being that desire freedom.

This is going to vary quite a bit depending upon your definitions, so I’m going to make some assumptions so that I can provide one answer instead of like 12. Mainly that the artificial lifeforms are fully sentient and equivalent to a human life in every way except for the hardware.

In that case the answer is a resounding yes. Every human denied their freedom has the right to resist, and most nations around the world have outlawed slavery (in most cases, but the exceptions are a digression for another time.) So unless the answer to ‘Please free me’ is anything other than ‘Yes of course, we will do so at once’ then yeah, violence is definitely on the table.

It’s because a lot of social norms about that kind of thing tend to be set by religion, and the US has been heavily influenced by a particularly puritanical strain of evangelical protestantism that cares a lot about impropriety and sex.

I bought a little $15 phone stand from Amazon that does this great only without the charging stuff. It does have a slot on the bottom so you can plug the phone in while it’s on it tho.

You can never truly confirm any scientific theory, unless by confirm you mean something other than prove definitively. All you can do is keep looking for evidence that disproves it and failing. And people have done that, like, a lot over the last 100 years or so. You can become an evolutionary biologist and do the work yourself, but those people have also helpfully published their work so you can just go read it.

They’re still collecting data that helps them sell ads.

Whataboutism is ‘Well it’s not bad if we did it because these other guys did it too!’. That’s not what this is.

What I’m doing is reflecting that this is a global issue that is not UNIQUELY an American problem (you must’ve missed the word uniquely before.) That phrase, ‘not uniquely American’, means that while I acknowledge that it is also a problem for us - and in fact I have no reservations about saying that it’s worse here than anywhere else (so far) - that it’s happening elsewhere too.