Marko

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1) I stipulated that there doesn’t have to be ‘observable effects’ in the context of an election. In other words, an ‘observable effect’ in this context would be something like an increase (or decrease) in a particular party’s numbers, as a result of new ideology. 
2) The second part of your sentence (labels = more power) is placed in a separate context, and describes an aspect of postmodernist-inspired ideology that i’ve sufficiently outlined before. These two statements are not necessarily related. The second statement outlines a hypothetical value system within the ideology. Because point 2 doesn’t necessarily translate to enacting point 1, you wouldn’t expect ‘noticeability’. The act of being ‘concerned’ is not exclusive to aspects related to point 1, but could relate to other parts of society. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I’ve outlined it sufficiently before, but I’ll increasingly simplify things by reducing part of that difference to the idea of ‘oppression’, and how an increased perception of oppression should lead to increased power points. This is by no means similar to how identity politics works traditionally. 
Why is this potentially counterproductive:.....it diverts attention and energy from more fundamental issues. It has the effect of breaking down the potential unity of a population, and groups. It is largely arbitrary and subjective, and is therefore open to abuse, with all the consequences that might entail. The perception of oppression (whether true are not) carries with it a long list of psychological consequences we shouldn’t ignore. It creates a over simplistic and ultimately fallacious narrative of history and reality, with all consequences this might create. In its utopic conclusion, it merely shifts power from one group to another, not without a huge degree of potential violence, without solving any of the major problems it attempted to destroy...Etc....etc.....etc... 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So Searle was essentially right in the sense that, on a first glance, computers can’t think, but he also never closed the possibility towards the idea that computers could create thinking.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To predict a certain future you would have to assert that an infinite amount of perfect data collection and analysis is even conceivable.

But of course, in practice, a prediction machine becomes useful when it can predict something better than, for instance, another prediction machine. Or  maybe, the question doesn’t necessitate a collection of all the information with respect to the position of every atom and/or molecule in the universe. It essentially spits out a probability value, and if its prediction value is better than the prediction value of, let’s say, the human prediction machine, it is ultimately a better prediction machine. 

We still have to decide whether extremely powerful prediction machines are better at running a planet. 

On the other point, if you have largely autonomous data collection and data analysis processes—which we haven’t exactly reached yet, but will probably reach in the foreseeable future—how can you still use the term ‘human’ in the sentence.....’raw data from humans’? Of course it’s making a judgement call at a time when we reach this autonomous state, but we re partially there already. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why should I assume your position? Why should you assume a regular user on here is racist because he is pro-abortion? 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You’re being disingenuous. We all know what we’re talking about when we say....’the rights of woman to decide what she does with her body’. Stop pretending you don’t know what the context of that sentence is. 

So does thinking in terms of—and I’ll quote you—’what is best for the individual’ also include something like....’I’m a single black female. I’m perfectly aware that, within my black community, there are many struggling single black females with children. I do not want to struggle like they are, and therefore I will be supporting a policy that allows me to abort if the circumstances require it, regardless of whether it increases the black population or not’.?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Make up your mind. You are endlessly jumping from ‘what is best for the individual’ to what is best for the black community. What is best for the black community isn’t necessarily what is best for the black individual, and vice versa. Which of those two are you choosing (because on this topic, you clearly can’t have both).

How did you manage to smuggle in the name ‘Hitler’ in this conversation? Stick to the topic.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Don’t assume I didn’t. See my sentence above on what I think about your sources.

 I’ll give it another shot then.

Additionally, it is slightly unfair to regard the data and the data collection systems that feed AI as somehow ‘raw data from humans’, especially when it comes to external data. Even tho humans have developed these data collection and categorisation technologies, once these systems are started, the data can difficultly be regarded as ‘raw data from humans‘ anymore, imo. They just don’t operate at the biological brain medium and scale. 

This is a difficult one. 

We are obviously but indirectly comparing between the running of the World by humans and the running of the World by a machine/computer.

So presumably (or maybe not), we’re assuming to know something about how well humans are running the World, and can somehow take a snapshot of some arbitrary management protocol of ours, and quantify it. This still doesn’t tell us much about where our current management protocol will eventually take us, and it’s sustainability levels.

