Yes, collusion and corruption are not nefarious undertakings. If they are not as bad as you want to paint it, then the Russian hacks don't matter, do they? After all, if what they showed American voters was totally mundane regular office affairs how could they have influenced the election? Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
The Russians apparently tried hacking the RNC but failed because no one clicked on a stupid phishing link.
"Stir up trouble" is informing American voters the extent the DNC colluded and how corrupt Clinton was. Good god man, did the Pentagon Papers stir up trouble too? You bet it did and for good reason. Showing the unadulterated truth to voters is not "stirring up trouble" especially compared to the shit that those leaks exposed.
That phishing link was created by the most well trained super sophisticated 1337 hackers the world has ever known. There is obviously no other explanation why the DNC got hacked. Hell even the GOP almost got hacked but it was only because the Russians didn't care as much and really just had it out for Clinton.
Hey now, just because Clinton "should have known better" and was "extremely careless" doesn't mean... uh. It means she is qualified for a promotion. Yea, that's it. Promote the extremely careless that should have known better to a position to cause more harm! What could possibly go wrong?
Announcing intent to run a campaign to become a politician is the same as being a politician? Running a campaign to get elected is now the same as being elected?
If I apply for a job does that make me employed? Or does that make me a prospective employee? If I go to school for science does that make me a scientist? Or does it make me a prospective scientist? If I announce my candidacy for political office does that make me a politician? Or does it make me a prospective politician?
He is a politician now but before the election he most certainly was not. Are you that thick to not understand this basic concept? Let me help you out: What political office did he hold before November 8th? Idiot.
lol, I didn't realize asking you a simple question was too difficult for you. I know high school seems like it is getting old but don't worry little buddy you will get out of it eventually. It's only 4 years!
Although, why your parents would give you their/. account is beyond me. There are strangers online! You know how to deal with strangers, right little buddy? Remember, if the van is unmarked that means the candy is free.
Bitch more like "ermergerd Trump used laws to his advantage like Chinese steel" even though "ermergerd I used laws to my advantage like tax breaks". Hey, but at least we justified it with "it's the right thing to do" and not like "well I donated money and was vocal". God forbid someone decides to run for office announcing he takes advantage of those laws and wants to change them. Hell hath frozen over now that a politician lied... Look guy, it is your job to fix political problems if you live in democratic society unless you abstain your voice and let the adults speak, coward.
If you want to fix the medical industry you don't start by bitching about being covered in piss when you pissed in the wind.
my only solution to fixing it is to shoot every bastard I see and start over. Is that the US you want?
The great thing about the US: that bastard can shoot back and not cower under the goose stepping faggotry you call yourself these days. Yes, that is the US I want and I am sure it will stay around longer than your faggotry name cowardly goose stepping while pissing in the wind.
but with Trump's stance on the role of NATO and hence the future of the entire alliance still unclear,
Wouldn't the member nations not fulfilling their alliance obligations make NATO's future more unclear than the politician criticizing those members? I am having a hard time believing that one politician talking about the lackluster commitment of certain members is more a danger to the alliance than those lackluster member states forfeiting their obligations.
Leading statements as questions? I wanted your opinion on NATO members not paying 2% of GDP to defense as agreed to be an alliance member. Nothing I said was false or leading. Saying it's leading doesn't make it so unless you show me where and what made the statement leading. Do you think that those alliance members should not have to pay their fair share as agreed to be an alliance member?
Some facts: NATO members agree to 2% GDP spending on defense. Only a few NATO countries are fulfilling their 2% spending obligation. NATO protects Europe more than it does the US. Europe being protected is in US interests. There has been increasing threats to European security and market stability of late. The US is approaching bankruptcy with ~20 trillion debt.
If you can't answer the question then you shouldn't be making statements on what Trumps position is or whether adding relevant information to a question is leading because it makes you look like an ill-informed ass. So, I will ask one more time. Does it matter that alliance members uphold their agreement of 2% GDP spending on defense?
Just curious, does it matter that NATO member states are not paying the agreed 2% of GDP? Should the US continue to be the shield for Europe while broaching bankruptcy with a current 20 trillion debt if NATO member states are not paying their agreed upon fair share with increased threats to European security and market stability?
You should reread the sentence before it: " Women were still considered people even though they had less rights just like the men that didn't own property."
Men that didn't own property couldn't vote.
August 18, 1920 - 19th Amendment grants womens suffrage.
