dimreepr

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

This was what de Toqueville and John Stuart Mill were warning about when they spoke of "the tyranny of the majority."  They saw an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions.  The minority needs a voice and to participate in policy making.  

Indeed, hubris seeds it's own demise, Trump is just a symptom of a deep seated disease.

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

This seems to go to the core of the current problems.  Populism is predicated on the notion that leadership matters.  Democracy, on the notion that facts, laws and principles matter.  The allure of populism is the notion that a great leader will determine what is true, relieving people of the burdens of ambiguity and clashing ideas.  Democracy requires fact acquisition in a public space where truths are larger than any one person, no matter how "great" they are. 

The real hubris of America (among others), is thinking that some people don't deserve a vote; I think populism would work fine if the populous all had a say.

All democracy requires to reveal the truth of society, is everyones voice, not just those of us that think/assume we know better.

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I know there are decent people in the US, I talk to you guys everyday, but one has to look at the sum total of effects of your political establishment on the world... wankers included.  I'm looking more at the forest that is each country rather than the individual trees within each forest.

Ultimately, it's Walt Disney's fault, for making us cry when Bambi's mum was killed; he greated the algorithm.

That ignores the nuances of life, in favour of a cute picture.

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

LoL.  And generally you don't get your own special gourmet chef in prison.   Though one does hear of powerful mobsters back in the day who managed to accrue a lot of perks while imprisoned.

Any convictions will come well after the convention, given the pace of such proceedings, so a jailbird Trump scenario would have no effect on primaries.  If the polls @iNow cites are accurate as to likely voters in the general election, then it will be a second Biden term thanks to Independents and suburban gop moderates who are being repelled by TFG.  

Also a possibility that TFG, if convicted, would be sentenced to house arrest in light of his age and the security issues that prisons present. Not difficult to imagine comedy sketches featuring a White House with Trump strolling around in an electronic ankle bracelet.

I can only imagine that he got hard... Which seems unlikely... 

On 2/24/2024 at 7:21 PM, StringJunky said:

Pfft, he's no Navalny. People like that are as rare as rocking horse droppings.

Indeed, "cometh the hour cometh the man", all we got to ask ourselves, is this really the hour; or is it sometime next week? 

4 hours ago, Muhammad Owais Isaac said:

The universe is expanding and I assume that space time fabric density is decreasing in all the regions equally except the regions occupied by matter .

What makes you think space-time has a density?

Fabric is a poor word to choose, it only explains things on one level, thereafter it's a hindrance to understanding; imagination only work's to expand our understanding, when diving from the right platform...

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Cue Monty Python version of "All things Bright and Beautiful":

 

The Judean peoples front... Fuck that...

Just now, MSC said:

Who is they? Kind of get the feeling you're just here to troll.

I'm a 'they' to you bc we don't agree... 

Seems like a fatuous reason, given that we are both human, and I'm going to assume male...

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

I fear the issue is that the norms have shifted so much, that removal of that particular guy might not change future trajectories.

Indeed, it/he seems like the fowl tasting medicine we just have to swallow, before we get better...

The political pendulum has to reach it's zenith before it can swing the other way; the Trump may just be the easiest to swallow, we sure don't want it to ferment on that fruit...

Blazing saddles, seems more appropriate in this thread...

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

From the Alabama chief justice: "Human life, Parker wrote, “cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.” -  AP

What can you say to that?

God has some very human attributes... 

15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I disagree, truth is that which comports with reality, truth by definition has to be objective. 

Why?

If that's an extention of "relativity", you should know, that it doesn't work for everything...

19 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Did you put stronger in quotes because their best candidates are women? I think that's how many people think of Harris, Whitmer, Klobuchar, and Warren: they can't beat TFG because they're women, and TFG has already beaten a woman. 

I also think the DNC thinks this way. Despite being more liberal towards women, they'd still rather have Biden or Newsome or Cooper because they're men, and men appear "strong" when they're confident, whereas the perception is usually that confident women are "pushy" or "troublesome" or even "nasty".

