Posted on 19 February 2017 - 10:23 AM

It's to feel better about themselves. When they point out the flaws in others they take the attention off of their own. They want to bring people down to make themselves higher. It's also about a sense of control. Once they realize that they can make people feel as low as they do, they sort of feed off of it. It's a coping mechanism, no, not a healthy one. But it makes them not feel as insignificant. I find that a lot of "bullies" have had little control in their life and/or have rude or controlling parents. Since they have no control and are belittled by their family, the only time they feel worthy is when they make others feel worse. It's kind of sad, but it starts a viscous cycle where hate only breeds more hate. Most bullies don't actually think they're better than everyone, it's that they are so insecure and feel so small that they try much harder than needed to assume some sort of dominance. A lot of bullies deal with a lot of self hatred and end up taking it out on others.
Rankism is an assertion of superiority. It typically takes the form of putting others down. It's what "Somebodies" do to "nobodies." Or, more precisely, it is what people who think they're Somebodies do to people they take for nobodies.

It turns out that rankism is the source of most man-made suffering. So, if we could get rid of it, we would be a lot happier. Let me explain.

Before you conclude that rankism is human nature-that we're like the apes, and they do it, so we have no choice-and dismiss the possibility of overcoming it, consider this list of specific kinds of "put downs" that, not long ago, were deemed cool, but have become a sure way to embarrass yourself:
1. Racism-whites putting and keeping non-whites down
2. Sexism-males limiting and disadvantaging females
3. Ageism-patronizing the young, condescending to the elderly
4. Anti-Semitism-discriminating against Jews
5. Classism-putting down people on the basis of differences in class (more prevalent in former aristocracies like Britain than in America, but also known here)
6. Homophobia-heterosexuals demeaning gays and lesbians
7. Ableism-humiliating people with disabilities
8. Colonialism-subordinating and exploiting another society or nation
9. Workplace and schoolyard bullying; sexual harassment, child abuse, and domestic violence; corporate, bureaucratic, and political corruption
10. …

The list goes on. Once you have a word for it, you see rankism everywhere.

Although all of these familiar isms persist, none of them has the force it did fifty years ago. Most of them are now regarded as distinctly uncool, even grounds for dismissal. The burden of proof, which formerly fell on nobodies, now falls on Somebodies. That's historical change, and that's why it is not utopian to think that we might be able to give up putting people down, not just people bearing a targeted trait (such as color, gender, age, class, religion, sexual orientation, disability), but give up putting people down period. For any reason. Period.

You're probably thinking, What if they deserve to be put down? What if they have screwed up?

Even then, being put down is not what's needed, nor is it justified. Correction, maybe; put downs, never. Indignity and humiliation have no place in human relations. That is where the above sequence-of no-longer legitimate putdowns-is tending. That is how humans are evolving behaviorally.

Some will think of this direction as long-prophesized. Isn't this just the Golden Rule? they will say. Well, yes, it is the Golden Rule. But with a difference, a very significant operational difference. This Golden Rule has teeth. In this framework, "Do unto others …" becomes operative. Why? Because many behaviors that violate the Golden Rule can be understood as rankism. The perpetrators of these behaviors are rankists. Once you put a label on ignoble behavior, it is much harder to get away with.

In the same way that sexism and sexists rapidly lost legitimacy once they were named, so, too, will rankists find themselves in untenable positions once a label can be pinned on them. Not overnight. It has taken decades to delegitimize sexism and the other isms, but once the process of de-legitimizing indignifying behaviors begins there is no stopping it until we reach an equilibrium characterized by equal dignity for all. So, there must be some hidden reason, something other than the traditional ones, that causes humans to behave in ways prejudicial and inimical to others. Why do we demean, marginalize, and disenfranchise others? Why do we subject others to indignity? Why do we do to others what we would not want them to do to us?

In short, why do we put others down? Or, in this language, why do we tolerate rankism? You've probably sensed where this line of questions is going: Why do we sometimes engage in rankism ourselves?

Rankism is a residue of predation. Our species, Homo sapiens, has a long history of predation. We're not only good at it, we're the top of the food chain. Of course, we do more than prey on animals and on each other. We also cooperate with each other, we love each other, we have shown ourselves to be capable of living in peace and harmony.

But through recorded history, we have preyed on other tribes, other states, religions, classes, races, etc. Everyone alive today has predatory ancestors and, what's equally important, ancestors who managed to avoid becoming the prey of other human predators.

The twentieth century may go down as the bloodiest of all centuries, but it will also go down as the century in which many millions of human beings threw off centuries of colonial exploitation by a handful of relatively small nation states. And what is colonialism but one group putting another group down for purposes of exploitation.

