dimreepr

But you are??? What makes you so special???

Wel obviously Reg, but what did the Romans ever do for us???

Indeed, but it's notable that you haven't accepted my challenge.

We all pick something to believe in, that doesn't mean any of them are more real, it just means that we trust one above the other. what evidence do we have? That I'm happier than you??? Science can't answer that question, all it can do is present a number that might be relative...

You're conflating what was politically expedient then with what is morally acceptable now, that's essentially cancel culture. You also seem to forget a number of thing's, for instance, Jesus had a particularly strong stance on the morality of stoning people, and your own countries founder's thought it was ok to have slaves, and Hitler didn't get his idea of genocide from a bible (as I've explained), and raping little girls has never been a religion specific pursuit. And you have a seriously flawed sense of reality. I challenge you to read the sermon on the mount and present a reasoned argument as to why it's morally unacceptable. You're making the mistake of conflating the morally abhorrent action's of apparently pious people, with what's written in the book they're holding up; there's good moral philosophy in the page's of the various bible's. So don't dismiss them out of hand, just dismiss the bit's you find morally unacceptable, but you must read them first.

Indeed, but it is a path to scientific understanding... The day after yesterday, would be my guess...🙏

Exactly... The kind that some people see, some don't want too look for and the rest are blind anyway. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with any of the Bible's if you read them with a good moral compass. Look what happened when Hitler read Nietzche. It is tangentially relevant... 😉

OF course it is, bc we're not discussing relativity and the reality of light; we're discussing a very different kind of light.

Well my reality is probably a bit sadder than yours ATM, but how do we define by how much?

Who's?

But not in this context, for instance, "Brave new world" objectively, is a bloody good idea bc everyone is happy.

Perhaps that should start with you.

Fuel contanimation, an acceptable excuse to blame it on god rather than pay out on the bet...

It turns out that predicting a civil war is possible (so science) and it has a lot to do with who holds the purse strings. The Ted talk I linked, does a much better job of explianing why...

Just another perspective... It's the people who pay for protection, that inspires a war... IOW, what am I free to express, without a barrage of negs, that have no context or explanation???

Indeed my apologies, I could have sworn that my sentence ended with "for some people", it's what I intended to write. It was my perspective, but then I've never had to fight to protect him. My apologies to all who found my words objectionable, and I'm not trying to Present the English solution as somehow better; for them every slave was pure profit; they didn't care if they lived or died, as long as they couldn't escape then enough of them survived, to pay for the trip + fund's for the next trip + bonus, many steps down the moral ladder than anything America could claim; in the end we had made enough, before the noise of moral objection came into focus, America didn't have that luxury. Civil War, 1861-1865 | Slavery, Abolition, Emancipation and Freedom - CURIOSity Digital Collections (harvard.edu)

but who cares.. MY dad died the day after yeterday...

Indeed, but there's a lot of context missing in your emphasis... We determine who we are by what we do. One day we might agree...

Google it. 😉

Assuming anything is the wrong place to start, if you want the truth. What would be the benefit of a computational model? For instance, would the joke be funnier? The computer say's "the joke is n% funnier, when humans listen to it in a group". What does that tell you about the joke?

When did I say that? https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/spectators-witness-history-manassas?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2mX0QB0RqUupWigL0tXDlexICHoaD66FEusNY4bnyCaPSEvD-hlXBk-lM_aem_AdJUJwgueDkpOj0ewWkvrSsAp8nzczPoxZyFEPydu44kwthVDOBHoLa2xQRyMFpidMvLJLvn8GL7y_iCP72umPje#:~:text=Watching the Federal army advance seemed like the perfect Sunday afternoon diversion.&text=It is a popular%2C almost,battle of a short rebellion The view from that hill was such bc it didn't really affect them. I was listening to a debate a few weeks ago, in which the story of a runaway slave helped a northern general with an overwhelming army, corner and then refused to attack, letting them slip away, which happened time after time; some think it was bc of his trust/distrust of a negro, I wonder how his perspective was different? I'm sorry I can't remember the specifics or the source bc it was a tangent of the debate. Apologies @TheVat But this is well worth a listen and it's beyond me to summarise a summary.

From who's perspective?

For a start, the battles were considered a fine days entertainment, that seems to answer most of this; as for the rest of your question, it's a case of economic need; the south needed it's slaves/property, more than they needed a clean moral conscience, the north didn't. The English avoided the need for a battle, by paying compensation to the slave owner's; a debt BTW that lasted well into the 1990's.

The closest I can come to a formal definition is a 'joke', one form of intelligence makes a joke for another form of intelligence to laugh, if they don't laugh they're not cognisant of the intention, a computer won't ever laugh, however intelligent we make them.

Australian magpies are known for there swooping behaviour which, on the face of it seems territorial, but they can be persuaded to leave some alone or to become a sought out target. They can also get our intentions wrong, one person tried to save a chick and failed and has been terrorised ever since by the parents. How close they are to our level of intelligence can never be known, bc we aren't capable of walking a mile in their shoes or suckers.