Sociopath Community

ThenFuckit stated: source post

If 1 in 100 adults is great, then the chances of a random kid to become great is X= 1%. If you choose a random adult from the crowd, the chance of them being great is X=1%.

Yes i do not disagree with this. But i never talked about if an adult is gonna be a great person, or if an adult can become a great person. Those are different values and every value adds to the overall value of a person. The chance to be a great person is a fixed value. The chance to become a great person is a value that changes as you age. On average it decreases.

I can't put it to you more clearly than Inky. WTF does estimated potential matter at all? WTF does your estimate potential of a child matter if you KNOW it's going to drop later?

All this discussion was about future chances vs present chances, which are in value exactly the same. Rather seeing an adult die than a kid, you would sacrifice a potentially present "great/genius" person for a potentially "future great/genius" person, that's all. I disagree that that's in any way logical.

Children are important and we are wired to protect them and value them for one reason: they are the future of our species. The only merit they have, is that they will outlive us. That is ALL that matters on a natural scale. Perpetuation of the species.

Inquirer stated: source post

Yes, the known potential changes. But we don't care about that because we're picking out kids (and adults) at random. If the end result is that you get an average adult either way, then the kid's development and known potential is irrelevant.

Your way of thinking would make sense if we valued kids based on their known potential but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing valuing children as a group more than adults, and the known potential of that group is 'average'. Just as it is for the adults. They cancel each other out.

An entire group of children, on average, has less known potential, therefor a higher % chance to be a great person, then an entire group of adults has.
Because each average child adds to the average group of children and each average child creates the entire group, and each child has a higher % chance to be a great person then one average adult, and each average adult adds to the average group of adults.

Edvard stated: source post

I can't put it to you more clearly than Inky. WTF does estimated potential matter at all. WTF does your estimate potential of a child matter if you KNOW it's going to drop later?

How do you know this? You know it may happen and you know there is a high % that it will. But you do not know it will for sure.

All this discussion was about future chances vs present chances, which are in value exactly the same. Rather seeing an adult die than a kid, you would sacrifice a potentially present "great/genius" person for a potentially "future great/genius" person, that's all.

A child has more potential to become a genius then there is a chance that an adult already is one. Because even geniuses have lost some of their opportunities, because its very likely that even a genius would of lost some of the opportunities that he had when he was a kid. His kid self was less of an already genius, bu had more potential to become a genius. However an already genius is more valuable then a potential genius, just clarifying.

Children are important and we are wired to protect them and value them for one reason: they are the future of our species. The only merit they have, is that they will outlive us. That is ALL that matters on a natural scale. Perpetuation of the species.

Yes, this is true. 

Where did you get this stuff?  Oh yea... Your head... 4 or 5 months?  Lol...  Try 1800+ posts in about... 3 years or so... I am one of the originals that came over from nabble... Remember?

Histrionics doesn't fit... But nice try... Did you look that up on the Internet, dear... Good job... Don't try and diagnos...

Friends... Hmmm... I don't really have those... I suspect you don't either... Not really...

And... by your standard... The time you spend here dwarfs the amount I spend here... That might make you... An Uber Loser...

Virus stated: source post

Your whole argument is based on ifs...

My original argument was that rational beings should primarily look at the suffering itself and not stare themselves blind on whether the victim is a child, adult or animal. I've found that a lot of people do this.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USAand your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

ThenFuckit stated: source post

 However an already genius is more valuable then a potential genius, just clarifying.

If I got you to admit that, then I won the argument. The probability of a random kid being a future genius is THE SAME as the probability of a random adult being a genius, which is what I have been saying, Inky has been saying, and you even agreed with. Which means, it makes more sense to value the adult more than the kid.

l0l you didnt really figure out it was a copypasta did you bby

ThenFuckit stated: source post

 

Edvard stated: source post

I can't put it to you more clearly than Inky. WTF does estimated potential matter at all. WTF does your estimate potential of a child matter if you KNOW it's going to drop later?

How do you know this? You know it may happen and you know there is a high % that it will. But you do not know it will for sure.

To clarify:

You can know that a large % of the group will not be great people. And you can know that the same % will be true for adults.
But there is a large % of children that have the chance to be great. There is a smaller % of adults that have the chance to be great. Because the same amount of adults have less time to prove they are special and have wasted more of their time to make themselves special.

Ffs, no, the chance of a kid ending up great is NOT bigger than a present adult of already being great. That chance is pretty much set in stone and ALL that matters/is relevant to the discussion. A kid is as likely to be a future genius as an adult is likely to be a genius. Since you said that potential < real the discussion should have ended by now... We're just going in circles at this point so I'll drop it.

ThenFuckit stated: source post

Inquirer stated: source post

Your way of thinking would make sense if we valued kids based on their known potential but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing valuing children as a group more than adults, and the known potential of that group is 'average'. Just as it is for the adults. They cancel each other out.

An entire group of children, on average, has less known potential, therefor a higher % chance to be a great person, then an entire group of adults has.
Because each average child adds to the average group of children and each average child creates the entire group, and each child has a higher % chance to be a great person then one average adult, and each average adult adds to the average group of adults.

The known potential for a group of children (taken as an average) is the same as the discovered potential of the group of adults (taken as an average). You don't know the individual kid's potential (hidden value) but that is irrelevant.

Do you agree that on average the kid you randomly pick out will turn out to be 'identical' to the adult you picked out? If you do then how can you say that a kid is more valuable?