3RU7AL

That's how AI would handle the cop.  I asked how AI would respond to the riot.

How would open-source software respond to rioting after a cop shot a child?

Christianity eventually killed a massive proportion of people under the authority of the Pope.

Either verbal abuse or emotional abuse constitutes the crime of domestic violence in Nevada, which is defined as the use of power, coercion and/or violence to control another. The Nevada Attorney General’s Office says verbal or emotional abuse can be charged as domestic violence if it is directed at a:

• Husband, wife, girlfriend or boyfriend (spousal abuse)
  
• Child by a parent, grandparent, stepparent, or significant other of a parent (child abuse)
  
• Senior citizen by their children, grandchildren or others living with or caring for the victim (elderly abuse).
  

All government? No. But some yes. And this is one of those things, like all computer systems, where we're going to have to start with small issues and work out the bugs there before moving on.

The issue is not in "can" we create such a system; the issue will be removing the power from politicians. They will object and will attempt to cause as much FUD as possible.

Perfect{ pure/divine{?} } is associated with symmetry and less so asymmetrical.

Communism: Kills 71 million people in the USSR by starvation, and has oppressed billions of people in the past.

Mods: Being a communist is free speech and we won't ban any communists.

KKK: Lynches only 4000 black Americans(a quicker death than starvation), and has oppressed only millions of African Americans(still a large number, but only a fraction of the billions of people that communism has oppressed).

Mods: Anyone who supports the idea of racism and anyone who makes a racial slur that is pro KayKayKay will get banned.

Me: Communism is the worse ideology, so why are the mods treating racism worse than communism?  If communists get free speech, shouldn't racists also get free speech?

Actually it's subjective since call-out requires it to be negative in the eyes of the one  being called out, which is why I asked you and even then I don't see the issue nor do I think I am wrong about the theory either. Where are you gaining all these thumbs up?

Or one could always go to an alternative [universe] and have a frank and open discussion with Harikrish and Ethang5....LOL

however I have already proved my point,

Also because Sam Harris is a tad racist

But how can one be misled if the answer is subjective?

almost good, but I disagree with the foundation that the morality we get from science is "objective" - you can't have objective morality

I've mentioned you in this thread, it is not intended as a call-out thread but I'm notifying you so that if you object, you can say so sooner.

You have been PMing me things I don't want or need to receive.

Then my argument actually serves as a tool to gain complicity from the subjugated which is far worse.

As you have presented it it in an alleged syllogism, it is not logical at all.

If or iff are useless words since they acknowledge only that which is currently not true. Then the alleged truth of what follows depends entirely on a conditional shift.

Well then... back to the drawing board. Tribalism is insufficient to the moral principles I am most anxious to promote. 

It might, if you follow it to its logical conclusion.

Which is?

What do you personally believe is a "good" example of an action that is NOT selfish?

Me answering that doesn’t resolve seculars A.F.S.F.S.M. problem.

In other words - I was completely in the right for writing you off - you have a construction of assertions, fallacies (stacked fallacies actually - haven't gotten to say that since Selidora), and pessimism - fine you have pessimism - but you have fundamentally failed to actually rebuke my syllogism. 

And an action you falsely labelled as selfish, and until you right that wrong A.F.S.F.S.M. will always be flawed.

P1: Birds fly

P2: Camels walk

C:   Butterflies swim

Ants are following these dictates implicitly even if they cannot or will not explicitly state their goals. I rather regard that as a strength of the argument since it is an argument that only self interest is necessary to motivate "good" behavior.

If an actual specific singular GOD does exist......Then it's concerns will far exceed the ramblings and naivety of a few men of Arabia.

If the BoP is determined by the whim of the instigator, then there really is no point to the rules. This notion is completely lost on the moderators--correction: a couple of the moderators. Onus Probandi determines the responsibility each participant bears in the resolution of the argument; not the instigators stipulations. You know that, I know that; but if the "moderators" don't know that, then we're "violating voting policy" if their ignorance isn't displayed in our RFD's. And what makes matters worse is when one clearly knows--I suppose for lack of a better term--"more" than the moderators do on the subject, and gets penalized for it.

Like perhaps you are providing for the raccoons that live off the trash you throw away?

I guess so

Well providing for someone else isn’t that.

So? Were you not listening, I wasn’t asking in regards to motives.

Last time I checked a dollar was a form of payment.

...But giving someone a dollar is providing for someone else.