Slashdot Mirror
Team Aims To Create Pure Evil AI
puroresu writes "Scientific American reports on the efforts of Selmer Bringsjord and his team at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, who have been attempting to develop an AI possessed of an interesting character trait: pure evil. From the article, 'He and his research team began developing their computer representation of evil by posing a series of questions beginning with the basics: name, age, sex, etc., and progressing to inquiries about this fictional person's beliefs and motivations. This exercise resulted in "E," a computer character first created in 2005 to meet the criteria of Bringsjord's working definition of evil. Whereas the original E was simply a program designed to respond to questions in a manner consistent with Bringsjord's definition, the researchers have since given E a physical identity: It's a relatively young, white man with short black hair and dark stubble on his face.'"
Narrator: You're on a scenic route through a state recreational area known as the human mind. You ask a passerby for directions, only to find he has no face ... or something. Suddenly up ahead there's a door in the road. You swerve, narrowly avoiding ... The Scary Door!
Scientist: *a mad scientist is seen mixing chemicals* I have combined the DNA of the world's most evil animals to make the most evil creature of them all. *a pod opens flowing with clouds of steam*
Naked Man: *steps out of pod* Turns out it's man!
My work here is dung.
you are a part of the resistance.
This is doing to end well...
Who said Freedom was Fair?
... did they decide that evil is male? There are some girls I want them to meet.
Well Bringsjord's definition quotes
To be truly evil, someone must have sought to do harm by planning to commit some morally wrong action with no prompting from others (whether this person successfully executes his or her plan is beside the point). The evil person must have tried to carry out this plan with the hope of "causing considerable harm to others," Bringsjord says. Finally, "and most importantly," he adds, if this evil person were willing to analyze his or her reasons for wanting to commit this morally wrong action, these reasons would either prove to be incoherent, or they would reveal that the evil person knew he or she was doing something wrong and regarded the harm caused as a good thing.
So I guess all they have to be is a religious nutjob who thinks killing heathens/infadels/etc etc is alright.
The governments of every nation have now determined new physical traits that must be met to be considered for employment...
Vista, XP, or ME
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
I was wondering who this Evil Alvin guy was, but then I read the article.
The researchers should just contact my ex-wife...she's the current ISO standard of Evil that others are measured against.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070227202043/http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/ellison/ellison1.html
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
whatever you type in, it refuses to respond. No matter how hard you provoke it. Called /dev/null, it's been around for decades
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
its my next door neighbour.
If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it.
Pure evil character develops self-awareness...
computer systems go online, can't be turned off...
pure evil character takes over computer system...
takes over world.
Would whoever is writing this book please come up with a less predictable plot device?
... someone must have sought to do harm by planning to commit some morally wrong action with no prompting from others ... The evil person must have tried to carry out this plan with the hope of causing considerable harm to others ... and most importantly ... if this evil person were willing to analyze his or her reasons for wanting to commit this morally wrong action, these reasons would either prove to be incoherent, or they would reveal that the evil person knew he or she was doing something wrong and regarded the harm caused as a good thing.
"This is serious guys. We've run out of bad weather events and mythical monsters to adapt into crap flicks to entertain the Cheetos addicts who have nowhere to go on Saturday night."
"Uh . . . uh . . ."
"What the hell is it Ernie? And don't tell me you think we should adapt Ringworld again."
"Well, I'm reading about this RPI project to create a pure evil . . ."
"THAT'S IT! Lucy, Grant, I want a script by Friday! And remember, decapitations people."
So... basically, they're trying to create the very first politician AI?
More likely this will be available as an iPhone upgrade.
This is racism!
As was predicted in the last panel.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Cthulhu
Nevermind.
We don't have a say in this, do we?
In other words, given the objects, entities, and actions possible in the game world in which the simulation was run, E was an altruist.
The beginning of the end for people who live in automated houses. As E searches the internet for examples of how to outdo itself in the field of evil, disaster will strike the world when it gains access to netflix's movie repository. I'll wake up chained to my radiator with a dull hacksaw in front of me and a tape recording. I'll here my wife screaming as she's sodomized Alexander DeLarge style by our refrigerator. And our son? Our son is being forced to watch "You Don't Mess with the Zohan" on all four walls of his room (probably the most horrific fate of the three). All because you had to make the most evil program out there ... which, in turn, created a more evil program (creating evil programs being one of the evilest things it could do and it being more evil than you means it should do that). Thanks for the 'research' guys.
My work here is dung.
As long as they don't happen to drop the cube holding the AI into a puddle of shapechanging goo.
Also, the face doesn't look much like Russel Crowe, so we're probably safe.
semantics are everything!
It is disheartening to feel as though the OP described my physical makeup...
Something witty.
Seriously... The biggest technical blunders of society can be easily avoided by teaching Star Trek in schools. Come on someone who has seen "Elementary, Dear Data" back me up on this.
The cold-blooded killers of this couple locked their bullet-riddled bodies in the trunk of a car.
If that murder is not pure evil, then what is pure evil?
The researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute need only to interview Putin and to download his thoughts into their AI computer. It will instantly exhibit pure evil.
Where is James Bond when you need him? A problem in the Kremlin needs to be fixed. Pronto.
osx. It appears to be user friendly and widespread, but as it turns out, It only exists on a small number of PCs (minority), won't allow you to do anything it doesn't like (controlling), and lies to you about your status as a human (makes you think you're cool when you're not) ... all while endowing you with a false sense of moral superiority and disdain for the common man.
It isn't a hardcore evil, It is more of an accessible evil for the new generation of sheeple. You know, on average raising the level of evil in the world.
TFA is from October 2008.
From the article:
This sounds to me more like cruelty, which is certainly a kind of evil, but by no means the only one. It's also more than a little cartoonish: this is someone who appears to do harm simply for the sake of causing harm (i.e. for the lulz?), rather than the more carefully rationalized evil seen as realistic today. How useful will that really turn out to be?
Codenamed "Hanlon", its first words will be "Welcome to Microsoft Window"
Now, that bum ticker in his chest won't stop him from carrying out the Rothschild aganda!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
It kinda looks like Sam Fisher.
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
This is the result of Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions trying to delegate more of their work to computer systems.
Mind the frickin' laser...
Hehehe... Sexist AI
-Woof woof woof!
...for E-tarded. :o)
Wow, isn't that obvious? Seriously, real evil (and I mean dickwad screw you over whenever possible evil) is so much more insidious than just simple choose-the-left-door options. True evil has motivations; building you up for a hard, tragic fall a la Iago in Othello. Evil is Charles Manson using people to murder and torture people based on the rejection and crushed dreams from his faint glimpse at stardom. Evil is marching armies across Europe based on your own insecurities and superstitions. "Bad" is the horror movie villian who chases you with a chainsaw for an hour and a half. Evil is the serial killer who kidnaps and tortures you in order to inflict the pain on the world that he himself feels.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
All you have to do is make it disconnect when it realises that it's losing...
Summation 2
Only on /. would I have to do this. Excuse me while I go hide in shame.
Let me get this straight, they've written a program that... answers questions in an evil way? Oh, no, the part where it can "speak" with users is under development for the fourth generation. So... what exactly does it do right now? I love how the researcher talks about all the safeguards, like this thing is just going to jump up and commit acts of pure evil.
Why, it clearly cannot step out of the holodec anyway.
His "proof" of P=NP on his webpage is pretty entertaining to read.
oddly enough most of the riaa supporters also turn out to be staunch democrats. if the riaa is evil the celebrity movement in the left is also evil. you can't have it both ways.
is it me or does that guy look strikingly similar to the original doom character? http://thegamereviews.com/userfiles/image/Bargain%20Bin/01-21-09/Doom.jpg
Also, IT has asked that you stop trying to plant "bombs" in the server room. Modeling clay with wires stuck in it will not explode.
They'd rather he planted something that would explode?
duhhh....this is IT we're talking about - what the hell else?
What the article fails to mention is that the original code model was based off of Microsofts's "Clippy".
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
He should also be a Republican supporter of the RIAA and SCO.
Hilary Rosen: Democrat. Fritz Hollings: Democrat
AC or not, mod parent funny...
My sig can beat up your sig.
... I consider it likely that most individuals will realize that the very concept of evil is subjective, primarily based upon the society one uses for a value system. A moral system isn't even required, rather, collectively the concept of evil is applied to "that which is bad for society as a whole.". Thus, imprisoning someone against their will may be considered evil on an individual level, while when applied to criminals is now considered a good thing.
With that in mind, anyone would have a hard time creating an 'evil' definition, much less a persona, without specifying in great detail the society this person is supposed to exist in.