Additionally, we would also have to determine what the values needed to successfully run the world’ should be? Finally, there might be some inherent bug within the human psyche that will inevitably lead to the destruction of humanity as a whole— when placed in the context of exponential technological growth (see the Vulnerable world hypothesis). https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf

It would be difficult for us to assume that humans have—because of inherently different and complex processes that take place within a human brain compared to a machine—the best thinking strategy to deal with something as large scale and multifactorial as the ‘running of the world’, especially if we haven’t even come to some agreement as to what the strategy should be. 

The machine side is even more difficult to quantify seeing its capacity to run the World might be a function of its development time, and unless we identify some major fault of concept that would make further development unlikely or impossible, predicting where AI might be in the future is close to impossible. 

Of course data collection is essential for an AI system, but i also believe in its future ability to predict outcomes, or at least, predict them better than humans could. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That is a voting pattern not exclusive to blacks. You might agree with me that whites are as likely as blacks to vote against their self-interests.

My entire point was that, voters, when they think about something as complicated and multi-factorial as abortion, are probably thinking more about things like over-population, religion and morality, climate change, the cost of a child to the parent and society, the rights of women to decide, etc.....than race. But because you are purely thinking in terms of race here, you naturally come to the conclusion that blacks are in favour of a policy that runs against their personal interests. That assumption is hard to claim without understanding the sum of their interests. Other interests like, a black women’s right to decide what she does with her body might run contrary to another self-interest(or may also add up to another hypothetical self-interest). 
The ‘self’ is more than just your self-affiliation to a racial group. 

You can have a widespread practice or ideology within a population without it showing observable effects in something like a national election. Secondly, you have to consider the temporality of such movements. For example, has the movement reached a certain threshold of support for it to gain traction in a given election? An election is a snapshot.  Additionally, while the idea might be widespread, this tells us nothing about whether it is accepted by the majority of voters, of any party. Generally speaking and very often, the loudest (most radical) voices are the voices most heard. ‘Widespreadedness‘ doesn’t necessarily equate to acceptance or electability.

Ok. Let’s look at the 2 senators from New York State. I’m not entirely familiar with the demographics of New York State, but a quick search pointed out that whites are the majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_(state)

And so finally, what exactly are you looking for here? Diversity purely for the sake of diversity, or do you want a democratic system that accurately represents the population?

My entire point was that:  people don’t naturally view themselves (during elections and outside of it)  as entities affiliated to, for example, racial groups, and therefore, that a black man can overcome racial demographics to win an election is never surprising. 

But because some people have attached themselves to this false and simplistic notion of identity thinking (in addition to the idea of oppression,, etc..), they are willing to enforce diversity even if it runs contrary to the demographic distribution. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

How exactly does it fall flat? You yourself agreed that individuals can inhabit several categories at once. For example, using their fallacious value logic, a white transsexual male will have a higher potential of being supposedly ‘oppressed’ by the ‘white patriarchy’ than a white straight male, (much less a white lesbian female).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Did I ever claim that a left wing party proposal focussed on a specific group? Please refer me to any passage where I did. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Again, I’ve repeatedly outlined why I think this counting up of ‘oppression points’ by an individual, based on a completely fictional construct of identification groupings, is nothing similar to the examples you’ve referred to above. 

Do you really think that American colonists,  individually and simultaneously, counted up their oppression points and magically united themselves together against their English oppressors based on their closest common denominator? No, that’s not how things work in society. If post-modernist thinking had been the norm, they probably would never have united themselves together in the first place. 

I’m dismissing the strategy or system, not the people. Where have I attacked the integrity of a/the person here? Again, please refer to those passages.

singularity: A person who is qualified is one who has atleast an IQ of 135, and a good background in philosophy, economics and political science
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So in essence, you re not afraid that some groups will be over-represented compared to other groups, and that the self-interests of those groups will have no detrimental effects on the country as a whole. Why do you think this would work? 

I can partially agree with your position regarding democrats. 

But are blacks also racist? https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965629/290416960

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So how would you have it?

Voters are not involved in making policy decisions. They vote for them. But anyway, omitting that for one moment, what would make a person ‘qualified’ to vote on policy decisions? 

Regardless. It is a given that countries that practice voter registration law will also require you to possess photo ID on the day of election. It goes without saying. Being pro abortion means nothing with regards to whether or not you are racist. Being a democrat is a better indicator that you will be pro abortion (while republicans are largely against pro-abortion policy). So are democrats racist? 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I can’ t see how being pro voter registration laws would automatically make him racist. Many democratic countries have mandatory registration systems...Mexico, Germany, Australia, the United Kingdom, etc...and have relatively high voting outcomes for minority groups. 

