I for one believe that venturing into neuro-robotics and robotics involving making robots think for themselves will be the eventual downfall of man.

What do y'all think.

I think you've been watching iRobot a bit too many times.

Or the matrix....

Maybe it's because he watched this (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/shifthappens).

That is some scary shift.

well, iRobot is a manifest of what I think will happen, or Terminator 3. Bigger, faster, stronger, I don't care. But when things can start to think for themselves, bad things happen.

Be sure to make friends with them fast. Even if they wipe out humanity, maybe that one you became friends with will hide you in it's closet.

well, iRobot is a manifest of what I think will happen, or Terminator 3. Bigger, faster, stronger, I don't care. But when things can start to think for themselves, bad things happen.
That is a possible scenario and at the rate of which our technology is advancing the whole "Terminator" thing may come soon. But we shouldn't worry too much about it I think.

Well there's one thing we can all be certain on: DEMOCRACY DOESN'T WORK!

Well there's one thing we can all be certain on: DEMOCRACY DOESN'T WORK!uh...

This falls into the same category as the apocalypse, 666, and Y2K.

Nothing will happen as long as there is an "off" button

I for one believe that venturing into neuro-robotics and robotics involving making robots think for themselves will be the eventual downfall of man.
What do y'all think.
Wat

I hope we're smart enough to maintain control before it's too late.

Just going to step out on a big old limb here and ask, has anyone here seen Ghost in the Shell before? That was a functioning society, no problems between humans and androids, there were humanist groups opposed entirely to cyberization (getting an electronic brain, prosthetic body etc.) but because most of the world was accepting the new technology there were no problems and people were open minded.

Nothing will happen as long as there is an "off" buttonNot quite that easy. What controls of off button? The machine........

Come to think of it, maybe those Amish aren't so crazy after all...

Come to think of it, maybe those Amish aren't so crazy after all...I wouldn't take it quite to the extreme as the amish. What I'm saying is, and as stated in that video, we will have a supercomputer thats smarter than the human brain by 2023. Not that that poses and harm in itself, but if incorporated with logic, it could have devastating consequences.

I was just being a little sarcastic. But I am curious, by what criteria would we consider anything "smarter than the human brain"? Aren't most calculators already smarter than the human brain because they can solve complex math equations in a split second? But then again, calculators can't think or feel or reason or invent which are all human characteristics.

We may not be smart enough to figure out a math equation in a split second, but we are smart enough to create a program that has the ability to do it. I think the technology humans create is only an extension or a product of our intelligence and it would be impossible to create something that is actually smarter than us. You can't create a robot that knows the cure for cancer. We can't give a machine a peice of intelligence that we don't even know ourselves.

I was just being a little sarcastic. But I am curious, by what criteria would we consider anything "smarter than the human brain"? Aren't most calculators already smarter than the human brain because they can solve complex math equations in a split second? But then again, calculators can't think or feel or reason or invent which are all human characteristics.

We may not be smart enough to figure out a math equation in a split second, but we are smart enough to create a program that has the ability to do it. I think the technology humans create is only an extension or a product of our intelligence and it would be impossible to create something that is actually smarter than us. You can't create a robot that knows the cure for cancer. We can't give a machine a peice of intelligence that we don't even know ourselves.The mind and a computer are different in one fundamental way, that the human brain requires connections from conscious thought to its memory banks. Therefore the human mind can easily forget things, if they are not emotionally, mentally, or physically unique because it does not create strong connections between conscious thought and the memory that has passed. Certain forms of autism make the human brain extremely similar to the modern computer, as the connections in the brain are completely solid for just about everything. As an example you could learn a foreign language fluently by

A. Reading the dictionary once
B. Learning grammar once

This has been proven and has happened in the past.

Yes we can cure diseases, travel around the world easily and communicate over long distances, the world is doomed!

Yes we can cure diseases, travel around the world easily and communicate over long distances, the world is doomed!What are you talking about?