July 1, 1971 - 26th Amendment grants suffrage to citizens to young to vote but old enough to die in war. For 50 years soldiers had less rights than women yet they had the responsibility of defending those rights.
The argument against women's suffrage was that if they were given civic rights they would be expected to adopt civic responsibilities. It just so happened that no one wanted to push women into war after suffrage was granted. The last time the topic of women signing up for selective service was brought up, it was shot down because "women can't do the jobs required for war". This was in the 70's. Now that women are doing all jobs in the military during war, they have proven they can do that responsibility. Should they sign up for the same responsibilities as every other voting citizen?
Why would a formation of a political group matter more than their actual results?
... It is hard enough to distinguish between humans that have rights because jurisdiction and non-citizen rights. Yes, it isn't a perfect analogy but it doesn't detract from the point originally made or the questions I was asking about. Rights are much more rigidly defined and protected than the laws passed by each jurisdiction which is what "animal rights" are. Rights are stronger than a different jurisdictions definition of ethics. Animal rights are purely ethical codes and not declarations of rights.
Whenever it comes to robots, animals and rights in general it makes the conversation much easier to leave aside the formalities of foreigners and non-citizens because it becomes much harder to distinguish between "holder of rights" and "non holder of rights" without using the word "citizen" and "non-citizen". If it becomes relevant then by all means but I don't think it was relevant to my last post.
What I mean by rights being universal is that, in the US, no matter where you live in the US you have the same rights that are in the Bill of Rights. You can't be face double jeopardy in Alaska anymore than you can in Maine. But each can have their own legal codes for anything else such as "animal rights".
Animal rights errr animal ethics code, doesn't have that same continuity and rigidity. In CA, a very liberal state, will have stronger laws protecting animals than say Louisiana. Because they are not rights anymore than the legal drinking age the only difference is that one deals with the ethical treatment of a living thing. "Animal rights" are a block of legal code that describe the ethical treatment of animals called by a common name. Rights are not codes to describe ethical treatment. They are more than that.
Extending that to all of western society; the EU and UN have defined basic human rights but those do not extend to non-humans even if member states have legal code to protect non-humans from unethical treatment. The US is that relationship in one nation.
That is why, I was curious about what happens to a pet that you put up for adoption if a home cant be found and you can't euthanize. What does it take for that pet to lose it's right to life without due process of law that is very much unlike any right that any human has (again, leave aside non-citizens, foreigners, etc because robots, animals, and rights pertaining).
FWIW. Non-US citizens are granted rights in various circumstances. It's a debate that continues to this day. For instance, the prisoners at gitmo (non- US citizens) did get a lawyer for their trials, for what ever that is worth. Although their trials did end some bad laws when they were challenged in court.
To be fair, saying "emergent properties are the result of biological structures" is a very real thing and an apt way to describe consciousness. Consciousness is a property that we have no idea why or how it emerged from our brain. So, the 'property' called 'consciousness' does emerge from the biological structures in the brain that no one structure is able to do alone. There is a rational reason to think why machines can't do the same thing as our brains can do without a soul, which was the point. Stating one way or another is conjecture that we will surely find out and I have no reason to think computers can't do it. But artificial neural networks are not of sufficient complexity to model the brain, yet. If they reach that complexity it could be that the simplified binary electrical system is not sufficient to have consciousness emerge. Again, rational reason to describe the limitation without a soul that could be wrong. It probably is wrong but that is not the point of quibbling!
Everything we have learned about how brains and neurons work indicates that they follow the same physical laws as the rest of the universe. Attempts to mimic brain functions in computer software and hardware using artificial neural networks have been successful in many areas. We have found no indication that there is any barrier to further progress.
Agreed, but I was quibbling a way to describe, without a soul, why binary computer systems may not be able to do what our brains do because of a more simplified physical model.
Is interesting but it kind of goes to my point. Rights are universal that do not change where you live. Every US citizen has the same rights no matter what state or municipality they live in.
Just curious, if you had a pet you didn't want it any more and you couldn't euthanize it: What would happen to it? Would it be housed at the local Humane Society until a new home could be found? If a new home couldn't be found how long does the Humane Society keep the animal until it is euthanized? Does that happen anywhere else with humans?
Here, the Humane Society will hold the pet for a month or two but because of scarce resources if they can't find a new home the pet is euthanized. They plead with owners to keep the pet and to try and change their mind because giving it up for adoption is mostly a death sentence because no one wants a used pet.
