You don't see how stating someone has limited thought capacity is berating. You don't see how being called a dog is berating. And now you're suggesting I see you as my master, wow. You might want to re-evaluate what people would commonly find berating. Go discuss that with others and see what you find out.
> You don't see how stating someone has limited thought capacity is berating.
No. If someone has limited thought capacity, they have limited thought capacity. That is just a fact of life. For someone so concerned about the veracity of data, how can you see a datapoint as being berating?
Granted, the datapoint in this case is only hypothetical (as you would have noticed if you retained the "if"), but such datapoints also do exist in the real data. There absolutely are people in this world with limited thought capacity. That much is not a hypothetical.
> You don't see how being called a dog is berating.
Likened to a dog. But, no. Why?
> You might want to re-evaluate what people would commonly find berating.
I'm sure you've got some great data for me to look at, but my understanding is that people find something berating when they understand a statement as some kind of truth that they don't want to admit to themselves. It is quite obvious that nobody feels berated when an assertion is so outlandish that it couldn't be true. That becomes comedy.
I have no illusions of being anything related to a dog, so if you likened me to — or even straight up called me — a dog, I would not find that berating, no. If you went after my actual insecurities, then sure. I would then. I am certainly not immune to silly human emotion, but silly human emotion does not get triggered by random strings of text.
So, perhaps this is good opportunity to dive into why you feel insecure about your thought capacity and animal shapeliness for these particular strings to activate your emotions. What are your thoughts there?
(And my apologies for finding your insecurities. I would have never guessed those particular things would bother anyone. The things you learn from having a discussion!)
Incredible how you can spend so many words to showcase how you can't possibly imagine people don't like to be called unintelligent dogs.
> but silly human emotion does not get triggered by random strings of text
Once again, seemingly completely divorced from reality. You must live on an entirely different planet far away from actual humans if you think human emotions are usually not affected by strings of text.
> but my understanding is that people find something berating when they understand a statement as some kind of truth that they don't want to admit to themselves
No. Things can be berating even if one knows that statement isn't true about them. But I imagine you know that. If someone calls you a worthless piece of trash its being berating regardless of if you think you are or are not a worthless piece of trash.
> Incredible how you can spend so many words to showcase how you can't possibly imagine people don't like to be called...
Incredible it is, I agree. But that's why I'm here. So that I can learn to imagine such things. Learning has to start somewhere. That's what discussion is all about!
> ...unintelligent dogs.
I am intrigued that you think dogs are unintelligent. The exhibit intelligence as far as I can see. What is the thinking there?
> You must live on an entirely different planet far away from actual humans if you think human emotions are not affected by strings of text.
Strings of text and random strings of text are not one in the same. How did your thought process lead you here?
> I never made the claim. My statement was you effectively called me that through your comments.
I likened your behavior to that of a dog. Nothing said you or dogs are unintelligent. That was first seen in the previous comment – the one written by you.
> Are you suggesting all your words are just random and have no intention or structure or meaning behind them?
The fact that emotions are not triggered by random strings of text does not equate to, or even suggest, an inexistence non-random strings of text. How did you think up that one?
> Truly seems like I've just been talking to a bot this whole time.
Would that make a difference? Discussion doesn't have to be only about learning what a human thinks. What a robot thinks can be just as interesting. Hell, if you can figure out how to communicate with a dog to learn what it thinks, why wouldn't you jump all over that? That would be amazing.
Maybe you just don't like learning? It seems like you don't care for it much based on what you are responding with, but that may be a poor interpretation on my part. What do you think?
