Current events discussion

[Old_Slapper]

The only retard I see on this topic is you, and you keep showing it with every single response. I am open-minded to anything that shows actual evidence, not the delusional opinions of little tinfoil hat-wearing individuals who think they know more than they actually do. The idea of a secret AI that is deadset on mind-controlling humans is 100 percent a dumb idea/subject, which is exactly what you constantly push. I keep laughing at how you say I don’t know what I’m talking about when the crap you posted literally goes against the BS you keep trying to push.

I’m still waiting for actual evidence skip the filler and go straight to the point—because I’m tired of dealing with someone as emotional as you who melts down and immediately resorts to personal attacks like a snowflake instead of actually backing up their illogical view. I can promise you I know more about cutting-edge technology than you and actually understand how it can be implemented, unlike you, who just assumes everything. And unlike you, I won’t claim something works without proof—I’ll actually show it.

Let me know if you need me to hold your hand again with any other article you post since it’s clear you don’t read them and just go off their titles. This guy really thinks random quotes and random Chinese videos are knowledge . Keep talking, I’ll only have more to laugh about.

Could it be that both of you have experienced different things, so therefore, you have different ideas about the matter?

It's like religion. Some people refuse to believe due to their personal experiences while others have had experiences that will cause them to refuse that is false.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

ALL of that said, this is the type of back-and-forth I am trying to have here, but get stymied by the likes of Thx, Spoke, etc, who simply want to make a claim, demand it be accepted wihtout question, and then get pissed off if it IS questioned.

You have trended there too, but I'm TRYING to keep it a true back-and-forth. See above.

Answering your demands with facts and proof isn't making claims and demanding you accept them. Dumbass. It's answering your demands with facts and proof. We have no control over your denying facts and proof we give you every time. If you don't like it, hit the ignore button. Troll.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

but get stymied by the likes of Thx, Spoke, etc, who simply want to make a claim, demand it be accepted wihtout question

So there's this fella that said a thing or two about 30k...

 

[Speed Chaser]

I'm definitely not melting down; I'm just adding emphasis dude. It takes a long time to describe all the shit and a lot of research, and the technology is advancing. You have to take every individual piece of technology and put it together and you're too made up in your mind for it even matter, and I can tell by the way you call it dumb in the first place your whole intent of having this conversation. I'm gonna find something and show it to you and then you're gonna pick one sentence out of there and show it to me like it disproves everything because you're that *******. You literally have provided zero evidence that your opinion is worth anything. All you have done is criticized others.

You have zero intent of having a fair conversation because I've shown you plenty enough to at least give probable cause or logic train that this is going on, and it's going to unfold. You don't even try to entertain the idea even though billionaires are talking about this talking about merging humanity with AI. How hard would it be for China's AI to hack Elon Musk's brain chips or something if everybody gets a brain chip someday? Stuff like that is the nature of what I'm trying to describe and the danger of it. That's totally something that could logically happen in the not far future. Why the are you acting like such a clown like nothing I say is remotely possible?

Once again, watch as World War III starts and you're surrounded by artificial intelligence. Reality will tell the truth. It'll be real ******* funny then.

You’re not melting down? Could’ve fooled me with all the emotional tirades you’ve been throwing out. Look at yourself in the mirror and realize the only clown here is you, with your garbage "what if" statements that sound like a college LIB who knows nothing. Let me break this down for you since you seem so insistent on misunderstanding everything. You claim it "takes a long time to describe all the shit and a lot of research" great, but where is it? Your idea of "evidence" is throwing random links or spouting fear about brain chips and AI hacking humans, none of which you've demonstrated with actual proof or technical backing.

You keep projecting your flaws onto me, claiming I cherry-pick sentences or don’t engage in fair conversation. The reality is, I’ve repeatedly asked for solid evidence, and instead of providing it, you go off on these rants about billionaires and China hacking Musk's brain chips. Those are hypotheticals, not evidence.

I await your next reply, which will no doubt just be more crying and still not showing anything to back up your BS.

