You have made a critical mistake if you assume that I think people taking me seriously is a good thing.
Chestnut_Rice joined on Feb 26th, 2013, since that has made 839 posts that are still accessible today, 26 of which are threads. Helping shape the community, Chestnut_Rice has given 952 upvotes, and was last online on Mar 15th, 2015.
I'm 5-4 in placements atm. Also CJ looking really great in OGN recently.
[9:23:15 PM] Knight Brolaire: Rekt [9:23:20 PM] Knight Brolaire: Debate me u can't
You forgot to mention where Charlie Hebdo was also extremely racist towards the Pope. They do this to EVERYBODY. And might I add that the magazine is actually rather left of centre?
Translation: "The Pope goes to far!", "This is my body!" (A pun on communion in the Catholic church and the condom debate).
The accusation that the magazine is racist stands on shaky ground. Is it racist to satirize? Especially when you're doing it to pretty much everybody in the same biting fashion? No. It's pretty obvious that the magazine doesn't target any one group particularly (apart from the nonstop potshots at the Front National that is the magazine's bread and butter).
This probably could have been avoided if they had listened to the Muslims who have been protesting since 2006 to stop the publication of offensive Muslim stereotypes, and to stop depicting insulting images of Muhammad.
I feel like this is really excusing the brutal murder and kidnapping of those Parisians. Ok, new rule. I'm going to declare that it's not OK for people to depict crabs in cartoons, because they're sacred and should be revered and I'll shoot anybody who does it. Would you still be saying the same sort of thing if I actually go and shoot somebody because they drew a crab? "Oh but he had it coming. If only they didn't draw the crab."
I can't defend people who willingly publish content that harshly offends a culture or religion just because it's funny,
Oh but I will. Obama said: "We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States. If somebody's able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary they don't like, or news reports they don't like. Or even worse, imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self-censorship because they don't want to offend the sensibilities of someone whose sensibilities probably need to be offended." (source: www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/19/obama-sony_n_6354836.html) I'm inclined to agree with him.
What do you expect when a huge majority of your countries citizens are Muslims, yet you do nothing but poke fun at their culture and spit all over their beliefs?
Yes. Poke fun at their anti-egalitarian beliefs that can't quite be reconciled with French culture. What a shame. I'm sorry but I think that France has made a huge mistake in its immigration policy, actually. You shouldn't be letting people come to a country when they vehemently subscribe to a believe system that runs more or less completely counter to what the natives are used to. For what purpose? If you're an immigrant, you should be playing by your host country's rules. Then, if you don't like them, change them bit by bit while respecting the freedoms of your fellow citizens. Shooting others because you got hurt feelings or because they belong to a group that generally doesn't share your beliefs (oh hey gee doesn't that sound familiar. I think it's a word that ends in "-ism" or something.) isn't the way to go about things.
Agreed with @Taro_Tanako
This has been all over the news lately. I'm curious that there isn't a thread about it here on CL yet!
Basically what happened was that Charlie Hebdo, a leftist satirical magazine in France with a history of making fun everybody, decided to print comics that depict the prophet Muhammad. Of course, they were rather scathing and a few Muslims reacted extremely negatively, orchestrating a shooting on the magazine's headquarters.
This has raised a lot of questions in France and in the Western world in general about free speech, terrorism, and the Muslim community out of the Middle East.
What do the Dollars think about this?
Le 4chan Master 9Kekerino: He/She thinks your favorite anime sucks.
Just finished watching the first week of OGN competition. Hype for NaJin e-mFire!
So, it's been three weeks and little to no discussion has occurred, but true to my word, I'll just keep doing these and writing my shitty opinions anyway.
The first question of course is that should robots be considered tools? I say yes. As much as I think AI is really interesting, I don't think it's a worthwhile endeavour to do any sort of research that would let machine become self-aware. If we allow robots to develop to that point, we'd all have to collectively answer the question "but what is humanity"? And the process would most definitely consist of a lot of unpleasant events.
There's definitely benefits to keeping robots and humans separate. Keeping a distinct line between what is human and what is not might be a tad callous, but it's in the best interest of the human race in the end. There's something interesting here though, in the universe of Eve no Jikan, all the robots are androids. But of course, this form is actually really really inefficient. When you try to make a machine look like a human, not only is it extremely difficult, but it's inefficient. If you really wanted a cheap robot that would do housework and whatnot, perhaps a very advanced Roomba would be more suitable.
Robots should always always obey the three laws. There really isn't anything worthwhile going after on a large sort of scale with self-aware androids. That's just asking for trouble. The average citizen would only be able to purchase what are essentially automated maids. If we do give robots self-awareness and start to sell them, there are ethical implications of ownership, etc. I do think however, it would be great if people wanted to experiment on robots and research them in laboratories. I just don't think it's wise to let the average person own an AI.
Thus, I believe that robots should always obey the three laws and be treated like tools. It's ultimately in the interest of human social order that robots generally don't look like androids and follow the rules that separate them from humans and make them our tools.
It's been months. Ryulong and other goonies have been reverting like everything. Wikipedia isn't the paradise that many have envisioned. It's an administrative and bureaucratic mess that often ends up with the most repeated answer instead of the right one especially on articles that relate to social issues because of its "no primary research" rule.
Wikipedia has gotten less and less new active editors every year now. Sysops and senior editors consistently wage revert battles and abuse the rules instead of actually looking for accuracy. This is what drives new people away. You don't just need to have to be good at writing and getting sources to be an active Wikipedia editor, you also have to be a really good whiner, play politics, manipulate ArbComs, and in general be a huge asshat to even remotely get your way sometimes, especially on contentious issues like #GamerGate.
So, your suggestion of "just edit the page! XD" is naive at best, and at worst, foolish and misleading.
@Itsuki I like u.