zedvictor4

Yep.

Resources will  be controlled, by one group of controllers or another.

And so the controlled will always resent the controllers.

In terms of the greater task, it's a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Exactly.

 

Addictive drugs are never safe to consume, recreationally.

End of story.

An overdose is an overdose, legal or otherwise.

How would making drugs legally available, reduce the overdose crisis.

I see no logical correlation between legal availability and a reduction in reckless behaviour.

Proof of what?

Any theory that is 30% short of the necessary data, remains unprovable.

Therefore the 70% of factual data is not necessary to the argument, until the 30% shortfall is overcome.

Pascal was working on the assumption that GOD was stupid rather than sensible.

I think that a lot of theists work on the same assumption.

If there is a greater purpose to what we do, then the system must continue.

Intelligence is all...Tax and wealth are just the glue.

A lot of people are of no use to the system

Whereas those that organise the system are necessary.

Sorry.

Didn't understand that last question.

Please rephrase if possible.

Very interesting indeed.

Hello Ebuc.

Quantum foam, quantum jus, quantum mousse.

Sounds good to me.

I'll celebrate with another cup of quantum tea.

Regards.

Zed.

How does the legality of the issue, affect the reality of human behaviour?

Making drugs available at the Super-Mart, would legitimise the production and supply processes, thus eradicating the current production and supply culture. (Perhaps)

Though the addict would still be addicted, and therefore prone to both anti-social and self destructive behaviour

So one might suggest that the legalization of drugs would perhaps exacerbate these problems.

Legalizing drugs doesn't make them any safer to consume..

Yep. Is it nearing the time when the bugs will require extermination.

Undoubtedly.

When all is said and done, we are individual data processing units.

Inextricably dependant upon the greater GOD principle though.

But not inextricably dependant upon 2000 year old analogical myths.

Which isn't to suggest that analogical myths were not/are not a necessary part of the process.

After all, such myths created societies that promoted material sciences.

And  clever floaty about folk might have visited, but there is no definitive proof.

Which isn't to suggest that certain inevitable human behaviour such as religious devotion and worship, were/are absolutely necessary.

But hey, that's just how things worked out...No going back as it were.

I would suggest, that we actually worked it all out for ourselves, and that we will continue to do so for now.

So yes, we should certainly have belief in ourselves.

But let's just hope that WW3 isn't our next big achievement.

Though if that's how things pan out, that's how things will pan out.

And then move on.

In this context "Man" refers the complete species, rather than just one half of the binary system.

Theoretically, perpetuating the processes of material evolution.

Ultimately achieving the resurrection of the Universe.

Long way to go...A lot to do.

And whether or not humans will be along for the whole journey.

Hmmmmmm.

Depends upon how big the unit is and how much energy it takes to sustain it's processes and actions.

Material evolution aka the GOD principle, aka GOD.

Ergo man is GOD and GOD is man.

Belief and the GOD principle are simply established concepts, relative to how the human machine processes data.

So we are an essential factor of the ongoing universe and currently the primary agent of the GOD factor...This might or might not always be so.

Nonetheless, belief in our ability is seemingly pre-programmed and inevitable.

Free to choose...Nah, I don't think so.

Well, when all is said and done, femininity represents the species as much as masculinity does.

If the species eventually becomes single gendered and asexually reproductive.

Then so be it.

As long as the species survives and completes it's task.

Anthropocentricism is currently, reasonably accurate.

I would also suggest that handing over the baton to another alternative intelligence is a reasonably realistic proposition.

Well.

I can definitely say that I am not afraid of women.

Which isn't to say that people of either gender cannot be scary at times.

Just said either gender there to wind up the multi-genderists.

What if certain speech that is branded as hate speech, is nonetheless accurate in what it says.

You answered the question in line 1.

But you knew that.

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.