Nah not a bully. If someone is acting in a particular way that doesn't really make sense and is kind of embarrassing, and that I can relate to, then amusement is a natural reaction. There is no malice necessary or implied in such a reaction.
> I don't think you're actually amused now. But we both know it's clear your intent on overtly displaying that you feel amusement.
Well you can believe whatever you like since clearly you're disregarding anything I claim, lol.
> Arrogance? You left out the part where I thanked you for leavingv
Because it was drowned out by you arrogantly giving orders.
> Now you want to stay and ignite the conflict even further?
This isn't really a conflict, this is just something interesting. You types of people who need to have the last word, I'm always fascinated how long you will keep it up for. How long until you get bored or give up? Will you still be here replying in a month? It's fascinating.
> I think it's the dominance game at play. You want to play it till you win. The problem is, I'm not playing the game. You're just playing it with yourself.v
Again you can believe what you like, but even if we go with your hypothesis...you are clearly trying to play the 'game', or you wouldn't keep replying.
> I don't hate you. But I do think your a malicious person. I think you're not moral nor a person I would trust ever with anything. But I don't hate you.
That's good. I don't hate you or think you are malicious, just deeply insecure and unable to handle being wrong.
> Im not sure what your implying here as the key sentence. Why don't you stop being vague ish and just spell it out so we can explicitly point by point examine every facet of our arguments.
Why should I have to spell out something for you that is clear? The only reason you don't know what I'm referring to is because you glossed over my comment. Here's a hint: "not enough evidence".
> Yeah. I'm not. But I will respond.
Of course you will. You have no choice.
> Would appreciate it also in your reply if you just stick with your point and not have to overtly display how "amused" or how "fascinated" you are at this whole thing. I already know your intent here so doing that is just repetitive on your part, thank you.
That's up to you. If you make a comment only sticking to the subject and facts, then so too will my reply.
Well, yes and no. It depends on context. You know, nuance.
Like I said, it can be technically logical, but that doesn't mean it is logical in the colloquial sense.
The point made in the article is to refuse a claim that CSS is not logical in the colloquial sense, it is not trying to refute that it is technically logical which is the point you are making.
> Literally by definition anything designed in a computer must follow logic.
Eh, that's not a particularly useful claim. Just because everything that runs on a computer can be expressed in formal logic doesn't mean the process would be logical in the colloquial sense of the term.
> Whether the other side is amused or not is irrelevant. What is clear is that other side is deliberating acting amused
Well, no.
You're saying that whether or not I am actually amused is irrelevant, because you're just deciding/alleging I am acting amused.
I'd say whether or not I was actually amused or not is certainly relevant to your claim that I am only acting amused.
FWIW, I'm amused because I recognize your behavior as that of someone quite young. I acted similar ways 20 years ago and now I think it's just kind of funny to see in other people.
> So what's the intent of acting amused? Of course it's to start a war. It's malicious.
No no no. There is no 'war' except in your mind. Again, I simply called you out for being wrong and spreading misinformation. That's it, and it normally wouldn't be a big deal to most people. But you took it really really personally and decided to go to war over it. And here we are.
> What you're doing is more of a dominance game. You play it well, but unfortunately this isn't the place to play that kind of game. It's not the place to act malicious.
Nah, there is no game, although that you see this as one is an interesting insight. I agree this is not a place to act malicious, which would include trying to claim ownership of threads and ordering people not to reply, of not taking responsibility for perpetuating misinformation and getting angry when called out for doing so, etc.
This is also meant to be a place for high quality intellectual discussion, and you betray that and bring this place down by perpetuating misinfo and linking crappy blog articles and pretending they are legitimate sources.
> You don't call people out by calling what they say a myth.
You were told you were wrong, by someone who clearly knows more on this topic than you do.
What you should have done is investigate and realize you were wrong, instead you felt the need to defend that you are right regardless of if you are or not, and so working backwards from that goal you found some crappy source you thought you could use to try and convince people. It didn't work, and now you're mad and digging your heels in. It's intellectually dishonest and this is not the place for intellectual dishonesty.
> But in addition to that your claim is flat out wrong, your evidence irrelevant and weak as well and you didn't make any effort to prove otherwise.