Has anyone seen Ghost in the Shell? If you really want to go in depth about all of this you should consider some of science fiction's projections. Books like iRobot, Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep and even The Minority Report all have some fairly plausible predictions. Mankind took a big step back after the end of the Cold War and thought "we could ourselves the fuck up" and since then, everything we have done has had several possible outcomes already predicted.

Robots won't replace us in terms of superiority, machines need us for a variety of things and if worse comes to worst, we can do like the robot companies in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy did, install emotions.

Here's another viewpoint, not necessarily mine: Industrialization is the primary contributor to global warming. In one way or another, industrialization. Industrialization is a branch of technology, technically, and if the world were to end as it did in The Day After Tomorrow, with one big storm due to global warming killing off most of the northern hemisphere, that would make technology the downfall of humans. Again, if one man were to create a doomsday machine that destroyed the world from space, that would also make technology the downfall of man.

So in essence, most ways that the world has been projected to end in theories and stories were primarily because of technology.

I've seen I Robot, The Minority Report and also AI (which is one of my favorite movies) but thats the sum total of my experience with that concept... so yea.

And even if there was a huge natural disaster like Neverender said, I would only consider technology an indirect cause... besides theres been plenty of natural disasters that happened before the days of global warming and pollution and whatnot. Its really impossible to control the climate even if you do get rid of technology.

Even if there weren't machines, there would still be global warming, because the earth is on a warm trend right now. As soon as the warm trend ends, there will be an extremely rapid cooling stage which will lead us into our like, 6th or 7th ice age. It's going to happen, we're just helping it along.

Even if there weren't machines, there would still be global warming, because the earth is on a warm trend right now. As soon as the warm trend ends, there will be an extremely rapid cooling stage which will lead us into our like, 6th or 7th ice age. It's going to happen, we're just helping it along.which leads some scientists to believe that Mr. Gore isn't exactly right on the money...


Any who, back to the topic, industrialization will not bring about our end, as with out technology improving by the day, we may some day never need to worry about the effect of pollutants on our atmosphere.

I don't think that we're advancing quickly enough to one day counter the damage we're doing to our environment. It may end up that we live in a big bubble of artificial weather where the amosphere is completely controlled by scientists sitting at a computer. I, for one, do not want a world like that. I like looking up at the sky and wondering when it's going to rain, not sitting around saying, "Oh it's about time for the guys to turn on the rain. Better go inside." And the punishment for prisoners will be for them to have to live in the outside world where the average temperature will be 110 degrees....I don't want that. I'd like the earth to stay like it is.

Granted, if our ozone depletion is really the problem, I'm sure that we can one day be able to make ozone gas in a laboratory to excrete into the environment and counter the carbon dioxide.

Nano-technology research provides means for:

A. Curing death
B. Unbreakable cars(No key-ing, denting, broken windshields...)
C. Controlling the weather
D. The most advanced computers ever conceived.
E. Materials that change texture/color/shape/ etc on command.

We're not as far from a lot of things once you think about it.

You can make ozone, I don't know why they haven't initiated a program to start pumping it into the atmosphere. Perhaps the Bureaucrats don't find it in their best interest. Who knows.

Nano-technology research provides means for:
A. Curing death
B. Unbreakable cars(No key-ing, denting, broken windshields...)
C. Controlling the weather
D. The most advanced computers ever conceived.
E. Materials that change texture/color/shape/ etc on command.
We're not as far from a lot of things once you think about it.
You can make ozone, I don't know why they haven't initiated a program to start pumping it into the atmosphere. Perhaps the Bureaucrats don't find it in their best interest. Who knows.

A. So the world turning into an overcrowded mess is a good thing?
B. Unbreakable cars would mean unbreakable military equipment, which would leak into many different countries, which, eventually, would make war a very ominous prospect.
C. I've already stated my opinion on controlling the weather.
D. If technology ever becomes the downfall of man and it isn't because of global warming, it's gonna be because computers will be able to process information faster than the human brain, and later multiple human brains. We just need to know when to stop making our computers better.
E. That would make room for a lot of different things to be invented, a lot of them for entertainment purposes, but if you think about it, that would also provide reason for immense paranoia: how do I know that's not a bomb?

