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.

I understand what you're saying but the claim isn't structured in a way to support that. That's the only problem we have here .(we're reading the claim differently).

the claim: why would one choose to be offended and eventually unhappy?

One doesn't choose to be offended but they can allow the offense to make them unhappy, happy etc

Being offended is an emotional response, which you can not control. This is not a choice.

The claim is saying it is a choice.

It's not about color with that terminology, it's the culture you were raised in. It's a hateful word and shouldn't be supported period, regardless of who uses it. In my opinion.

Being offended is a response of emotion to an event, how you respond to this offense is what is in control. Just because you are offended doesn't necessarily mean you will continually be unhappy. This is were you make an active decision on your response to being offended. Happy, mad, sad, passive, etc.

You cannot control your emotional response (being offended) therefore it is not a choice. However, you can choose how you react to your emotional response. I was offended and it ruined my day or I was offended and didn't jet it bother me.

Negativ ghost rider. Being offended is not a choice that leaves you unhappy.

By claiming no one doesn't do something is automatically incorrect. I only admit that you have a choice on how you react to how you feel.

When you don't understand what someone is saying, you should just ask not assume or add opinions. When someone says, no I didn't say that - you're misunderstanding. It's exactly that.

The way you feel during random events you have no control over, only the way you react to feelings is what is in control.

If you can, I would like to see what you have of not don't bother trying to dissect the latter portion of the claim.

Bring offended is not a choice (emotional response - intrapsychic). - if it is, explain how you can control a intrapsychic reaction to "offensive " events. ( you can't by the way).

Bring offended does not automatically mean someone is going to be unhappy. - this we agree.

Thanks for your opinions!

I'm pretty sure no one lives to be offended. Unfortunately, some view points are not widely shared.

"Again, we are talking about what happens after those events".

Again, the claim doesn't say that. You're suggesting it does. Agree to disagree.

Speaking of weaknesses in counter arguments and staying on point.

Alright boss man, I’m going to go back the beginning because I feel we’re starting to focus on things (technicalities) other than the claim.

Original claim: Being offended is a choice (incorrect) that you make and it makes you unhappy (incorrect)- why make that choice? (You don’t)

You cannot choose how you “feel {insert emotion}” (internally) during certain events because it involves a multitude of factors (culture, individual experiences, perception, etc). So when you “feel” offended, that is not by choice. Everyone has their own things that “grind their gears”, and everyone at times will be offended. This is where you need to control your emotions and “not act out of anger” would could have resulted from being “offended”.

So, if you disagree how can you justify that one has the capability to selectively choose a certain emotion during a certain event?

[b][side bar] No, I have honestly never heard anyone say that. I meant the exact phrase. I have heard people say "I am offended", but never "I am staying offended".[/b]

Come one now…. If one never recovers from an “offense”, they can allow that offense to guide their decisions. Would that not be in a sense, “staying offended”? Just like people saying, “let it go bobby, it was 3 years ago not all waitresses are like that.” Wouldn’t that individual in a sense be “staying offended”.

Would be staying offended be any less possible than “staying angry” or “staying negative?”

You seem a bit salty (Pun not intended), extremely defensive and quick with insults. I would elaborate on my first post but Im here for friendly/respectable conversations.

My whole argument is based on the fact that the claim is incorrect.

To claim that if I was ever offended was by choice would be incorrect. Now if i were to allow the emotional state (being offended) to affect my decisions by engaging in an argument etc would be by choice.

A loved one dies, initially you experience a certain emotion. (It would Not be by choice) from there you have the choice to continue to be in said emotional state or bounce between several different emotional states, or choose a specific emotional mindset/state. However, this is all by choice and can be corrected, fixed and even manipulated. Refer hear of CBT?

Again, to claim that every time I have ever been offended was by choice would be incorrect. To further state that I was unhappy because I was offended would be incorrect as well. Emotional reaction versus mindset is extremely different and missing just one weird in the claim allows for such subjectivism.

Have you ever heard of staying offended, you ask? Of course I have, as I'm sure you have as well. I hear people talk about past offenses they have experienceD all the time; which could build into discrimination etc. Right?

Let me structure this differently, to see if I can get you to understand what I'm saying. Staying offended is by choice. Initial emotional responses are not by choice.

One emotion does not necessarily automatically render another specific emotion. IE offended = unhappy.

So, saying being offended is a choice is incorrect. Staying offended would be correct. If being offended was a choice, you could literally never be offended. I'm pretty sure someone somewhere knows how to offend you. If you could control emotions by choice (initially) you and everyone else could live their entire daily lives, happy. Forever, regardless of circumstances.

We must trust our processes but continually tests, challenge and improve our interpretation of reality.

I had to remove what i stated earlier mainly because i completely missed what you said.

I guess I wasn't clear enough, so I'll keep it shorter.

Being offended is not a choice.

We cannot choose to not be offended but we can choose how we react to bring offended.

The original claim was: being offended is a choice that makes us unhappy.

for instance medicine, is based off of current knowledge. With the advancement of technology: theories, laws, and understandings can change and new inventions/possibilities will arise. We should be by now, especially in this century, understand and accept that the things we accept as "truths" might eventually change. To dismiss "science", is.... Impossible. You live science everyday. Of course I didn't read the 3200 word URL, so I might have missed something but I'm just going of off your comment about not believing " take for a grains of salt " science.

Science, for instance medicine, is based off of current knowledge. With the advancement of technology: theories, laws, and understandings can change and new inventions/possibilities will arise. We should be by now, especially in this century, understand and accept that the things we accept as "truths" might eventually change. To dismiss "science", is.... Impossible. You live science everyday. Of course I didn't read the 3200 word URL, so I might have missed something but I'm just going of off your comment about not believing " take for a grains of salt " science.

If that's the case elder abuse and other categories of unlawful acts are not offensive. Denying an emotional tie to a legal definition of a human action, is justifiable how? "The wrongful killing of a human isn't offensive or unbecoming, because that's murder." Obviously, this would be incorrect.

Now back to your original claim. Being offended is a response of emotion to an event, how you respond to this offense is what is in control. Just because you are offended does not necessarily mean you will continually be unhappy. This is were you make an active decision on your response to being offended. Happy, mad, sad, passive, etc.

You cannot control your emotional response (being offended) therefore it is not a choice. However, you can choose how you react to your emotional response. I was offended and it ruined my day or I was offended and didn't jet it bother me.