Well, it was an example set within the framework of the power struggle I’ve mentioned above. It can essentially be viewed as a competition to acquire the highest number of ‘negative’ group affiliations, which is the primary element that sets it appart from the historic usual. 

But also, I don’t believe that women (or men for that matter) view themselves in these restrictive ways. The category system is too simplified to make any real sense. Differences within the category ‘women’ might be greater than differences between different categories, and so the value of these category systems are limited. The systematic categorising of groups, because of its inherent over-simplification and subjectivity, does little to model how an individual actually perceives themselves or others in a society. 

Without naming the forums’ participant in this post—and because the goal isn’t to kick someone when they are already down— reading the said participant’s recent posts made me consider more seriously the toxic and counterproductive mode of thinking currently taking place in our educational institutions (but no longer exclusive to them). 

Their modus operandi is for individuals to self-categorise themselves, sum up their ‘negative group’ affiliations (negative would equate to lower power values), and then use rhetoric and lobbying to invalidate the opinion of individuals with a higher positive values than theirs. 

If you look for racism everywhere, you will find it. Which doesn’t mean it is everywhere or even anywhere.

Link1: because he was right in his prediction that the virus could come out of a wet market in China makes him a chief suspect in the creation or spread of the virus? No. And he wasn’t the first to make the prediction. Epidemiologists have been saying it for years now. Wet markets that trade wild or exotic animals have often been linked to outbreaks of zoonotic diseases, and because China has many of them, it is not a long stretch to assume that wet markets in China would be the most likely source.  On a slight tangent, he unfortunately didn’t foresee (or voice) the role labs could have in the creation of novel viruses (chimeras). If you have time on your hands, the link below is a challenging but excellent read on the dangerous world of gain-of-function, viral research. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Link 2: this link is more concerned about the inner musing and fantastical ruminations going on in head of an attention deprived Roger Stone—to be fair to Roger, the New York Post decided to make a ‘serious‘ piece on what was probably light heartened banter on a Radio/podcast show. 
But anyway, I never heard Bill Gates suggest that mandatory vaccination or implanting microchips into people was what needed to be done here. And then what? How would that serve Bill Gates? The microchip in the forehead idea has been a longstanding obsession within conspiracy groups. You really don’t need need it in your forehead. A smartphone will do. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Of course, I agree that we shouldn’t have private philanthropists rich enough to donate that kind of money to groups of their choice. But that is a different topic. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The problem comes if we mistake the supply and demand graphs for the real world of uncertainty, speculation, purposeful behavior, and change. It just doesn’t doesn’t take into account  a change in people’s behaviour, and because of that, it makes knowing whether the change occurred due to a change in price or because of a change in behaviour impossible. 

It’s essentially a theoretical, circular mode of  thinking....and can be summarised using the utility model which is... ..’Utility is the quality in commodities that makes individuals want to buy them, and the fact that individuals want to buy commodities shows that they have utility’. This is an empty tautology and it closes It off to experimental testing, and therefore makes predicting trends pretty difficult (case in point, the inability to predict something like asset bubbles, as a result of positive feedback loops, etc...).

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For starters, the imagery and perception of eternal punishment in the bible is completely different to the reality of life imprisonment in general. Regardless of whether we live in a society where humans can live eternally or not.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes. More intense and of a different kind, I would add. 

For the second part, and to be fair to you, that sounds more like our system, where life imprisonment isn’t necessarily life imprisonment (eternal isn’t necessarily eternal, dependant on the sinners’ subsequent remorse, pardon, etc....).

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Right. That the raids are taking place in Germany and not Lebanon makes more sense. 

So German police are now operating in Lebanon? A link supporting your claim would be greatly appreciated. 

Ok. I’m completely lost. Germany will be conducting ‘raids on Hezbollah in Lebanon soon’? I think not. From what I saw, Germany has carried out raids on Hezbollah groups (the military arm of Hezbollah was defined as a terrorist group by the EU since 2013) in Germany. 

On the other issue, Iran has snapped awhile back, and would have sent all the militias at its disposal to attack Israel long ago, if it could get away with it. But they also aren’t completely suicidal in nature. 