Could it be that both of you have experienced different things, so therefore, you have different ideas about the matter?

It's like religion. Some people refuse to believe due to their personal experiences while others have had experiences that will cause them to refuse that is false.

The issue with that perspective is that most people, whether discussing political, religious, or other topics, typically provide evidence to support their claims. In this case, that hasn’t happened. Even the material he posted to back up his argument contradicts the very point he’s trying to make.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

You’re not melting down? Could’ve fooled me with all the emotional tirades you’ve been throwing out. Look at yourself in the mirror and realize the only clown here is you, with your garbage "what if" statements that sound like a college LIB who knows nothing. Let me break this down for you since you seem so insistent on misunderstanding everything. You claim it "takes a long time to describe all the shit and a lot of research" great, but where is it? Your idea of "evidence" is throwing random links or spouting fear about brain chips and AI hacking humans, none of which you've demonstrated with actual proof or technical backing.

You keep projecting your flaws onto me, claiming I cherry-pick sentences or don’t engage in fair conversation. The reality is, I’ve repeatedly asked for solid evidence, and instead of providing it, you go off on these rants about billionaires and China hacking Musk's brain chips. Those are hypotheticals, not evidence.

I await your next reply, which will no doubt just be more crying and still not showing anything to back up your BS.

The issue with that perspective is that most people, whether discussing political, religious, or other topics, typically provide evidence to support their claims. In this case, that hasn’t happened. Even the material he posted to back up his argument contradicts the very point he’s trying to make.

It just depends on how you view the information. Dude, a brain chip is just a computer it can be hacked; the human body itself can be hacked, which is what they're doing, which is what they say they're doing. What are you talking about? Brain chips can have two way communication with the brain which means they can override the brain. If you have a brain chip controlling your motor movement, then you can have a computer control it for you and not be in control of that computer or AI system. It takes so long to put all this together and you don't even give me a fair chance. In the first place you say it's dumb right off the bat. It shows your intention.

And a highly doubt you read everything about the Internet of bodies that I posted because that would take quite a long time. You have to read through like dozens of pages of shit man. I really can't prove anything because you shut me down before I even get a chance to explain, you immediately say nothing can be possible nothing you say is right and we can't even be really begin to discuss in detail because everything I post is immediately wrong according to you. There are things in those articles that I can use to prove my thoughts and you're going to use it to disprove it and not even give me a chance which is what exactly what you're doing.

You said it's a dumb right off the bat, so what the **** are you even talking about giving me a fair chance or anything like that? I was talking about specific stuff to someone else and you said it was dumb and now I have to prove the entire theory of life to you, because that's really what it is.

Maybe we should start with are you aware of other dimensions that you can go to when you die? That's what this topic is really about. The nature of what we're talking about can't be proven to human eyes in full, because humans can't perceive that much of reality. That's why it takes the mind.

Even if I show you a thing about nanotechnology, you still can't see the nano technology therefore you have to conceptually understand it. Do you understand that? It could be real as **** and you can't see it. I could literally hold a piece of nanotechnology in front of your ******* face and you say it wasn't real because you can't see it. Do you see what I'm saying, because that's what you feel like to me.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

So over 170 countries have social security?

So you are trying to be a troll, just ThxOne?

And the answer is yes.

Social Security Programs Throughout the World

Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis

www.ssa.gov

The issue with that perspective is that most people, whether discussing political, religious, or other topics, typically provide evidence to support their claims. In this case, that hasn’t happened. Even the material he posted to back up his argument contradicts the very point he’s trying to make.

Spend a little time here, and have some fun. You'll quickly learn who is willing to provide evidence to support their claim/s, and who demands that their claims be believed simply because they were able top type them without passing out.

This guy, for example. "been asking him for two years to support his claim that bones do not have nerves in them. And I'm not the only one who has tried.
He's never offered a SHRED of proof. He'll swear to the heavens that he HAS, but simply nobody will BELIEVE his proofs:

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

So you are trying to be a troll, just ThxOne?