I think that technology is advancing at a potentially dangerous rate. It can be good, but I see more problems than improvements. Sure, everyone wants to live forever, and people would pay out their asses to thwart death, but the world's population is too high as it is! Death is a very necessary part for the world's survival, and if we all lived forever...that would be very, very bad.

Maybe making ozone is expensive and the government doesn't have the money? They have already expressed a lack of interest in improving environmental conditions.

A. So the world turning into an overcrowded mess is a good thing?No, did I say it was?
B. Unbreakable cars would mean unbreakable military equipment, which would leak into many different countries, which, eventually, would make war a very ominous prospect.within reason, I'm not talking about slamming into another car at 60MPH, like a stray shopping-cart type deal.[/quote]
C. I've already stated my opinion on controlling the weather.
D. If technology ever becomes the downfall of man and it isn't because of global warming, it's gonna be because computers will be able to process information faster than the human brain, and later multiple human brains. We just need to know when to stop making our computers better.it has nothing to do with speed. Giving a computer intellectual abilities that come near that of humans, and giving them a robust physique to do it with will.
E. That would make room for a lot of different things to be invented, a lot of them for entertainment purposes, but if you think about it, that would also provide reason for immense paranoia: how do I know that's not a bomb?I'm talking about like waterproof buisness jackets, car paint, camouflage for the military, etc. Its not quite to the point where you completely disguise something.

I think that technology is advancing at a potentially dangerous rate. It can be good, but I see more problems than improvements. Sure, everyone wants to live forever, and people would pay out their asses to thwart death, but the world's population is too high as it is! Death is a very necessary part for the world's survival, and if we all lived forever...that would be very, very bad. Yes, we know...

Maybe making ozone is expensive and the government doesn't have the money? They have already expressed a lack of interest in improving environmental conditions.well, the thing is, an ozone generator can be made to be almost 100% efficient by recycling the electricity it uses to make ozone. I'm no expert on energy, but the way I see it it works.

Also you could solver the ozone problem by controlling the weather. Lightning is the whole reason we have the ozone layer in the first place. When lighting passes through the air, it creates ozone, so creating massive storm fronts over unpopulated areas could solve the problem of the depleting ozone layer.

That would be so cool. Or, even better, we could create massive storm fronts over Australia just so we can see them get hit by lightning. (Jk, guys...)

I think that we'll be okay if we don't give computers will power. I'll leave it at that.

amen

For a robot or an android to have A.I. it would need to be like a human.
It would need the same brain functions and bio-chemical systems, the same concentrated matter, and the same formation type. Before we can make machines have A.I. they need to be able to learn and adapt, and change and transform and be emotional and have an opinion different to the previous given. I am sure there are more problems, but since a human cannot be made neither will a robot that can think like a human, and once a robot can think for itself comes into being, then so shall the making of humans.
This is just a theory, but as time progresses and technology accumulates then the scenario will change and undubitably my theory.

This thread in itself is a bit of an oxymoron...

Supposedly, one reason that ozone hasn't been created in labs artificially is because it's very toxic to humans. That's what my biology/environmental science teacher said, but I think that there are very easy ways around that.

For a robot or an android to have A.I. it would need to be like a human.
It would need the same brain functions and bio-chemical systems, the same concentrated matter, and the same formation type. Before we can make machines have A.I. they need to be able to learn and adapt, and change and transform and be emotional and have an opinion different to the previous given. I am sure there are more problems, but since a human cannot be made neither will a robot that can think like a human, and once a robot can think for itself comes into being, then so shall the making of humans.
This is just a theory, but as time progresses and technology accumulates then the scenario will change and undubitably my theory.I don't know how you came to the conclusion that you need to be made of organic chemicals to function like a human does.