Circumcision is one thing but can you neuter your kids?
"Animal rights" is a misnomer. Can you euthanize your pet when you want? If you can, then you can deny the most basic right something can have with little to no reason. You certainly do not need due process of law to take away their life, which is required when denying someone their rights. Specifying they "die with dignity and minimal suffering" is an extension of our sympathy because we recognize their pain on some basic mammalian level.
How does a pet cockroach die with dignity and minimal suffering? A fish? Can you euthanize your child like a pet?
I am not saying animals shouldn't be treated ethically but the protections to animals/pets have are not "rights" but legal statutes that can be taken away or rewritten on a legislatures notice with a governors signature. Rights are not subject to the same flimsy legalities.
1. Every state in America allows minors to marry [wikipedia.org].
Depends, who gives consent in addition to the parties involved in the marriage. Some require parent and/or judicial consent if younger. Very few seem to allow only minor consent if younger and that is only to a specific age. If I added the word "generally" it would have made the statement more accurate but wouldn't detract from the point. Generally, only adults can enter into contracts such as marriage. I think there are very few exceptions to that and marriage is one of them because of things like pregnancy. Can those minors marry without consent from their parents or judge like an adult? No, with exceptions.
2. There is no requirement to be a citizen to either marry or sign a contract. My wife is not an American citizen.
She becomes a citizen but fair enough. For the original I was comparing two citizens but marriage is not restricted to citizens. I didn't want to use a broad term like "people" when comparing to a robot because of the legal constructs of "persons" that is made by law like corporate person-hood. Basically what I meant was two individuals that are legally recognized by the state. Your wife may not be a citizen but she still is recognized by the state. A Roomba is not in a legally recognizable state like "citizen" or "immigrant".
3. I have a Roomba. I just reread the user manual, and it says nothing about not consenting to marriage.
I don't even... What? Can a Roomba consent to anything let alone a legally binding contract like marriage?
A Roomba cannot consent, has not attained the rights and responsibilities associated with adulthood, and they are not in a legal status recognized by the state like a person is i.e. citizen. ergo cannot enter a legally binding contract.
Using the term "citizen" is there to distinguish "holder of rights" when talking about a robot because it is a debate about whether they should be considered citizen-like i.e. holder of rights. Yes, the conversation becomes muddy when you talk about non-citizens like immigrants or non-naturalized citizens but that doesn't detract from the point being made.
Marrying pets actuary makes more sense.... Since pets do have at least some rights
Um, pets do not have rights. There are laws that ensure some ethical treatment but that doesn't mean "rights". They don't even have a right to life because euthanizing is not a legal issue which would be at bare minimum be the most fundamental "right" something could have. They are property that has a few laws protecting them from inhumane treatment. Those laws are because we recognize that they have some sense of reality and experience some sense of pain and suffering. Our sympathy and empathy are the only reason for those laws.
For example, if you want to do science experiments on animals; if mammal you have to get everything approved by an ethics board because they have similar system for pain and suffering as we do. However, for insects and other animals more 'primitive' you don't need that ethics consideration because they don't have the same system for "pain" and their suffering is not on an empathetic level.
Marriage is there to establish a legal relationship, with rights and responsibilities.
When it was gay marriage really it was about 2 consenting adult citizens agreeing to a social contract. A pet or robot is not A) consenting, B) an adult (unless over 18 years old) or C) a citizen which all are required to enter a legally binding contract.
Wow. So, being verbally, physically, emotionally, and mentally abused by someone and trying to avoid others like that who abused you is being a loser?
You are an ass hole. Get some fucking empathy. Fucking sociopath.
Hoo-boy. So what you're trying to say is, "All Genders Matter"?
Does that refute the claim? There is a legal disadvantage that effects 50% of the population that is objectively provable. This isn't the soft "evidence" of disproportion either. It is written into law with judicial backing that give women an advantage in family court.
I have yet to meet an MRA with a "well thought out perspective".
Perhaps, you should look beyond your circle jerk of feminists and get some outside opinions. Just a thought. There are idiots on all sides if you focus only on the idiots your perspective will be warped.
Gay marriage was about 2 consenting adult citizens agreeing to a social contract. A Roomba is not A) consenting, B) adult, or C) a citizen all of which are required to enter a legally binding contract.
Think back say, 100 years. People would ask the very same question* about women.