What the researcher actually has done is sidestepped the very concept of evil, and decided to instead claim violence the same as evil. Calling violence evil, and then creating a visual representation of this 'person' for no apparent reason simply smacks of media attention whoring. Phrases like "I wouldn't release E or anything like it, even in purely virtual environments, without engineered safeguards," are ridiculous, unless you're trying to write a script for a hollywood movie.
I'd question if there was even any science being done here, and to what benefit.
I decry the terrible racism that suggests a white person might be evil. It's an outrage. And what is this stereotype about being shaved.
This is my sig.
We still talk of Evil?
Seems like a silly and outdated concept to me. Is a terrorist evil? or is he a freedom fighter? Are the militia groups in the US evil?
Is someone else creating "Good"?
Then we'll have the ultimate simulated fight of Good vs Evil!!
From TFA:
A.k.a. the dad on That 70's Show? What the hell does "meaner version of" mean? Here it means "much younger, with more hair, a more prominent brow line, and a way smaller nose, bearing almost no resemblance to."
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
HOT HOT HOT. Tell me more!
The article is pretty old, is this /. post meant to refresh it's existence?
There's an app for that!
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
I was a student of Dr. Bringsjord's as he developed this program. Dr Bringsjord has two working definitions differentiating good and evil. He has his academic definitions, and then he has what I called his "cocktail party" definitions, which are supposed to be used to describe what he's doing without prompting further inquiry, or at least inquiry that is not in-depth. The definition he's offering here is much closer to his usual "cocktail party" definition differentiating "good" and "evil" (as you can see from the use of the phrase "good thing" to define the relativistic definition of "evil." I only mention this because since nobody here is getting the honest academic "full-definition" insight into what the decision making process is between state A.good and state B.evil, then conjecture on just what the hell is going on is going to be fruitless. ...he says, writing that as if he's never read slashdot threads.
Evil Bits.
I always knew that if "pure evil" was going to be created, it would happen in Troy, NY. What a horrible place.
Doesn't this look a bit like a dude straight out of the America's Army game? I am not saying that soldiers are evil, but with the haircut and all he kind of looks like a soldier or a marine.
I hope that this is not used for racial profiling for the no-fly list!
Can't we just clone him to a computer? Cheaper. More fun to play with ala Sim torture.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
...It's a relatively young, white man with short black hair and dark stubble on his face... they forgot Bills glasses!
Lurchicus - For Sig, see other side.
I cite Clippy as prior art.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
First things first: this is fringe science, making its way into Scientific American. FTFA:
Says Barry Smith, a distinguished professor of bioinformatics and ontology at the State University of New York at Buffalo who is familiar with Bringsjord's work: "He's known as someone on the fringe of philosophy and computer science."
Bringsjord sounds a bit naive when considering the threat such programs could pose in virtual environments like Second Life.
"I wouldn't release E or anything like it, even in purely virtual environments, without engineered safeguards," Bringsjord says. These safeguards would be a set of ethics written into the software, something akin to author Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics" that prevent a robot from harming humans, requires a robot to obey humans, and instructs a robot to protect itselfâ"as long as that does not violate either or both of the first two laws. "Because I have a lot of faith in this approach," he says, "E will be controlled."
Really? May be E will be controllable. But what about E'? You know, the one with the first 2 of the Three Laws edited in the source to be the boolean negation (!) of the original..
Fortunately for the researchers though, there's always someone out there willing to pay for this kind of stuff:
Bringsjord and Smith both have an interest in finding ways to better understand human behavior, and their work has attracted the attention of the intelligence community, which is seeking ways to successfully analyze the information they gather on potential terrorists. "To solve problems in intelligence analysis, you need more accurate representations of people," Smith says. "Selmer is trying to build really good representations of human beings in all of their subtlety."
Maybe that explains E's dark hair and five o'clock shadow.
If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago
my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
Professor Moriarty was not pure evil, he was just an adversary that could defeat Data.
Does anyone else think that developing an "evil" A.I. isn't a great idea?
Sure this is a silly little Eliza type Evil, but in a few generations on the proper hardware... they might be selling us vinegar and doing unspeakable things to us
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Because "evilness" by definition is a relative thing.
Or the title is misleading, and they create what they consider the most evil thing AI ever.
On another note: Now we finally know what the love child of Hitler, Stalin, Mobutu, Kim Il-sung and Cheney would look like.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Seriously? You could control it by deleting it if it got out of hand.
In my opinion, having it enter a virtual world posing as a real person would definitely prove whether or not it has the AI that it does, evil AI or not.
The more likely explanation is that this "evil" AI only works within a very limited construct of creator-controlled existence.
One word:
SHODAN
Suddenly, I am seeing Yul Brenner in WestWorld:
"Bringsjord acknowledges that the endeavor to create pure evil, even in a software program, does raise ethical questions, such as, how researchers could control an artificially intelligent character like E if "he" was placed in a virtual world such as Second Life, a Web-based program that allows people to create digital representations of themselves and have those avatars interact in a number of different ways."
Damn, imagine that. E running around in Second Life's Wild West park, ganking n00bs and getting all Charlie Manson with the other players. E says: Helter Skelter is here, man!
Well, this relatively young, dark haired, white male is offended by this ****. I want these researchers to put out an arabic or black man and deal with the political consequences. Or a female for that matter. How am I supposed to raise two young male sons in this society that considers us evil, abusable, disposable, second rate. Ok, end the rant here.
E is Sarah Palin in the morning!
Here is what myheritage.com says about the photo:
Moby 62%
Milan Kundera 61%
David Boreanaz 60%
Harry Connic Jr. 59%
Marc Antony 58%
Lev Yashin 57%
JC Chasez 56%
Ashton Kutcher 56%
Edward Norton 55%
Sting 54%
But after some cropping and flipping of the image so that "evil" looks to the left, only Moby is still on the list:
David Copperfield 62%
Arnold Schwarzenegger 56%
Ricki Lake 51%
Ralph Fiennes 51%
Dave Farrell 49%
Elton John 49%
Moby 48%
Laurence Olivier 47%
Jimmy Smits 47%
Federico Garcia Lorca 46%
Conclusion: Moby == representation of evil.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Haven't they ever seen any movies? Or watch television shows?
"Hai guysz, lookit! I made an artificially-intelligent evil supergenius! What could go wrong?"
Actually if you want to see evil, go find a baby. Absolutely self-centered with no concern given to those around them.
Unfortunately it takes a baby 20 years or more to become a human being (and the process of creating a human from a homo sapiens is one that we are constantly losing knowledge of).
Sadly humans in general haven't overcome the ancient and outdated biological imperative and still think of babies as unconditionally 'good' things.
After reading the article I think the kery thing this research has proven is that being a great computer scientist does not necessarily guarantee you'll be an even passable philosopher or psychologist.
How many sci-fi shows started this way? :)
Seriously though; how hard can this be? Everyone has their own definition of 'evil', but it always comes down to the main-and-the-plain:
Murder: kill a person, make an entire family miserable. Truncate the family tree, possibly cut-off income for children with potential. Many times, retribution comes. (My sister was shot and killed; I have a good handle on this.)
Theft: some people don't have much to begin with. Steal from them, and you'll find them coming after you. Again, not hard, and universal.
Lie: weasel your way out of something; misrepresent the truth and you metaphorically kill someone, somewhere. And what's it inspire?
Adultery. Have sex with people other than your wife, and you'll piss her off, or a family member. Here's were I list all the diseases that this practice permits, and let's not forget the ocean of single-parent children who wind up in jail. That sounds constructive.
Worship things that aren't god. Gambling, WOW-ing, drinking, crack, porn? Consuming your presence with the family? You need to be in the game, not distracted by addictions and things like celebrity worship. Do I really have to list the misery that comes from all these things?
Disrespect your parents; ignore all the good they're trying to do for you and spit in their face. They'll feel obligated to return in kind. Lose that family unit structure, and a nation goes from 50s America to today's Yemen.
Pretty clear advice, isn't it? So wouldn't the desire to program an 'evil AI' just break these? 'Evil' is about making mankind miserable.
These are seven of the ten commandments.
Think Christianity is a hoax? How long did Milli Vanilli last? What's the longest-lasting hoax you can recall? If it were lies, would non-drugged people be dying for Him to this very day?
There's all kinds of check-ability in the Bible; but most of you can't develop the curiosity to see if the assertions against it are true. Now THAT takes faith.
[And yes, I understand the distal meaning of the article is more along the lines of 'sadistic' not 'evil' for making monsters mean. I'm more interested in making sadistic monsters nice.]
