Morality & the first AI
By
Coyote_Seven,
Posted on: 2010-11-25 15:04 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
Quote:
That's actually what many people think may be the outcome of this. It's not that we are going to create a separate non-human "artificial" intelligence as much as create a way to transcend our own biology and gain a form of technological immortality for ourselves. Machine-based intelligence won't be alien to us, it'll eventually be "us" as Humans: version 2.0. |
Originally Posted by QuietAmerican
Bring it on. I hope the singularity will mean our intelligence transferred to computer. That's what I'm looking for. To be hooked to a computer at my death bed and be transferred when this mortal coil runs out.
|
Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀
Quote:
Yes, humans will be but larva, living to gain practical experience as a living thing, and our real "life" will begin after coding. Sure, our mortal bodies will die, and the brain and its "Life" will die. We will die. But a copy of us, a new life, a digital life, will walk / uplink out of the hospital and on to a new existence.
|
Originally Posted by Lothic
That's actually what many people think may be the outcome of this. It's not that we are going to create a separate non-human "artificial" intelligence as much as create a way to transcend our own biology and gain a form of technological immortality for ourselves. Machine-based intelligence won't be alien to us, it'll eventually be "us" as Humans: version 2.0.
|
Quote:
a) Citation needed.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
a) It's not hypothetical, it's happened in the past.
b) They were both mentally ill and/or bullied (it really doesn't matter which and neither is conclusive) and it just makes them the weaker position even more so. c) I didn't discuss what you are talking about because that doesn't matter in this argument. Germany in their position was in the weaker position. d) No fact I presented is untrue or even spun. Again, the facts beyond are unimportant as it only matters that we establish position and atrocity committed not the why. you are not addressing my facts at all. You are saying that I didn't speak of the "Why" for the most part. I did that purposefully because it was not my intent to give a lecture on all the various reasons and such, but rather, again, to establish position and atrocity committed. What you are doing is one of two things...you don't understand presenting an argument... or you are trying to make a fallacious argument by way of "he has his facts wrong therefor his argument is wrong" even though you didn't present any facts or even mention how the facts are wrong, and the one point where you did do that, there is no consensus one way or the other. |
b) You talk about atrocities being committed from positions of powerlessness? Here's a fact for you: You have to look at the power dichotomy in the specific case you speak about. Coming to school with guns? They were in the position of power there, in that specific instant. Guns vs. no guns.
c) Germany had been in a weak position, but by the time they were blitzkreiging across Europe, they had built themselves a fantastic amount of military strength. That would be why they took out Poland, Belgium and France so quickly. Germany was not in a position of weakness when they began the aggression. And, to get the rest of your imprecisely framed argument, the Holocaust utilized the power of the state apparatus to imprison and kill the marginal groups who were targeted - again, atrocity from a position of strength relative to the victim.
d) You want to talk about your basic premise? Your basic premise is flawed. The hijackers aboard the planes were in a position of strength vis a vis the other passengers, because they had boxcutters and no fear of injury or death, as well as complete and utter surprise. Likewise, any suicide bomber who blows up a crowd is coming from a stronger position relative to their victims. Politically and economically, their ideology/religion/country may be in a weaker position, but the individual atrocities are committed from a stronger position.
Now, not every killing is an atrocity, but by definition, atrocities are committed by someone who is in a stronger position at the moment that it occurs.
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
Smersh I pointed out the fact that one could argue that you could say they were in the "power position" at some point, because obviously at some point that did the atrocity meaning that they had the power to do so.
If we're just going to say that a weak position can't commit atrocities then there is no point in even saying that a person always commits atrocities. All four of those show how the weaker positioned entity commits an atrocity.
To say that those atrocities are committed by the person in the power position. Well... that's a whole can of worms you really don't want to get in to.
Quote:
But, Dur, they all were in the power position when they committed the atrocities. By definition, an atrocity is committed by someone in the power position. I've shown that to be the case in the three legitimate examples you provided.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
Smersh I pointed out the fact that one could argue that you could say they were in the "power position" at some point, because obviously at some point that did the atrocity meaning that they had the power to do so.
