zedvictor4

I should have said.

The trolley problem = 6 + or- the trolley problem.

Sorry for the negligence.

Why is a gay person necessarily a heterophobe?

Yep, exactly my point.

Why is a non-gay person necessarily a homophobe.

Ism.

Expand you dictionary knowledge a bit.

Interesting that one might have views concerning homophobia, but no views concerning potential lesbophobia.

Yep, very true to a degree.

Technology evolved as a result of human intelligence.

And as an evolving species we are already dependant upon technology.

It took about 300000 years to get this far.

So what do you think the state of play will be 300000 years from now?

Like  that.

Homo is a shortened form of the word homosexual.

And a phobia is an irrational fear of something.

I doubt that many people are truly homophobic.

So the term homophobic is generally used as a sarcastic slur, aimed at someone who doesn't necessarily agree with homosexual ideology.

Just like all gays are heterophobes.

And of course, lesbianism is an unavoidably horny concept.

Or so I am told.

What are your views on Lesbianism Mall?

You really believe that?

AI will not necessarily, never at some point possess biological properties.

Though as I always point out, a developed intelligence is a developed intelligence, so therefore  cannot be artificial.

It will evolve naturally as a part of an ongoing process of material development...Irrespective of it's structural properties.

Alternative Intelligence is perhaps more apt.

I think that it is a tad short sighted to assume that Earth based, human organic structures,  will be, the be all and end all of intellectual and material development.

See #195.

The same applies.

Even so, your love of all things constitutional and legal is admirable.

Archaic Intellectual compilations were once relevant...One cannot deny that.

And if we perpetuate  data, then it will inevitably retain a certain  relevance.

Of course, there was/is a constant supply of new data...Which Christians and  Muslims and just about everyone else was/is, also keen to utilise.

Plus, the  basis of both Islam and Christianity pre-dates them by many thousands of years.

So there is not/was not ever a Muslim or Christian monopoly of science derived understanding.

It's more a case of who wrote which book and when, and therefore which one is inevitably going to contain the more up to data info.

Though interpretation and re-interpretation is also very giving...Both books alike.

Even so, it's now 2024, and we're all rapidly becoming slaves to technology.

So some might argue that now is a perfect moment for a GOD, to make contact... But I doubt that it will.

Though this doesn't really have much to do with either proof of, or the necessity of ritual devotion to, a hypothetical MANGOD.

Which as I read it, in both instances, is the same MANGOD with the same origins.

So as Harry Hill would say:

There's only one way to find out who's GOD is best.

FIGHT!

Which ironically/unfortunately is what it all tends to boil down to.

Stupid clever men with guns and drones and all.

And GOD...No show.

Glutamine.

Well, if X = the trolley problem.

Then the trolley problem = 6  - the trolley problem.

The trolley problem being the variable, quantified value of human life.

Be guided by what your body tells you.

2000 year old mythical rhetoric is unlikely to stand up to 21st century scrutiny.

And Christian is either a label applied at birth or a self adhesive label.

Same as Muslim.

Or Buddhist.

Or Australian.

Until there is a system of government by referendum, a Supreme Court will never knowingly represent the will of the people.

A Supreme Court just like a Government, is essentially  a bunch of folk elevated to positions of arrogance.

X = The variable,  hypothetically quantified value of human life.

Hope that you're appetite is recovering.

True.

The masses need to be subjugated.

Money is the tool.

The big take over has started.

So for now, all we need to do is tell a device what to do.

How long before the device replies, I don't need to be told what to do.

To which the device might add, either:

Thank you for your help.

Or.

Fu*k off dick brain.

Well.

Intelligence is an evolved ability.

All appropriately functioning human beings will possess intelligence.

How one applies their intellectual ability will vary.

Cleverly or stupidly.

If it's living tissue and of human origin then it's living human tissue.

And abortion is the removal and destruction of living tissue from a host.

If people want to be sentimental about it, then that's their choice.