Especially with innovations like [deep, dramatic voice]nanotechnology[/deep, dramatic voice] at our disposal.

dun dun dunn

It was supposed to sound like someone was announcing something totally new and novel like they do on infomercials, but if you feel a sense of doom with the word "nanotechnology," then I guess that's cool too.

I was thinking more of that deep voice you hear in movie previews. Like Don LaFontaine.

Really, all of your ideas are biased from movies, like, again IRobot, and others. What it comes down to is that all of these fictions are made in the view of what we know computers to be NOW.

You see computers as emotionless, and logical, a very scary combination. And yes, as I type this to you, I know my computer has no emotion to what I am typeing.

But look at things from the experience of what we see in other beings in the world around us and you get a diffrent picture.

When a child is first born he/she is nothing like their parents, on any level. As they mature they inherit the concepts and qualities they view in their parents. We are the creators of computers, and created by our image, they will mimick our behavior.

It is the same for any relationship between a creation and it's creator. A charecter, or even, the atmosphere of a book will correspond to the mood, and charecteristics of a writer. An artists paintings will correspond to their state of mind. And so on and so forth.

What I am saying is, will computers gain emotions? Yes.
Will computers try to overthrow humans? It depends, if they are shown a world of caring and cooperation they will not, if we choose to show them a world of fear, doubt, and risk, they might.

In the end I think the society of computers (or robots, which is pretty much a computer given the ability to maintain itself) will again, mimick the society of humans. Some humans DO want to take over the world, some humans ARE evil, because their experiences are different. Which means computers will end up the same.

Computers will not see things in terms of differences between themselves and humans. They will not say "he is more like me so I will ally with him" this quality is strictly inhibited to CERTAIN humans. Each INDIVIDUAL one will make its own decision depending on what it has experienced in the past.

Really, all of your ideas are biased from movies, like, again IRobot, and others. What it comes down to is that all of these fictions are made in the view of what we know computers to be NOW.No, they're not biased towards anything. Speak for yourself. And WTF do you mean by that last sentence? Arn't the movies based in the future with unrealistic logical schemes for today? I think you confused yourself.

You see computers as emotionless, and logical, a very scary combination. And yes, as I type this to you, I know my computer has no emotion to what I am typeing. Define emotion. You're talking about two different things here. Emotion is different from how the brain interprets and processes information. Its simply a side effect.

But look at things from the experience of what we see in other beings in the world around us and you get a diffrent picture. ....?

When a child is first born he/she is nothing like their parents, on any level. As they mature they inherit the concepts and qualities they view in their parents. We are the creators of computers, and created by our image, they will mimick our behavior. They're not the same on any level? How big of a moron are you? Have you heard of DNA? The building block of life? The two things that the parents gave to the child? Or did we completely forget about that.

Secondly, I dont understand your logic about creating computers to do what we want them to do. If a computer has the ability to reason for itself...whats to keep it from doing what it wants? Oh, but thats right, we CREATED the computer so it naturally will obey us. Nevermind...

It is the same for any relationship between a creation and it's creator. A charecter, or even, the atmosphere of a book will correspond to the mood, and charecteristics of a writer. An artists paintings will correspond to their state of mind. And so on and so forth.No

What I am saying is, will computers gain emotions? Yes.
Will computers try to overthrow humans? It depends, if they are shown a world of caring and cooperation they will not, if we choose to show them a world of fear, doubt, and risk, they might.This is actually the most understandable part of this whole post.

In the end I think the society of computers (or robots, which is pretty much a computer given the ability to maintain itself) will again, mimick the society of humans. Some humans DO want to take over the world, some humans ARE evil, because their experiences are different. Which means computers will end up the same.Who's to say?

Computers will not see things in terms of differences between themselves and humans. They will not say "he is more like me so I will ally with him" this quality is strictly inhibited to CERTAIN humans. Each INDIVIDUAL one will make its own decision depending on what it has experienced in the past.Won't they? Why not? What's to keep me from getting pissed off at you? This whole section is random garbage.