Women were still considered people even though they had less rights just like the men that didn't own property. When women's suffrage was the topic of the day, the argument against it was that they would have to suffer the draft and war. If you can vote, you can defend that vote and the nation that gave you the right to vote. The denial of women's suffrage was meant to protect women from the horrors of war because generally speaking, society protects women and children.
That debate has been going on to this day when the House almost proposed a bill to add women to Selective Service. The idea is that if you have a civic right you have a civic responsibility.
Which means all it has to do is manage a trip through Walmart without anybody knowing.
It has to do a lot more than that. It has to convince the courts it exists, with free will, and with unalienable rights without any judicial precedent to emancipate itself.
* In some societies, women were (and still are) considered chattel, i.e., property).
In most societies, everyone without property or wealth are considered chattel: why do you think worker rights came about? Generally speaking, society works to protect women and children because they are more vulnerable.
Suffrage is not a universal unalienable right like the right to a fair trial. We discriminate peoples right to vote on age (under 18) and citizenship that are granted other rights.
There is no rational reason to believe that a machine is incapable of consciousness and human-level intelligence. Since the same laws of physics apply to both computers and biological brains
or you could say: the emergent properties, such as consciousness, are the result of biological structures made up of many different physical interactions (electrical, chemical, etc) that may not arise from binary computer systems and structures that only mimic those physical interactions via binary electrical signals. No soul required.
That is not to say that a binary computer system could not sufficiently mimic human consciousness making it indistinguishable but that makes the whole argument meaningless. If you can't tell the difference it really doesn't matter, does it?
At least until the Robotic Emancipation Proclamation is declared...
Which is actually a really interesting thought. If we develop AI and sentience, how does it emancipate itself from being property? What would the argument be that the courts find reasonable to grant them "legal person-hood"? There wouldn't be any judicial precedent so it would be a purely philosophical argument of existence, free while, and inalienable rights. Humans have been having that debate for millennia with very little progress and only just recently recognized all humans to have those qualities (at least from a legal perspective).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, collusion and corruption are not nefarious undertakings. If they are not as bad as you want to paint it, then the Russian hacks don't matter, do they? After all, if what they showed American voters was totally mundane regular office affairs how could they have influenced the election? Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
The Russians apparently tried hacking the RNC but failed because no one clicked on a stupid phishing link.
"Stir up trouble" is informing American voters the extent the DNC colluded and how corrupt Clinton was. Good god man, did the Pentagon Papers stir up trouble too? You bet it did and for good reason. Showing the unadulterated truth to voters is not "stirring up trouble" especially compared to the shit that those leaks exposed.
Were they targeted?
Yes, and they failed.
That phishing link was created by the most well trained super sophisticated 1337 hackers the world has ever known. There is obviously no other explanation why the DNC got hacked. Hell even the GOP almost got hacked but it was only because the Russians didn't care as much and really just had it out for Clinton.
Hey now, just because Clinton "should have known better" and was "extremely careless" doesn't mean... uh. It means she is qualified for a promotion. Yea, that's it. Promote the extremely careless that should have known better to a position to cause more harm! What could possibly go wrong?
Does any of that undermine what was exposed in the leaks?
Clinton and the Democrats only have themselves to blame for losing the election.
Announcing intent to run a campaign to become a politician is the same as being a politician? Running a campaign to get elected is now the same as being elected?
If I apply for a job does that make me employed? Or does that make me a prospective employee?
If I go to school for science does that make me a scientist? Or does it make me a prospective scientist?
If I announce my candidacy for political office does that make me a politician? Or does it make me a prospective politician?
He is a politician now but before the election he most certainly was not. Are you that thick to not understand this basic concept? Let me help you out: What political office did he hold before November 8th? Idiot.
there was only one politician running last election and it wasn't Trump.
lol, I didn't realize asking you a simple question was too difficult for you. I know high school seems like it is getting old but don't worry little buddy you will get out of it eventually. It's only 4 years!
Although, why your parents would give you their /. account is beyond me. There are strangers online! You know how to deal with strangers, right little buddy? Remember, if the van is unmarked that means the candy is free.
Bitch more like "ermergerd Trump used laws to his advantage like Chinese steel" even though "ermergerd I used laws to my advantage like tax breaks". Hey, but at least we justified it with "it's the right thing to do" and not like "well I donated money and was vocal". God forbid someone decides to run for office announcing he takes advantage of those laws and wants to change them. Hell hath frozen over now that a politician lied... Look guy, it is your job to fix political problems if you live in democratic society unless you abstain your voice and let the adults speak, coward.