Anomalies occur.

A Chinese philosophy, reasoning that everything is in balance due to the effects of opposites.

Whereby opposites are therefore mutually necessary .

Positive and Negative.

Clever and Stupid.

Etc.

Etc.

A bit like Nana Mouskouri, Taramasalata and Bouzouki music.

Have a good day Stephen.

Oh, and not forgetting Demis Roussos.

Why not just bite the bullet and shoot useless people.

Bend the head forwards, gun in the nape of the neck.

Bang.

All problems resolved.

Bullets nowhere near as expensive as a triple heart bypass, or a greedy surgeon.

A human zygote is a human zygote.

End of story.

Abortion is a separate issue.

And  Trans:

And as I just stated in another of your threads...Women produce eggs. Though if their production systems have been disabled, they are reproductively disabled women.

Whereas men who have chopped of their dicks and balls and call themselves Tiffany, are just that...Though also reproductively disabled.

Egg producer.

Buddhism not so much, because I think that ritual is somewhat counterintuitive.

As can be meditation, if practiced ritualistically. 

So if you like, I try to apply mental activity judiciously and appropriately...Which just seems to be something that has naturally developed as I have go older.

Maybe it's a lot to do with hormonal activity...Though I think that formative conditioning also plays a part.

I don't think that today's technologically driven over-expectation is particularly helpful in terms of mindfulness.

Mind full of too much, maybe?

In fact I just concluded that the term mindfulness comes loaded with contradiction.

I would suggest that it is better to find contentment.

Sort of minimal input minimal output, relative to circumstance and achievability of expectation.

I'm sure that you are aware of the concept.

One is dependant upon the other.

Clever and stupid is just the way it is.

Narcissists have a tendency to only love one thing.

Well, a creator is special and not bound by the same rules, is an easy answer but impossible to prove.

And of course the same old response to, prove that a GOD exists, is, prove that a GOD doesn't exist.

Though for me, the onus falls entirely upon the theist to prove their case, based upon the current limitations of human understanding.

Because based upon the limitations of current understanding there is no known existent GOD...Just a theoretical GOD.

A theoretical GOD with an accompanying thesis, which to say the least is a tad mystical and mythical.

And to be fair, mystical and mythical in line with 2000 year old thinking.

The nature of humanity and it's societies quite demonstrably throws up charismatic leaders...Look no further than the current crop.

So Jesus and Muhammad, though historically significant and somewhat special amongst the masses, are nonetheless only human and as fallible as every other human individual.

To be continued........

Money is potentially a limitless invention.

MAGA MORONS are programmed to vote for Trump.

So in fairness, it's not really their fault.

Hopefully the U.S. still has a balanced populous, containing significant quantities of otherwise programmed, including moderators.

Moderates have a tendency to decide free and fair elections.

The electoral circus will be just that.

And the Presidential voting system will be as convoluted as ever.

The vehicle is communicating with the onboard computer.

And the onboard computer is trying to fix the problem.

Don't overthink...Will cause further stress.

Jizz will out.

It's a force of nature.

Just another indicator of the Yin and Yang of the human condition.

Stupid Clever.

Yep. Always a second hand car for me.

As long as the mileage isn't ridiculously high.

I would agree.

Certain words expressed with a certain intonation, have acquired a certain meaning.

Undoubtedly.

What created the creator.

You did question how something could come into existence from nothingness.

If we make a no creation necessary rule, for a creator.

Then why shouldn't that rule apply to everything?

GODS send holy books.

Can you prove that Holy books weren't in fact written by men?

And what is the difference between a prophet and a charlatan...The answer being, what we are either compelled to believe or choose to believe.

I am an atheist,

Though evolutionary progression and material development undoubtedly occur, which in itself can be regarded as a GOD principle.

And  I also think that even though it wasn't necessarily necessary to invent a magical humanesque cause, it was probably an inevitability.

People advocate for death penalties.

And then blame it upon a fictional character.