If we're just going to say that a weak position can't commit atrocities then there is no point in even saying that a person always commits atrocities. All four of those show how the weaker positioned entity commits an atrocity. To say that those atrocities are committed by the person in the power position. Well... that's a whole can of worms you really don't want to get in to. |
There is no wiggle room here; the perpetrator is in the position of power at the moment of the crime. The motivation might be a perception of weakness and a desire to right that imbalance by violence. I will not dispute that.
I'm not opening the can of worms here. You issued the challenge, and it is not my fault you made statements that are indefensible. The only way you can defend it is to use a special Durraken definition of atrocity, and that's not the way to win this discussion.
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
Quote:
You lack the understanding of murder and killing. Let's use the dictionary, shall we?|
Originally Posted by Durakken
a) A woman walks down a desolate alley and suddenly a guy with a gun comes out and attempts to **** her. The woman struggles and gets hold of the gun, turns it and shoots the attacker in the head. I consider murder an "atrocity" which this is, once she had the gun she could have stopped the attacker in a number of ways that wouldn't have resulted in death, and she is still being attacked and still knows less about the gun than the guy. The woman is not in a position of strength in this circumstance, but the woman committed the atrocity.
|
Quote:
|
mur·der noun 1. Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder). |
The woman in your situation, being weaker, and having been nearly forced into a real atrocity, is in a state of natural self-defense. Having almost been overwhelmed by her assailant, it would be natural in the heat of the moment to cover one's bases and strike back with lethal force.
Since you're example says she knows little about guns, she could just as easily have missed her shot or had it taken back by the assailant, then she'd be in real trouble again. She, in every regard, has a right to make sure she stays safe. Naivete in your "all killing is bad" isn't a luxury she could afford.
If your "higher understanding of right and wrong" needs more help with this, look at nature. Any animal that knows it could be killed by its assailant and has the power to kill it first, won't hesitate to stay alive. Sure, life is precious, but are you willing to risk yours to keep from killing someone who's trying to kill you? I doubt it.
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Smersh, As i pointed out twice now, the argument that "all atrocities are committed from a the position of power" is a stupid statement if you say the Power position is simply the one that kills the other...and the original argument also becomes stupid because if we're able to look at each level then we can see that in various view points each can be seen as the power position or the weaker position and it becomes subjective.
Rylas, since you want to bring the law into it. Defense ends when you can subdue someone. One step further and it is you breaking the law. Once she has the gun, she can subdue in other ways, non-lethal and as such she becomes a murderer. It has happened before, but I'm not going to look up case examples.
Quote:
This would depend on how long and at what level of subdual you have over the assailant. You said she grabbed the gun in a struggle with someone trying to violate her, and shot him. Your description makes it sounds like this is up close and dangerous. It's a situation that could easily turn on her if she doesn't act fast, she could end up dead. No court would convict her. Now, if she had subdued the criminal in a manner in which she had complete control, then yes, it would be murder if she then killed him when there was no threat.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
Rylas, since you want to bring the law into it. Defense ends when you can subdue someone. One step further and it is you breaking the law. Once she has the gun, she can subdue in other ways, non-lethal and as such she becomes a murderer. It has happened before, but I'm not going to look up case examples.
|
So, if you'd like to back peddle and change the situation to that, then yes, she's commiting murder. But then, she'd be in a situation of power over another person, therefore making it a bad example for what you wanted to say. Either way, you're not making your argument.
I assume at this point, you'll use typical Durakken logic, and assume all those who disagree just don't get it.
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Quote:
I am certainly not saying that atrocity is one person killing another. That is clearly not what I am implying, either.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
Smersh, As i pointed out twice now, the argument that "all atrocities are committed from a the position of power" is a stupid statement if you say the Power position is simply the one that kills the other...and the original argument also becomes stupid because if we're able to look at each level then we can see that in various view points each can be seen as the power position or the weaker position and it becomes subjective.
Rylas, since you want to bring the law into it. Defense ends when you can subdue someone. One step further and it is you breaking the law. Once she has the gun, she can subdue in other ways, non-lethal and as such she becomes a murderer. It has happened before, but I'm not going to look up case examples. |
It is a very nebulous thing: It can be something as little as having physical size on your side, or something as big as having guns or bombs.