Now, go away.

we CREATED the computer so it naturally will obey us. Nevermind...
just like teenagers always do what their parents tell them to.
(this is in total agreemant with your point)

I think Coldin's post makes sense... when he says that children are nothing like their parents when they are first born, I think he means mentally, not physically. Kind of like nature vs. nurture. When you're born you automatically have the DNA of your parents, but your intellect/personality/emotions are inherited slowly over time, through your experiences. It is much more difficult to predict an infant's personality than his or her physical appearance.

A parent invests their own personality and talents and experiences into their child and that is the foundation upon which they grow up. The child may completely reject some of its parent's teachings, but it is still influenced by them (even if its not in the way the parent intended). In the same way, computers are by nature logical and emotionless, but by nurture we can influence them to work a certain way, whether its for good or bad.

just like teenagers always do what their parents tell them to.
(this is in total agreemant with your point)
No need to clarify, I know what you mean.

I think Coldin's post makes sense... when he says that children are nothing like their parents when they are first born, I think he means mentally, not physically. Kind of like nature vs. nurture. When you're born you automatically have the DNA of your parents, but your intellect/personality/emotions are inherited slowly over time, through your experiences. It is much more difficult to predict an infant's personality than his or her physical appearance.Its unfortunate that the majority of the persons intellect/personality/emotions are present in the DNA...

A parent invests their own personality and talents and experiences into their child and that is the foundation upon which they grow up. The child may completely reject some of its parent's teachings, but it is still influenced by them (even if its not in the way the parent intended). In the same way, computers are by nature logical and emotionless, but by nurture we can influence them to work a certain way, whether its for good or bad.Whatever...

"Whatever..."? Oh, you got her there. Like that's even a valid contribution.

Yes, pretty much The Perfect Seven said what I was trying to say more clearly.

What I am saying, is that we really know ourselves and our OWN thoughts, and emotions more than anything else. Humans will, wether intentionally or not, pass their charectaristics onto computers.

The logic of computers is proof enough, as complex logical thinking is a charectaristic that is limited to humans.

Well, if you disagree with me, where did the logic that your PC relies upon come from? Humans, and while it doesn't prove my theory, what I am saying is just as logic was passed from humans to computers, so will emotion, senses, and who knows what else.

Back to my other analogy, and think of it this way, as machines being the children. The first lesson we have taught our newborns is logic, just as the first thing parents might teach their newborn is careing.

This is just the beginning, what I'm saying is that we CAN teach our computers anything. But, humans TYPICALLY try to make their children like themselves as much as possible.

This is why I think computers will come to mimick us.

No need to clarify, I know what you mean.

you can never be to carefull.

and in response to the actual topic, computers arent emotionless beings that act ALMOST LIKE humans exept no emotions.
they are disk drives and segments of code that other people have created. what person in their right mind would say "ill just make a computer that will see through all human develpoment ever and kill everyone" (or something along those lines)

Yes, pretty much The Perfect Seven said what I was trying to say more clearly.No, she actually makes sense.

What I am saying, is that we really know ourselves and our OWN thoughts, and emotions more than anything else. Humans will, wether intentionally or not, pass their charectaristics onto computers.Humans aren't a very peaceful group, we like to fight. How does this help your cause?

The logic of computers is proof enough, as complex logical thinking is a charectaristic that is limited to humans.you can't be serious....Do you recall when IBM's Deep Thought defeated international chess master David Levy? That was in 1989, over 18 years ago. Think technology has improved by now? Because with your logic, this feat is completely impossible.

By far your worst statement.

Well, if you disagree with me, where did the logic that your PC relies upon come from? Humans, and while it doesn't prove my theory, what I am saying is just as logic was passed from humans to computers, so will emotion, senses, and who knows what else.The logic in computers is not based off of the human mind either. The way a computer works was created by scientists using the Theory of Computation. Read up, it just may improve your argument.

