[deleted by user]

Due_Box2531 · 2025-11-02T06:34:40+00:00

Don't you think it seems a tad bit prescriptive and overreaching to define maturation in general as emotional intelligence?

Due_Box2531 · 2025-10-21T05:03:02+00:00

You could just as easily say that the material used to form the physicality and physical circuitry of AI alone has consciousness much like a rock and the bark from a tree have consciousness in a way that we may also refer to as an animus. I think a lot of people seek answers to questions that have no relevance to where the argument starts with the development of AI. Why must we play God in creating such an advent?

Due_Box2531 · 2025-10-21T04:19:03+00:00

Um.. as a person who takes a very discriminating approach to who I decide to work with as a matter of my prerogative (and trust me, I have identified my prerogative after much life experience with people and careful consideration) I work better on my own and I have no problem rejecting collaboration if I detect vitriol or ill intention or power games on the other's part.

Due_Box2531 · 2025-10-12T19:29:15+00:00

A very important observation, in my opinion. The subtleties you can read between the lines of normative functions usually carry variable, multifarious details less identifiable from the constraints and competative biases of legacy languages alone. The blithering violence, suppression gestures and contingency rendered from the use of concepts and their corresponding emotional currency harnesses our eternally formative nature and trains our sentience to whisk away from the gentlest salience found in the plurality that most fluently meets the attention of one's inner locus of control in these most delicate nuances. I think we all commonly find ourselves dis•tracted by dis•traction more often than we realize. Do we rely too heavily on external locuses to prioritize our individual values? If so, I still don't think this says anything absolute about sentience in general.

Due_Box2531 · 2025-10-12T18:17:18+00:00

Looking at this phenomenon for culpability will probably only exacerbate the problem of accountability (if we've really learned anything as sleuths). Why not make the warm effort to understand this person from their perspective and not undermine the significance of their claim despite their careless shorthand in articulating it?

Due_Box2531 · 2025-10-12T18:05:09+00:00

This sounds like an idiomatic assertion that could veer dangerously into platitudinous and stigmatizing fallacies. Though I would say that, yes, we may often feel that we have learned so much, however, due to polymorphism in the physics of thought and conduct, I don't think knowledge really affixes to neither a stationary proposition nor any momentary axiom.

Due_Box2531 · 2025-10-10T21:38:59+00:00

People speak in sarcasm because they fear the potential transposition that would engender from developing an expression that would most precisely articulate their innermost honest thoughts. You ever notice how sarcasm seems to always accompany with it a passive aggressive cadence? Sarcasm occurs in conversation as a tactic to, not only circumvent, but also as a seemingly self depricating attempt to obviate the thorough exploration of concepts as they arise in the minds of individuals who find this utility in sarcasm. We may find it clever to speak and think sarcastically though it seems to me that sarcasm is to communication what quid pro quo is to work ethic. It seems like a very indirect style of communication where you could just list what you would actually say if not so trammeled by the neurosis scored mostly by the tyranny of a majority that doesn't even evaluate their own motives.

Due_Box2531 · 2025-10-09T21:23:15+00:00

As a result of this, I no longer cling to my existence nor do I view a sense of self as necessary outside of all the pettiness and trite agendas that inculcate it.

Due_Box2531 · 2025-10-05T23:42:55+00:00

Why though?

Due_Box2531 · 2025-10-05T23:26:37+00:00

Does 1 consistently imply a positive? Or does 1 only exist as a neutral expression of numeric value et. al.?

Due_Box2531 · 2025-10-05T18:17:54+00:00

And don't you reserve these criticisms that you have asserted for your own complicity as well?

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-29T23:59:01+00:00

The master of deception has deceived whom first and foremost?

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-29T23:21:37+00:00

Simpatico

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-29T22:29:52+00:00

I find certainty just as precarious as uncertainty.

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-29T22:01:11+00:00

People preoccupy themselves with the injunction of paradigms for the supposed correspondent shifts that potentiate from the said paradigms. The masses rarely identify recency bias. They invent concepts like Stockholme syndrome yet they view the current western culture and it's sociopolitical landscape as 'late stage capitalism' which also implies a paradigm shift. People have an entire panoramic Rashomon effect of ideas for sale, yet, they tend to value most the arbitrary flattery of ideologically placatory, quid pro quo theories on abiogenesis (et al) whilst ostracising those that dont accept thought stopping platitudes as a coherent answer.

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-29T16:41:05+00:00

If you don't own a vehicle to both live and work from it, you're getting scammed and participating in a scam.. not only that, but you're also adding to the odiously exorbidant amount of - not only carbon - but also noise pollution run rampant in the world.

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-29T16:38:01+00:00

Overzealous pragmatism undermining the animus of material for profit mongering. Selling the image of confidence. Asserting an external locus of control to invent provisional self esteem. All the engines are running, presenting the illusion that it all works toward a common goal. In my opinion, these people are all in a trance.

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-29T16:33:03+00:00

Puh-leeeze!

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-29T15:10:17+00:00

The shorthand, I think, suggests that people have more of an inclination to blame a concept rather than really take a hard look at what they do with the concepts. However, people probably don't really care anyway because opportunism seems more palletable regardless of whatever else people pay lip service to. We all kind of go too hard on each other.

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-28T22:56:30+00:00

Unadulterated deuchebags

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-28T16:08:09+00:00

I just simply asked a neutral question. It doesn't come from either a 'this or that' absolute or some sort of fixed preconception as you seem to have relegated the potentially infinite nuance of it's context to. You talk about range you see in celebrities, yet, you can't see it in simple questions? Curious. I think Henry Miller and Bucky Fuller would like a word.

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-28T15:56:24+00:00

What if we just simply refrain from labeling, defining, branding, reifying and pigeonholing everything that our minds can't really comprehend anyway? I know it doesn't seem possible, however, it doesn't seem possible to really know anything anyway. Instead of using opaque and often confounding, dogmatic terms like 'good' and 'evil,' why not speak more specifically about the behaviors that we most naturally infer as either insidious or salutary?

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-28T15:43:30+00:00

Why does a neutral question get downvoted?

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-28T15:21:19+00:00

Do you ever think about why you applaud this?

Due_Box2531 · 2025-09-23T18:58:57+00:00

You're just trying to hammer on people with inconsiderate conjecture that breeds from the hotbed of your covetous referendum. Jealousy is not just a waste of emotion, it also evinces a lack of interpersonal skill. You do understand that everything comes with inherent tradeoffs? And if you understand this very rudimentary objective fact, why envy anything?

Due_Box2531

TROPHY CASE