Colonialism was long justified (as we once justified racism) in terms of a "superior" people ruling an "inferior" people. Colonialism was an example of people who regarded themselves as "Somebodies" putting down people they took for "nobodies." And once one group has got another down, it can exploit it until its victims-the nobodies-organize and marshal a commensurate, if not surpassing, power.

Posted on 19 February 2017 - 10:25 AM

We are used to machines being used as tools that do not have a high level of cognitive ability, so it’s difficult for people to think of them as being able to exhibit truly creative behaviour. A problem with earlier approaches was their dependence on hand-coded tasks and knowledge, which restricts the reasoning capabilities a machine can carry out. People are creative because they understand the properties of objects in the world, and based on that knowledge they breach convention in non-trivial ways that make sense. In the same way computer systems require the ability of acquiring knowledge in order to enable creativity. Artificial intelligence research is aiming to overcome the challenge of hand-coded features through more flexible approaches in which software systems can constantly learn new representations of data, modify themselves according to it and exhibit creative behaviour.
Creativity is arguably the most difficult human faculty to automate: robots are unlikely to be fully creative any time soon. Automation usually requires exactly the kind of explicit instruction as to how to achieve a goal that creativity obviates. It is certainly possible to design an algorithm that can churn out an endless sequence of paintings, but it is difficult to teach such an algorithm the difference between the emotionally powerful and the dreck. Another problem is that it is difficult to automate the combination of ideas from many different sources that forms the source of much of human creativity: you might find inspiration from an interview with a neuroscientist in designing a new office layout. Putting some evidence to our thesis, we found, for both the UK or the US, that almost 90% of creative jobs are at low or no risk of automation.
You could quite possibly say yes or no depending on the task at hand at what you wish said computer to do. There is an argument here however I will save that for another time, PM me if you wish to discuss it.

Posted on 19 February 2017 - 10:28 AM

Depends on several variables in which we must be able to conclude, The type of taco, the ago of it, where it came from, and how well it was made. An entire experiment can be done for this question however I can tell you mean this as a joke so I will end my text by saying no.

Posted on 20 February 2017 - 10:27 AM

Due to the fact that all human beings are different and separate entities with few exceptions I would say no. Minus twins all humans are genetically different and therefore we all feel, act, and yes, see differently in a manner of ways.
You also have to remember that color itself can be measured in various ways as well. Colors can be measured and quantified in various ways; indeed, a person's perception of colors is a subjective process whereby the brain responds to the stimuli that are produced when incoming light reacts with the several types of cone cells in the eye.
When you look at a banana, the wavelengths of reflected light determine what color you see. The light waves reflect off the banana's peel and hit the light-sensitive retina at the back of your eye. That's where cones come in. Cones are one type of photoreceptor, the tiny cells in the retina that respond to light.Rods and Cones. The retina contains two types of photoreceptors, rods and cones. The rods are more numerous, some 120 million, and are more sensitive than the cones. However, they are not sensitive to color.
You also have to remember that the human eye can not see all the colors in the world, The human eye can see 7,000,000 colors. Some of these are eyesores. Certain colors and color relationships can be eye irritants, cause headaches, and wreak havoc with human vision. Other colors and color combinations are soothing.
It is known that we can see about 1000 levels of light-dark, 100 levels of red-green, and 100 levels of yellow-blue for a single viewing condition in a laboratory. This means that the total number of colors we can see is about 1000 x 100 x 100 = 10,000,000 (10 million).
You could also argue that color does not even exist in our material world. light comes in a lot of different wavelengths, but which wavelengths correspond to which color, or which can even be seen, depends entirely on the eyes of the creature doing the looking, and not really on any property of the light itself. There isn't any objective “real” color in the world.
people do not see all the same colours when they look at similar objects. Although there is a general consensus that red is the same shade as strawberries, blood and the planet Mars some people could perceive the colour red as another person's blue according to experts.

I hope I was able to satisfy you.

Posted on 20 February 2017 - 10:32 AM

It really does depend on how old both individuals are. I would say for example, a 12 year old and a 22 year old is morally wrong because a 12 year old does not have true experience with love and relationships most of the time. The morality of it all can vary depending on the age itself, say a 40 year old and 50 year old get together, they both most likely have experience and I would say it is acceptable there.
At first the age couldn't affect alot and everything can be " smoothly" between the personality of each individual. But in the long term it does makes a difference since one of both parties will start "feeling" the gap of the age. So everything is a matter of how you interact with the other person and their mental state which it will determinate the quality and length of the relationship regardless of the age. Either way it's a personal choice and not an fact. Everyone could said their opinions but that it's a personal view not a fact for everyone else. It can really vary depending on the age of both people and how they have dated in past.

I hope I was able to answer your question correctly, PM me if you wish to discuss further.