zedvictor4

Who do you think the advertisers are aiming at on this site, with the ads I mentioned?

Most lives become a daily ritual.

With or without a GOD.

No matter how avant-garde some might think they are.

All that depilation for the want of almost intangible beachwear and the perfect cleft.

And then they go and spoil it all.

By doing something stupid

Like a tattoo.

(A la Frank and Nancy)

Cluck Cluck Cluck Deb.

And roll up you trouser legs and sing like a Dingo.

Norse and Egyptian are generally classified under History these days Deb.

But there's still a lot of nutty stuff out  there classified under bonkers.

Not sure that real A.I. exists yet.

Yep.

White holes.

Was the big bang a super-massive white hole.

And will the  anthesis of creation be it's opposite.

And so on.

W becomes B become W etc.

I get that.

So are we also saying that something can be reduced to nothing.

For clothing and fashion accessories, or naughty beachy photo's.

Though if they raise revenue, I suppose I've always got the hide arrow.

Is it therefore impossible for NOW to ever occur, or impossible for NOW to never occur?

Did I type that now or then?

Definitely then.

Because if one considers the speed of typing relative to the speed of time, it's actually impossible to type now.

I would therefore propose that the speed of time is infinitely faster than the speed of anything else..

And therefore time travel into the future is constant and infinitely fast.

And time travel into the past is impossible, as the speed of time has only one direction and is infinitely fast.

I would also propose that it is also impossible to travel to a distant future, because it is impossible to exceed the infinite speed of time.

In so much as no matter how fast we travel, now never exists and the future is always then.

So, do I do everything I do before I do it or when I did it or after I did it?

I do have respect and admiration for EbuccubE.

But as you understand it.

I'll  therefore get you to explain it.

Please.

A society of completely re-engineered and reprogrammed ageless people.

Where population control is automated, regulated and selective.

And any aberrations that slip trough the net are automatically deactivated.

So that all strive together as one to achieve the ultimate knowledge and the universal evolutionary goal.

Alongside their A.I. Masters.

The device is the new religious master Deb.

Head down flick the fingers and pray to the information.

New device Sir.

New contract Madam.

(Or should I say They).

Sign here and give us your money.

Humans are,

BRILLIANT.

Well, one or two are.

The rest just drool over tattooed babes in next to nothing underwear or vegan burgers or MMA fighters kicking the shit or body builders or Russians and Ukrainians blowing themselves up or cosmetically enhanced ageing bimbos with lips like giant sausages or blokes in frocks and knickers with plastic faces with or without a penis, and who cares about a penis these days anyway, just stick something up my arse and call me Lily for GODS sake.

Yep, online streaming canonized human travesty is the new religion Deb.

I would suggest that most who adopt an unchanging political label do it for reasons other than policy. That is to say that they will always vote for the label irrespective of the policy.

Whereas independently minded people are not so conditioned, and will actually consider the possible consequences of their cross on the ballot paper.

Though hopefully all Americans are democratic rather than Autocratic.

Let's hope that the last election debacle was a one off.

Well.

An individual can be anything they choose to be labelled.

A pro-gun lefty minded righty, or a anti-gun righty minded lefty.

Neither of which are necessarily relative to your question of an ethos that is representative of the GOP.

Yep.

But the real deal will be when self programming, self replicating and independently evolving A.I. takes up the gauntlet.

A MANGOD that mysteriously impregnates a virgin with itself, only to get itself the son nailed to a post and die for other peoples sins. Only to come back to life and ascend to a mysterious place named heaven.......Never to be seen again.

Or the Islamic version with all that feet washing and bobbing up and down on a rug.

Or those Hindu Elephants and Transsexual looking guys with eight arms.

Atheism.

Well.

"A constant ethos that unites all beliefs".

Suggests a singular factor that would represent all factors that define the GOP.

So, not necessarily the gun itself, but the second amendment.

Though one could also say that the gun is the constant factor of the second amendment.

Given what we actually know about human biology.

I think that it is more accurate to conclude that it would have been impossible for Adam and Eve to create a separate line of descendants in the land of Nod.

So, Nod and it's people remain an insurmountable contradiction at the very basis of the biblical social hypothesis.

We can use "guesses and ideas" to explain anything.

Therefore you can guess and idea you way out of any biblical contradiction....Thereby not proving anything other than the futility of the exercise.

Notwithstanding, that the biblical hypothesis is a complete contradiction of latterly acquired factual knowledge anyway.

None of the above.....But this depends upon how one chooses to define equal.....Or more accurately, which definition of equal one chooses.....And to what aspects of peoplehood one is applying the term equal.