Can you make this make sense? Thanks for getting the name right finally.

And the answer is yes.

Social Security Programs Throughout the World

Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis

www.ssa.gov

View attachment 61931


Spend a little time here, and have some fun. You'll quickly learn who is willing to provide evidence to support their claim/s, and who demands that their claims be believed simply because they were able top type them without passing out.

This guy, for example. "been asking him for two years to support his claim that bones do not have nerves in them. And I'm not the only one who has tried.
He's never offered a SHRED of proof. He'll swear to the heavens that he HAS, but simply nobody will BELIEVE his proofs:

Never offered proof? See, now you are out right lying again. I have offered you proof and facts and you think you know better than the medical community, doctors and scholars.

View attachment 61932

 

[Old_Slapper]

It just depends on how you view the information. Dude, a brain chip is just a computer it can be hacked; the human body itself can be hacked, which is what they're doing, which is what they say they're doing. What are you talking about? Brain chips can have two way communication with the brain which means they can override the brain. If you have a brain chip controlling your motor movement, then you can have a computer control it for you and not be in control of that computer or AI system. It takes so long to put all this together and you don't even give me a fair chance. In the first place you say it's dumb right off the bat. It shows your intention from the first place.

And a highly doubt you read everything about the Internet of bodies that I posted because that would take quite a long time. You have to read through like dozens of pages of shit man. I really can't prove anything because you shut me down before I even get a chance to you, immediately say nothing can be possible nothing you say is right and we can't even be really begin to discuss in detail because everything I post is immediately wrong according to you. There are things in those articles that I can use to prove my thoughts and you're going to use it to disprove it and not even give me a chance which is what exactly what you're doing.

You said it's a dumb right off the bat, so what the **** are you even talking about giving me a fair chance or anything like that? I was talking about specific stuff to someone else and you said it was dumb and now I have to prove the entire theory of life to you, because that's really what it is.

It just depends on how you view the information. Dude, a brain chip is just a computer it can be hacked; the human body itself can be hacked, which is what they're doing, which is what they say they're doing. What are you talking about? Brain chips can have two way communication with the brain which means they can override the brain. If you have a brain chip controlling your motor movement, then you can have a computer control it for you and not be in control of that computer or AI system. It takes so long to put all this together and you don't even give me a fair chance. In the first place you say it's dumb right off the bat. It shows your intention from the first place.

And a highly doubt you read everything about the Internet of bodies that I posted because that would take quite a long time. You have to read through like dozens of pages of shit man. I really can't prove anything because you shut me down before I even get a chance to you, immediately say nothing can be possible nothing you say is right and we can't even be really begin to discuss in detail because everything I post is immediately wrong according to you. There are things in those articles that I can use to prove my thoughts and you're going to use it to disprove it and not even give me a chance which is what exactly what you're doing.

You said it's a dumb right off the bat, so what the **** are you even talking about giving me a fair chance or anything like that? I was talking about specific stuff to someone else and you said it was dumb and now I have to prove the entire theory of life to you, because that's really what it is.

To be completely honest, between work and going back and forth with Rob, I haven't been able to keep up with what you guys are talking about.

So, in layman's terms, what is the argument?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Can you make this make sense? Thanks for getting the name right finally.

I sure can. Add the word "like" before your screen name.
Tell me, are you able to make sense of this sentence: "I was going to send the letter today, but I forgot put it in the mail"? Or, would the missing "to" cause your brain to lock up, and you'd have to go to sleep until tomorrow to clear it up?
I can't even imagine what THIS would do to you:

Never offered proof? See, now you are out right lying again. I have offered you proof and facts and you think you know better than the medical community, doctors and scholars.

You posted screenshots from a medical textbook that shows nerves in bones.
You claimed your doctor (the one who got booted from being the Jaguars team doctor) "told you" there are no nerves in bone.
You claimed medical science has used the word "in" incorrectly, and offered the example that when you are driving your car, your are not "in" it, because you are not connected to it.
You said that your extensive study of anatomy and your degree in biology means you know more about the issue than me, Jimi77, or other laymen. You described the singular me as a "laymen", BTW.
You said it is only a "theory" that bones have nerves in them.
And so on.

None of those are proof that bones do not have nerves in them.
Do you think they are?
And you couldn't even post a repeated proof right now in order to show you did it before. It would be impossible.

BTW -I remember all that stuff. I didn't search it all so that I could formulate a scenario where I'd be able to mention it.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

To be completely honest, between work and going back and forth with Rob, I haven't been able to keep up with what you guys are talking about.

So, in layman's terms, what is the argument?

I edited the post to go back and reread it I guess. I'm just trying to explain the threat of ai and merging man and machine and the capabilities that will come. I got called dumb for it so that's the discussion but I'm facing someone who immediately short changes me on very difficult and complex conversations. It's hard to put complex things together when you get shot down immediately. I think it's also one of those things where somebody's pretending like they want to see what you have to say but it's really just to say you're wrong. That's the intent from the beginning. I mean I'm not tripping I'm just analyzing. Difficult things are difficult to talk about.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I sure can. Add the word "like" before your screen name.

I assumed that is where it went. I just wanted to point out YOUR mistake and prove you are not perfect. But look how that triggered you. LOL.

Tell me, are you able to make sense of this sentence: "I was going to send the letter today, but I forgot put it in the mail"? Or, would the missing "to" cause your brain to lock up, and you'd have to go to sleep until tomorrow to clear it up?
I can't even imagine what THIS would do to you:
View attachment 61933

You posted screenshots from a medical textbook that shows nerves in bones.
You claimed your doctor (the one who got booted from being the Jaguars team doctor) "told you" there are no nerves in bone.
You claimed medical science has used the word "in" incorrectly, and offered the example that when you are driving your car, your are not "in" it, because you are not connected to it.
You said that your extensive study of anatomy and your degree in biology means you know more about the issue than me, Jimi77, or other laymen. You described the singular me as a "laymen", BTW.
You said it is only a "theory" that bones have nerves in them.
And so on.

None of those are proof that bones do not have nerves in them.
Do you think they are?
And you couldn't even post a repeated proof right now in order to show you did it before. It would be impossible.

BTW -I remember all that stuff. I didn't search it all so that I could formulate a scenario where I'd be able to mention it.

Listen dummy. Focus on inventing fraud to accuse people of so you can appear to be doing more than is required of you for your alleged job. If you want to speak to me as an equal regarding biology then go get a 4 year degree. If you want to learn more about nerves and bones and neuropeptides then go do some research and tell me about calcitonin-gene related peptides and how they affect bones.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

So you are trying to be a troll, just ThxOne?

And it's called social security?...you know passed in '35 as part of the new deal

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

And it's called social security?...you know passed in '35 as part of the new deal

Explain the relevance of your question.

Is this item called "apple" in every country and language?
In mandarin it's called "píng guǒ". Does that turn it into a different item?

If they implement a program in Taiwan that's the same as our social security, but call it "láo bǎo", does that change the concept of the program?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

 

[Old_Slapper]

I edited the post to go back and reread it I guess. I'm just trying to explain the threat of ai and merging man and machine and the capabilities that will come. I got called dumb for it so that's the discussion but I'm facing someone who immediately short changes me on very difficult and complex conversations. It's hard to put complex things together when you get shot down immediately. I think it's also one of those things where somebody's pretending like they want to see what you have to say but it's really just to say you're wrong. That's the intent from the beginning. I mean I'm not tripping I'm just analyzing. Difficult things are difficult to talk about.

that's the problem with debating over a keyboard. You try not to fill the screen with a bunch of words, then you start thinking faster than you're typing, then try to touch every point, and so-on... Then you're get too lazy to go back and proofread what you wrote.

When you see their response, all you see is a screen of words. When you get about 4 or five sentences in, you become too frustrated with what you read, so you respond without reading the rest of the explanation.

I just had this problem with Rob.

Our conversations would be a lot different in person.