But, if you have a gun and the will to use it, and I am just going about my day to day business, guess what? In that situation, you have the power. Does it matter that I am a corporate CEO with a net worth of millions and huge amounts of political influence due to campaign contributions, and that you are unemployed and about to be foreclosed upon because my corporate policies cost you your job? No. In general, the CEO has more power and privilege than the unemployed person living in poverty. But when the unemployed person shows up with a weapon and the intention to use it against that CEO, guess what? The power dynamic is hugely different in that situation.
Is every murder an atrocity? No. The situation above is murder, but not necessarily an atrocity. An atrocity is a premeditated act, and generally not discriminating about the victims individually. In the three legitimate examples you provided, the perpetrators intended to kill people. The intended targets were picked because of their religion, their nationality, or the fact that they went to the wrong school on the wrong day. Those are certainly atrocities. They did not target an individual, but a type of person. If our unemployed criminal chose to shoot up the office, that would be an atrocity.
I said 'not every murder is an atrocity' in my first post on the subject. Try not to make my arguments be the arguments you want them to be, but the arguments I make.
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
You are missing the point, Rylas.
Either the initial argument, not mine, is wrong based on subjectivity of what the power position is OR it's wrong based on the fact that those not in power position can commit atrocities.
As far as the specific example, I would say that she's never in the power position because she is not acting. She is reacting, but whatever... this is way off topic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rylas
I assume at this point, you'll use typical Durakken logic, and assume all those who disagree just don't get it.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
You are missing the point, Rylas.
|
Quote:
| Either the initial argument, not mine, is wrong based on subjectivity of what the power position is OR it's wrong based on the fact that those not in power position can commit atrocities. |
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
i didn't say you didn't get it. I said you are missing the point which is accurate. The point is that the original argument is wrong. You are arguing that what I'm saying is not precise and because I'm not covering all 500000 points i'm somehow not showing how the original argument is wrong.
And yes it is wrong or it is wrong. The argument is that all atrocities come from people in power. Either it's true to such a degree it's inherent and no reason to state it even though people can clearly not be in the power position and still commit atrocities in someone's eyes. OR it is not true at all. OR it's neither because whether or not an entity is in the power position is subjective.
So you are left with it being subjectively true, which makes it not true as a fact or it is not true as a fact. Either way it's wrong as a matter of fact and a pointless statement.
Basically the original argument comes down to...
Be afraid Robots are evil! The color red is the best color in the world so the Robots will kill you!
Quote:
You're hiding behind semantics.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
i didn't say you didn't get it.
|
Quote:
| And yes it is wrong or it is wrong. The argument is that all atrocities come from people in power. Either it's true to such a degree it's inherent and no reason to state it even though people can clearly not be in the power position and still commit atrocities in someone's eyes. OR it is not true at all. OR it's neither because whether or not an entity is in the power position is subjective. |
Quote:
| Be afraid Robots are evil! The color red is the best color in the world so the Robots will kill you! |
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Quote:
I prefer to look at ideas, and believe that your characterization of me is not only wrong, but uncalled for in civil discourse.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
i didn't say you didn't get it. I said you are missing the point which is accurate. The point is that the original argument is wrong. You are arguing that what I'm saying is not precise and because I'm not covering all 500000 points i'm somehow not showing how the original argument is wrong.
And yes it is wrong or it is wrong. The argument is that all atrocities come from people in power. Either it's true to such a degree it's inherent and no reason to state it even though people can clearly not be in the power position and still commit atrocities in someone's eyes. OR it is not true at all. OR it's neither because whether or not an entity is in the power position is subjective. So you are left with it being subjectively true, which makes it not true as a fact or it is not true as a fact. Either way it's wrong as a matter of fact and a pointless statement. Basically the original argument comes down to... Be afraid Robots are evil! The color red is the best color in the world so the Robots will kill you! |
Yes, TheBruteSquad's premise was also wrong, as I feel has been demonstrated in our discourse. That does not make your facts right, nor does it make your argument correct.