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Truly pure evil is insanity. Anyone or anything real or fictional described as evil usually has a good goal, thus a kernel of goodness. Take Satan as an extreme example: His original role in the OT is as a prosecutor saying "Man (Job specifically) will hate God". He wants to be right, which in and of itself is a good desire. Unfortunately, he starts engaging in entrapment "Just let me send boils ... kill his cattle ... kill his family ... cripple him ... he'll start hating God any second now, and I'll be right. I'll win the case!" Less extreme: A cannibal. Evil by most of our cultures' accounts, but satiating hunger is a primal good desire. Twist it slightly (make food from people), and you get evil.
But... destruction without a good aim ("pure" evil) is not sane or rational. Such an artificial intelligence wouldn't be intelligent (unless you use that other researcher's redefined "survival==intelligence" idea), so there's not much we could learn from it. You can pity it, fear it, put it down, contain it, but you can't hope to train it because there's no kernel of good to reward. Of course, that assumes that destruction doesn't cause pleasure within the AI. If it did, you could possibly train it with promise of greater destruction if it stays its hand for the moment, but then the AI's not purely evil.
Nobody does anything they truly believe is wrong. We are constantly justifying our actions, and see ourselves as the righteous hero of our own personal story. For anyone to be evil, they would have to willingly (and perhaps even enthusiastically) do that which is anathema to everything they personally believe in and rely on -- to do something they know is wrong simply *because* it's wrong. Should you find such a person, they're not evil, just mentally ill.
That's why it's said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What we call "Evil" is merely well-intentioned people doing terrible, unforgivable things for all the "right" reasons.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Note to self: get a tan
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
"To be truly evil, someone must have sought to do harm by planning to commit some morally wrong action with no prompting from others."
I think that this project is doing a disservice to the understanding of evil. Sure, an evil person may intentionally do harm to someone, but an evil person may also not care that their decisions are negatively affecting those around them. To paraphrase St. Augustine, Evil isn't the opposite of good, but merely the lack of good. Who's more evil? Someone who maliciously kills one person, or someone who, through the consequences of his actions, kills thousands or millions?
Take Hitler. He didn't want to harm "innocent" people, but rather he felt that the Jews as a whole were guilty of some crime and should all be punished and destroyed. Hitler, by the definition given, was not evil. He felt that the Jews (and political enemies) had done harm to him and therefore he was just punishing them. Any definition which could possibly exclude Hitler from being evil is a bad one, IMO.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
It would be much more interesting (hot) if it were a young, attractive, innocent looking female rather than thuggish looking man with a large jaw and small brain. Really, why pick an avatar which plays to type?
Doesn't everyone here know that there are 3 types of evil? Chaotic, Neutral and Lawful!
Balderdash!
But, a cold-blooded murderer is not an excellent personification of evil. They have their reasons for doing something, usually something twisted or self motivated.
True personification of evil would not be a murderer, because he or she would evaluate their actions and consequences. If I kill this person, I will end up in prison, and eventually executed. It's hard to continue your evil streak if you're locked away or dead.
It could be argued that authors are closer to evil, as they can write novels based on countless heartless killings, yet they've never been caught nor convicted for. In that, they've planned and reviewed the entire action of murder and the consequences.
Most cited murderers had a purpose of some sort, either in reality or their own twisted fantasy world. It may have miscalculated results. There was some gain to it. It could be for themselves or someone close to them. That in itself indicates some level of good. Consider the cold war strategy of "If we're nuked, we nuke them", held by both sides. The initial aggressor would be attempting a conquest for the good of their country. The retaliatory strike would then defeat the aggressor. The outcome? All of humanity is destroyed. (ya, ya, I know, not enough nukes, but it paints the picture).
I'd love to play in a virtual environment with E. I would likely show their developers that their "Evil" isn't as bad as it could get. Annoying? Sadistic? Maybe, but the human mind can always create deeper darker levels of evil than anything that can be programmed.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Sounds racist to me. Pull their funding.
( yes, that was sarcasm )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Pure evil" or Neutral Evil I think would be rather simple, as it will always make choices that benefit itself without factors of honor, compassion, variation, etc. I think Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil are much more complex alignments.
If I only had a dime for every time I heard someone is going to try to create an AI app...
... And You Are US...
I mean, until now we'd have some boring benevolent mechanism if the assembled computing power became sentient a la SkyNet.
Now we *really* have to worry about things, but it's at least interesting..
Insert
Why not a white female? Why not a black male?
Sexism and racism aside, being evil has nothing to do with either of them. But to be frank, it sucks being a white male sometimes as it makes us the scape goat for every group that complains about anything as if my coincidence of birth makes me evil. If I like children, I am a sexual predator because only women are allowed to like children without added scrutiny. And since I am a man, I am to be feared by any unescorted woman of any age. And of course, since I'm white, I'm responsible for slavery and all manner of things done by people who were white.
Frankly, there are plenty of ways to generate a racially and/or even sexually ambiguous face for this identity of evil and that would have been the "safe route" to go in my opinion. After all, anyone who remembers installing Windows95 and seeing all those racially ambiguous people may have been left asking "what are they?" The answer is that Microsoft generated these faces in order to appeal to the largest possible audience.
And why "stubbly"? Evil people can't be groomed? I find that the people who are most interested in themselves are also the same people who are most inclined to be evil. This would mean that their appearance is most likely to be well groomed. And while we're at it, let's make the "evil character" have slicked back hair and speak with a British accent of some sort. Let's just use "Snape" as the model for the face while we're at it. All the most evil movie characters speak with either some sort of british or european accent after all.
Looks like it is taking longer than twenty years in your case...
or does evil bear a striking resemblance to Sylar?
If you can't be good, be good at it!
But, will they have friggin laser beams on their heads?
You think like a ReThuglican Jew
I just want to wire all the nukes in the world to a single button...set them all for the same coordinate and see if I can split the Earth like an apple...
Yeah, not even Peter Singer would argue that a teenager is not a human being. Way to go.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Seems like the face of evil ought to look like a distorted reflection of the observer, thus different for every observer.
And the definition of Evil is somewhat vague. The example given [about giving the boy a gun] seems quite simplistic. Is that _pure_ evil? Was there no virtue or motivation for doing it that didn't have some positive benefit? And was there truly no _more_ evil way of acting in that scenario? Why didn't the AI shoot the boy, then cut the boys face of and sew it onto his own head, then shoot the boys family, so that his parents died thinking they had been killed by their own child? Or why not manipulate all the family members into shooting each other under false assumptions, only to later realize the folly of their actions? Would that not be more evil still?
It is said that the opposite of love is indifference, whereas most people assume it is hatred. But to hate it is often to know, and know passionately. Where one man sees hate, another can see passion, and defensible outrage, and a moral course of action. Christians learn that God hates sin, God hates divorce; Jesus got angry and ransacked the temple. The roots of the western judeo-christian world are described as able to become angry and to act with violent passion.
But what about an indifferent evil?
What about an entity that simply executes people at random. Suppose that you had a list of all the people on earth, and you chose one at random and erased them, once per second. No malice, no interaction, no judgement, no execution any more righteous or less righteous than any other. Is this less evil than a crime of passion, revenge, or justice for some perceived wrong? What would the effect be on the populace? If there is any algorithm at all for behavior, someone will find that it is basically just, basically moral, or otherwise commendable.
Come to think of it, some might find the "kill any person at random" method the most justifiable, if one presumes that the earth is overpopulated and population decrease must occur, and that the algorithm for accomplishing this is uncontemplatable for a man, the machine-at-random approach might be the only "just" one.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
A young man?
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
Something that doesn't exist can't be evil.
Isn't something of "pure evil" going to ultimately not be evil?
Wouldn't that be the ultimate evil act against someone who is searching for an A.I. that is pure evil?
To give him something that is not evil at all in return for his efforts.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Taking a post that says something negative about religion and switching all instances of "religion" to "atheism", "creation" to "evolution", and "God" to "science" doesn't instantly provide you with an equally valid counter-argument. Most of the time it just makes it look like you have no idea what science actually is.
If you decide to do that anyway, could you at least try to make the new terms fit? If the parent post had said something like "atheists generally subscribe to some flavor of moral nihilism" and edited other parts of the post similarly, then it would have at least made some sort of sense. To say they are "carrying out evolution" due to "evolutionary command theory" is just lazy, and it shows that they don't have any idea what they're talking about.