Unfounded fear is still frightening, but do you really think a Biden voter would prefer TFG to an image of their scary mom/granny.

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

That is true. But some folks think it adds validity to their argument if they invoke science (in a poorly understood way) similarly as they would invoke god.

You do not even need to go that far. Even overturning Roe v Wade, women were subject related to pregnancy loss. Many states have fetal harm laws, which presumably were intended to protect pregnant women. Studies found about 400 cases between the 70s and 2005 which increased to about 1400 just before the Dobbs ruling. Often times, these convictions were linked to substance abuse by the pregnant mother, though in cases that were investigated, there was often insufficient evidence to clearly link the abuse to loss of pregnancy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, low income folks who are generally at higher risk of miscarriages or other adverse health events anyway, were disproportionately affected, whereas healthy rich folks probably can enjoy their occasional Chianti without risking jail.

Now, the mask is starting to fall off and women are charged even without the pretense of bad behavior. Just recently a woman was charged with abusing a corpse, because she miscarried the toilet. Heck, probably about half of pregnancies are unsuccessful, including cases where after fertilization the ovum is just lost without the person knowing they were pregnant. I.e. the only protection against prosecution based on such interpretation of law is really just obfuscation (i.e. having no evidence and knowledge of pregnancy). The first time they are tested positive, their options going forward narrows significantly.

The way these laws are enforced make it very, very, very clear that protection of unborn children is not really on top of the agenda. Or middle. Or somewhere near.

Indeed, religious thinking is available for all of those with an agenda, scientist's are such an easy target, bc one of them made a laughable mistake once (probably for money)...

Delicious irony, if one doesn't like people... 

On 2/21/2024 at 2:33 PM, TheVat said:

While verbal skills (parrots can recognize word meanings, and don't just mimick language) can show cognitive sophistication, corvids and parrots also display other cognitive skills.  I am not talking about popular impressions of them, which may not be relevant to determining the best candidate species for trying to simulate on a neural net.   Social animals like parrots are a good choice, because a parrot-based neural net would be more predisposed to interact with us in a learning environment and responsive to positive social reinforcements and rewards.  But yes, other avians could have traits, like task persistence, that also are conducive to good heuristics.

The best animal for the task, in my opinion, has to be an octopus bc it doesn't seem to need a memory to work.

22 hours ago, Moontanman said:

When are we going to realize that living our lives in accordance with ancient mythology is a bad idea? Sadly the fundies that think their book has to rule the lives of everyone and that their particular fairy tale has to be the law of the land.  

22 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Ask all the questions you want, stop trying to make excuses for people who only want to limit your personal rights by making you conform to books of ancient mythology. If the banks need to be reformed do so but giving ancient fairy tales as a guide because a supposed god said so is madness. 

Did you even read my post?

On 2/21/2024 at 1:36 PM, dimreepr said:

 

I think it's important to point out that a thousand year old text (God or no god) was written by people who were basically going through the same shit that we are today; and they were just a skilled (intelligent) as we are at living within our culture.

There are some good idea's amongst the bad, even things like stoning adulterer's can be good, with the right cultural pressure; we are clearly inteligent enough to know that stoning people is not an appropriate punishment today.

When are we going to realise that both Jesus and Mohamed got really pissed off with our banking system, for a reason?

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana

I've never advocated that we should adhere to any old text without any sort of critical thinking, but a good idea is a good idea despite who wrote it; denying that kinda makes one religious. 

The American constitution for instance, is currently heading towards the sort of conditions that inspired people like Jesus, Mohamed, Gandhi and Mandela, 

The constitution had some great idea's, until the word amendment was, somehow, defined as unchangeable. 

4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Why would any of this matter? The number of people who accept something as true has no bearing on the actual truth of it. 

Indeed, a third way...

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

When are we going to realize that living our lives in accordance with ancient mythology is a bad idea? Sadly the fundies that think their book has to rule the lives of everyone and that their particular fairy tale has to be the law of the land.  

Dirty Harry, just asked a question, jeez...

30 minutes ago, MigL said:

Wow !
You really have it in for banks.