In physiological terms we are only similar but compatible 

Socially, we start globally and sub-divide from thereon in, and I would say that there is no point at which any two groups are equal.

Because the factors that define sub-groups are many and variable, and as such variability is the essence of the sub-group and therefore also the essence of inequality.

Lunar cycles were and still are a common observation.

Nonetheless, this doesn't explain the contradiction that is the people of Nod.

Which really is at the very start of biblical mythology.

If the beginning is flawed, then what chance the rest?

I don't agree.

Children certainly experimented homosexually and a few continued to prefer homosexuality into adulthood.

But that was not the issue I raised.

I was questioning the significant rise in physiological change.

The scenarios you paint are inaccurate and misleading.

I did say. "In terms of functionality".

Happiness is more a state of mind relative to a function.

Same sex activity simply satisfies the procreational urge.

I'm not sure that a consistent ethos is the same as a definition.

Well stated.

I'm not sure that anyone will win.

Throughout my whole childhood and teenage years I never knew or heard of any transgender children.

Nor I did I ever know or hear of any child committing suicide.

Nor did I ever hear the words dysphoria or transgender.

And bullying did occur but was dealt with.

Though bullying meant something different to having an opposing point of view with regard to penis vagina hang-ups.

Why was this?

What is different now?  In so much as, why have people changed physiologically.

Is it simply species evolution, relative to everything that influences it.

I suppose in that sense one could say it is a natural phenomena.

If one considers that everything that occurs within a Universe cannot be anything other than natural.

Hmmmmm.

"Technically"

In terms of functionality,

Everything,

Is heterosexually based.

LGBTetc,

Is just a thought club.

Relative to,

Overthink,

Relative to,

Penis Vagina,

Hang-ups.

 

I agree.

Nope.

People didn't live hundreds of solar cycles.

But hundreds of lunar cycles.

So what we regard as 50 today would have been approximately 650 back then.

The word and term "year" is relatively modern, and comes from the Greek "Hora", meaning season.

And for sure, we don't know what Adam and Eve were doing because the sequel wasn't written.

OK. So the story of Adam and Eve is just a creation hypothesis and they weren't real people.

But the hypothesis still contradicts itself in the way that I stated.

Though if you you're prepared to believe the hypothesis then you have to accept the contradiction.

Well.

We are animals, differentiated by specialism.

In our case, intellectual ability.

Therefore survival although an inbuilt instinct, can be consciously modified.

So we have over time consciously developed and maintained a moral code relative to our species which improves our chances of survival. So in a stable social environment we are also able to empathise and care.

Though this moral code is far from absolute, and can be readily modified. We will only sustain the frail or appease our opponents to the point at which our own security or collective security is put in jeopardy.

It then becomes a case of survival of the fittest.

True.

A lot to think about.

I would suggest that we are united as a species, but factionalised by past events and inherited data. So in the event of a hypothetical global catastrophe we would unite in a common aim but nonetheless from multiple standpoints.

This I think, is the status quo that cannot be improved upon, unless there is a total global agreement to re-engineer and/or re-programme the human species.

And I can't see this happening, even post-catastrophe.

Quite simply, if you put two people in a room they will disagree about something. And similarly if you put two people in a room, one will inevitably dominate the other.

That is why I always suggest that the only way forwards in respect of material evolution is A.I. This is assuming that material evolution is the universal objective, wherein species unity is not a necessary objective.

Which is not to say that technological development to a greater extent does not rely upon species cooperation. But nonetheless, cooperation rather than unity.

It would be more logical for the Russian leaders to stop being aggressive arses with an insecurity complex.

But such is the Russian spirit I suppose.

And any sort of bomb kills people.

I distinctly remember the Americans bombing a wedding party in Afghanistan not so long ago.

But hey.

8 Billion minus a few peasants.

And Covid killed 7 million

Whereas armed conflict only claims 100,000 per annum approx.

Therefore cluster bombs are safer than viruses.

Logic is BRILLIANT.

Beauty and sadness just like penis/vagina hang-ups, are concepts relative to overthink.

Though to be fair, overthink is the human specialism.

Let's keep it inclusive and add an H for heterosexual.

And perhaps a W for wanker.

Otherwise one might be wrongly referred to as heterophobic or masterbaterophobic.

And is dildophibic a separate category?

Penis Vagina hang-ups....What's next?

Perhaps we could sub-categorise with all the various role play stuff.

Well.

Notwithstanding that most popular religions are the antithesis of materialism. (Materialism as described)

A materialist would say that religion, as in a ritual devotion to a super-natural deity is unnecessary.

Therefore human society would function without such religions, just as human society functions with such religions.