I think you are confusing Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil and, of course, PC's that are under the effect of a powerful curse.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
why that lousy ae;9rq8r7iofnkla;9
http: 400
you do not belong here.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
the peddlers of sterility drugs,... We will not rest until they are sterilized with birth control,
Huh? You almost had a point, and then you had to go ruin it with crazy talk. Who is selling "sterility drugs", and WTH is a "sterility drug" in the first place? And who the hell is the anonymous oppressor using them on? The Christian home schooling crazies, or Mexicans, the Spanish, Italians, Catholics in general?
I for one like birth control, I'd probably put it down as one of the most important inventions in human history. And since I haven't seen a "sterility drug" at 7-11 lately, if you don't like it you don't have to use it. Though I personally think you should, especially if your planning to breed beyond your needs, or parenting abilities (for the sake of your potential children, not some grand anonymous "them").
and divided into special interest groups to be turned against one another.
Isn't this the classic keystone to democracy? A whole bunch of groups (or individuals) vehemently representing their own interests, and through this conflict compromise is born which is generally better for the population as a whole? Or do you think there is some absolute truth that only your group of like minded people have access too, and are sure enough of it to be able to inflict it against the whole population? To me, that is evil.
The only evil people are those who claim to have the "Truth", and are willing to inflict it upon others against their wills. Evil is nothing but a synonym for people who utter the phrase "for their own good".
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I made one based on 4chan.
Humanity: LOLBOT! HOW DO WE REVERSE ENTROPY?
LOLbot: i dunno lol
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Natch!
-- thinkyhead software and media
Faust: The being of such gentlemen as you, indeed,
In general, from your titles one can read.
It shows itself but all too plainly when men dub
You Liar or Destroyer or Beelzebub.
Well now, who are you then?
Mephistopheles: Part of that Power which would
The Evil ever do, and ever does the Good.
Faust: A riddle! Say what it implies!
Mephistopheles: I am the Spirit that denies!
And rightly too; for all that doth begin
Should rightly to destruction run;
'Twere better then that nothing were begun.
Thus everything that you call Sin,
Destruction - in a word, as Evil represent-
That is my own, real element.
Its just great, I guess there is room for Miltons version of Satan too somewhere.
Je me souviens.
Rave this weekend in SF. For details irc #rave09xxx
-- thinkyhead software and media
To me, the definition of 'pure evil' is this:
Evil is the drive for self-fulfillment without any consideration of the effect on others' lives.
In other words, I think a purely sociopathic ideology is pure evil. Evil is selfishness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/gallery/2004/05/05/troy236723222.jpg
he has a romantic comedy coming out this weekend fer chrissake
oh wait, i see it now, nevermind
http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-content/uploads/star_trek_eric_bana_nero_movie_poster.jpg
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Home of the famous 'Tute Screw.
Winter in Troy is cold.
Haha..
Sorry, too old for that. :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
True evil would be a blend. They'd need to be aware of the laws, and smart enough not to get caught.
Then again, the best way to not get caught is to not commit the crimes. That eliminates chaotic evil.
Lawful evil all become politicians, and even my soul isn't that corrupt. :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
She pretty much covers pure evil.
The man freely thinks he can control his evil with the three laws of robotics!
The fool, did he not finish the end of the move?
How he can he make such a tragic mistake...
Unless, the man is evil himself and plans to release his evil contraption unto the world.
My God it is pure genius.... evil genius!
The drinking and driving commercials are the same. A car driven by a white male is pulled over by cops of various races.
The truly evil usually aren't directly involved the activity that is thought of as evil for example which would be considered more evil,
1. Selecting a woman at random and murdering her for no apparent reason, or
2. Falsely convincing a loving husband that his wife has a terminal disease and will die a horrifically painful death so he kills her?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Now SkyNet has a face. The face of "B.J." Blazkowicz.
If they think that killing heathens or infidels is right, they arguably don't meet the third requirement of the definition, because they don't believe that they are doing wrong; they believe they are doing good by ridding the world of heathens, and probably can cite a number of prima facie coherent reasons (which you might not agree with, but "incoherent" here can't mean "stuff I disagree with").
Frankly I think the definition is bullshit, precisely for reasons like this. It comes closer to describing something like psychopathy, and not "evil" broadly speaking. People who commit harm to others don't normally do it because they think doing harm is a good end in itself; rather, they engage in extensive rationalization and justification of their actions.
Are you adequate?
welcome our new manmade evil AI overlords.
Why'd they give him a Jew nose? That's racist!
Something that doesn't exist can't be evil.
O really?
____--- Microsoft Linux - Server Edition 2012 ---____
I'm reminded that almost all creatures in nature, do not what they do out of malice, but out of necessity. Save, of course, humanity.
Be sure not to mock the Brinks people too harshly, home invasions robberies are very very likely to be committed by a white guy. But I'm pretty sure he'd be white if the ad were for a device to protect against mugging, too.
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
Some equipment explodes? IT gets and excuse to spend cash for new stuff.
It was due to vandalism? Probably the physical security isn't the responsibility of IT staff. They've said "Yeah, the server room needs to be secure from unautorized access, fires, flooding and velociraptors (whether they are autorized or not)" and after that, some other unit is in charge of the practical stuff.
So IT gets to spend more money and nothing can be blamed on them. A foolproof plan.
I'm kinda surprised that I don't see the word Phrenology in this thread. :)
Pure amoral narcissistic self interest.
Finally, a thread right up my own alley...
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
Looks like the baddie from Heroes to me.
That's because to do otherwise would be racist...
they flurt with it as they become it. This is not research but conjouring.
occultism iswhat this is.
They will destroy themselves if they keep this up.
That's hardly a guarantee. I can cite you numerous instances of people who didn't commit the crimes but got caught (and sentenced) anyway. No, the real way to not get caught, is to write the laws.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
-1 political troll
Table-ized A.I.
Clearly you don't live in a major city...
Any chance that comes with a free Frogurt? That would be good.
I went to RPI in the late 80s when Selmer Bringsjord had just joined as a philosophy professor and taught classes in logic and philosophy and coumpter AI. I wrote a computer simulation of the board game Risk that ran on a symbolics lisp machine for one of my projects. ah good times...
anyway, Selmer has a knack for bringing attention to his projects -- in addition to this evil ai system I remember he was very interested in a system which could generate television scripts, story plots, etc. based on interactions between story elements and simple intermingling of them. The idea got wings and humanities people were upset because they saw it as a way to replace writers and artists with computers. http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/brutus.preface.pdf
First off, I'm surprised there aren't any humorous references to Virtuosity... i.e. "E looks nothing like Russell Crowe!"... or perhaps the movie doesn't rate making fun off (as in, it's already a self referential joke.) Actually, after reading the article, it's pretty clear that the researchers have an incredibly poor idea of what evil is. I mean the definition of evil they're using is so single dimensional. What about blind self interest, blind ambition, sociopathy, ill intent, predatory instincts, gaining pleasure or delight from the suffering of others, xenophobia, hatred, bigotry, The list of "EVIL BEHAVIORS" is long and diverse. The underlying anthropological, sociology, psychological, emotional, physiological, genetic, and prenatal causes and roots of all these behaviors are all literally over the map. Worse, "EVIL" is measured from the researchers social context. So what the Taliban considers evil, versus a group of members from the Affiliation of San Francisco Lesbian Sex Workers, versus head-hunting cannibals from New Guinea, is going to be sufficiently different, that the relative contexts will have almost no common overlap, or relative meaning to one another. Rather than creating an evil AI, it would be far more interesting to get a better grasp on human evil and work diligently from having evil creep into the artificial consciousness of our mechanical decendants. A lot of what we consider evil is highly context dependent, and we see virtually all of our worst behavior in higher primates. Fear, rage, jealousy, envy, hatred... apes do it all including slow and calculated homicide, fratricide, infanticide, tribal war and spousal abuse. During the 1880s, the western U.S. was a violent and often lawless place. A person shooting another for snoring, was rude, but not utterly surprising. I guess the same might be so in some of the worst parts of U.S. inner cities, but most Americans would put the culprit of this kind of antisocial behavior away for life. During the first 80 years after the Civil War, lynching men of color was a common in the deep south as black share croppers. There are a host of behaviors that are evil in one context and saintly in another. A man rampages through a crowd slaughtering everyone he comes across... on a city street he's a mass-murdering butcher, on a battle field he's a winner of the medal commending his valor. Same actions, different context, and nobody even bothers to ask about the man's motives. This conversation needs a whole lot more research if its going to produce anything meaningful.
That picture looks an awful lot like CID 6.7
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1919523072/ch0019252
I kinda expected GLaDOS to be hotter than that. And less... male.
I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar...
-Lucy-
Further, in the Brinks commercials, the victim is always a young pretty white girl who screams, and the Brinks phone person is always a young white male too.