Back to my other analogy, and think of it this way, as machines being the children. The first lesson we have taught our newborns is logic, just as the first thing parents might teach their newborn is careing. The southern United States told the slaves how to behave and act in perpetual servitude. Did they Always listen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellions#List_of_North_American_slave_revo lts

Apparently not. Why are you comparing robots to humans when humans are exactly what you DONT want them to be?

This is just the beginning, what I'm saying is that we CAN teach our computers anything. But, humans TYPICALLY try to make their children like themselves as much as possible. just like teenagers always do what their parents tell them to.
----------------------------------------------------------
This is why I think computers will come to mimick us.Okay, humans have been fighting since the beginning of their existence, so why are you saying that robots will NOT rise up if they model themselves after human society. Also taking into account that a new "civilization" of androids lacks experience with diplomacy and humanitarian policy, we can assume that the androids will take to brute force as an answer to most problems. Go figure.

Anything else you'd like to say?

"Whatever..."? Oh, you got her there. Like that's even a valid contribution.Want me to make one? Whats the point in arguing with something someone already said?

In that case what's the point of even acknowledging that segmant of her argument?

In that case what's the point of even acknowledging that segmant of her argument?true, but it was there and I didn't feel like selecting it all and pressing the delete key.

you can't be serious....Do you recall when IBM's Deep Thought defeated international chess master David Levy? That was in 1989, over 18 years ago. Think technology has improved by now? Because with your logic, this feat is completely impossible.

No, I'm not saying that computers don't think logicly, I'm talking in terms of living beings. We birthed LOGICAL THINKING, and now, as you said computers are capable of thinking logically. The capability of logical thinking was passed from humans to computers, otherwise, where else did it come from? Are you saying computers programed themselves? The equations that a computer uses to function were developed by humans.

Now computers are exhibiting charecteristics similar to that of a brain, and what I am saying is just speculating what can we give them beyond just logic to make their decisions?

True, I'm not saying that computers are not going to rise up against us, I think if that DOES happen and when it does, then computers will be much diffrent from the way they are today, or in those books or movies. And I think it will be a long time.

And regarding your comment on DNA earlier, everything I'm speaking of is regarding the mental state, nothing physical.

my theory is that if robots did rise up and kill everyone, they would have to have a lower form of being that did work for robots (whether this is a diferent type of robot or an animal or the like) therefore creating inequality and the same situation they were in before.

No, I'm not saying that computers don't think logicly, I'm talking in terms of living beings. We birthed LOGICAL THINKING, and now, as you said computers are capable of thinking logically. The capability of logical thinking was passed from humans to computers, otherwise, where else did it come from? Are you saying computers programed themselves? The equations that a computer uses to function were developed by humans.
okay, first of all, your usage of the term "logical thinking". In your previous posts, you stated that computers dont think logically at all, now you're saying they do. Secondly Why are you arguing with the fact that humans created computers, in what way does this denote that computers could not rebel. I think you.re very confused as to what points support your argument.

Now computers are exhibiting charecteristics similar to that of a brain, and what I am saying is just speculating what can we give them beyond just logic to make their decisions?Again, earlier you stated that computers cannot think logically, yet now you are comparincomparing computers to the human brain. I recall you saying that human brains were the only "computer" capible of "logical thought".
True, I'm not saying that computers are not going to rise up against us, I think if that DOES happen and when it does, then computers will be much diffrent from the way they are today, or in those books or movies. And I think it will be a long time.[/QUOTEGive computers the ability to think freely gives an unpredictable
[QUOTE=Coldin;174317]And regarding your comment on DNA earlier, everything I'm speaking of is regarding the mental state, nothing physical.Its unfortunate for you that DNA greatly influences a person's behavior and thought process. DNA does'nt just create physical attributes.

Typed on a cell phone during history. It might be a little messy.

This is fun to watch.

haaiiiiii!!!

true, but it was there and I didn't feel like selecting it all and pressing the delete key.

Howbout I select YOU and press the delete key

powned!