I don’t think the term ‘massive concern of an economist’ is supported by the link you just provided. If anything, the link supports my position that, because economists are traditionally focussed on a relatively small subset of metrics, a few have recently shown interest in expanding their field of determinants to include the currently in vogue idea of ‘happiness’.

A single case in point being (but I could provide hundreds of others): the reliance on flawed models that contributed to the scale of the 2008 crash – by encouraging decision-makers to underestimate risks.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Firstly,  and just because he has an interest in the topic of sustainability doesn’t mean he is a non-biased entity and that his work won’t be influenced by this. Secondly, if the theory or the mathematical model is over simplistic or incorrect, his conclusions might also be.

My primary argument was not necessarily that the field of economics is too narrow and focused, but that the field is just bad at modelling and understanding society and human behaviour as a whole. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I read their comments. Almost every comment points to the supply and demand theory, in one way or other, and it was the basis on which they made their decision. I did not see a ‘wide variety of reasons for their decisions’. They all used slightly different language to denote the supply and demand theory. I also did not observe the ‘wonderful beauty of economics’. 

If variety denotes beauty, it cannot be viewed as beautiful. If accuracy and high predictability value denote beauty, it would also not be beautiful.  

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I’m not sure what difficulty has to do with disagreement here. Why would a difficult field lead to more disagreement within that given field?

Can economists have different facts? Yes. And, if their models were adequately descriptive of reality you actually wouldn’t expect them to reach this level disagreement and coming to ‘ completely different conclusions’.

Also I ’m not sure what the over-simplicity of mathematical models in economics has to do with the amount of research ‘done on it.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It’s a good sign, and we are all in the same boat. No one can really know enough about topics like these: which are so large in scope and multidisciplinary. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You specifically alluded towards some similarity between ‘the creator’s sense of justice’ and ours, and I argued that it wasn’t similar, and so God’s punishment strategy is the topic we were both referring to. However, in the interest of the conversation, it could be argued that God’s punishment strategy isn’t completely separate to ‘Israelite law’ practices.  Some might view God’s actions and judgements as precedent—a case that establishes a principle or rule. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes I can. But again, I’ll be clear in saying that this is all about God’s devine retribution. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You’ve perfectly exemplified why I think economists are ill suited to advising us on the issue. I agree that economists are well equipped to deal with topics related to production, consumption and the transfer of money, that said, the service of providing a place to live for a population of a city or country in exchange of a regular fee, cannot be adequately analysed by merely using those metrics. There are so many more important factors that need to be considered. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

You’ve shown us they can be over simplistic. Your first link demonstrated to us how they use the theory of supply and demand to explain trends in the rental market. Additionally, and as I alluded to above, they can afford to be ‘simplistic and facile’ specifically because their metrics are minimally concerned or adapted to consider the public welfare as a whole.  Economics is not a difficult field. It is a field that studies a very complex system with insufficiently complex tools to make any good predictions.

___________________________________________________________________________________

I should have maybe asked you this before, but why would the field of economics be an area of expertise with regards to city demographics and planning? Urban design policy is a multidisciplinary process. It starts with the identification of certain urban needs and leads to the design of solutions to meet stated goals. Political and governmental committees and groups oversee the process. 

Most economists would be equally wise to adopt your more tentative position on a topic they are probably quite unfamiliar with, instead of entering like a bull in a China shop with their questionable ‘theories’ and models. 

The problem with economics is that they use the simplistic world of economics to understand the complex world of human behaviour and society. The result of this is their inability to forecast....along with, in the field of macroeconomics, polar opposite views are held between different factions. And, given the scientific method isn’t their modus operandi, this inability to predict is hardly surprising. Note that I’m not suggesting economists are useless but just that their position on certain issues should be taken with a gain of salt. 

________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

Urban design and planning have been around much longer than economists have. 

The primarily idea used against the concept of rent control is the theory of supply and demand, and so it comes as no surprise that economists (above all other groups)—and as true proponents of the over-simplistic supply and demand mantra—would be all out against the idea of rent control.
Many of them see economic theories and models as true representations of reality, and this results in an inflated view of their understanding and a belief that questions can be addressed through use of that theory alone. 
I would argue that this simplistic framing of rent control by people like economists, policy makers, etc....prevents them from seeing the many other variables.