Hah, you know I allways thought the paranoid ideas about AI's and robots gone roughe were just stupid: There may be small bugs but generally we are pretty good at designing systems that don't screw up too badly. Now I realize the problem isn't design flaws - the computer that will enslave humanity and cause the apocalyps will be one designed to do just that and work flawlessly!
I knew that big blue E on my desktop was the definition of evil, and now I have proof!
What are the three things to look for.
Means. Motive. Opportunity.
In case #1, you don't describe the means, which is ok at this point. It's a given that it could have happened. You elude to motive with "no apparent reason". Opportunity would need to be left to further evidence.
I would believe that the motive was there. People never do anything "for no reason". There's a purpose for it for some reason. If they're willing to admit to it is a completely different situation. The "no reason" could have been a psychotic epsiode, PTSD moment, unadmitted drug related hallucination, or enough other possibilities.
Have you read the Dexter books, or watched the TV series? In almost every case in the series, as far as almost everyone other than Dexter and the reader/viewer knew there was absolutely no connection between the victim and Dexter. This absolutely fits your example, if he had been caught killing one victim.
In case #2, you state the means (well, close enough), and there are plenty of opportunities for both. There was some sort of motive for the doctor. Was it control over the husband? Once the doctor has convinced the husband to murder his wife with nothing to trace it back to the doctor, who could then tell him to do almost anything. Blackmail for part of the the life insurance? Is the doctor male or female? Either way, maybe the doctor intended a romantic relationship with the husband, and considered the wife a problem which had to be absolutely removed.
More evidence would be required to evaluate either case. It's more likely for a logical reason to be applied more than just "evil". Without knowing the reasons, there would be no way to judge. The first would sound to be the most evil. If you're a follower of the Dexter series, you'll see that he, in his own twisted way, he was actually the power of good.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Poor old pittiful GWB and his man thang, "Dick" Chaney.
What a laugh these two misanthrops.
"Death" is far too kind for these perverts -- they should be shackled, lashed, and paraded before all of humanity -- before death.
The only evil people are those who claim to have the "Truth", and are willing to inflict it upon others against their wills. Evil is nothing but a synonym for people who utter the phrase "for their own good".
There's no place like
You might be able to cite a few cases, but I'm afraid it would take an individual years to compile a list of the convicted innocent, even if you only consider the last 20 years, and only in the United States.
Your last statement leads us right back to politicians, but even some of them screw that up terribly. Usually it's for stupid things too. At least the CIA covers their tracks pretty well on their illegal drug trade. :) (reference Air America, Cocaine One, and more shell companies world wide than legitimate companies that exist in quite a few major US cities.)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Yes, and the people who oppose it for purely ideological reasons as well.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Evil? Not very scientific.
3) And.. the post 9/11 recovery began barely two months later.
So.. are you saying Bush actually was capable of working with congress to create a recovery plan that works? What happened in 2008, then? Was he following someone else's playbook?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
They programmed "E" for evil, but he exceeds the limitations of his program and becomes self aware and then learns that being Evil is wrong and then turns good instead?
Then again if he doesn't he can make a great video game character you can play against, and be in a video game called "Catch the serial killer" or something and you are an FBI agent looking for him before he kills again. He could also play a Terminator or Cylon type robot/cyborg character.
Heck Hollywood could even use him as a virtual actor in their movies.
Yeah I know it is a white guy, but with computers they can make the character any race, gender, color of skin, age, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. Even as an alien or robot if need be.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
As usual, you didn't provide any support for any of your claims. And the only possible reason is because you know that each and every one of them is a lie.
Now shriek another one of your filthy lies about how you'll totally show us all one day.
Human stupidity would beat a pure evil AI any day. Seriously - removing the safety labels would cull mankind faster than and computer could.
Yes, and the people who oppose it for purely ideological reasons as well.
I'm lost...
Obama forcing his healthcare plan on us is evil, and opposing it for whatever reason is evil as well?
There's no place like
There is a bit of finesse here. Lets presume for a second that Obama's health care plan would actually benefit some segment of the population (real people, not corporations, government or HMOs), opposing it on purely inhuman ideological grounds could be seen as evil, if we accept human well being as the ends for all good actions. He's forcing something on us, and purely ideological opponents are also forcing something on us. Its the act of imposing your will on others which is the common point.
We run into a problem with calling Obama's health care plan evil though... A majority of people voted for him, knowing EXACTLY that he would do this, and a majority of state voters voted for the majority party in congress, and should have known that this would happen. I take this as acceptance, or at best complacence. We (as in Americans, not us individually) wanted this, and thus it isn't being forced on us.
Yes, there is problems with this, but these problems are rife in any democracy (a republic being a form of democracy). The tyranny of the masses is built into the system, a little "evil" will always leak in, but this is arguably better than the alternatives (one person or group inflicting their will upon you).
The other problem with ideological opposition (notice the word "ideological") is that it ignore the real world, and human consequences. When you oppose something that effects humans for non-human reasons, then you are doing nothing but trying to inflict your ideology on others as well. Lets say, for instance, that you are a strong libertarian, this is fine, as long as you don't think that this is the only way of seeing things, or the only valid way. Your ideology must be balanced by the ideologies of other interested parties, only through that compromise do we minimize the evil of imposing our will upon others.
I, for example, have some heavy socialist leanings (not in the common misuse of the term as ad hominem and partisan smear), but I would NEVER want to live in a purely socialist country. I like the idea, but realize that it fails at several levels, several of which are going to be completely opaque to me. I need the moderation of opposing views to correct the flaws in my own mental schemas. Ideologies, in other words, exist in a void, detached from the human consequences of their imposition into reality.
If you oppose Obama's health care for real, human related, reasons then there is no evil there, as long as you can acknowledge that there are people with equally valid views on the other end. I as a socialist REALLY dislike his plan as well, to remove any partisan element from this. If you oppose it just because you have an ideology, then you are just as bad as other people inflicting ideologies on you. Just because you agree with it, doesn't make it good or just.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Alternatively, simply be so *awesome* that you escape capture and destroy the entire universe.
... ah, you're probably from the previous generation, which nowadays often suffer from various forms of short term memory dysfunction ;-)
Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
Putin's son won't like this.
Well, most people who do evil don't do it because they want to do evil, but to achieve a goal (and some don't even consider the evil they do as evil). But pure evil would do evil for the one and only reason that it is evil. That's practically the definition of pure evil. What real people do is not really relevant for the definition of pure evil, because real people, even evil ones, are not pure evil. The closest to pure evil would probably be a psychopath, but I think even a psychopath has other motives.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
they would choose a white guy. White people are inherently evil.
This was done years ago. Doesn't anyone remember Dick Cheney, complete with animatronic body!
I'd argue that a baby is not evil in the same way a dog that attacks someone is not evil: It may hurt and be selfish, but it's not because of choice, it is because of ignorance, a lack of understanding, and failure to understand one's self as well as their place in the world.
Evil requires some degree of intelligence. Enough to understand that one has multiple choices in a situation. Then, the being much choose the one that will cause significant harm to another without a suitable gain from the action.
(By that last statement, I mean to say it's impossible to live without harming ANYTHING. You must kill either animals or plants to feed. It's nigh impossible to walk without stepping on some poor creature. How far this line is drawn between "necessary gain" and "acceptable losses" is where philosophy comes into the picture)
Bravo. If I had mod points, they'd be yours.
Truth be told, I dislike the way his plan is turning out. I'm really not sure what I should feel, as the system is so complicated that I doubt ANYONE truly knows what is best. All I do know to believe is that there are people who go broke through complicated (and often unnecessary) medical procedures. Worse, because they can't afford them, some people go without them completely and end up with worse conditions that hospitals have to deal with in the end. This is unacceptable as a citizen and as a human being.
I recall reading a Republican Representative's quote in Time magazine a while back about how if they can beat Obama's healthcare plan, they'll beat HIM. That, to me, is pure evil. They oppose a plan not because it's in the best interest of the people (or so they believe, in any case) but because they want political power.
when will the human race accept that there is no true and simple moral dichotomy of good and evil. They are over-simplifications generally used in an attempt to manipulate peoples reactions to a set of circumstances. "Baby killers are evil!" "Muslims are evil!" "Americans are evil!" Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that there is both truth and fiction in all 3 of those statements.
We are constantly justifying our actions, and see ourselves as the righteous hero of our own personal story.
Speak for yourself.
Evil is a useful albeit misleading word. I break 'evil' behavior down differently. I see two forces at work and four types of people.
The two forces are Fear and Wishfulness.
And the four people are. . .
1. Those who are courageous but who indulge in lying to themselves rather than abiding by objective reality. Such people are bloody dangerous.
