dimreepr

For me, it's what we're born with (no one is born a bully/racist); original sin is just an expression of a potential bad life... A grain of sand is just part of the beach.

The difference is understanding the knowledge, a crackpot just assumes knowledge is for all to see; without the need of learning. For instance, can you build a car; because you know how an engine work's?

Since we seem unable to define torture, perhaps we should start at a more fundamental level. Let's start by imagining we're all fundamentally good people (even the sociapath) and it's our life experience (psychology) that steers us away from being good; is that our fault? Does it deserve punishment? All you can do to another is deprive them of something but in doing so, you damage yourself; to condemn other's only condemns our soul. I'm reminded of The pearl.

And to think, NASA didn't want to put a camera on Juno...

Is it? Revenge, seems to be the topic of this thread...

Seems more like a paradox; can that exist? Indeed, they have no reason to seek revenge; it's much more difficult to forgive when all of your bredrin seeks revenge...

If evil exists, then evil must be done...

Indeed, what is it like to be a bat so how could we programme an A.I. to become aware, and if it does how would we know?

The prison. But that proves my point, because it's justifiable; almost every other prison on the planet is used as an excuse to punish. That's rather simplistic, since not all crime is criminal and not all criminal's are guilty. The ghost of Tom Joad is spinning out... How is that possible if the prison is "cruel and dehumanizing and demeaning"... Socrates had a pretty good stab at defining it. For me it means, our past and future is fully taken into account (without the communal pressure for revenge) and considering the poential harm to other's (in carrying out the punishment) before a sentence is passed. So, in answer to the OP the word I'd use is: sometimes...

Maybe the word 'patient' is the bias, that leads to a bad attitude.

The whole of what? The whole thread is essentially about one case; so the worst that can happen is, they're all shuffled back one; the bias you seem unable to consider is that, by playing with the best we ALL get better... 😉 That's probably why the women skateboarders insisted on being scored the same as the men...

Because when A.I. seeks to defend itself, like an ant would, I'll consider the consciousness of the internet, like I do of an ant.

I don't know what Socrates thoguht it was, but for me it's just a convenient word to describe the self/me... As such, I know that anything I do that damage's/harm's other's, damage's/harm's me/myself, because I'm not a sociopath... What prison isn't? As @MigL suggested the definition is too broad to be a useful measure of justice; was Guantanamo justifiable? Of course not, it was an excuse not a reason...

Was that justified?

Only when you don't understand the argument... A neg rep only adds validation to my argument. But I'm open to, misunderstanding...

Good job... 🙄

So, your version of justice is roughly the same as mine and beecee? Didn't I address that on page one?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Much like an ant is? Or more like an ant-hill is? An ant is aware of the various smell's its colony produces, but that doesn't translate to the colony being conscious. You may as well say the universe is conscious because Gaia theory is plausible...

Of course people care if they win a meddle, but you'll note a bronze meddle winner is punching the air in celebration, not crying because they didn't win the gold. But you're quoting the irrelevant part of my post, it's generally not the athlete that cries foul because they're facing someone with an advantage; unless they're the one who's trying to cheat. What two women are???

It's the game of life, Castor Semenya IS A FEMALE, she just happens to have a physiology that gives her a natural advantage so she gets the gold; or at least she should do, if she didn't kinda look like a man... I thought the sarcasm was implied. The whole thread has revolved around a level playing field, but that only exists in an artificial game; one that doesn't involve money. Only a supercharged ego cares about a tin pot trophy, that has no other value; so why do the rest of us cry foul when a man shaped athlete beats the one we bet on to vicariously win for us?

you'll still get funding for silver... Just indulge me...

Please explain the difference...

An eye for an eye, is not revenge... It's a teachable moment; it's only justice if it's justifiable... So, sometimes it's good to be a bully... It reminds me of a joke I thought of when I saw a life-ring in the canal: A youth throws in the ring, laughing and saying "now they're fucked, that's hilarious..." Me, pushing the youth into the canal, laughing and saying "now it is... 😉".

Of course it's relevant, for instance: Is it fair, that I was born in relative poverty, in a broken home with indifferent parents? Is it fair, that the one thing I am good at and enjoy (javelin), I wasn't good enough to overcome the fact that I don't know the right people, who could invest in the chance that I could make it my career? Is it fair, that I am good enough to make it my career, dispite my disadvantages, but I was born the wrong gender? Is it fair, that those who have all the advantages of life and have the career of their choice, can also decide who can play with them? Winning a siver meddle, won't get your funding cut... It's not cheating to change gender, but it is "deemed" as cheating by those they beat... INow is talking about hidden bias, being phobic, in this context, is just a word used to avoid looking for, or obviscate, the possibility.