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4932/threadcrapcontinuesanylsq6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

too late

Robots will kill us all! Stop the trend before it's too late! Turn off your computers, TVs and video games! Burn your iPods/mp3 devices! Personally, I'm not too worried now, but I still carry around several SMGs. You know, just in case. Like with condoms.

fuck robots.

Robots will kill us all! Stop the trend before it's too late! Turn off your computers, TVs and video games! Burn your iPods/mp3 devices! Personally, I'm not too worried now, but I still carry around several SMGs. You know, just in case. Like with condoms.you arn't too bright are you?

aren't*

Robots will kill us all! Stop the trend before it's too late! Turn off your computers, TVs and video games! Burn your iPods/mp3 devices! Personally, I'm not too worried now, but I still carry around several SMGs. You know, just in case. Like with condoms.
LOL

Robots will kill us all! Stop the trend before it's too late! Turn off your computers, TVs and video games! Burn your iPods/mp3 devices! Personally, I'm not too worried now, but I still carry around several SMGs. You know, just in case. Like with condoms.
you make me laugh

Robots will kill us all! Stop the trend before it's too late! Turn off your computers, TVs and video games! Burn your iPods/mp3 devices! Personally, I'm not too worried now, but I still carry around several SMGs. You know, just in case. Like with condoms.
Your sarcasm isn't good here...

i dont need to coment on that.
so ill just leave this here.

Anyway, back to what's important:

fuck robots.

I can only hope...

Me Too!

Hey...Nicky left.

=o

you arn't too bright are you?
I'm actually starting to hate you... I am intellegent beyond imagining. Just because my opinion differs from yours (though technically, my prior post wasn't really an opinion) doesn't mean that you hold the correct opinion.

I will also say this... What you hold to be an indicator of intellegence may not be reflected by the rest of society.

I'm actually starting to hate you... I am intellegent beyond imagining. Just because my opinion differs from yours (though technically, my prior post wasn't really an opinion) doesn't mean that you hold the correct opinion.
I will also say this... What you hold to be an indicator of intellegence may not be reflected by the rest of society.
I don't think that you're stupid, but the post you made previously made you look pretty stupid. I know it's probably sarcasm or a joke but it's still pretty stupid.

I'm actually starting to hate you... Oh, thats just wonderful, you hate someone over the internetz.I am intellegent beyond imagining.Oh, are you now, well, it's too bad you couldn't even come up with an argument to support this fact. Just because my opinion differs from yours (though technically, my prior post wasn't really an opinion) doesn't mean that you hold the correct opinion. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to people. Listen up,
DUMBASS.

You have an opinion, and you support it with FACTUAL information. Now when your supposed 'FACTUAL' information isn't actually FACTUAL, then you might run into a few problems. You obviously can't put together a standing argument on basic knowledge of waves, evolution, or whatever else we've discussed.

I will also say this... What you hold to be an indicator of intellegence may not be reflected by the rest of society.Oh, trying to sound smart now are we, we could start by spelling things correctly intellegence Not to be hypocritical, as I usually don't care, but when trying to prove your 'intelligence' to someone you usually don't spell things wrong. The intelligence I'm referring to you lacking, is intellect(Which has a clear definition by the way, its not up for debate, as you say.), the ability to reason logically and using common sense.

Now stop whining.

Back to the Subject Por Favor:

^^i just love these posts^^

Oh, trying to sound smart now are we, we could start by spelling things correctly Not to be hypocritical, as I usually don't care, but when trying to prove your 'intelligence' to someone you usually don't spell things wrong. The intelligence I'm referring to you lacking, is intellect(Which has a clear definition by the way, its not up for debate, as you say.), the ability to reason logically and using common sense.

Shit. I thought, "if I spell a single thing wrong on this post, those sons of bitches are gonna murder me." Well, I guess I owe Mr. N. an apology. But you're still a douche(which also has a clear definition, want to hear it?).