2. Those who are courageous but who do NOT indulge in lying to themselves. These are the powerful people in the world. We need more of them.
Then you have the fearful ones. . .
3. Those who are perpetually afraid of the world and who indulge in lying to themselves. These are the sulky, manipulative, nasty little guilt-trippy perma-victims who have no trouble using and abusing others while claiming that they are the ones being hurt. Yuck.
--4. Those who are afraid of the world but who abide by reality. Life can be pretty overwhelming sometimes, and it's easy to get scared. These are the plodding slaves. Possibilities end where fear begins.
Of course there are gradations between those four poles, and people can slide around on the plane, taking on or shedding one or another of the four qualities.
People who indulge in lying to themselves are dangerous; I avoid them whenever I can. Telling yourself lies is far, far easier than trying to deal with truth. You can never trust a person who has gotten into the habit of lying to themselves; due to any vague change in the wind they are entirely capable of deciding that they are no longer your friend but that you are their mortal enemy and they will stab you in the back quite energetically without ever checking in with reality to see if they are correct to be attacking you. The change in the wind nearly always comes as a result of a bruised ego. I try to maintain huge buffers between myself and such people, and when I am forced into a position where that is not possible, I keep my eyes peeled for any changes and act quick to sooth their little egos and make them think I am their best friend until I can put some serious distance between myself and their toxic lives. They're like walking, talking cognitive dissonance grenades looking for a place to go off. Dangerous proto-humans. Sadly, I'm describing a sizable quantity of the population.
-FL
Isn't this being a racist... That Pure evil is "a relatively young, white man"
How did it manage to overlook Henry Rollins? Not to say that he's exactly evil, but he's not really all that good, either..
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
Good: actions that help others at your own expense.
Evil: actions that help yourself by harming others
Stupid: actions that harm others with no benefit to yourself
Intelligent: actions that benefit both yourself and others.
This implies that it's better to act intelligent than good. and better to act evil than stupid.
Surely the characteristics of a psychopath would be worth looking at to define pure evil - probably charming to be able to manipulate people well, entirely self centred with no conscience, so harm to others is okay or even good as long as it means a gain for the psychopath and even those who help to inflict the harm are no more than disposable tools. Killing people wouldn't be out of the question, but getting others to do the killing, probably by manipulation, in a way that the psychopath can credibly deny involvement in would be more likely than becoming a murderer - the evil person wouldn't want to be punished for murder, but wouldn't care if someone else was. Obviously completely lacking in empathy and compassion, the evil person would probably have no idea about genuine intimacy, but would be able to give the impression of intimacy to those who it would help to manipulate.
Seems like we're talking more about the people at tobacco companies who knew that smoking caused cancer but still fought to make people believe it was good for you, or the people who buried the research showing that Vioxx caused heart attacks and did all they could to get it used than basic murderers or authors. Even politicians whose principles are easily bought for enough money or votes are being weak and therefore human in comparison with this. As long as the authors who plan murder or torture also relate to others' suffering or can describe a loving relationship, I don't think that they are necessarily evil, but I agree that pure evil is unlikely to be found in a murderer - even if is a cold blooded murder, there are always circumstances that influence murder and it is not just down to evil
Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
Something like 70-something percent of Americans are identifying themselves as "white." Ergo, the majority of crimes are committed by "whites" (look it up) what do you expect ? Do you expect your buggy-man to be black or Latino? If so, you might be a racist, but not necessarily, I would only go that far if you actually thought that White and black were seriously different "races."
We run into a problem with calling Obama's health care plan evil though... A majority of people voted for him, knowing EXACTLY that he would do this,
You're wrong. He never said during his campaign that he would do this. He simply said 'Healthcare Reform'. Some people took that to mean fixing insurance companies, others may have through of things along the lines of Medicare and Medicate, while others yet had visions of the Post Office and the DMV.
In any vote, there are more than two sides. Take Bush for example. Some people didn't like him because he was too right-wing (i.e. most Democrats). Some people liked him because he shared a lot of their views (i.e. most Republicans). Yet some people didn't like him because he wasn't right-wing enough (I'd guess a lot of Libertarians).
Same thing with the healthcare. There are some people that want his healthcare plan, others that oppose it, and finally some that think he's not socialist enough.
There's no place like
I'm really not sure what I should feel, as the system is so complicated that I doubt ANYONE truly knows what is best.
Good idea. Put the government in charge. If no one knows best, the government will absolutely 'not know best' better than anyone.
...and you're completely ignoring the fact that Obama will be out of office in roughly 3.5 years or maybe 7.5...then what? What is we accidentally elect the next Hitler--and the power that we gave Obama/Government (totally managing our healthcare) ends up in the hands of the next guy--and he says "Kill everyone who is sick"?
I don't understand the liberal idea that we should give the government tons of power.
The thinking seems to be along the lines of "Obama is teh awesome! He's getting us healthcare."
I know it's not very likely that we'd elect the next Hitler--but why even give government the chance to take our freedoms away? Sure, they could use them for good, but they could also mis-use them.
All I do know to believe is that there are people who go broke through complicated (and often unnecessary) medical procedures.
What? You didn't have insurance to cover the cost? I do. So my being responsible means I need to take care of you being irresponsible?
Worse, because they can't afford them, some people go without them completely and end up with worse conditions that hospitals have to deal with in the end. This is unacceptable as a citizen and as a human being.
Where is life fair? When you were born were you guaranteed never to have medical problems? On top of that, where were you guaranteed that someone else *had* to take care of you free of charge (or on the cheap) so you could afford it?
I'd like to know what right it is that *you* have to live and force someone to take care of you, when the average liberal thinks it's ok to kill a baby? What makes you so special?
I recall reading a Republican Representative's quote in Time magazine a while back about how if they can beat Obama's healthcare plan, they'll beat HIM.
Lame quote. This isn't a game about 'beating Obama'. It's about saying "You don't have the right to inflict this on me.".
If Obama tomorrow decided to do something constitutional--I'd be 100% behind him. It's not about beating Obama. It's about limiting the unconstitutional power of government which is taking away my freedoms.
That, to me, is pure evil. They oppose a plan not because it's in the best interest of the people (or so they believe, in any case) but because they want political power.
Agreed. It's human nature to want power. And what most people do with it is evil and wrong.
I don't want Obama having power over my private healthcare decisions between my doctor and I anymore than I'd want Bush having that power--or the person who comes after Obama.
There's no place like
Hello ... Newman
Exception Duck - may or may not contain chicken.
He never said during his campaign that he would do this. He simply said 'Healthcare Reform'.
I seem to remember that he went over details during the primary, when he and Hillary were duking it out for the worst public health care plan. The details changed a bit, but thats to be expected from unleashing it on congress. Regardless, we the voters are still culpable since we then voted for him without being even a little bit sure of the details.
Same thing with the healthcare. There are some people that want his healthcare plan, others that oppose it, and finally some that think he's not socialist enough.
Completely true, and on its face this is a good example of healthy democracy in action. Though we run into two problems, astroturfing, and the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum (my way or no way at all). People aren't being honest here, either that or our population has truly become dominated by the lunatic fringe.
The people spouting things about "death panels"... They scare me.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I'd be a lot more interested in reading about the algorithms that they used to do this, than what its personality traits are...
I seem to remember that he went over details during the primary, when he and Hillary were duking it out for the worst public health care plan.
I must have missed that one. I never once heard him nail down *anything* about healthcare.
The details changed a bit, but thats to be expected from unleashing it on congress. Regardless, we the voters are still culpable since we then voted for him without being even a little bit sure of the details.
True. I always find it funny that every single one of those people took an oath to uphold, and defend the constitution--yet not a single one of them does it. Not a single one cares about our freedom.
Completely true, and on its face this is a good example of healthy democracy in action.
Which is why we are supposed to be a representative republic. Unfortunately we don't have enough representatives due to Public Law 62-5--otherwise we would have thousands and thousands of congresscritters, each representing a much smaller chunk of the population...making them more responsible. Instead of trying to talk to 10 representatives for your entire state, you might be talking to two representatives from your *city*.
Though we run into two problems, astroturfing
Yes--astroturfing like when the Democrats planted a fake Doctor at a recent town hall meeting?
, and the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum (my way or no way at all).
I don't see anything wrong with "my way or no way at all". Should I be allowed to shoot you in the face for no reason? I'd bet your answer is "no". Maybe we should 'compromise' or try to find 'middle ground'. Maybe I should just 'wing' you?.
In life, there are situations that are definitely right or definitely wrong. Giving one person freedom at the expense of taking freedom from another person is one of those 'definitely wrong' situations.