What happened ?
Did they deny you a loan 😄 ?

( everyone has the option of not using a bank, and living within their means )

Do they?

You know much that is hidden, Oh Tim...

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

Due to lower birth rates and people living longer, there are more and more  old people than young.
You would deny these people representation in their government based simply on age, not competence ?

Might as well simply exterminate them, as they are in the way of an evolving society.
Remember, you hope to get to that age too, someday 🙂 .

eXTERMINATE, seems a little over the top; but don't forget who has to crop the fields... 😉 

19 hours ago, eninn said:

You must study Islam in specialized Islamic centers and not from anti-Islam websites and fake media

There is a third option, "Denise there's some lovely filth over here".

13 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I think it's important to point out that Islam allows its followers to lie to non believers and that Dr Zakir Naik is one of the most prolific liars in the apologetic game. 

All the stuff that has been asserted here is nothing but baseless claims, before you start trying to use the koran to dictate reality you need to establish the that a god of any kind exists then you need to show that your god exists then we can  (maybe) begin to debate the truth of the koran. 

BTW, good luck with the whole flying horse and splitting the moon in half.   

8 hours ago, MigL said:

When was the last time a Christian or a Jew got stoned ( not on drugs ) for adultery ?

When was the last time a Muslim woman got  flogged ( or stoned ) for adultery, or even for being raped ?
Sadly it is never the men, even the rapists.
( so much for the rights of women, or even wives )

This is the 21st Century, all other religions realize that a religion based on thousand year old texts cannot be governance or the law.
When is Islam going to realize that ?

I think it's important to point out that a thousand year old text (God or no god) was written by people who were basically going through the same shit that we are today; and they were just a skilled (intelligent) as we are at living within our culture.

There are some good idea's amongst the bad, even things like stoning adulterer's can be good, with the right cultural pressure; we are clearly inteligent enough to know that stoning people is not an appropriate punishment today.

When are we going to realise that both Jesus and Mohamed got really pissed off with our banking system, for a reason?

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana

10 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Except I know a fair number of 80 year olds who would make far better Presidents than most much younger possibilities. Sessions like the Prime Minister's questioning at Parliament in Britain would go a long way toward showing whether a leader is mentally competent but with bought and paid for incumbency where it benefits more than a few to keep mental decline under wraps, this kind of thing is highly unlikely.

Like I said from the start of this thread, my objection is not based on competence, which I went on to explain in this thread; please read...

19 hours ago, Swudu Susuwu said:

Your post was "[Could you guess next thoughts just from access to past thoughts? And what if you had some of past thoughts wrong?]" and the implication was "How could artificial intelligences match human consciousness just from perfect analysis of human conversations, and what if some conversation was wrong?"

No, my post/point was, you couldn't possibly know what it's like to be an albatross let alone what it's thinking; so all you can ever do is just guess, however much data you process, it's built into the fabric of reality.

19 hours ago, Swudu Susuwu said:

and the implication was "How could artificial intelligences match human consciousness just from perfect analysis of human conversations, and what if some conversation was wrong?" and my response was that the former is not enough, but requires access to other data, and that with the other data, even with some errors, you could guess

IOW the implication is, how could we tell if AI is conscious?

13 hours ago, Swudu Susuwu said:

You misunderstood; a lot of fake news touts chatbots (suchas ChatGPT 4.0) as "artificial general intelligences" although those do is parse everyone else's words to mimic language, and, of course, those do not have human consciousness. Those could not mimic human thoughts because all those have are text/words.

Those are much more simple versus this.

This would of course parse all available texts that exist as creative commons,

but would also have physical forms with sensors (such as humans do,)

and those physical sensors would allow true general artificial intelligences to move around true (or virtual) worlds, watch humans pickup tools, observe the tools' uses, or alone pickup tools and use at random to figure out how to put tools to uses.

And you misunderstood, what's real and what's science fiction... 🙄

28 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would hope not, but this is going to be much closer than it should be...which will still be true if the Dems win in a landslide...but can we really take anything for granted?

Yesterday was true, lets start from there...