dimreepr

Well, the hard bit was the excuse!

Mostly, like this sentence, it just doesn't make sense and I very much doubt Mr. Dawkins has anything to offer in the context of this thread, Try answering the question... But we all know, by now, you're just not capable...

And that's the difference between excuse and reason.

Nope, just explain the following highlights as it pertains to your OP:

Have you ever heard of nature v nurture? Or do you eat your neighbours?

And no doubt several times more, before we unravel the difference between an excuse and a reason. "Boys will be boys" may be an excuse to be naughty or cheeky but it's certainly not a reason to be rapey.

Strange has been more than patient with you and has done nothing but sensibly critique your repeated nonesense. This is the abstract from your link: Start by explaining how it relates to the OP, without the buzzwords.

Who knew? For risk read chance, I'm game...

Not if you saw me.

I doubt anyone here thinks they have the answer and your suggestions are reasonable, but we all make mistakes...

If you walked through a pop festival, stark bollock naked would you expect to be groped?

I note you didn't properly address my post, is freedom for men only? What precautions can one's daughter take if she wants to be alone with the man she imagines to be her suitor? As you've suggested, it's nuanced, so what are "simple precautions"?

Don't play with the troll...

How do we make our daughters risk aware? No showing your legs or cleavage? No eye contact, don't be sexy or flirty? If you think that then go to Saudi Arabia and take advantage of their laws, and force your women to be risk aware. The western world fought hard, and continues to fight, for its freedom, is that just for men? There is no MO for rapists, they take advantage of situations and those situations have nothing to do with apparel and everything to do with seclusion; we can advise our daughters to avoid being alone with strange men but it's not their fault if they fancy him and want to be alone with him, but he turns out to be an arsehole with his brains in his dick and goes deaf with a hardon, its ALLWAYS his fault.

Who knew an imprerfect world lead to an imperfect world?

You owe me a new irony meter, I'll ask google...

As I'm sure it will be unless thoughtfuck sorry thoughtfuhk can provide something more substantial than, I'm right cuz I say so.

LOL or but this from your link:

I'm sure I understood what I meant at the time but due to one too many beers, I can't remember that post.

No, it really doesn't. Go on then...

Either your comprehension needs improving or mine does. I didn't say you did and neither did I; maybe you're just being dishonest to support a flawed premise? Now you're just confusing yourself, AI doesn't perform cognitive tasks it blindly processes databases and spits out an answer. No one is suggesting otherwise, (but again your comprehension (or honesty) is letting you down) AGI doesn't exist as things stand and AI doesn't understand what it's doing it just follows its programming. The word 'may' is significant, as in, it's a possible future, the profundity of which CAN only be determined then.

Are you describing this?

This may be the source of your confusion, evolution doesn't select (least of all candidates), evolution doesn't do anything it just explains why (dead things don't get to pass on its genetic material and live things do). It may be a reasonable goal to pursue but it's certainly not "Life's purpose", besides why do you suppose intelligence can or should be optimised? This is a major sticking point for me, cognition requires understanding, not just processing.

It's apparent, not real, much like a spirograph.