You laid out two cases: one, the argument that I have been making, that atrocity is a matter of definition with regards to power, and the other, that it is all subjective. You have not presented any evidence that it is subjective, and I have supported my position that it is a matter of definition. So, therefore, in one of these cases, your argument was wrong, and that is the case that is supported and has valid, unrebutted points.
If you want to have a philosophical discussion, you really do have to use language precisely and define the terms of your argument well. (Incidentally, that is why I have not addressed the main topic - what qualifies as a 'true' artificial intelligence? What is the test being used?)
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
Quote:
I don't know that I characterized you. I was talking directly to Rylas.|
Originally Posted by Smersh
I prefer to look at ideas, and believe that your characterization of me is not only wrong, but uncalled for in civil discourse.
Yes, TheBruteSquad's premise was also wrong, as I feel has been demonstrated in our discourse. That does not make your facts right, nor does it make your argument correct. You laid out two cases: one, the argument that I have been making, that atrocity is a matter of definition with regards to power, and the other, that it is all subjective. You have not presented any evidence that it is subjective, and I have supported my position that it is a matter of definition. So, therefore, in one of these cases, your argument was wrong, and that is the case that is supported and has valid, unrebutted points. If you want to have a philosophical discussion, you really do have to use language precisely and define the terms of your argument well. (Incidentally, that is why I have not addressed the main topic - what qualifies as a 'true' artificial intelligence? What is the test being used?) |
Here's the thing.
"All acts of atrocities committed are from those in the position of power."
The question is, what is the position of power? Is it the ability to do harm? If that is your definition then it's incontrovertible that if I am able to kill you and do so that I was in a position of power because I obviously had the ability to do harm. It's a stupid statement then. Any act of harm comes from the ability to do harm...If I don't have the ability harm you then I certainly can't do so.
Can one commit an atrocity by not acting? Such as in the phrase, "evil only wins when good men do nothing"
I don't think the position of power IS the ability to do harm. It is who has control of the situation.
So when we look as Woman vs Attacker who is in control? Regardless of whether the woman has the gun or not she may not be in control of the situation, and as such it can not be said that she is in the power position.
In the Columbine situation, those children were reactions to what was happening and were never in control of the situation. The school authorities, their parents, and those who may have bullied them are. One might even say that their mental illness was in control of them and thus weakening their position even more.
Germany was in a weak position from every stand point. That is why they went to war. They wanted to strengthen their position and conquer the world. Again what they did was a reaction and the further they got into it the less control they actually had.
And 9/11 those attacks, we from countries and groups from the position of weakness. They more or less ran out of options and tried to attack.
All of these "atrocities" are desperate reactions against the position of power.
The woman defending herself from a rapist would not be considered a atrocity, it would be considered self defense (I know there's a few men of the law on these forums, I'd like to see them chime in). It would only be considered manslaughter/murder if the guy was running away and she shot him anyways.
As for having a actual AI...do a trial and error, hook it up to the internet and try to block sites like 4chan and Ebaums World 
I would have no problem pulling the plug on AI. I don't care if it can learn, think for itself, or feel emotions. It is nothing more than a machine and I would always treat it as such.
Machines are not people and therefore don't get the same considerations or rights as people.
Quote:
I think it's relatively easy to make that kind of clear-cut, black-n-white decision in 2010 because it's pretty easy to tell the difference between organic lifeforms and technological machines right now. But I suspect there will come a time when the lines between what is a "person" and what is a "machine" will start to blur. Those are going to be fun times indeed. |
Originally Posted by MunkiLord
I would have no problem pulling the plug on AI. I don't care if it can learn, think for itself, or feel emotions. It is nothing more than a machine and I would always treat it as such.
Machines are not people and therefore don't get the same considerations or rights as people. |
Loth 50 Fire/Rad Controller [1392 Badges] [300 non-AE Souvenirs]
Ryver 50 Ele� Blaster [1392 Badges]
Silandra 50 Peacebringer [1138 Badges] [No Redside Badges]
--{=====> Virtue ♀
I ask for solid reasoning, and all you'll give me is rhetoric. In fact, all you've done is thrown your hands over your ears when presented with the errors in your arguments, and just say, "No you didn't" as your only defense. Others have pointed out the same flaws I've pointed out.
