zedvictor4

He's nine.

But said thanks for the compliment.

Well firstly one needs to be big enough to play.

But not necessarily a fathom.

Perhaps half a fathom.

Prior to that one might get water boarded, if ones parents have previously been daftified.

Knife sex rituals are not uncommon too.

Daftification:  The process by which a child's brain becomes stupidified...

Can lead to psychotic episodes.

Symptoms include, various irrational bodily movements, singing and shouting.

In severe cases, one can develop obsessive attachments to guns and high explosives.

Let's say six chambers, one live round, one pull of the trigger.

Would you take your chances for £1 million?

16.666666666666666666666666666666666.

Good morning Sunday Steven.

Church first, Pub after I suppose.

Like.

We would always pick the right group even if it was the wrong group.

Or vice versa, depending upon whose point of view one is seeking guidance from.

It's a sort of win win, lose lose, win lose or lose win situation.

A bit like shoving a gun up ones arse and playing Russian roulette.

For sure.

Cogito ergo sum.

All evidence is relative to this, though ultimately we will never actually be able to qualify this statement.

So a belief indeed.

Though contextually we tend to apply this unqualification, as the standard basis of ongoing data management.

And on this basis we formulate a system of truth, falsehood and belief.

I think that ice cream is cool and gorgonzola is stinky.

I also think that the latest escalation of the Palestinian crisis was self induced.

Though such crises will inevitably occur, when delusions of grandeur are perpetuated.

The consequences of tobacco and alcohol ingestion, though similar in terms of potential detriment, are distinctively different in terms of what is generally regarded as overdosing.

As for the quality of tobacco and alcohol products:

Despite legalization and regulation, black-market trade still exists, therefore the quality of all products cannot be guaranteed.

And this can be said for virtually all consumer products.

So it's fair to suggest that the legalization and regulation of other potentially addictive chemical substances, such as opiates, will not eradicate the black market trade of low quality products.

In the UK; the availability of free rehabilitation programmes involving synthetic opiate provision, has not reduced the level of opiate related deaths. Nor has it reduced levels of addiction.

Nonetheless, I will concede that the regulation of certain potentially harmful chemical substances, may affect overdose rates, but only where people choose to comply with a regulatory system.

Which is certainly not the same as proposing that the legalization of all drugs will end the overdose crisis.

Unfortunately, despite all the relevant information being out there, there is seemingly very little that can be done to stop certain people doing stupid things.

OK.

So empty is not the best descriptive.

Electrically charged space is more appropriate.

Context.

Very true.

Thinking that one either does or does not exist, requires the same amount of mental effort, within the context of existence...Psychosis is how we have come to classify certain instances of mental processing, based upon the rationality of output relative to a collective expectation.

Believing that one will be able to continue breathing for a prolonged period, is more of a calculation based upon an assessment of real time events, within the context of existence.

A real time assessment of events wherein survival cannot be guaranteed, is not really a lack of faith, but simply a realistic assessment of a situation, within the context of existence.

Being prepared to ignore logic and accept without real proof that a creator GOD is a fact rather than an assumption, is an acquired trait.

Belief is a loosely definitive label that we can apply to such mental processes and associated conclusions.

Doing fine thanks.

People are selectively moral.

Always have been.

Probably always will be, for as long as it's written into our DNA.

Labels such as "Pro life" are just self adhesive tokens of insincerity.

Easily peeled off.

Well, tobacco kills more people because more people use it...Same with alcohol.

Perhaps because it is legal.

Though the damage is mostly long term, rather than an immediate reaction to an overdose, or a bad reaction to an impure substance.

And people should not die as a result of clinically controlled treatment.

Nonetheless, the term "drugs" is something of a generalisation, referring to potentially dangerous chemical substances.

And of course, some substances are potentially more dangerous than others. Especially when an immediate overdose is ingested. 

Eat a bowl of apple pips and you will OD on cyanide.

Even so, I don't think that apples are addictive.

Which is why apples are legal and heroin isn't.

I read somewhere that an atom is mostly empty space.

So we are actually composed of very little.

Maybe so.

But they were replaced by the same but different.

The controlled will always resent the controllers.

Well, having belief in oneself could mean a variety of things.

For instance; do you mean belief in one's existence, or belief in one's ability to achieve something specific

So, here's a question that you will enjoy.

Considering that the human mass is 90% bacterial.

What actually are we?

I suppose that we are a mass that is 90% bacterial and 10% other.

Though given the theory, perhaps we we are actually 100% something infinitely/finitely smaller than human or bacterial cells.

Which is sort of what I have thought for a long time.

There's a huge difference between  legalization and a controlled therapy.

In the UK we already use synthetic opioids as a controlled therapy, but this relies entirely upon the will and cooperation of the patient. 

The reckless will still overdose, legally or not.

So the current  culture of supply and distribution might change, which might affect the culture of drug use in relation to the addicted.

Perhaps that is what you are driving at.

Though are you certain that the legalization of addictive drug supply and usage, wouldn't encourage a wider level of participation.

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.