No sport, I'm absolutely correct. It appears you still didn't bother reading my reply because all you can see is winning/losing/right/wrong, no room for nuance.
There is a key sentence in the reply to the other user that I put effort into (since they were friendly and humble unlike yourself) that addresses that nuance, and I encourage you to re-read it with an open mind and without hate/spite in your heart.
> I offered a scientific paper and you have offered nothing else beyond that. Clearly it's because you have nothing else beyond that.
No, it's because I know I'm confident in what I claim and because you have established yourself as a bad faith actor not interested in determining objective truth only interested in trying to win and avoid being wrong, regardless of what the actual truth is.
It's much more productive, rewarding and fascinating to put effort into correct you in this discussion, it's like a lab experiment or something. How long until you will be able to let it go? Who knows, but we will find out. For science.
> Good. Walk away now. Do not respond.
If it wasn't for this arrogance I may have. But now I'm going to reply to every reply you make just to see how long you stick with it. I'm as curious as I am fascinated.
> These words are stated by you to start a fucking war. Any reasonable person can see this.
Eh. Is it a war if only one side thinks so and is fighting, and the other is amused?
Your other reply was deleted - I wonder what horrible things it said?
> And your counterpoint isn't even charitable.
It was a nuanced reply explaining the current consensus position and why the idea that pigs are smarter than dogs is a myth, but you have overlooked and dismissed it because you are viewing it through a very limited binary of right or wring, winning or losing.
If 'winning' a silly discussion on an internet forum means such a big deal to you, then I think you need to reevaluate your priorities and do some self-reflection.
> You're literally the definition of a malicious person.
Nah. All I did was tell you you're wrong and call you out for it, and then you got all defensive and uppity after claiming you provided a source and continued to, and still continue to falsely claim you are correct. Why? Because ego. Nothing to do with me being 'malicious'.
> Thanks. But you didn't need to say this right? What's the point? Again, malice is literally the only reason.
Highlighting your need to have the last word because you equate it with winning. This behavior/need of yours isn't exactly knew to us who have been around for a while now.
> Either way. Finally you are walking away.
After this reply I sure am :)
You're going to come back and have the last word because you need to. I hope it fills whatever voids or gives you satisfaction enough to distract from whatever issues are bothering you.
I'm going to ask that in the future you do as I originally asked and do a little more research and not perpetuate misinformation. I know you are going to need to respond with some retort so you can gain what you think is ground, something about not being 'malicious' or whatever, and that's fine. Say what you need.
But even if you can't admit to it or want to act dismissive in your reply, I hope you will do what I ask upon reflection - please don't perpetuate misinformation knowing, due to ego or any other reason. It can be very harmful.
I won't be replying again, and would ask you never reply to me again or initiate a discussion with me, as I prefer not to interact with people who act as you do.
This is honesty funny, that you've written this much.
Well, let's get into it!
> Please do not say things like that here. It is "my" thread.
No, it bloody well isn't. The sooner you can accept and understand that, the happier you might be.
It is astounding to me that you don't understand how ridiculous your claim and behavior is in this regard.
> You don't belong here. It's actually against the rules here to be rude and say things without care. You'll actually need to leave this entire forum should you continue.
Again with giving orders that you have no place to give.
> I know you don't care.
Then stop wasting your breath?
> You made a counter claim with zero support.v
You made a bullshit claim with no support at all. You just copypasted the first link you found. That doesn't count as supporting your argument, buddy.
> Then you purported to cite sources
That you thanked me for providing lol. Then you said you don't care enough about the topic to actually look into them. Except now you're in this bizarrely insecure trap of needing to have the last word and not be wrong, so here you are, trying to dispute them.
> since you wanted to go to war on this
I didn't want to go to 'war', lol. It's fascination how you see this interaction. I just called you out for being wrong and not doing any research and perpetuating misinformation, and well, you didn't take that well. You still can't accept it.
> I'd rather have the last word.
Yeah, you've made that clear lol.
> I'm human just like you.
You're also deeply insecure unlike me.
> But you pissed me off enough to make me spend the effort.