Of course that’s not to mention the many options available within a spectrum of rent control policies. I could agree that certain control policies may be too extreme or inadequate in attaining the goals the policy strives for (or may even have an opposite effect), but it would be disingenuous to make the claim that no such policy systems could work. 

There is also the issue of the rent-control policy fitting the environment in which it exists. Variables will differ from one place to the next. Applying a blanket policy to all regions, cities, etc... would also be over simplistic. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

One of the primary reasons why many of us would retrospectively view many of God’s actions as seemingly ‘evil’ simply has to do with our gradual movement away from the punishment strategies that were used during biblical times. 

I would argue that, of all the punishment strategies humans have created and concocted, the biblical punishment strategy couldn’t be much more different to the strategies and conclusions applied in our judicial systems today (which could be a discussion in its own right). 
____________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Deterrence is just one of 5 objectives in the concept of punishment. The other four are denunciation, incapacitation, retribution and rehabilitation. Separate punishment systems will place a specific value of importance to each of these punishment objectives, or may even decide to eliminate one or more of them altogether.
One of the most glaring differences I can see between punishment in biblical times and now is the strong role of retribution in deciding outcomes, in the bible. In contrast, our ‘modern’ judicial system places more importance on things like incapacitation and rehabilitation—while deterrence is a currently debated issue and arguably inefficacious. 

And so, I disagree that the ’creator of the universe has a similar sense of justice’ to ours. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

While the idea is an interesting one, it doesn’t serve your ultimate attack on the idea that ‘God is evil’. Visibly, the judicial system operates within a temporal framework, but even if it didn’t, you would be hard pressed to prove that any new, atemporal system would have an identical or similar punishment-objective value to those attributed to God. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, it is ‘hopeful’ at best. The concept of deterrence has within it the false assumption that humans behave in a rational manner, and that they consider the consequences of their behavior before deciding to commit a crime. This is largely false. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

I’am empathetic to the difficult position Christians often face, (but not exclusive to them) which is, namely, the juggling act of holding two or more seemingly contradictory ideas simultaneously in one head.

We are perfectly able to cherry pick the bible and find some passage here or there that supports our largely, socially derived position (because let’s not kid ourselves about where these things evolve) on issues related to feminism and specifically, their potential role in the management of something like the Catholic Church. 
Both sides will have their pre-existing positions along with their favorite bible passages and references to support them, and as such, it becomes useless and counterproductive for both sides to make forever endless reference to the biblical text. 

Observing and adapting to the ‘slow‘ and gradual evolution of social norms is probably a better strategy in making those decisions.

On the other hand, society is also in need of strong conservative systems and groups that, on occasion, run contrary to these rapidly shifting and evolving social norms and movements. The Catholic Church happens to be one of them. 

Pre-1948, Palestine referred to the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river (roughly what is considered modern day Israel). But today it refers to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. What are you referring to, geographically speaking? Do you agree with the UN’s 1947, partition proposal? 

Palestine? What Palestine are you talking about?

The Palestine governed by the......’Ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Israelites, Judeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, ancient Greeks, the Jewish Hasmonean Kingdon, Parthians, Sasanians, Byzantines, the Arab Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid caliphate seems, Crusaders, Ayyubibs, Mamluks, Mongols, Ottomans, thé British, and modern Israelis, Jordanians, Egyptians, and Palestinians?’

So tough times result in the rising from the dead of Christ? Or did you mean something else?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Now you’ve muddled up the concept of law with the notion of a historical account or story. You’ re essentially taking a back foot by suggesting that, ultimately, all these things can be reduced to ‘God’s laws anyway‘. But unfortunately, you don’t get to systematically reduce every story or historical account, derive a series of laws from them, and then make the claim that the story is pretty much the law and the law is the story.
A story can inform you of many more things like social and cultural norms, the character types, the narrative point of view, etc...information difficultly obtained by just laws and orders.

My entire argument was, whether correct or incorrect, this supposed ‘embarrassment’ you identified in Christians was more to do with the information gleaned from these stories and historical events and less to do with the nature of the laws themselves. That said, I never discounted a possibility of both actions taking place simultaneously.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Which is why I referenced the chapters and verses so they can speak for themselves, without the need for you to resort to red herring tactics. The reputation of ‘Mad Magazine’ and its equivalent has nothing to do with the argument, and does nothing to weaken my position. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ok. Now you’re making things much harder for Christians. What exactly is the method of choice Christians use to assess whether a verse is attributable to God or not? Is it the method..... ‘whenever a verse says something like ....’and God said’...., or is it the systematic cherry picking process, whereby a verse, if it matches well with their current view of morality and social norms, is directly attributable to God, and the verses that don’t fit this narrative are conveniently forgotten or omitted?