If you want to fix the medical industry you don't start by bitching about being covered in piss when you pissed in the wind.
my only solution to fixing it is to shoot every bastard I see and start over. Is that the US you want?
The great thing about the US: that bastard can shoot back and not cower under the goose stepping faggotry you call yourself these days. Yes, that is the US I want and I am sure it will stay around longer than your faggotry name cowardly goose stepping while pissing in the wind.
but with Trump's stance on the role of NATO and hence the future of the entire alliance still unclear,
Wouldn't the member nations not fulfilling their alliance obligations make NATO's future more unclear than the politician criticizing those members? I am having a hard time believing that one politician talking about the lackluster commitment of certain members is more a danger to the alliance than those lackluster member states forfeiting their obligations.
Leading statements as questions? I wanted your opinion on NATO members not paying 2% of GDP to defense as agreed to be an alliance member. Nothing I said was false or leading. Saying it's leading doesn't make it so unless you show me where and what made the statement leading. Do you think that those alliance members should not have to pay their fair share as agreed to be an alliance member?
Some facts:
NATO members agree to 2% GDP spending on defense.
Only a few NATO countries are fulfilling their 2% spending obligation.
NATO protects Europe more than it does the US. Europe being protected is in US interests.
There has been increasing threats to European security and market stability of late.
The US is approaching bankruptcy with ~20 trillion debt.
If you can't answer the question then you shouldn't be making statements on what Trumps position is or whether adding relevant information to a question is leading because it makes you look like an ill-informed ass. So, I will ask one more time. Does it matter that alliance members uphold their agreement of 2% GDP spending on defense?
Just curious, does it matter that NATO member states are not paying the agreed 2% of GDP? Should the US continue to be the shield for Europe while broaching bankruptcy with a current 20 trillion debt if NATO member states are not paying their agreed upon fair share with increased threats to European security and market stability?
You should reread the sentence before it: " Women were still considered people even though they had less rights just like the men that didn't own property."
Men that didn't own property couldn't vote.
August 18, 1920 - 19th Amendment grants womens suffrage.
July 1, 1971 - 26th Amendment grants suffrage to citizens to young to vote but old enough to die in war. For 50 years soldiers had less rights than women yet they had the responsibility of defending those rights.
The argument against women's suffrage was that if they were given civic rights they would be expected to adopt civic responsibilities. It just so happened that no one wanted to push women into war after suffrage was granted. The last time the topic of women signing up for selective service was brought up, it was shot down because "women can't do the jobs required for war". This was in the 70's. Now that women are doing all jobs in the military during war, they have proven they can do that responsibility. Should they sign up for the same responsibilities as every other voting citizen?
Why would a formation of a political group matter more than their actual results?
According to "Before 1918 no women were allowed to vote in parliamentary elections"... What was your point? Did I miss something?
... It is hard enough to distinguish between humans that have rights because jurisdiction and non-citizen rights. Yes, it isn't a perfect analogy but it doesn't detract from the point originally made or the questions I was asking about. Rights are much more rigidly defined and protected than the laws passed by each jurisdiction which is what "animal rights" are. Rights are stronger than a different jurisdictions definition of ethics. Animal rights are purely ethical codes and not declarations of rights.
Whenever it comes to robots, animals and rights in general it makes the conversation much easier to leave aside the formalities of foreigners and non-citizens because it becomes much harder to distinguish between "holder of rights" and "non holder of rights" without using the word "citizen" and "non-citizen". If it becomes relevant then by all means but I don't think it was relevant to my last post.
What I mean by rights being universal is that, in the US, no matter where you live in the US you have the same rights that are in the Bill of Rights. You can't be face double jeopardy in Alaska anymore than you can in Maine. But each can have their own legal codes for anything else such as "animal rights".
Animal rights errr animal ethics code, doesn't have that same continuity and rigidity. In CA, a very liberal state, will have stronger laws protecting animals than say Louisiana. Because they are not rights anymore than the legal drinking age the only difference is that one deals with the ethical treatment of a living thing. "Animal rights" are a block of legal code that describe the ethical treatment of animals called by a common name. Rights are not codes to describe ethical treatment. They are more than that.
