> 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?
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?