Of course I agree with you that in these particular instances, man set out to commit a terrible deed and merely used God as a scapegoat for their actions.
But without a reliable method to discriminate between the God parts vs the Man parts, it would be easy to make the claim that all parts are the mere product of Man, including laws and commandments. However, Christians largely defend these laws by postulating that these are directly handed by God to man, regardless of how archaic they might be. 
So I’m sorry, until you clearly outline that method, but you can’t just cherrypick your flavour of the week without compromising the other parts of the book.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

I’ve equally responded to your posts before only to, shortly thereafter, see ad hominem galore. Not the hallmark of good debate and sportsmanship. 

Maybe your ad hominem is due to the fact that I only signed up on this excellent forum a couple days ago, and only have a few posts to my name (Namely, Marko, because Marco is my real name but all too common), while you have, let’s see, a whopping 572 (0 debates). Touche

On a first hand, and for reasons beyond my knowledge, you fail to identify the dynamics at play in your own topic, and then simply brush off my points by using off handed remarks verging on the ad hominem. 
My post isn’t worth responding to if you really have nothing to respond to it with. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maybe so, but I think it has less to do with Biblical laws (whether they are embarrassed by them or not) and more to do with the inherent nature of the God described in the bible, especially the Old Testament.
In Hosea 13:4, 9, 16, God destroys the pregnant woman and foetuses of those that do not worship him. In Isaiah 13:9–16, Babies are slaughtered and wives raped. In Judges 18:1–28 god approves the massacre of a peaceful people so one of his tribes could have a place to live. In Judges 11:30–39, a daughter is burned as an acceptable sacrifice to God. In Psalm 137:8–9, God wants you to be happy to dash babies against rocks, and the list goes on and on.......

The depiction of God’s character in the Old Testament is sufficient enough to accuse him of tyrannical behaviour, without having to consider his laws and orders.

___________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

They do for some and they don’t for many. And it’s based on what specific law you are talking about. We, on the large majority will never kill, steal, or drive without car insurance, and these constraints produce largely no conflict at any time.
On the other hand, a few laws may be treated with more resistance either because there they are novel (e.g. connecting to unsecured WiFi), misunderstood (e.g. peeing outside, copyright infringement) or perceived by some people as nonsensical (e.g. playing poker for money at home, copyright infringement, not getting an animal license, etc....). 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The shutdown we are all experiencing is, as you already know, not a shut down of everything. It is a temporary and selective shut down of many things but not essential things. So if the shutdown doesn’t continue indefinitely, and it won’t, people starving to death won’t be a widespread reality. At least here. 

My other point was that several smaller shutdowns could produce a chronic economic downturn that could potentially end up having a greater negative outcome than one, strong but successful lockdown.

I have no idea where you are getting your figures from. 

Firstly, what are the causes of death during the Great Depression, and are they relatable to this one? 

Secondly, and again, where did you get your figures from regarding the number of projected deaths from the Wuhan Virus (because that’s where it came from) if we did nothing? 
Finally, certain models predict that a hard initial lockdown could, in terms of long term economic benefits, be better than several half heartened ones.
Some things are just counterintuitive. That said, everything is up in the air atm. 

Provide the sources

So essentially you re willing to blindly vote for someone like Biden (over a third party member, or in a worst case scenario, trump himself) simply because of what......?
People are sometimes so stuck up in their affiliation to a political party that they forget to ask themselves whether that party is still affiliated to them.

So where does Biden stand on the political spectrum?
He is evidently pro war, he is evidently pro China, he is clearly for the reduction of tax for the super wealthy, he is evidently anti healthcare at the point of delivery, and the list goes on and on. 

How could an ex Sander.s voter even consider voting for someone like Biden over any other candidate, as someone who represents the exact opposite they stand for. 

And I will go further, if the option of voting for a third party or not voting at all wasn’t available to them, I’m convinced ex sander’s voters would be more at home with Trump than someone like Biden.