Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinions! You seem to project a distaste for fishing, that's a shame.

I'm pretty sure you missed my point. Why waste time and energy arguing if people are going to hell or not. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I see you ranting in a lot of posts about people dying in hell and they are full of sin etc. Chill. Out. When a claim is made about feelings and you somehow start talking about people burning in hell (making it personnel again), I think you should just reel it back in and keep it relevant. The lol was served as, " ooh look according to saint now, another person is going to burn in hell."

It's not your place to judge. Your role is worship and love, not condemn people to hell. (Pretty sure thats Gods role). Lol.

im confused to whom you're referring to....>??? YA????????????

round and round it goes, where it stops? No one knows.....

The disrespect to danger is a killer. Just had write a piece about sidewalk safety. Fun stuff.

Of course, all lives matter. (even if they did horrible things).

"Michael Jackson became white." Again, this is a racial claim not ethnic. Ethnicity is not based on skin color.

Pick what ever topic and what ever side you want my friend.

Claiming your are black is not a ethnic claim, it's racial.

So, yeah....

Hold on hold on. I didn't see the link posted. Been using my phone. If it's another weak article based on personal opinion, I will come back to and be short with my response.)..

I'll accept a debate challenge when ever you want to send one my way.

You need to calm down and grab a snickers or something. You're no better than what you're complaining about.

I'm sure you could read the obituaries in the news paper and have the similar response of "Meh". Haha. However, it does not mean their life was not important or mean that they never impacted someone else's life. Know what I mean?

The ethical situations are pretty much endles in this situation. To allow a machine to make a ethical decision with out understanding ethics in itself, doesn't make any sense.

For fun : the passenger is s single parent of 3 kidswith no existing relatives. However, at the time of the accident they were at school. (The parent was only passenger).

The pedestrians are convicted criminals assigned for highway clean up. These criminals were all (let's say just two of them) convicted of dui's that resulted in the death of others. There's criminals have no children but a vast amount of siblings let's say 8 total.

Who should should be saved? If we cannot even calculate the moral ramifications of this situation, how would a computer be able to?

All lives matter. (Or would that comment be considered to soon?) :p

Uh. What? Why would a driverless car be forced in such a situation? The AI functioning capabilities in terms to response aer far superior than humans. They would never need to have the option to choose. AI is not capable of functioning in a moral aptitude. If you follow the rules of the road, you will not have to worry about choosing who should live or die.

Edit: read the article. Again such a hypothetical situation like this is pretty far fetched, to the point of why even debate?

There's to many "what if's" not answered to address this ethically. So I'll take the question directly: should AI be able to choose life or death in certain events. The answer would be no, they shouldn't.

I think that might be a half truth? So speaking about ethnicity, why wouldnt one be able to change? Knowing that, "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience".

Example:

A person who was born in the city (identified themselves as "city slickers"), joined the military, got out and moved to the mountains somewhere. They (and others they know) would identify themselves as "mountain men" or similar terminology.

Wouldn't this be an example of changing ethnically?

You can change your outward appearance and even claim sexual preference.

You cannot change your DNA structure. Yet.

No, i already acknowledged the fact that we're reading it differently and stated that Im okay with that. You have your opinion and I have mine. SO that's dismissed.

You love to twist words and take things out of context and then attack personally. What fun is that? When you learn how to debate properly, send me a message my friend. I can see why you get banned in many debates. The only thing destroyed was this debate by your poor chosen tactics "I said GOOD DAY". :)

Prefiere espanol? O cómo alemán? Was immer Sie wolle. Sohn.

The claim is incorrect. Thanks for all of your insightful opinions.

And by you saying i'm a liar because I don't agree with your interpretation of someone else's debatable claim. If foolish. If the person making the claim said, the claim means "", then obviously there wouldn't need to be further discussion (but a better written claim would be needed). But you did not make the claim. You're opinion is noted and also dismissed.

Being offended is a choice (wrong - its not) which makes you unhappy (wrong - that would be by choice)

Unless you're religious. Which the majority of Americans are.