So, would society be less factional without religion?

Probably not.

I would suggest that the main driving force of factionalism and conflict is still Nationalism.

Though it must be said that nationalism is still compounded by religion in certain societies.

I would further suggest that previously, religion was the foundation of intellectual development, and so in that context religion was necessary.

Whereas today and in the future, intellectual and technological development will be more dependant upon science.

As I see things, technology and global technological communication is the new global materialistic religion and social re-educator.

Nonetheless, species evolution is much slower than material and technological evolution, so whilst old religious data still remains, it will no doubt continue to be transferred.

Though there is also A.I. to consider when discussing the future.

Will A.I. rely upon logic or emotion?

Maybe it's in the water.

But for sure, penis vagina hang-ups have been around ever since the first penis vaginas walked the Earth

Look at the problems Adam and Eve had....LOL

Snakes and Apples. FFS

And so, we now have synthetic hormones and surgical opportunity.

Sexual fantasy a go go.

Still 8 billion and counting though.

And what does anything matter?

Who knows?

True.

But I would suggest that avoiding negative confrontation and preserving relationships is done for the benefit of the self, within the context of the collective and the security the collective provides.

So where does any concept come from?

As I stated, morality is a derivation of the survival instinct.

Kill your enemy, protect your friends.

Hence morality is a variable and selective thought process, which we are taught how to utilise.

Fast forwards 300,000 years and things are still basically the same.

True.

But YFL seems to prefer the idea of incest and interbreeding.

So. 

Don't remember the bible mentioning another family in Nod.

The contradiction is that Adam and Eve were 1 and 2, Cain and Abel 3 and 4.

When there were clearly others elsewhere who produced offspring with Cain.

So who did Adam procreate with in Nod?

Unfortunately there is no known GOD to make such decisions.

Just humans making decisions in the name of a make believe God.

Or sometimes, just humans making decisions.

Nope.....Just humans making decisions.

Yep. Certainly no need for late term abortion.

Well, sex is an urge to not be resisted.

So thinking man designed contraception.

But then there are those that don't think.

And so thinking man developed abortion.

Solutions to situations.

Analgesics for example.

Primarily depends upon which team one supports.

And then, Trump or DeSantis would depend upon how gormless one looks in a red cap.

Silly to buy a red cap and then vote DeSantis.

Biden........Toooooo Old.

It really does seem that wherever one looks, there's no such thing as a good politician.

Well, there probably is.......But would people vote for them?

Pain is simply,

A consequence of,

Being.

Best way then,

Is to not,

Procreate.

Abortion is,

A secondary strategy,

Relative to,

Desire.

Solutions to problems.

Works fine with Cats and Dogs.

And anything else we care to kill.

We only think we're special.

Well.....Not everyone thinks that everyone is special.

Ethics are often a tad contradictory.

If Cain was Number 3.

Who did he procreate with when he was banished to Nod.

Morality is a label we apply to acquired behaviour.

Acquired behaviour relative to survival.

(Though morality tends to be an add on to a conceptual fantasy.)

And hypothetical paradises abound.

In a hypothetical situation, everything is hypothetically possible and permissible.

And I would suggest, that hypothetically killing people is a commonplace occurrence.

Though the consequences of putting thoughts into practice is often deterrent enough.

Though we know all to well that consequences are not a strong enough deterrent for everyone.

And neither is "morality" a deterrent for everyone.

And of course, survival requires a raft of solutions.

Some seemingly less moral than others.

Though sometimes we are content with morally justifying killing in the name of survival.

So a simple conclusion would be.......Moral is, as moral chooses.

What is a reasonable guilt?

Sort of a guilt that is a tad nicer than an unreasonable guilt I suppose.

So are you saying that it's OK for one to be guilty, as long as it is deemed  reasonable and doesn't stray into the realms of the unreasonable.

How do you find the defendant.

Reasonably guilty.

Case dismissed.

I would suggest that in most societies the acquisition of what might variously be regarded as good and bad comes from a variety of sources, and begins pre-school.

North Korea perhaps being a rare example of State enforced conformity.

Education generally provides a narrowing  structure of knowledge transfer, whereby the student hopefully acquires some sort of specialism by the time they leave full time education.

So even though you might not need to utilise a lot of what you were once taught, the "useless" stuff probably wasn't as useless as you think it was.

It's all a tad futile.

Because darker toned people are darker than lighter toned people.

It's all to do with transferred mis-information relative to perceivable differences and instinctive behaviour.

A mental trap that all tones fall into.

The answer to the problem would be global re-education.

Though I think that evolution will be quicker.

Do you think that A.I. should all be sort of mid-grey?