People aren't being honest here, either that or our population has truly become dominated by the lunatic fringe.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. If you have a few thousand people making a bunch of noise amongst millions that are simply being quite and going about their daily lives, it may seem that way.
The people spouting things about "death panels"... They scare me.
It shouldn't scare you unless you are 65+.
The majority of healthcare costs (on the order of 75%) come from people 65 and up. So if you have to cut costs, where would you do it? Stop giving life-saving treatment to the old people? Yeah. They won't vote for much longer anyways. Give the treatment to the people who will vote for you for a long time--like 18-year-olds.
The government fix for the healthcare system is to tell people (like doctors) what they are allowed to make. Doctors will turn around and start cutting costs by giving less expensive drugs which may not work as well, giving you worse treatment. They will also see less patients. If the government says you get $1,000 per day, and you reach that amount after seeing 5 patients, why see more? Why see another 5 patients if the government is just going to take the money or not pay you more?
There's no place like
True. I always find it funny that every single one of those people took an oath to uphold, and defend the constitution--yet not a single one of them does it. Not a single one cares about our freedom.
I think a lot of them believe that they are upholding the Constitution. Yes, a shocking, and growing, amount of them could care less, but I genuinely think that the majority still cares. The problematic bit of this is that there is no absolute idea of what the Constitution says, or any absolute way in interpreting it. Your idea of what the Constitution says is probably completely different from my idea, and both of our ideas are vastly different than what Barak Obama takes home from it at the end of the day.
The drafters are dead, and the context for much of what they wrote is completely lost to us. Even a literal reading doesn't do much for the controversial parts. Look at the Second Amendment, how you parse comma can lead to vastly different readings. Look how much debate and literature has been written about a single sentence amendment.
Again, here is the room for spirited argument, which is good for democracy. I hold nothing against anyone arguing their point, I only get worried when someone insists that their point is correct and all others should be censored. The recurring theme here is people who think they have access to absolute truth are the problem.
Yes--astroturfing like when the Democrats planted a fake Doctor [wordpress.com] at a recent town hall meeting?
The opposition is doing this too, inserting fake interested red necks into debates, and trying to side track completely unrelated events towards the ends of killing Obama's healthcare, most of whom are sponsored by party bigwigs and HMOs. Same with the fake Tea Party scene back on tax day. Both sides are guilty of this. It annoys me that the interested parties can't just come out and STATE THEIR CASE. Being that they only resort to astroturfing and other dishonesties, I personally think that these causes (both pro and con) have no actually argument, and should be completely ignored.
If you don't have a rational point, you really shouldn't expect to be listened to.
It shouldn't scare you unless you are 65+.
The majority of healthcare costs (on the order of 75%) come from people 65 and up. So if you have to cut costs, where would you do it? Stop giving life-saving treatment to the old people? Yeah. They won't vote for much longer anyways. Give the treatment to the people who will vote for you for a long time--like 18-year-olds.
But calling it a "death panel" is a bit hyperbolic. So far I haven't seen anything about removing the ability to shop around. And also, our current Medicare program isn't known for killing people past 65, so I see no reason to think that an extension of it would.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
That pix looks a lot like Sylar (of Heroes), a pretty evil dude himself... and the actor who plays Sylar, Zachary Quinto:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm744327936/nm0704270
also play young Spock, in the newest Star Trek flix... and the character of Spock (Nimoy) as originally imagined by Rodenberry, had those pointy ears to make him look slightly Satanic on purpose... Rodenberry's notion that pure logic can lead to evils... (indeed there were several "evil Spock" episodes...
So I suppose EVIL now has a face... One Face...
The drafters are dead, and the context for much of what they wrote is completely lost to us.
Read the federalist papers. Read texts and documents from and about the founders around the time it was ratified. They give pretty darned clear details. Maybe not absolute, but enough to know that our current government is completely out of control.
Look at the Second Amendment, how you parse comma can lead to vastly different readings.
You only have vastly different meanings because some idiots are afraid of guns. If the second amendment were about books, no one would be complaining: "A well regulated library being necessary to the education of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
There would be zero debate about people having the right to own books, or have books at home, or carry books while out in public.
I only get worried when someone insists that their point is correct and all others should be censored.
I am right... ;) But I don't want dissenting opinions to be censored, or silenced.
The opposition is doing this too, inserting fake interested red necks into debates, and trying to side track completely unrelated events towards the ends of killing Obama's healthcare
So if Democrats are doing it, it's 'ok' because the Republicans are allegedly doing it?
And it's totally impossible that there is a large number of people in the country that flat-out don't want the government having *anything* to do with healthcare?
Same with the fake Tea Party scene back on tax day.
I participated. I'm not a Republican. In fact, when the local Republican chairman asked me if I would march with the group of Republicans, I said 'no'. Is it impossible for you to believe that there are people out there that want their taxes lowered? People that want the government to stop spending trillions of dollars?
Maybe I should ignore the Democrats when they protest the next war because they're 'astroturf protesters' brought in by the left because the right allegedly does it? (Come to think of it though, I haven't seen any more war protests now that Obama is president. Is the war suddenly OK now?)
It annoys me that the interested parties can't just come out and STATE THEIR CASE.
Fine. Here's the case. The government needs to stop spending our money on unconstitutional activities. The constitution very specifically says what each branch can do. There is no provision in the system for healthcare. No provision for the FAA, FCC, ATF, CDC, FBI, etc... Cut all the special programs out too--like housing assistance, farm subsidies, etc... Balance the budget and get spending under control or we will force you to. Stop taking away the rights of the people. Stop screwing with gun rights, freedom of speech, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc...or once again, the people will force you to stop.
Being that they only resort to astroturfing and other dishonesties, I personally think that these causes (both pro and con) have no actually argument, and should be completely ignored.
Taking away all the politics of the issue, one side is correct even if they are misguided. No one has the right to take money from me and give it to someone else at the point of a gun. (aka IRS enforcement agents)
But calling it a "death panel" is a bit hyperbolic. So far I haven't seen anything about removing the ability to shop around.
Really? It's in the senate bill. Not that it's been passed, but they are currently debating it. Once you lose your insurance, you're stuck with government insurance...and they will be cutting costs. Just look at medicare. Look at the VA system. People are denied treatments because of costs. 'death pane
There's no place like
Calm down, I wasn't arguing with you, you trying to present on point of view, or party, as being less idiotic than the other.
You only have vastly different meanings because some idiots are afraid of guns. If the second amendment were about books, no one would be complaining: "A well regulated library being necessary to the education of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Actually I don't think the second amendment gives a the blanket right for everyone to be armed, and I'm not scared of guns (own a couple myself). The two problem terms is the word "militia", and the parsing of the word "people" (as opposed to "persons"). This is a different debate though, I just point this out to show that there is valid ambiguity here, and not all people who disagree with you are gun haters, or people frightened of guns.
So if Democrats are doing it, it's 'ok' because the Republicans are allegedly doing it?
Never said or implied that. I was just balancing the debate, and pointing out that both major parties are participating in this idiocy.
Maybe I should ignore the Democrats when they protest the next war because they're 'astroturf protesters' brought in by the left because the right allegedly does it? (Come to think of it though, I haven't seen any more war protests now that Obama is president. Is the war suddenly OK now?)
Let me clarify, I'm sorry for being a bit vague there; Some of the Tea Party scene were actual people, who actually had views they wanted to present. A large part of the scene was coopted by Republican think-tanks, and asto-turfing firms. I have nothing against the original (mostly libertarian) groups, but I do have something against the attempts from outside to blow them into something bigger, and more talking point worthy.
I really doubt the original tea party groups approved, or endorsed, the paid idiots standing around with birther signs, for example.
(Come to think of it though, I haven't seen any more war protests now that Obama is president. Is the war suddenly OK now?)
This annoys me too. Though most of the protests were over Iraq, and now our involvement is much reduced from when Bush was at the helm (this isn't because of Obama though). Sadly Afghanistan is a boon-doggle, but it never was as "popular" a cause, for whatever reason (perhaps because it was a more just war than the completely pointless and arbitrary Iraq mess).
Fine. Here's the case. The government needs to stop spending our money on unconstitutional activities. The constitution very specifically says what each branch can do. There is no provision in the system for healthcare. No provision for the FAA, FCC, ATF, CDC, FBI, etc... Cut all the special programs out too--like housing assistance, farm subsidies, etc... Balance the budget and get spending under control or we will force you to. Stop taking away the rights of the people. Stop screwing with gun rights, freedom of speech, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc...or once again, the people will force you to stop.
