Bringerofrain

I found somebody else wrote what I am having a hard time explaining here on reddit. I will copy paste it below.

That is a straw man. I never said he wanted AI controlled policy making. Just more experts and less politicians making policies. His voter base is primarily transhumanists and I doubt they care if he did say that he wanted an AI making policies that they would see that as bad. 

More experts means things like regulations being used to control the public as opposed to policy. So he would see more control by regulatory agencies and possibly more regulatory agencies . For example we have baby boomers making decisions on policies relating to the internet and grilling tech experts like zuckerberg as opposed to experts.

Personally I think experts have a limited vision. For example an economist would be against shutting down the economy during covid19, while fauci would have everyone under house arrest. The handling of covid 19 should be done by politicians who can balance things as opposed to experts in viruses or economists, who have tunnel vision. 

I assure you, Yang is pro technology and his talks about truck drivers losing their jobs was not him claiming technology was bad, just that the benefits comes with some downfalls that we as a society need to take into consideration and prepare for.

I agree with pretty much the entirety of what oromagi said. I would call a technocrat somebody who will do things like have rule by experts. Some things like the FDA have been created as a technocratic device to install rule by expert. Hillary is also a technocrat, but her form of technocraticy is different than Yang's Zoltan Van Itsvan another presidential candidate was also a technocrat and looked different than either Yang or Hillary. Technocratic has nothing to do with how pro technology you are, though yang is very pro advancing technology. It is more a mindset where you move more and more decisions away from policy makers and into the hands of technocratic institutions with specialized knowledge. Instead of having politicians decide on policies about the environment for example a technocrat would create the EPA and remove the decision from politicians and towards experts. 

Oddly enough though, you can be both a technophobe and a technocrat

I don't think he is technophobic. He just realized some of the results of better tech are negative and wants to compensate in some common sense ways. Dude is no technophobe

I don't believe that to be the case. Sure yang is a completely different type of technocrat than Hillary, but it would still be rule by experts with him. He just understands that machines will replace us and that a UBI is what is needed to prevent massive unemployment and unrest. The problem was that he was a terrible debater, had he been better at debating his ideals are so incontrovertibly true that he would definitely have won the election.

He has always made gaffs but this election cycle it was too obvious. He was behaving like my grandma who died of dementia. 

Clips of him using the teleprompter on the news and screwing it up losing his place and telling the teleprompter people to slow down. The fact that no campaign in history has ever done so much to keep their candidate from going off script and being seen in public. We have seen evidence that his campaign have the media what questions to ask when he was on stage and he would get flustered if the media went off script. The fact his campaign originally agreed that they would be checked for earpieces prior to the debate, but refused to be checked on the day of the debate going back on the promise. 

Dude, there was way less evidence that reagan got dementia and we all know he had dementia late into his presidency, despite republicans still being in denial about it. 

Watch what happens now. They will continue to hide biden, he'll barely speak and never go off script.  

This is an apolitical thing. You would have to be an idiot not to see,he has the early stages of dementia. Before 2024, harris will be president. I'll be shocked if they ever put him on a debate stage. Hell, even giving a state of the union will shock me, I assume they'll treat the next state of the union wildly different than the rest to hide him,or cancel it. 

Democrats who did not vote for biden in the primary know this. It isn't even controversial, and I fact it is the reason a lot of his scripts were made to reassure people who knew about it, by him pointing out how good his advisors were and how heavily he would lean on them. 

My guess is you have no doubt reagan had dementia late into his presidency, with significantly less evidence than we have that biden has dementia. I guess the benefit of being apolitical like myself is the bullshit and self delusions of both sides are easy to see.

I think biden when he goes in public is pumped with speed to even look coherent. The guy is clearly on his deathbed with dementia. Kamala harris will likely be the democrat running in 2024. I don't think she is in charge now, I think i t is rule by committee. 

