Phi for All

I've learned to read my audience when talking political policy. There's a point where their eyes literally unfocus when they realize my answers aren't quick and pithy enough for them to remember, much less influence them. You can see them give up on understanding as they start cobbling up a response that involves Biden or Obama.

Moderator NoteAnd on that sour note, the thread is closed. NOT the way discussion should work, imo.

Perhaps it's the way we use representative democracy that causes the problem of advancing age within it. If our elected officials were more like a committee instead of individuals, we'd benefit from older, wiser heads while still having input from younger representatives with a more vested interest in progressive change. So many of our processes are rooted in misogyny and Christian hierarchies that glorify the individual rather than the group. We keep asking for a great leader instead of demanding fair representation of all our views. I also think capitalist strategies favor conservatism, but only after a company has a good model in place and therefore doesn't want the applecart upset. Then they start looking for older politicians to support, with the idea of keeping things just the way they are. Perhaps a more socialist strategy could enjoy the benefits of "git wisdom" without simply putting us all out to pasture?

If people bothered to fact check the details these programs produce, it might be a fair way to study since you still need a basic understanding of the material and you're actively reasoning through it, hopefully figuring out why the facts are relevant or not. Unfortunately, I see too many just assume the AI is completely accurate and just saved them a bunch of reading and studying, drawing conclusions only a brilliant computer mind could do so quickly.

I completely disagree with you about this, and it's tragic that so many seem to forgive the behavior because it didn't involve kidnapping? I think more harm is done when people ignore the women who have come forward with testimony showing Epstein was indeed a "real pedophile". Ignoring all those women shows an overall misogynistic bias, which has always tainted everything men try to accomplish, especially in science. The male perspective is forced on us at every turn, and I think the negative impacts are showing up in the revelation of the files. That Pam Bondi is Trump's Ghislaine Maxwell?

I particularly dislike the perspective that these children knew what they were getting into and were simply greedy. This is also part of the cult methodology, to diminish and blame the victim.

Consent laws protect children in these instances, or are supposed to, unless the men are shielded by other men who see nothing wrong with having sex with children.

Oh, yes, the atomic physicist retired from the Naval Observatory pointing out errors to the guy who makes up mathematical symbols and uses AI to claim others are incompetent. It's been so thrilling from the sidelines!

With all the bullshit his whole cabinet commits on the daily, we need to use Article II, Section 4 to impeach, remove, and convict the whole lot of them for high crimes & misdemeanors. We know there's been bribery, and there is evidence TFG passed NATO secrets to Putin, so treason at the highest level is also there. We don't want Vance, we don't want Johnson. The rest of the succession list is equally horrific, so we need ALL of them booted and sentenced, including that walking anal polyp Stephen Miller. We need to hold them all up to future generations as abominations to humanity.

I don't see how this works, and you don't help by interjecting "fate" as a mechanism for removing subjectivity. Also, uneducated and illiterate are NOT synonymous. Also, I don't see an equation that agency can be removed from. If you're just using buzzwords to explain this, it's not working. I think it's a horrible point. Removing the process for reasoning doesn't help anybody remove their own biases. The process is what helps recognize an objective statement from a subjective one. Your "point" can't explain the difference between "apples are fruits" and "apples are delicious". And none of this supports the statement you made that God is a way of removing subjectivity. In fact, your arguments seem to confirm that gods are practically the epitome of subjective thinking.

So this whole idea is supernatural, not science, not in any way?

I'll assume you mean the Abrahamic god. Can you show me how any god removes subjectivity? Please don't use anything written about them, since those myriad interpretations are at the heart of why their worship can't, by default, remove subjectivity.

The behavior bears a strong resemblance to Oppositional Defiance Disorder in children, except it's happening in adults. Adults in positions of authority.

Quite the opposite, actually. Light is a symbol for capital T Truth and goodness in the Bible. It's also used to judge people and determine whether they deserve to be tortured for eternity. It represents the presence of the Abrahamic god, to the point where nothing good can happen in the shadows, even though shadow doesn't exist without light. None of this has any scientific basis. Truth is subjective, always has been. Science has ways of removing subjectivity from its reasoning process, which religions don't. It's not a matter of "figuring it out themselves" so much as rejecting sloppy methodology filled with passionate attempts to build a belief system on faith alone, since the evidence doesn't support that system.

You can't really call it leadership when he quite obviously has no idea what he's talking about. He just told ConocoPhillips there's no windmills in China when the company has been working on Chinese wind energy generation for some time now, and China is the world leader in wind power right now.