Just say no to drugs.

Because socialism in the Marxist-Leninist way doesn't work! It ruins the economy and creates in the end in the best case a stagnant backward economy with few incentives and a multitude of problems. At worst it create a catastrophe, just like in Venezuela. — ssu

This comparison is unjust. Sanders is by all means not fixated of nationalizing everything in the market. Only some more regulation and much needed higher taxes on the ultra-rich. His policies should lead to higher GDP growth in the long term if that's the only thing that matters to Joe or Sandy.

Furthermore, I'm tired of having the stigma of privatized prisons in the US. This is something spawned out of some lunacy and needs to stop.

I listen, Baden. And, this thread isn't about me only...(?)

You're next on the list for continuously posting low-effort OPs in the main categories. — Baden

Ooo, I feel so motivated. You feel like banning me then do it. If the cognitive dissonance is that strong then so be it.

And, maybe this might come off as a surprise to you but, good threads don't only consist of a solid OP. Like, people can make mistakes, OK?

Extremism?

Stop smoking the crack.

:clap:

Call a doctor?

Sighs of relief! And, I'm done analyzing the logic here.

Over and out!

I'm unsure which comment to accept as the answer. Please discuss.

It becomes infinitesimally small ?

You really think being called a philosopher is a compliment?

So, were not going to call the Kettle (O'Riley) black with anger too?

Ok, that's enough from me, as there is a price to pay here.

I don't want anyone to actually pay it, God willing.

See above if that helps any...

Yes and no. One can always leave open the possibility that life has cheated one and change their position towards it.

There is no sophistry here, worry not.

I meant it with regards specifically towards the notion of a negative arising in life.

One must hedge for the notion of life allowing one to live in accordance to one's own Will...

And, this is profoundly liberating.

Well, think of it this way...

If I leave the possibility to entertain both notions at once by leaving open the possibility to have it both ways, then what's not to like about this position?

Please provide something more to go about here. I have given you the template, so you are not left to affirm or deny it, yes?

Well yes. If a person chooses to entertain this concept, then responsibility and accountability become absurd to nourish.

The grapes are indeed sour.

I don't think other terms are necessarily useful here. I have tried to be as succinct with words as possible, and these words were the only ones left to entertain.

In a manner of speaking, one overrides this disgusting notion of servitude to the Will of Nature, whilst placing suicide ever so above life as to find it unattainable.

Yes, but if I have died before death, and if this position is so much easier to attain, then it is of greater strength than merely an affirmation or denial...

The profoundness is to be found in this sort of rationale in that a negative becomes unnecessary, yes?

Yes, but do take it upon yourself to analyze the deeper truth here. If one has rationally preemptively understood death, then there is nothing that can be further taken away from such a being, or not?

Ethically speaking, one can extinguish ones flame without action. This is a rational position to live by and experience life.

The Stoics would have been horrified... and, rightly so.

There's a complete and worrisome silence over at CNN about Sanders winning so many states. Because of this I will leave the country.

Do you think when you hate loneliness, that you hate the idea of being by your-self? — Marty

I find my-self repulsive and full of negativity, especially as of late.

Does that contribute to what you describe?

Of course it exists just so that we can say that it doesn't.

Shitty post @Banno?

I kind of ran through your response, and think there's some merit to the idea. But, it strikes me ass odd to believe that you can't figure out the characteristics of a being by the things s/he creates.

Oh, like living with p-zombies?

Come again?

And what's wrong with that?

The concept of gratuitous suffering is rendered more aptly with a fawn or dog or cat than a cockroach???

Is the notion of omnibenevolence at all coherent? — Nils Loc

I don't think so.

Maybe God is feeling it all and that it continues is testament to his will that it is all worth it. — Nils Loc

Maybe's aside, doesn't that make God a masochist?

Should the fawn have not burned and lived a perfect life in a pristine utopian forest, and should have every one of God's creatures have done the same, would you then conclude God is omnibenevolent? — Hanover

Notice the unusual myown fixation in this thread on the word "gratuitous"?

Look at what happened to Japan...

I have a small solution to #1, being, the problem of GAI, but, #2, remains a sort of hidden variable working in the background.

The problem with #1, is exacerbated by appealing, to perhaps, the most important facet of GAI, that we could possibly instill, being empathy. National boundaries cannot be imposed on an entity that treats all human beings as equal.

The paradoxical economic foresight from this is that the poor, not the rich stand to benefit the most from such a GAI, which I think is Pareto optimal.

We make models of reality, for example mathematical formulas that portray some aspect of the complex reality around us. Fine, but the problem of subjectivity comes with when that model itself has an impact on what it's modelling. Then it has to model itself into the model. Now you might argue that this can be still modeled and in many cases it surely can be, but not when the 'correct' answer is something that the model doesn't give. — ssu

Hence inter-subjectivity? The observer effect seems to play a role here.

But, that aside, I can see the point of utilizing some ideas from Godel to justify the need for us, as a species, to slow down, as there doesn't seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel. You can thank Godel for that.

Oh boy, here we go again. Might want to reconsider; it's theorems not axioms that could possibly be true, but not provable. :roll: — jgill

Well, I tend to think that axioms can be theoretical in nature? Have you ever encountered such a sentiment in your line of work?