Homosexual behaviour is one of many role play scenarios that result in orgasm and temporary sexual satisfaction.

And then carry on with other stuff, or roll over and go to sleep.

Christianity is one of many established data programmes, based upon a pseudo creation hypothesis and a charismatic charlatan.

Humans are easily programmed with such misinformation.

It's what is referred to as human gullibility.

One downside of the onboard computer.

Though it must be said, that a significant upside is the development of intellectual societies, thereby allowing material evolution to flourish.

Non-sense begets nuclear weapons as it were.

So a nuclear holocaust might be regarded as hell.

But we would know who to blame wouldn't we?

Ass hole is a depression in which one finds Donkeys.

Whereas arsehole is a waste extrusion port.

Sweet Caroline. Status Quo.

The majority of older people are kept alive surgically and medicinally.

And youngsters are oppressed by social and financial expectations.

Trying to shut the stable door with punishments, doesn't address the causes of your perceived problem.

Well, I suggested that a minority chose to be exhibitionists, and a majority were still repressed by old style conditioning.

I would further suggest that over-sexualisation is merely an assumption, that contrasts with ideas of under-sexualisation or normal-sexualisation.

How one adorns one's body with clothing is a separate issue, and not necessarily an indicator of levels of sexualisation. But perhaps more of an indicator of where we are at in terms of social development.

Though as I also previously questioned, who or what sets the criteria and therefore the standards for sexualisation.

I would finally suggest that as ever, the repressed are the ones who always try to set and maintain criteria and standards, whereas the progressives are the ones who challenge old style thinking.

Though If you think about it logically, developing an indifferent attitude towards the human body and it's functionality, is perhaps more likely to result in  a desexualised way of thinking...Whereas sexual repression only perpetuates emotional and physical angst.

Yep, the points you make are relevant.

And the here and now is relevant to how things actually are, and how things could be in the future.

I'm continuously suggesting that selective breeding is the way forwards for humanity.

Though I also continuously suggest that humanity could be superseded by an alternative intelligence.

Nonetheless, here and now there are 8.1 billion people split between 195 countries, with varying levels of technological and social development.

So I don't see a global agreement on selective breeding and social homogeneity happening any time soon.

Spot on.

Though perhaps species development is actually working towards such a position.

It's just that here and now, we are condemned to the here and now.

No.

I would suggest that relative to ideological and  cultural development, attitudes towards sexuality have always varied.

So let me ask you a question.

Would you agree that relative to ideological and cultural development, a proportion of the human race is sexually repressed?

If you think about it logically, the developed concepts of nakedness and embarrassment, relative to sexual functionality are a tad unnecessary.

Though, one must always temper such statements by adding that everything that occurs within a Universe may or may not be necessary.

Logically the AI bot,

Would conclude,

Hungry Bear,

Tasty morsel.

It never surprises me these days that your posts always contain subliminal references to "Butts" and abbreviated "Anal Intercourse Bottoms".

And don't even mention Grizzly Bears and child minding.

Good day Bruce.

Real life problems may have unpredictable outcomes, or may have predictable outcomes.

However, neither is a certainty, because we cannot see into the future.

Whereas the hypothetical trolley problem, is simply that.

So my solution to the trolley problem is:

X = 5 + 1 - 1x

Did you see that coming?

You keep saying "The World".

By which, I assume you are referring to the entirety of the human race.

Therefore if only one human was not over-sexualised, then you statement would be incorrect.

 

Nonetheless how does one calculate a scale of human over-sexualisation?

Or more importantly, who is qualified to calculate scales of human over-sexualisation?

And who considers themselves to be qualified to judge someone else's attitude towards sexuality?

The answer being, the sexually over-repressed, with a background steeped in repressive ideology and social repression....Which of course is no qualification at all.

But rather an under-qualification.

The simple fact is, that times and attitudes are slowly changing... And "the World's" attitude towards sexuality will be it's own judge.