Not really. You falsely represent Netanyahu’s position as indiscriminate killing/genocide & shoot down every alternative I suggested to what he is actually doing to defend Israel. You may say it is right for Israel to defend herself, but you nix the how — so your words are EMPTY.
The AI I know would sniff that out a mile away 
Done!
.
Lel… 
You can make a conspiracy theory out of everything. That’s part of how life works.
You could interpret all the sexual studies as a conspiracy of satan.
No. I just means we have less free will than we think.
It’s mind blowing to know for a fact that women who don’t want to get pregnant with the 1-10% of men that they have actual sex with don’t want to reproduce with has existed for the duration of the human species.
That disproves evolution.
So you have two things you have to think about.
Evolution is false. God doesn’t exist.
That’s really hard for people to think outside the box of.
Statistics don’t lie. Where do we go from there?
Do we really think we have free will when we’re just another statistic?
I agree. Having worked in an environment in which the dangers of thinking for others were highlighted because it seems a natural tendency to infantilise sick people, I am very reactive against it when I feel it is done for me. Of course, it becomes even more of a problem when politicians feel entitled to override a population’s opinions, or a more daily occurrence is when processes become AI-enhanced and automated in a particular direction.
The answer to “what for and to what end” is simple. It is the desire of those who have control to have more control, which has been the status quo in history when we had the so-called aristocracy, the supposedly “better” ones ruling the common class. This was obviously extended to the colonies, where indigenous people were considered too primitive to think for themselves. However, this sense of entitlement was always postponed when real problems arose, revealing not only the inability of the aristocracy but also their lack of concern for those they had been thinking for.
It has been very much alive in the global economy, which has rolled over national economies, leaving stable countries in debt to the World Bank and local producers unable to sell their wares. Unfortunately, many of us in the West were beneficiaries of such policies, but the tide is turning, and our own politicians are questioning our entitlement.
Of course, a high degree of dependency has been created, and pension schemes and policies created towards the end of the 19th century are no longer working because the global market dictated that they should not be too stable. Later generations will be left to themselves to provide for old age. It is, in particular, those people who are reliant upon their pensions, as well as functioning supply chains, which I foresee as being hit in the future, and the reinstallation of isolation facilities, where people go to languish in their illnesses, will probably be unavoidable.
The problem isn’t initially that the population becomes weak-willed or weak-minded but that their dependency is absolute. Consider those who live in huge cities if supply chains break down. Not only do they not know how to fend for themselves, but they also lack resources. The large population is no longer workable without the supply chains, which we see in places where conflicts already interrupt normal supplies.
I believe so. I can’t see the dependency and the current divide between haves and have-nots changing anytime soon. I suggest that it will become even more chaotic as people like Trump change the status quo to benefit himself and those like him. We see them everywhere, waiting to take up the baton and become the “New Aristocracy.” It is a rather bleak vision, I’m afraid, and I am encouraging my son to move out of the city and obtain land and a house to have the best chance of survival.
Bob,
That if if and how he is elected and if and how he can overcome his bars to his election, and if the house goes along, in spite of faking the new old news, and on and on, the Olde Regime fell, and the new aristocracy is not that naive not to see the precedent.
The trouble is evident on both sides of the aisle, the question or challenge is the revitalization of the ‘a-prior synthetic’
Support by its definition is not a form of harm, or spoiling.
Also in the bible we are supposed to love others equally
compared to our self interest. It doesn’t say self interest
is bad, but says self interest and interest for other,
should be equal, and both present.
Sure but in court black letter believe or not , overweights the facts, although they did come a long way.
Look at the sanctity of life vis.the right of life , as sandwiching the overturn of the abortion issu.
No wonder those who seek compromise on a yes and know issue, try to use cliches like make America great again despair of a failed solution.(so far)
I like where you are going with this, but it should be developed more. Identify when it is correct to think of/for others, and when not.
Yeah I have a ways to go with this, and that diverse opinions divide such issues to the extent that they loose the thread they think others may think about them.