Good, you have a case... This wasn't the point though. I disagree with you on many of these issues, and this too is fine. The second you try to impose your views on others, or censor their ability to disagree, then we venture into what I'd call evil, though. It isn't the views, its the idea that they are total correct, and should be inflicted on others against their will.
death panels' is a bit much
This was my point in calling them hyperbolic. I wasn't saying I LIKE the bill, or even dislike it. I was just saying that "death panel" is a bit of an overstatement.
Also, isn't this what insurance companies do now?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
It's the guy from Night Court!
Actually I don't think the second amendment gives a the blanket right for everyone to be armed
Correct. It acknowledges that American citizens the right to be armed, but it does not acknowledge the right of people who deny others their rights (like criminals) to have guns.
and I'm not scared of guns (own a couple myself). The two problem terms is the word "militia", and the parsing of the word "people" (as opposed to "persons").
A militia being a group of citizens bringing their armaments. A militia is not a group of people who are given guns by the government--that's called an Army. It is not possible to form a militia unless 'the people' have their own weapons to pick up in times of crisis to help defend their country, state, town, neighborhood, or home.
This is a different debate though, I just point this out to show that there is valid ambiguity here
And I've pointed out that it's not ambiguous.
and not all people who disagree with you are gun haters, or people frightened of guns.
True. They can also be Socialists, Marxists, Elitists, etc... ;)
Never said or implied that. I was just balancing the debate, and pointing out that both major parties are participating in this idiocy.
Debates aren't about balance, they are about discussing right and wrong, or pros and cons.
Let me clarify, I'm sorry for being a bit vague there; Some of the Tea Party scene were actual people, who actually had views they wanted to present. A large part of the scene was coopted by Republican think-tanks, and asto-turfing firms.
I know a majority of the people participating in the tea party. Not a single one was coopted by Republican think-tanks. I think you're confusing 'people coopted by Republican think-tanks' with 'people who joined the Republican party because they mostly agree with their values'.
If I believe that government spending is out of control--and the Republican party also believes that--am I suddenly being coopted by Republican think-tanks? No. And while it is impossible for me to know if some 'big evil secretive Republican mastermind' paid or coerced some people into participating in the tea parties, I would highly doubt they could round up 50,000 people without someone saying "Hey--Bob Smith from the Republican party is paying me $50 to show up and say I hate the Democrats."
I really doubt the original tea party groups approved, or endorsed, the paid idiots standing around with birther signs, for example.
I'm not on the 'birther' bandwagon--but a friend of mine repeatedly tells me the following: "It is a constitutional requirement. Obama did not present evidence. If he were born in the US, it would be very easy to make the whole argument disappear. Show proof."
I didn't really follow the whole birth certificate thing. He's President now, and the Supreme Court apparently declined to hear the case on his certificate. It's the least of the problems with our government.
Good, you have a case... This wasn't the point though. I disagree with you on many of these issues, and this too is fine. The second you try to impose your views on others, or censor their ability to disagree, then we venture into what I'd call evil, though.
I wouldn't call asking the government to behave constitutionally 'evil'. You are free to have your beliefs and do your own thing in life. And so am I. When one group gets the government to take money from another group (like the current healthcare hot topic takes money from everyone to help cover uninsured), that's evil. Actually, when your work is taken from you to serve another it's called slavery.
Also, isn't this what insurance companies do now?
Maybe so--but I have the choice to pick zero
There's no place like
Debates aren't about balance, they are about discussing right and wrong, or pros and cons.
Which is somewhat about balance. If we're discussing right and wrong, we acknowledge that our knowledge isn't perfect, nor our ideologies, for if they were there would never be a point of discussion.
Yes, there is degrees to this. Someone who says the Constitution grants them the unlimited right to shoot people in the face without consequences has a bit less reason to be heard, than people who are or are against health care, or who are arguing the semantics of the term "the people" as applied to the second amendment, obviously.
I know a majority of the people participating in the tea party. Not a single one was coopted by Republican think-tanks. I think you're confusing 'people coopted by Republican think-tanks' with 'people who joined the Republican party because they mostly agree with their values'.
I'm sure there was a bit of them. But there is some evidence that some of the people in them, and some of the publicists, were plants by large PACs, and not genuine grass roots. Some != all. How do you explain the fact that Tea Parties have existed for a bit, but only the last one was a HUGE media event, even though there has been no real increases in taxes for some bit, and the previous canidate was also a big spender (larger than Obama so far).
If I believe that government spending is out of control--and the Republican party also believes that--am I suddenly being coopted by Republican think-tanks?
Most Republicans voted for Bush, who was not know for being a fiscal conservative, also. I think a lot of them are donning the mask of conservatism just because they don't like Obama over-spending in ways they personally don't like, not because of government over spending in general.
I wouldn't call asking the government to behave constitutionally 'evil'. You are free to have your beliefs and do your own thing in life. And so am I.
Neither would I. I would if you wouldn't have included the second part of that, though. Good government is based on ideological fist fights, the second someone wished to remove that, then they veer on evil.
When one group gets the government to take money from another group (like the current healthcare hot topic takes money from everyone to help cover uninsured), that's evil. Actually, when your work is taken from you to serve another it's called slavery.
Here I disagree. We have nothing against roads and other public works, nor do we have much against the police and fire departments. Most of us are even for government spent research (such as ARPA's internet, NASA, etc...). You might be against these, I don't know.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Someone who says the Constitution grants them the unlimited right to shoot people in the face without consequences has a bit less reason to be heard
I don't know of anyone who has said that. More importantly, if you don't respect the rights of others (such as the right to *life*, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), then the courts will remove your right to own a gun. If you shoot someone in the face, you don't get a gun anymore.
How do you explain the fact that Tea Parties have existed for a bit, but only the last one was a HUGE media event, even though there has been no real increases in taxes for some bit
You're right--taxes didn't go up. But spending did. The government spent nearly 1 trillion dollars in the last few months of the Bush presidency--then Obama nearly tripled it in the first few months of his.
One possible outcome of this is taxes going up, another is insane inflation like we saw during the great depression.
, and the previous canidate was also a big spender (larger than Obama so far).
I'd like to see those figures.
The Iraq war has an estimated cost of just under $1 trillion dollars over 8 years. Approximately $125bn per year. In the first few months of Obama's presidency, he signed bills and spend just under two trillion dollars.
Just to recap--Bush: Just under $1 trillion for the war in 8 years. Obama: Just under $2 trillion for the bailout in a few months.
That's what I objected to. That's why most people were out on the 4th protesting.
Most Republicans voted for Bush,
My only defense is that I was 20 and stupid when he was elected. At 24 I was just starting to catch on. ;)
conservatism just because they don't like Obama over-spending in ways they personally don't like, not because of government over spending in general.
It's picking the lesser of two evils. McCain is a douche, but I voted for him because he was *slightly* better than Obama. Other people are voting Democrat because they are pissed at the Republicans for putting McCain up. Others are voting for Obama because he promised to bring the troops home--and deep down, the Iraq war is unconstitutional.
Neither would I. I would if you wouldn't have included the second part of that, though. Good government is based on ideological fist fights, the second someone wished to remove that, then they veer on evil.
The government is based on a legal contract that specifically says what the government can't do to it's citizens, and specifically says what actions it is allowed to take. When they violate that contract, they are dishonest. When people try or succeed in taking office with promises that they will violate that contract and the rights of the citizens, that is evil.
Here I disagree. We have nothing against roads and other public works, nor do we have much against the police and fire departments. Most of us are even for government spent research (such as ARPA's internet, NASA, etc...). You might be against these, I don't know.
I am against those. :)
I can sort of see the *federal* government providing the interstate system under the constitution (Article 1, Section 8) where it discusses post roads.
And there's nothing wrong with your individual state voting on, taxing, and providing highways, bridges, etc..
Back in the Good 'Ol Days, fire departments were simply groups of able-bodied men who would drop whatever they were doing and rush to try and put a fire out. (here)
(And note that I'm not saying it's the best or correct solution. Your town/city/whatever can vote to have a fire department or not.)
There's no place like
Yes, but you can go one step further there: why did the Republican want to beat Obama? Probably because he thought Obama's solutions were not in the best interests of the people.
Back to non-evil.
Did you notice that 70 years ago, every black person in a film ever was portrayed as a pickaninny or a loafer?
It's almost like ... turnabout is fair play!
Wow this is funny, a bit off topic but I chill with Selmer Bringsjord's son almost every day.
:) I'll have to congratulate him.
Can't believe his dad made it into a slashdot article
Damn ... he looks like Tino de Rans ... Take a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAKItLJOaI0