- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,873
Ok, I'll try to respond to this in another way. You are a software developer. When you write code, does it change the hardware?Why can't they be? It seems that you're arguing for some innate immutable quality that we as a society can't shape, improve, or remedy? I'm big into rehabilitation as a concept, and while there are challenges there that we haven't had the time, (mainly) interest or resource to address, I think it's a good starting point.
Sure, but those words you use (virtue signaling?) are being weaponized ....thanks, conflict theoryThe test is highlighting the values we find important, but as with all tests, it can't measure if we actually live up to them.
For example, a lot of people (especially in the more traditionnal settings) emphasis the importance of "honour", but in practice I'd say more people will fall back on "saving face" than being actually honourable.
i.e. the performative version rather than the underlying principle.
Depends what I'm writing code for. I don't tend to write code that low-level. "software developer" is a pretty wide spec. Hardware, at the lowest levels, are ran by software. All electricity does is connect the circuit (well, mostly).Ok, I'll try to respond to this in another way. You are a software developer. When you write code, does it change the hardware?
Yes, I am arguing that moral foundations theory claims this exactly. The predictive value of the test is entirely another discussion.Depends what I'm writing code for. I don't tend to write code that low-level. "software developer" is a pretty wide spec. Hardware, at the lowest levels, are ran by software. All electricity does is connect the circuit (well, mostly).
But like I said, "it seems that you're arguing for some innate immutable quality that we as a society can't shape, improve, or remedy". No? Like if you could actually be specific about your position instead of trying analogies that don't work because you don't know the field you're trying to translate the analogy into, that'd be a lot more useful?
I'm afraid I'm not really following the point here.Sure, but those words you use (virtue signaling?) are being weaponized ....thanks, conflict theory
i think you're overstating the self-determination of machines as to what makes them able to thinkOk, I'll try to respond to this in another way. You are a software developer. When you write code, does it change the hardware?
I sort of agree with this but I don't at the same time? Complex rocks do write books?i think you're overstating the self-determination of machines as to what makes them able to think
that we are basically complex rocks is a natural truth that you'll find a lot of sympathy for among the left. but the left is also plenty aware that rocks don't write books
https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Meat_of_ChampionsI'd rather like to kill people, grind them up possibly alive; preferably feet first, package them into their own intestines to make fine sausages, roast those sausages
FLAME GRILLED
, and enjoy.
![]()
I'm not really equipped to debate what the theory argues . . . is this all still about owning Marx or something?Yes, I am arguing that moral foundations theory claims this exactly. The predictive value of the test is entirely another discussion.
How does this theory own Marx? Without recursing into your personal opinion on what you define as conflict theory (and its applications), try and break it into something more digestable than that.No, no. I believe the theory is sound. I don't own Marx, but this theory certainly does.
EDIT: I mostly agree with you but honestly, yeah, my opinion is that any moral foundation based on conflict theory is reprehensible.
Conflict theory is antithetical to humanity
EDIT 2: now, given the premise of the moral foundations theory, would you like to discuss the questions or the results?
This is a conflict theory positing that society is a conflict between people who believe in conflict theory and those who don'tConflict theory is antithetical to humanity
No not really. That is a "generalization flaw" of conflict theoryThis is a conflict theory positing that society is a conflict between people who believe in conflict theory and those who don't
Evolutionists will be evolutionists, it is the currently accepted science. It's a scientific wake up call that conflict theory (and it's derivatives) is seriously flawed at it's foundation....Some new work that seems to impact this: They reckon we need to be both inter personally collaborative and inter group competitive to evolve to be nice, or something.
Compared with other animals, humans are remarkably altruistic. Did this behaviour evolve because future interactions incentivise cooperation or because of group competition, meaning more cooperative groups are more likely to succeed? It’s a combination of both. Researchers asked members of Perepka and Ngenika groups in Papua New Guinea, who are less influenced by state rules, to play a cooperation game. “What the group competitions do is they counteract the individuals’ incentives to cheat a little bit,” economist and study co-author Ernst Fehr tells the Nature Podcast.