realitycheckxxx

Slaves could walk away by 'purchasing' themselves. Or by escaping and not getting caught. Or by being freed by masters/authorities for various reasons.

  > "And don't bother to make the argument they can't walk away for economical reasons. It's still a whole different thing."

This is the key thing. Slaves in the past couldn't walk away for economic reasons as well (i.e. many of them couldn't purchase themselves and become free). Also, today, if you're a US citizen, in order to renounce citizenship, you need to have another citizenship, which usually takes many years to get. So, it's very difficult to escape US Taxman, which takes half of your income (i.e you work half of the time for the Taxman).

Slaves today are little bit more free than those in the past. But, not by much. Again, you're nitpicking with the term 'slave'. It's like saying 'cats don't walk', because they don't walk as humans. You don't have to walk as a human to be labeled as 'walking'. Likewise, you don't have to be literally in chains to be labeled a 'slave'. But, people who benefit from slave labor, like the author of the post, don't want the term 'slave' be used, because it would expose him a scumbag.

Yes, that's a great point. It's a vicious cycle.

Not true. Slaves are a cost to the owner, so they get food, accommodation, clothing, transportation paid for by the owner. In modern day, owner doesn't pay for you directly, but does it by giving you the money, so you get yourself all the things slaves used to get directly. You really are nitpicking and not seeing the bigger picture, because it's kinda uncomfortable.

The definition you've offered is an abstract definition, but it's not the one used in experiments and in everyday life.

What these experiments with animals are designed for is to check which animals can do things in a similar way to humans.

Why are ravens intelligent? Is it because they can quickly process information? No, that is not what experiments are checking. They are labelled as intelligent because they can use tools to unlock their food.

Why are dolphins intelligent? Is it because they process complex information quickly? No, it's because they have large brains and exhibit empathy towards humans plus they seem to be able to communicate with each other.

People don't say "Well, that system can process complex information quickly, therefore it's intelligent". Instead, what you'll hear is "WOW, animal X can use tools, can communicate, organize in groups! They are more intelligent that we thought". Using tools or communicating is just one way of processing information. There are many other ways. For example, an animal might not be able to use tools in a cage to unlock their food, but they could be a terrific fighter in the jungle. Fighting in a jungle is a process that demands quick information processing, but those animals are somehow below in intelligence than revens or dogs. That is because people aren't using the definition you've provided.

  > You are correct that the tests we use incorporate human traits. But that's as much because we are mainly testing humans as because we use humans as our reference.

There is no need to incorporate human traits, because you've already defined the term in a good way. Why do you need humans for reference? You have the definition, you can provide measurement for speed (X per second) and you're good to go. You don't use humans to measure acceleration of objects, so why would you use humans to measure intelligence?

Bravo. You can understand that only if you offer an abstract definition of terms like 'computer', 'computation', 'calculation' etc. If you define 'computing' as something these clusters of regular matter we call 'computers' do, then if would exclude animals and other things. But, when you're thinking in abstract terms, then you come to the conclusion that a lot of things in nature are 'computing'.

The same thing could be said about 'intelligence'. Current definitions of intelligence are not abstract definitions(even though the word itself seems like some abstract term, similar to calculation, motion etc.), but rather are labels/descriptions of particular human traits. If a more abstract definition was offered, you would see a lot more things in nature 'becoming' intelligent. So, currently we are in a situation where 'intelligence' is defined in terms of human traits(like being able to speak human language, do human mathematics, drive cars etc), but then at the same time we're looking for intelligent aliens. You can't find 'intelligent' aliens if the term intelligence is defined in such a way to only ever apply to humans. It's really a parlor trick.

This is an expression of human desire to feel special - you don't want to be labeled as a computer or cluster of regular matter - rather you are an 'intelligent' soul(a different substance, not a regular matter) made in the image of the most powerful creature in the universe who happens to love you and care about you.

It is just me or do these startup hubs also happen to be hipster hubs as well? San Francisco, Portland, Austin, Seattle etc.

Twitter popularized those URL shortening services. It is now kinda like Chinese foot binding tradition(making feet shorter to conform to social expectations) - was popular for some time, but then it went away. The same could happen to URL shortening companies out there.

No, no... I didn't write that most people are stupid (where did you read that?). I wrote that there are certain people who, when given the opportunity to study something for free, will pick really bad majors, like sociology, anthropology etc. Then, those people will have a hard time finding productive employment and some of them might even join the bloated public sector and suck even more tax dollars. The existence of those people doesn't benefit society. Also, they will be heavily politically indoctrinated in leftist ideologies(socialism, communism, modern feminism) that promote wealth redistribution. Why is that appealing to sociology/anthropology majors? Because they are incompetent parasites who don't participate in production chain of anything they consume. So, they attach themselves to ideologies that promote wealth distribution from producers to parasites, all disguised as feminism/anti-oppression/progressivism etc.

1. College is not free. It is paid for by parents/grandparents/relatives/friends of the end consumer through very high taxes. It's really a marketing trick - kinda like how these startups call something 'sharing (economy)', when in fact people are trading, not sharing. If the college wasn't labeled "free" and financed through high taxation, then parents/grandparents/relatives/friends would have to pay it anyway if the end consumer wants to go. So, they are paying whether the college is labeled as "free" or not (either through high taxes or directly).

2. The fact that college is labeled as "free", for the end consumer, makes making bad decisions easier. So, you will see a lot of dumb people who are bad at math, physics, computer science, chemistry, trades etc. going to these "free" colleges to study some worthless bullcrap like sociology, psychology, journalism, economics, gender studies, philosophy etc. That way, they will waste a lot of tax dollars and what do taxpayers get in return? Nothing. They get arrogant and entitled dummies who might become socialists/communists/feminists/feel_the_bern and bitch about nonsense and how the world is unfair, when in fact they are the parasites. You'll see some of them becoming 'diversity officers' or government bureaucrats sucking even more tax dollars.