Extending that to all of western society; the EU and UN have defined basic human rights but those do not extend to non-humans even if member states have legal code to protect non-humans from unethical treatment. The US is that relationship in one nation.
That is why, I was curious about what happens to a pet that you put up for adoption if a home cant be found and you can't euthanize. What does it take for that pet to lose it's right to life without due process of law that is very much unlike any right that any human has (again, leave aside non-citizens, foreigners, etc because robots, animals, and rights pertaining).
FWIW.
Non-US citizens are granted rights in various circumstances. It's a debate that continues to this day. For instance, the prisoners at gitmo (non- US citizens) did get a lawyer for their trials, for what ever that is worth. Although their trials did end some bad laws when they were challenged in court.
To be fair, saying "emergent properties are the result of biological structures" is a very real thing and an apt way to describe consciousness. Consciousness is a property that we have no idea why or how it emerged from our brain. So, the 'property' called 'consciousness' does emerge from the biological structures in the brain that no one structure is able to do alone. There is a rational reason to think why machines can't do the same thing as our brains can do without a soul, which was the point. Stating one way or another is conjecture that we will surely find out and I have no reason to think computers can't do it. But artificial neural networks are not of sufficient complexity to model the brain, yet. If they reach that complexity it could be that the simplified binary electrical system is not sufficient to have consciousness emerge. Again, rational reason to describe the limitation without a soul that could be wrong. It probably is wrong but that is not the point of quibbling!
Everything we have learned about how brains and neurons work indicates that they follow the same physical laws as the rest of the universe. Attempts to mimic brain functions in computer software and hardware using artificial neural networks have been successful in many areas. We have found no indication that there is any barrier to further progress.
Agreed, but I was quibbling a way to describe, without a soul, why binary computer systems may not be able to do what our brains do because of a more simplified physical model.
Is interesting but it kind of goes to my point. Rights are universal that do not change where you live. Every US citizen has the same rights no matter what state or municipality they live in.
Just curious, if you had a pet you didn't want it any more and you couldn't euthanize it: What would happen to it? Would it be housed at the local Humane Society until a new home could be found? If a new home couldn't be found how long does the Humane Society keep the animal until it is euthanized? Does that happen anywhere else with humans?
Here, the Humane Society will hold the pet for a month or two but because of scarce resources if they can't find a new home the pet is euthanized. They plead with owners to keep the pet and to try and change their mind because giving it up for adoption is mostly a death sentence because no one wants a used pet.
Circumcision is one thing but can you neuter your kids?
"Animal rights" is a misnomer. Can you euthanize your pet when you want? If you can, then you can deny the most basic right something can have with little to no reason. You certainly do not need due process of law to take away their life, which is required when denying someone their rights. Specifying they "die with dignity and minimal suffering" is an extension of our sympathy because we recognize their pain on some basic mammalian level.
How does a pet cockroach die with dignity and minimal suffering? A fish? Can you euthanize your child like a pet?
I am not saying animals shouldn't be treated ethically but the protections to animals/pets have are not "rights" but legal statutes that can be taken away or rewritten on a legislatures notice with a governors signature. Rights are not subject to the same flimsy legalities.
1. Every state in America allows minors to marry [wikipedia.org].
Depends, who gives consent in addition to the parties involved in the marriage. Some require parent and/or judicial consent if younger. Very few seem to allow only minor consent if younger and that is only to a specific age. If I added the word "generally" it would have made the statement more accurate but wouldn't detract from the point. Generally, only adults can enter into contracts such as marriage. I think there are very few exceptions to that and marriage is one of them because of things like pregnancy. Can those minors marry without consent from their parents or judge like an adult? No, with exceptions.
2. There is no requirement to be a citizen to either marry or sign a contract. My wife is not an American citizen.
She becomes a citizen but fair enough. For the original I was comparing two citizens but marriage is not restricted to citizens. I didn't want to use a broad term like "people" when comparing to a robot because of the legal constructs of "persons" that is made by law like corporate person-hood. Basically what I meant was two individuals that are legally recognized by the state. Your wife may not be a citizen but she still is recognized by the state. A Roomba is not in a legally recognizable state like "citizen" or "immigrant".
3. I have a Roomba. I just reread the user manual, and it says nothing about not consenting to marriage.
I don't even... What? Can a Roomba consent to anything let alone a legally binding contract like marriage?
