3 ms·
> As far as I can tell the discussion was the difference between domesticated cows and bison The discussion was about how domesticated animals prefer to stick
by randomdata 2y ago
> As far as I can tell the discussion was the difference between domesticated cows and bison
The discussion was about how domesticated animals prefer to stick around humans even when they don't need to, negating the idea that all animals are of the opinion that "humans suck". It was established that the exact reason for why these animals behave that way is irrelevant to the topic, but then the comment about bison introduced the idea that it is relevant. After all, why would we see a post that is irrelevant? But there is no indication of where the relevance lies. Is selective breeding not an environment pressure like any other? What is noteworthy about it that justifies the violation?
> No need to be rude, it's not helping anything.
Intriguing. It would be interesting to hear the logic behind considering text spit out by a piece of software to be rude. Does rudeness not require human intent? Indeed, a human giving another human the middle finger might be considered rude (human intent) by a human observer, but a monkey giving the middle finger (non-human intent) is not traditionally considered so despite being an identical act. This seems to imply that you assign human-like qualities to software. But at the same time software is well understood to not be human-like. It operates using very different mechanisms. Which, then, seems like software should be treated more like the monkey than like the human, but clearly that is not the case.
Tell us more about your take! The other commenter does not seem to recall why he posted the comment about the bison, leaving that topic to be a dead-end, so let's entertain your tangent.
- freejazz 2y agoWhy would I have any reason to believe your post was written by a piece of software? What a horrible "conversation" this has been. The point is to give fair readings to other posters here. Not whatever it is you are doing here.
- randomdata 2y agoTo ensure that we are on the same page, describe for me what you are looking at. Does it appear to be a human, or does it appear to be software?
- freejazz 2y agoHumans can communicate through software, what is your point? People can be rude in person, over the phone, in writing via pen or computer.
- randomdata 2y agoI'll take that to mean that you see software, but okay, let's agree that appearances are not always what they seem. What ultimately sets humans apart from the monkeys, to make the difference between human intent and non-human intent significant, is identity. Indeed, a human in a costume that is unrecognizable from an actual monkey, thus having no identity, would not conjure rudeness feelings when giving the middle finger any more than an actual monkey would. It is fair to say that identity is not necessarily one's outer appearance. Signing one's name is another way humans confer identity, for example. Do you recognize a human identity here? If so, describe it for us.
- lttlrck 2y agoInsufferable.
- randomdata 2y agoTo be insufferable may be a quality of humans, but is decidedly not an identity. I suppose your message here is that there is no discernible identity, surprising no one? So, for what logical reason are we considering software to be human again?
- freejazz 2y ago> If so, describe it for us. I already did when I called you rude.
- randomdata 2y agoIf rude is an identity, that means when a human witnesses a crime, describing the perpetrator as "rude" to the police office on duty will be sufficient to track down and nab the criminal. Ha. Not going to happen. "Rude" can describe anyone. It does not serve to provide an identity. And this is how you want us to come to believe that software is human?