Nah. You're still just copying and pasting things without understanding them. The first comment that you previously thanked me for still applies and your paper doesn't dispute anything I've said.
> I'm not even making a pathetic effort to sort of worm my way into being right.v
That's literally all you are doing.
> It's a given that my point is much more obviously the higher supported theory here.v
I mean, tell yourself whatever you need to to avoid taking an L, I guess.
> And you stated you're "I'm open to the possibility that pigs might be smarter than dogs" which is lol. It just shows you couldn't find anything definitive.
Because unlike you I can handle being wrong, but evidence and consensus does not support that point.
> You were being manipulative with your arguments and you know it.
Not remotely.
> Weak sources and a weak thesis as well.
No, my view is the consensus view, actually. Your view is the one perpetuated by people who believe the first thing they read.
> You got upvotes only from people who didn't follow a single one of your sources.
I got upvotes from people who actually read what I wrote and understood the reasoned argument that was made.
> Do you do this kind of thing in real life? Like when you're not sure about something and someone makes a claim about it, you just attack them out of nowhere and demand solid proof when you're wishy washy about it yourself.
When someone is lazy and spreads misinformation I certainly try to gently correct them and if they want to be stubborn, I might try to embarrass them to put them in their place, sure.
> Look man, when I say pigs are smarter then dogs I say it like any human says it.
Not just any humans, but the types of humans who just believe whatever they read first and then defend it because they don't like to be wrong, and then might write long essays of nonsense when if they had just spent 5 minutes of research initially it all could have been avoided.
> The science shows evidence that pigs are smarter.
lol, no, it doesn't. Sigh.
> Tell you what. You may be open to me being right, but I'm not open to you being right
Or to rephrase, you're not open to being wrong. That's been your problem from the start.
> Now throw in your next wall of text and we can continue on this until you run out of things to say because I'm not just right. I'm obviously right.
lol, again, tell yourself whatever you need to avoid feeling like you lost.
> Anyway, the main faux paus here isn't "not doing research" or flawed citations or anything like that. You've done plenty of that despite your hard ass claims to the contrary. The main problem here is you're not acting civil. You're acting rude.
Nah. The only issue that started all this what you adorably think is a 'war', is you perpetuating misinformation and being called out on it. That's it. And I wasn't rude, I was direct, and your ego didn't like that.
> That is Against the rules here and I'm sure if any admin saw you talk this way repeatedly without care you would be banned.
You've honestly been much ruder, barking out order and trying to claim ownership of the thread, which is just sad and ridiculous.
> I admit I am defending my last word now.v
Well you already did earlier, but it was obvious from the start that you were this type of person.
> But prior to this I was not defending my last word.
Sure. Whatever you say.
> If it looks bad, so be it, but I did not act with malice which is contrary to what you did here.
I didn't act with malice I just pointed out you were wrong, that's it.
Anyway. As amusing as this is I don't have the energy for another wall of text so I might make one more reply, maybe, and then I'll let you have the final word so you can feel like you won and this horrible ordeal you are putting yourself through will be over.
> But you're talking shit about me under my thread which my comment is the parent to my face.
So what? I said you were perpetuating a myth and you were. It still not 'your' thread, what kind of childish nonsense is that?
> I've literally told you I don't appreciate your attitude and you're still starting shit.
Because I don't care what you think at all. I was talking to someone else and you decided to insert yourself because of this mistaken belief that it was 'your' thread. Most ridiculous thing I've seen in quite some time.
> I'm not walking from this thread. This topic was started by me so I stand my ground.
This is honestly hilarious. Walk, don't walk, I don't really care. But you have no ownership of the thread or right to tell me to stop replying. Go touch grass.
> Common courtesy is not to run your mouth on the Internet because your shielded by anonymity.
I made valid criticisms. You made a claim, only lazily supported it with a low quality tabloid article, defended perpetuating a false claim and refused to change your stance after I attempted to educate you. That makes you willfully ignorant, and I have no time for you. I will keep replying to you until this conversation runs its course though due to nothing else than curiosity.
> Treat the situation like real life.