This is. Similar to what we saw in the Reagen presidency. Like biden reagan had dementia while in office, but unlike biden he did not get the signs of dementia until after he was elected. 

I never made a claim as to whether the specific passages you provided are contradictions. It's odd that somebody who criticized me for thinking that translations of the bible are not flawless, is now giving me shit for pointing out that not everything stephen listed as a contradiction is one, by pointing out the obvious in context meanings. 

Is this like a game. We have brother thomas pretending to be a theist to make theists look dumb and Steven pretending to be an atheist to make atheists look dumb. 

Is anyone just willing to have an honest discussion in the religion section without trolling?

I clearly meant it was a seeming contradiction but easily shown not to be for anybody with an IQ higher than gorilla

I can take care of the cat. I know what is wrong. I am wondering where it becomes more ethical to put the cat to sleep or leave it alive. Personally I think I would rather suffer than die, so it is more of an ethical question than one about whether I can take care of her

I assume the second one means more like 

Statements about yourself mean dick to anyone. And the first one means my statements are true fuck what anyone else thinks. Jesus didn't speak too literally

I was referring only to the first contradiction stephen pointed to. 

Fair enough, but I'm was wondering in terms of ending their suffering

I have been looking at some charts vets use to determine the quality of life of a cat. If it comes down to it, I will take her to one, so she can be put to sleep in the most humane way possible. I know cats do a great job hiding their pain, which makes the decision tougher

This one is about 20 years old. I didn't even know they lived this long before she actually proved it to me.

My cat has lost functioning of their back legs and cannot go to the litter box on their own. I just wanted to know at what point is the more ethical choice to put her down. I know cats hide pain well, but she seems happy at the moment. 

The bible also explains man and woman becoming one when they get married. It isn't literal. It just means a union. 

Thank you

Makes sense. That's how real estate works. Lots of loans as leverage. 

Can you provide a citation that his father actually handed him 413 million dollars. I heard it was just 1 million. 

This is wired but I used to fantasize about having slaves that were like 12 inches tall. I always wanted little people slaves. 

Sorry, I just don't buy Chris's story

Post 102 he changes his story. Pretending it was a trap. I have no justification explicit or not. 

Post 59 chris insinuates he has justification

The stop extending Disney's copyrights

I am close to 100% certain Chris is scum. 

He claimed his role had justification. He seems like the only person who is saying that, and then he seemed to change his story later hinting that it was a trap which also would be problematic because he wouldn't have enough information about role justifications prior to everyone discussing them anyway. 

I asked her in the DP if it is a visit so we should get an answer publicly soon as well. Also why am I the only one suspect of chris? 

I assume scum is white. 

I guess you can call me binger. I do eat too much

The problem with just a character claim from croc is that there are millions of blacks who were significant figures in history and fake claims are easy

But a role claim would lock him in and make it easier to guess his affiliation at late stages of the game

Does lawyering somebody count as a visit? 

I wasn't thinking but it would have confirmed you LOL. 

I want to ideally get a role claim from croc and end the DP lynching chris, since it looks like he scum slipped.

I see no reason to keep votes on supa since those votes were for activity and he has shown his face

That just confirms the need to get a role claim. From him also. But time is winding down

My role can be verified if somebody visits me, but I wouldn't recommend it. I kill visiters in the NP 

Yeah I might as well since it looks like the DP ends at 9am and I will probably be asleep soon. I am PGO and louis farrakhan. No justification but the guy seems to be a conspiracy theorist so the role makes sense. 

I actually have a full claim I have to make before the Dp is over. Don't let me forget as time starts ticking down. 

Actually can you self target?

I really don't know if it matters but screw it target me. If I die I am probably not a great loss to the game anyway.

Do you mind helping to pressure supa so we can get some activity from him?

I like that ideal. Speed who will you target?

That theory would seem to fit his actions

The entire faith of hermeticism is wrong? So the belief in God you would consider incorrect?