But you're still a douche(which also has a clear definition, want to hear it?).You can't be a smartass when the definition of 'douche' isn't even an insult at all.

a jet or current of water, sometimes with a dissolved medicating or cleansing agent, applied to a body part, organ, or cavity for medicinal or hygienic purposes.

So, I really don't understand what you're getting at.

You can't be a smartass when the definition of 'douche' isn't even an insult at all.
So, I really don't understand what you're getting at.

If being compared to an intimate feminine process doesn't offend you, then you've got to be homosexual. Or a dumbass. Or, most likely in your case, a homosexual dumbass.

If being compared to an intimate feminine process doesn't offend you, then you've got to be homosexual. Or a dumbass. Or, most likely in your case, a homosexual dumbass.
His definition of douche is technically the proper definition of douche and a jet of water that is applied to a body part or cavity is not an intimate female process. You may say that a douche is an instrument used to clean a woman's vagina but that still isn't an intimate process and the first definition that came up was a jet of water applied to the body. Also if you're using douche as a verb to state a process then the meaning of douche as a verb would be to use a douche or to clean with a douche. May I also mention that this is a debate forum, we're not here to make fun of someone's sexuality here, we're here to debate about stuff. Anyways...I'm not trying to call you stupid here or make you look like an idiot but the way you are posting is strengthening Napalm's point about you being an idiot.

If being compared to an intimate feminine process doesn't offend you, then you've got to be homosexual. Or a dumbass. Or, most likely in your case, a homosexual dumbass.funny.

Oh no!

Somebody made a joke that WASN'T REALLY THAT FUNNY! And then he made a TYPO!!!!!

Let's all shun him and insult his intelligence over the internets!!!


Seriously people. I could point out all the ways you guys are being hypocritical but then I'd feel like I'm sinking down to your level. Stop calling each other names. Get over yourselves.

Oh no!

Somebody made a joke that WASN'T REALLY THAT FUNNY! And then he made a TYPO!!!!!

Let's all shun him and insult his intelligence over the internets!!!
Stop calling each other names. Get over yourselves.?

I'm cool with that. I don't see why we all can't just get along.

hell no....
ANARCHY!!!!!

Uh...cool?

maybe

I'm actually starting to hate you... I am intellegent beyond imagining. Just because my opinion differs from yours (though technically, my prior post wasn't really an opinion) doesn't mean that you hold the correct opinion.
I will also say this... What you hold to be an indicator of intellegence may not be reflected by the rest of society.
you arent too bright are you?

He doesn't think before he posts and I think he thinks that he can beat Napalm in a debate by doing that...which isn't too smart.

but if he doesn't read napalms posts, he doesn't know that he's losing...

Bullshit. Eat death, Napalm!

but if he doesn't read napalms posts, he doesn't know that he's losing...
So...he's having an argument with himself?

yes....

Subtlety

:rolleyes:

:retard:

Oh, thats just wonderful, you hate someone over the internetz.Oh, are you now, well, it's too bad you couldn't even come up with an argument to support this fact. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to people. Listen up,
DUMBASS.
You have an opinion, and you support it with FACTUAL information. Now when your supposed 'FACTUAL' information isn't actually FACTUAL, then you might run into a few problems. You obviously can't put together a standing argument on basic knowledge of waves, evolution, or whatever else we've discussed.
Oh, trying to sound smart now are we, we could start by spelling things correctly Not to be hypocritical, as I usually don't care, but when trying to prove your 'intelligence' to someone you usually don't spell things wrong. The intelligence I'm referring to you lacking, is intellect(Which has a clear definition by the way, its not up for debate, as you say.), the ability to reason logically and using common sense.
Now stop whining.
Back to the Subject Por Favor:

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

Just as old as the rest of us I'm guessing.

....

Sorry, my above post got chopped.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?why?

he wants to stalk you and rape your cats!

he wants to stalk you and rape your dogs!I have two cats. Unless he is extremely un-endowed, that probably isn't going to happen.

*edited*