In real life I'd ask you not to perpetuate myths or spread misinformation, and call you out if you tried to defend doing so with a crappy blog article as your source.
> You can choose to be an ass and continue acting rude by not walking away. That's your right.
And you can continue coming back trying to claim ownership of the thread and needing to have the last word because I called you out for laziness and intellectual dishonesty.
> But just imagine what that would entail if you did that in real life.
The same result? You complaining and being upset I dared to call you out?
> This thread getting flagged already is a big indicator that you crossed the line.
Actually the comments where I correct you and call you out are upvoted and not flagged at all.
I haven't crossed a line. I told you you were wrong, dismissed your low quality source, asked you to stop perpetuating misinformation, and then in response to someone else provided sources to show just why you were wrong and perpetuating misinformation.
You then tried to claim ownership of the thread and order me to not comment any further which is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen on HN.
Look. You can admit you were wrong and that you were perpetuating misinformation and just move on, or you can keep needing to have the last word and coming back and trying to defend your behavior be talking about how 'rude' I was, but the more you do the latter, the worse it reflects on you.
> Thank you for posting sources, you should have done this in the beginning.
It wasn't for you. Instead of saying I should have done that in the beginning, really, you should have done so since you made the claim, and you should have done the bare minimum research to realize your claim was bullshit and not perpetuate it.
> Unfortunately I don't like your attitude nor do I care about this topic enough to follow through. No offense.
> As a result I will not be following your sources and I will be ending this conversation. Thanks again.
That's fine. I don't really care about any of that. Instead I will just ask that you try to do better in the future and not perpetuate misinformation due to laziness.
> One source has been posted thus far, and it contradicts what you've said.
That source is hardly credible now, is it? As far as I'm concerned I'm treating it with the respect it warrants.
> Low-quality sources, but again, it's currently low-quality vs no-quality.
The key is, as you say, low quality sources. It's a bunch of corporate blog posts trying to get clicks perpetuating a myth, just as corethree is so proud of doing.
> It's (IMO) somewhat rude to demand compliance without supporting your position.
I can see that. But, if we agree that an onus is on those who make a claim to support it, I don't think we should consider copying and pasting whatever link comes up first from a google search as supporting it.
The real issue here is that it doesn't particularly make sense to directly compare pigs and dogs like this at all. They have different kinds of intelligence, both of which are still being studying, and both stronger in areas where the other might be weaker or not have a showing at all.
That's why I'm not just providing a single source - because there isn't one, not that wouldn't be as low quality as what corethree provided making me a hypocrite. It's a complex issue that requires explanation and citations from multiple papers, and I didn't see corethree's post as being worthy of the effort that would be required in such a reply.
I will make the final notes that as far as I know we don't have evidence of pigs being self-aware while we do with dogs [0] and no pig has ever accomplished anything even close to what some of the world's smartest dogs have been able to [1][2].
I'm open to the possibility that pigs might be smarter than dogs, but I've seen no compelling evidence to support that claim at all. Just gullible people perpetuating the first thing they read.
Pigs are not more intelligent than dogs. That's flat out misinformation, and you are propagating misinformation, i.e. spreading a myth every time you repeat that false information.
I don't think I'm being rude, although I don't have a lot of patient for people that willfully spread misinformation.
Maybe, just maybe, do some more research other than believing what the first link in your Google search results brings up.
Yes, in the past. It's perfectly relevant. The definition redirects to wisdom and sagacity. I'm going to quote from the wiki entry[] on wisdom to demonstrate why the definition is precisely apt.
> Wisdom, sapience, or sagacity is the ability to contemplate and act productively using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight.
These are generally the traits we find correlated to animals that we consider to be sapient, self-aware and capable of metacognition, e.g. elephants, chimps, crows, parrots, etc.
> The question the turning test was posed to solve is when does a sufficiently smart computer become sapient.
Yes, but it's a test for humans to interpret and judge. What kind of nonsense is it to think it should be used for an animal? A possibly sentient computer is going to be programmed to communicate in one of the human languages for obvious reasons, and animals don't have that luxury. I can't see why you would think a Turing test would be relevant to a discussion of animal sapience at all.
> What on earth is your "standard" definition of sapience?