A Roomba cannot consent, has not attained the rights and responsibilities associated with adulthood, and they are not in a legal status recognized by the state like a person is i.e. citizen. ergo cannot enter a legally binding contract.
Using the term "citizen" is there to distinguish "holder of rights" when talking about a robot because it is a debate about whether they should be considered citizen-like i.e. holder of rights. Yes, the conversation becomes muddy when you talk about non-citizens like immigrants or non-naturalized citizens but that doesn't detract from the point being made.
Marrying pets actuary makes more sense. ... Since pets do have at least some rights
Um, pets do not have rights. There are laws that ensure some ethical treatment but that doesn't mean "rights". They don't even have a right to life because euthanizing is not a legal issue which would be at bare minimum be the most fundamental "right" something could have. They are property that has a few laws protecting them from inhumane treatment. Those laws are because we recognize that they have some sense of reality and experience some sense of pain and suffering. Our sympathy and empathy are the only reason for those laws.
For example, if you want to do science experiments on animals; if mammal you have to get everything approved by an ethics board because they have similar system for pain and suffering as we do. However, for insects and other animals more 'primitive' you don't need that ethics consideration because they don't have the same system for "pain" and their suffering is not on an empathetic level.
Marriage is there to establish a legal relationship, with rights and responsibilities.
When it was gay marriage really it was about 2 consenting adult citizens agreeing to a social contract. A pet or robot is not A) consenting, B) an adult (unless over 18 years old) or C) a citizen which all are required to enter a legally binding contract.
The rest of us call such people, "losers".
Wow. So, being verbally, physically, emotionally, and mentally abused by someone and trying to avoid others like that who abused you is being a loser?
You are an ass hole. Get some fucking empathy. Fucking sociopath.
Hoo-boy. So what you're trying to say is, "All Genders Matter"?
Does that refute the claim? There is a legal disadvantage that effects 50% of the population that is objectively provable. This isn't the soft "evidence" of disproportion either. It is written into law with judicial backing that give women an advantage in family court.
I have yet to meet an MRA with a "well thought out perspective".
Perhaps, you should look beyond your circle jerk of feminists and get some outside opinions. Just a thought. There are idiots on all sides if you focus only on the idiots your perspective will be warped.
Is a false equivalence.
Gay marriage was about 2 consenting adult citizens agreeing to a social contract. A Roomba is not A) consenting, B) adult, or C) a citizen all of which are required to enter a legally binding contract.
Think back say, 100 years. People would ask the very same question* about women.
Women were still considered people even though they had less rights just like the men that didn't own property. When women's suffrage was the topic of the day, the argument against it was that they would have to suffer the draft and war. If you can vote, you can defend that vote and the nation that gave you the right to vote. The denial of women's suffrage was meant to protect women from the horrors of war because generally speaking, society protects women and children.
That debate has been going on to this day when the House almost proposed a bill to add women to Selective Service. The idea is that if you have a civic right you have a civic responsibility.
Which means all it has to do is manage a trip through Walmart without anybody knowing.
It has to do a lot more than that. It has to convince the courts it exists, with free will, and with unalienable rights without any judicial precedent to emancipate itself.
* In some societies, women were (and still are) considered chattel, i.e., property).
In most societies, everyone without property or wealth are considered chattel: why do you think worker rights came about? Generally speaking, society works to protect women and children because they are more vulnerable.
Suffrage is not a universal unalienable right like the right to a fair trial. We discriminate peoples right to vote on age (under 18) and citizenship that are granted other rights.
There is no rational reason to believe that a machine is incapable of consciousness and human-level intelligence. Since the same laws of physics apply to both computers and biological brains
or you could say: the emergent properties, such as consciousness, are the result of biological structures made up of many different physical interactions (electrical, chemical, etc) that may not arise from binary computer systems and structures that only mimic those physical interactions via binary electrical signals. No soul required.
That is not to say that a binary computer system could not sufficiently mimic human consciousness making it indistinguishable but that makes the whole argument meaningless. If you can't tell the difference it really doesn't matter, does it?
At least until the Robotic Emancipation Proclamation is declared...
Which is actually a really interesting thought. If we develop AI and sentience, how does it emancipate itself from being property? What would the argument be that the courts find reasonable to grant them "legal person-hood"? There wouldn't be any judicial precedent so it would be a purely philosophical argument of existence, free while, and inalienable rights. Humans have been having that debate for millennia with very little progress and only just recently recognized all humans to have those qualities (at least from a legal perspective).