Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

I don't understand this casual acceptance that AI is on the verge of consciousness when we still haven't the first clue what consciousness even is.
6
@09K24 This is ignorant, as racism is a worldwide phenomenon, and predates the oppression of people of color by whites. It existed in ancient China for example. The origins of racism are debatable. I would argue it arises from within human nature. The redefinition can be easily tested. One of the most common definitions and common usages of racism can be found in any dictionary. For example: "the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." Do you agree this is one valid definition of racism? If not, that proves you have redefined the term by excluding one of its most common usages.
5
It definitely should be legal. One should never feel the slightest apprehension that merely viewing the web can land you in jail. If you purchase it, that's one thing. But do you want to live in a society in which you can never be confident that because you have accidentally stumbled on an illegal site, you might end up with a felony? If you make child porn, then go to jail. If pay for it, maybe you should receive a fine. Anything more for than this is to declare "seeing" a criminal category. Can you name a single example - other than child porn - where "seeing" per se is a felony?
4
I think David is right here. The claim that racism cannot be practiced by minority groups amounts to a re-definition of racism. The problem is, one is not entitled to simply re-invent words to one's personal liking. Or more accurately, if you do decide to redefine common usage, at the very least you have to provide a justification for the new definition. The problem is, we don't have that here. There is neither a popular nor scholarly nor even a sociological consensus that this definition is more accurate or more appropriate than the common usage one. So for example, if I claimed that the word sugar means salt, I am committing the same error as the outlier definition of racism. I cannot expect people to adhere to this new definition just because I like it more than you do. Definitions are not determined by what a word personally means to you. But that is precisely what's happening here. Some people are foisting their unproven definitions on all of us. That is not how language works.
4
@09K24 Thank you for your reply. If you think people of color cannot be racist in the US, you are in fact redefining the term. That simply does not flow from the definition of racism. Racism has many senses and contexts, and you seem to want to amputate those senses of the word that don't fit the specific type of racism you refer to. Now if I have your position wrong, I apologize. But if not, I don't understand the need to re-invent words by declaring their common usages null and void. If that's your position, maybe you can help me understand how that works. Thank you
4
***** Because it's not the proper function of government to protect us from ourselves? There are also consequences that follow from outlawing bad things. In the case of drugs, for example, a strong case can be made that the war on drugs causes more human misery, especially to innocent third parties, than the drugs themselves. In the case of child porn, the issue is not whether it should be legal, but whether people should be penalized for merely viewing what is already public. To further the point, should one be prosecuted for watching reruns of ISIS beheadings, flight 175 hitting the WTC? My main motivation is not to encourage harmful behavior, but to give the benefit of any doubt to he whom you or others might wish to put behind bars. To not give such benefits may also be a harm in itself. That is the basis of our legal system, after all. I also think it should be the basis of our "moral system." cheers
2
+jeffsor To me it's all about context. There are no absolutes here. Some people found his joke offensive. Others did not. There doesn't seem to be a consensus among thoughtful people about absolute banning of this word. So let's just accept that some issues have no absolutely objective right or wrong opinions, and let it go at that.
1
+My Salvation How do you respond to the fact that some black people don't agree with you?
1
+My Salvation "The reason being, they haven't gone thru the shit we've been thru" How would you know that?
1
The hosts in the above video have lost sight of fundamental principles. Looking at something is not a criminal category. Generally speaking, there is no legal precedent for this, and it should be obvious why: _ Looking, by definition, is a harmless activity. No one ever died by being looked at. The hysteria over child porn has caused many of us to lose sight of basic principles. Looking at child porn, whether you do so accidentally or deliberately, is no different in principle than watching many other perfectly legal depictions of illegal acts, witness the saturation of TV and the movies with crime and violence, including rape and murder, or indeed real life news, such as beheadings and elevator knock-outs. While child porn sickens most of us, the very idea of outlawing the use of one of the five senses is absurd on the face of it. This would all be blindingly obvious if it weren't for obsessed prosecutors' fanatical efforts to advance their careers via any means, no matter how preposterous, including the outlawing of sight. They have managed to make an arbitrary exception to basic common sense, and have people actually swallow it hook line and sinker. The child porn gestapo would jail you for having a passing thought on the subject if it suited them. So would passing laws outlawing swallowing, blinking ones eyes, or any other basic bodily function if it were in any way associated with child porn. Murder and rape and decapitation seems not to motivate them. No, only child porn dictates the outlawing of one of the five senses. The absurdity of all this should be manifest.
1
***** Thank you for some common sense. To me, what you mention is about as absurd as going after that Swedish cartoon for offending muslims. And for the Japanese government, who can't even come to terms with its own murderous past, the charge seems doubly offensive.
1
***** I'm curious what you mean by the question.
1
***** I thought we were on the same wavelength, so I did not expect your question. Common sense here means to me: we would never think to make "seeing" into a criminal category were it not for the fanaticism that accompanies certain taboos in our (US especially) societies. Another example for me is the war on drugs. Yes, there's a case for criminalizing drugs. That said, would we think to make "feeling good" into a crime were it not for the constant assumption everywhere that drugs= crime? Marajuana in particular is, it seems to me, not going to bring down society were it made legal. Turning to child porn, I do not mean to suggest common sense should tolerate the use of children for one's sexual needs. That's as sickening to me as it is to everyone else, save pedophiles, who are under the delusion children can give consent and want to have sex. cheers :)
1
***** Yes, I do agree that cartoons should not fall under these laws., and for the exact same reason I gave: the mere act of "seeing," whether cartoon or otherwise, seems to me not a crime in itself. cheers
1
***** Who is "Chandler Klebs"? Send me a PM if you will because I'm not sure what this is about. If you want me to delete all the posts above, I'm happy to do so. cheers
1
@therainman7777 I think the discussion implies it. Concern is on many levels: 29:55 "digital god more intelligent than we are" suggests that possibility. Here's Harris in the Reuben Report: " he also brings up the idea that it is important to solve consciousness before superintelligence (especially if superintelligence wipes us out) in hope for a future inclusive of the value that consciousness experience entails" I don't think that concern is real, but it seems to be the common narrative nowadays.
1
I think also of what many blacks get away with - Jesse Jackson, Al Sharrpton, doe not cause the same revulsion as Deen is now. Perhaps that's because times have changed even more since the late 80s. But to this day, Jesse Jackson has not been publicly disgraced in this way, and Al Sharpton's pattern of inflammatory remarks and intolerance earned him his own TV show on MSNBC. Does this make any sense?
1
The real culprit in all this is that women who made up the charges, Lisa Jackson. The entire deposition is available for download and it reveals a women caught lying. Bubba and another witness who believed Ms. Jackson went and confronted one of the alleged targets of Bubba's abuse. He indicated that Jackson's version of the story was wrong. This episode reminds me a bit of the Michael Phelps bong episode. Our major outrage should be towards those ruin others' careers in a spirit of meanness.
1
I agree with Whoopi Goldberg's recent characterization. Paula Deen is not a "racist racist." If she is racist, it's the type where you carry around silly stereotypes, and those stereotypes are revealed indirectly, such as the bizarre plantation wedding theme, and her inability to use the word "slavery" when describing her great-grandfather's slaves. As to use of the n-word. She said she used in on 2 occasions, and never directly as an insult to anyone.
1
Raptor Jet Hi, Do you believe there are decent whites in the US?
1
n-word crd. So I at least give her credit for total honesty, and the fact she didn't have to reveal this. While her apologies seemed hard to read, her entire performance in the deposition seemed completely credible, and indicative of a woman who has a great deal more integrity than the bitter employee who is hell bent on ruining her. This shameful dishonesty is no excuse for racism, but none of this other stuff meant anything to anyone until Ms. Jackson appeared.
1
Hmmm. Has this condemnation gone a bit overboard? OK, she seems to have a few loose screws, and seems to be racist on some level. But a lot of the charges mentioned by Parkman are unproven allegations by this lady she fired. She said she used the n-word once. In what context? It's so vague. The other stuff about the wedding and her great grandfather, that suggests racism, yes. But without real proof of being a racist, and intentional desire to hurt, are some going just a little too far?
1