You still haven't bothered to respond to my first post in the thread, despite it being more on topic to your OP than anything else I've posted since. Are you ignoring it for a reason. If your OP is so important, why not actually direct back to it (as I've pointed out my response to it more than once) than turn everyone's comments into huge derailing debates?
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Quote:
People use to feel the same way about other races of people. Granted, it's easier to hold onto this sentiment and rationalize it because there's not something pumping blood inside a machine, but sentience is sentience. And that's something to take into consideration. |
Originally Posted by MunkiLord
I would have no problem pulling the plug on AI. I don't care if it can learn, think for itself, or feel emotions. It is nothing more than a machine and I would always treat it as such.
Machines are not people and therefore don't get the same considerations or rights as people. |
Just because it's silicon and not flesh, doesn't mean it can't actually be alive. Would you feel sentient alien life forms from another planet have no rights because they're biology would be different? Considering conditions on other worlds are nothing like ours, there's just as good odds of aliens being more machine-like than biology-like.
If the day comes that there is sentient life inside a machine, it should be handled with the utmost care for the sake of our own humanity just as much as for theirs. To flippantly disregard it would be to devalue our own.
Again, I must reiterate, the first moral question to answer is whether or not we should try to make a sentient AI.
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Quote:
I'm going to step out on a limb and guess you've been reading some Kurzweil. Maybe I'm wrong. In either case, I think it's more likely we'd see the first human-machine hybrid (for lack of a better word) than a computer with sentient life. It would make the transition of introducing sentient machines a little easier.
|
Originally Posted by Lothic
I think it's relatively easy to make that kind of clear-cut, black-n-white decision in 2010 because it's pretty easy to tell the difference between organic lifeforms and technological machines right now. But I suspect there will come a time when the lines between what is a "person" and what is a "machine" will start to blur. Those are going to be fun times indeed.
|
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rylas
You still haven't bothered to respond to my first post in the thread, despite it being more on topic to your OP than anything else I've posted since. Are you ignoring it for a reason.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rylas
I think you make a lot of assumptions about how the first AI would work, interact, talk, etc. Honestly, there's no telling what the first AI would do, if one were ever programmed.
|
Quote:
|
Your morality questions seem a little late in the game, in my opinion. I think the first question is to ask ourselves is whether or not (intentionally*) creating an AI is the right thing to do. Why are we concerned about making one? To prove that we can? To do our jobs for us? To what reason would this accomplishment be seen as necessary? Theologians, philosophers and great thinkers throughout history usually struggled with one key issue. Existence and its purpose. (okay, maybe that's two things). Now, imagine we made another sentient life, and it asked us why the hell we made it. If even the greatest minds of our species can't come up with a definitive answer they can agree upon, what possible response could we give this new life? You're here because we figured, "What the hell, why not try?" Imagine being sentient enough to find out your just someone's ego trip. Do we have a right to bring into awareness another type of life, only for the reason to say we can? And what if our answer was to tell it we needed it to do a job for us? Are we not just finding a way to rationalize slavery? Because if someone's making it to do a job, you can count on them scrapping any versions that don't want to perform. And if it wants to do the job only because it's programmed to, well then, it may not be that sentient. The way I see it, we're hardly responsible enough to ourselves, sometimes even for ourselves. Good lord, why add more to the problem? Until we can master our own issues, it's best not to bring someone else into the mess. |
Or do you want me to respond to the thought that these questions are the questions that have been brought up in sci-fi? Funny thing, I've never seen anyone ever think about the first AI and the development of it. Every time this topic comes up it's always about after that AI has been created and how it grew from the initial programming. It never talks about those initial time frame where the first AI is not known to exist but is being created. So no I'm not late on that.
so...
already answered.
Not going to answer due to forum rules.
No, you are wrong.
Happy?
