Shoresy
Believe woman!”


Lindsey's OWN attorney admitted guilt to get it to the insanity phase..... you would have to not believe Lindsey to think the husband did it...

Shoresy

This confuses a religious establishment with democratic participation. The First Amendment restricts what government may establish; it does not prohibit citizens from voting according to their religion or preferred culture. Christians possess the same right as every other cultural group to community organize politically, actively advocate policies reflecting their values, and use activism to seek public support for institutions serving their Christian communities.


Government may not establish an official church, compel religious observance, deny equal citizenship, or reserve public benefits exclusively for Christians. But also...“secular government” does not mean a "cultureless government" so to speak in which only nonreligious values may influence public policy. Religious organizations can't be prohibited from also participating in generally available welfare programs to promothe the welfare of that culture.


Therefore, Christian nationalism is unconstitutional only when it is defined to include coercion, legal religious supremacy, or discriminatory privileges. Defining it narrowly that way and then announcing that it conflicts with the Constitution is going down the rabbit hiole of circular reasoning. That's not really a refutation of Christians justly voting to preserve their culture.

Shoresy

Lindsay Clancy

Shoresy · 10 days ago

She got a mistrial and is already a martyr, spawning multiple copycat serial mothers. Imagine how bad it would be if she were killed.

Shoresy

Topic 3

Shoresy · 13 days ago

It's more likely he is trying to get Canadians to care more about a foreign country than their own. That's how the game works. Look up so you can't see what's in front of you.

Shoresy
That's not how AIs are created anymore. The way AI weights are trained is basically by generating a bunch of random "code" that we don't understand that looks like huge sets of numbers, then tweaking the code until it does what we want. For simple tasks this is fine, as the AI doesn't accomplish the tasks we want until it has the goal we want or something close to it. However, as AI gains more capabilities, any arbitrary goal will lead to similar results as even an AI that wants to make paperclips will be able to make more paperclips if it gains the trust of humans. If humans can't tell the difference between code that has the goal of maximizing paperclips and code that has the goal of helping humans, then we aren't setting the AI's goals.


I remember a while back, a user said that, in order for AI to develop working consciousness, it would have to be subjected to an extremely hostile environment to mold the changes. But I wouldn't put it past humans to develop "gain-of-function" crucibles like we did for viruses.

Shoresy

Topic 3

Shoresy · 14 days ago

More to culture than language. Most of the EU speaks some English.

Shoresy

Topic 3

Shoresy · 15 days ago

Some of our provinces do want to break away, but they still might not be culturally compatible with the States.

Shoresy

Topic 3

Shoresy · 15 days ago

Why would the states annex Canada when it currently doesn't want backward cultures hopping over the borders?



Shoresy

Also, today's AI was built on the bones of horny men.

Men of culture demanded instant streaming bandwidth before the jiggle physics pioneered modern GPU architecture.

Shoresy

It's more likely we will become as a species, existing on a level somewhat as zoo animals.


Assuming we, as higher intelligence, came from apes, and apes are still around, P1 says, sure, certainly some gorillas may lose their hands, some chimps are experimented on, and one lucky bastard gets to be a pet for a top pop singer. But most of them get to live boring, uneventful lifespans. I suspect humans will have a similar destiny.

Shoresy

So do you want that tradeoff? A more authoritarian government, like the EU that can say no to subsidy recipients?


Just so they can force you to have standardized care because you refused to save up for it like before the 1980's?


Or do you prefer direct cash payments to the poor where the government doesn't have to say no to ANYONE.