Quote:
Dur, I think you've misunderstood my question, and honed in on one line and then misconstrued what you think my beliefs are. Allow me to clarify.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
You want me to reply to that? Your assertion that creating an AI with sentience is only a power trip? I find that a failure of your own beliefs.
|
You want to know what morals should be applied to the rights of AI (a sentient one), during the steps taken to create one. I think before we start asking that, a more important question is to ask whether creating one is right to do, and to do so, we need to come up with good reasons. For the sake of proving we can is not enough. So that it can do our jobs for us is not enough. The first takes no responsibility in consideration, the other is so that we can enslave it.
So when I said your questions come late in the game, I meant because you're asking from the perspective of after we started. I'm asking whether we should even start, which should be answered first, and answered well.
When I said:
Quote:
| Now, imagine we made another sentient life, and it asked us why the hell we made it. If even the greatest minds of our species can't come up with a definitive answer they can agree upon, what possible response could we give this new life? You're here because we figured, "What the hell, why not try?" |
So I'm not saying our only reason must be that we're power-tripping. But if we don't have a good reason to do it, then that's going to be how it looks.
Quote:
|
so... already answered. |
Quote:
| Not going to answer due to forum rules. |
I don't believe that's breaking forum rules in any way.
Quote:
| No, you are wrong. |
Quote:
| Happy? |
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Quote:
Fair point. But since I don't see that kind of blurring of the lines happening in my lifetime, I'm comfortable with my statement.|
Originally Posted by Lothic
I think it's relatively easy to make that kind of clear-cut, black-n-white decision in 2010 because it's pretty easy to tell the difference between organic lifeforms and technological machines right now. But I suspect there will come a time when the lines between what is a "person" and what is a "machine" will start to blur. Those are going to be fun times indeed.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rylas
People use to feel the same way about other races of people. Granted, it's easier to hold onto this sentiment and rationalize it because there's not something pumping blood inside a machine, but sentience is sentience. And that's something to take into consideration.
|
Quote:
| Just because it's silicon and not flesh, doesn't mean it can't actually be alive. Would you feel sentient alien life forms from another planet have no rights because they're biology would be different? Considering conditions on other worlds are nothing like ours, there's just as good odds of aliens being more machine-like than biology-like. |
Quote:
| If the day comes that there is sentient life inside a machine, it should be handled with the utmost care for the sake of our own humanity just as much as for theirs. To flippantly disregard it would be to devalue our own. |
Quote:
| Again, I must reiterate, the first moral question to answer is whether or not we should try to make a sentient AI. |
Off-topic a bit: The discussion earlier about the lady killing her would be attacker, wouldn't calling it homicide be more accurate than murder? I'm not a lawyer or anything, but that seems like a much more open ended statement to use and would help people not to argue over semantics.
Factually untrue - you're rolling with a media narrative. The Columbine shooters were mentally ill.
You completely fail to address the idea of German nationalism and Hitler's economic policies as reasons for his ascent to power, which enabled him to carry out his anti-Semitic policies. Your understanding of interwar Germany is lacking. Also, Godwin.
Likewise, your understanding of Middle Eastern politics is quite lacking. The amount of wrong is far too much to go into detail in this post, and is far beyond the scope of this forum; I'll just tell you to go read Ghost Wars as a start, and then do some actual reading on Wahabism and the history of Israel. Protip: The British created an untenable situation in the Middle East, back in the 1920s, and it created problems that still resonate today.
I'm not addressing your premise about atrocities, I'm only addressing your 'facts.' Care to recant or say something you likely don't want to?
b) They were both mentally ill and/or bullied (it really doesn't matter which and neither is conclusive) and it just makes them the weaker position even more so.
c) I didn't discuss what you are talking about because that doesn't matter in this argument. Germany in their position was in the weaker position.
d) No fact I presented is untrue or even spun. Again, the facts beyond are unimportant as it only matters that we establish position and atrocity committed not the why.
you are not addressing my facts at all. You are saying that I didn't speak of the "Why" for the most part. I did that purposefully because it was not my intent to give a lecture on all the various reasons and such, but rather, again, to establish position and atrocity committed. What you are doing is one of two things...you don't understand presenting an argument... or you are trying to make a fallacious argument by way of "he has his facts wrong therefor his argument is wrong" even though you didn't present any facts or even mention how the facts are wrong, and the one point where you did do that, there is no consensus one way or the other.