01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [671][672][673][674][675][676][677][678][679][680] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2727 |
2728 |
That doesn't sound right, dear. I think the word you are looking for is »decadence«. **
2729 |
In this thread, I will seek to outline the double-aspect theory of consciousness expounded by Arthur Schopenhauer, and then upgraded by later philosophers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Peter Sjöstedt-H.
Here are my three premises that I will delineate:
1.) Consciousness is not identical, nor reducible to the physical brain.
2.) The physical universe is a mode of representation, not an objective reality independent of the mind.
3.) Reality consists of individual, primal forms of consciousness - all of which are competing for power ( panexperientialism a la » will to power « ).
Premise 1.)
Many within the scientific and philosophical communities, today, subscribe to the position that the physical brain caused consciousness to spring into existence, or that awareness ( consciousness/mind ) is identical to the brain.
The former position doesn't take into account the ' hard-problem ' of consciousness; how does non-conscious, physical material generate immaterial, subjective experience?
The latter, erroneously, conflates the mind with the brain. Yes, the mind and the brain are correlated, but correlation doesn't entail identity, nor causation. One could, easily, make an argument for Berkeley's subjective-idealism. As prior mentioned, correlation doesn't mean identity, nor causation per se.
Premise 2.)
The external world that we experience is a mode of representation, not an objective reality independent of our minds. The naive position that the external world exists just as we perceive it is called " direct-realism ". This position is so ingrained in most people, that even some, nay, many academics still hold to it; but any honest and educated individual realizes the folly of this position. The external world is a mode of representation correlated to our human minds. The color green, for example, that we perceive on the grass is not an inherent property of it; but rather a form of qualia. We project the greenness unto the grass, as it were.
Immanuel Kant ( Schopenhauer's greatest influence ), believed that even space and time are a priori projections of the mind, that they are parts of our human 'spectacles ', which allow experience to be possible.
Double-aspect theory proposes that the universe, the spatio-temporal world, is a mode of representation correlated to human minds. Other organisms will represent their ' worlds ' in unique, idiosyncratic ways.Premise 3.)
Arthur Schopenhauer believed that the ultimate nature of reality ( the Will ) was a-causal, a-temporal, a-spatial --- non-dual; but Nietzsche departed from Sch. in two ways: he didn't believe that the Will was one or non-dual, but rather plural. And he didn't think that the nature of the wills were primarily centered around survival, but rather power, hence the ' will to power '.
I agree with Nietzsche that reality consists of individual, primal forms of wills to power ( energy with intent ). We can observe how plants seek to acquire power by extracting nutrients from the soil and energy from the sun, in order that they may grow, expand, become ( I.e., acquire power ). Even in the inorganic, we can see how matter strives for power, which we represent as gravity and gravitation.
Note that I don't believe that plants and inorganic matter are conscious in the same way that humans are ( self-reflective consciousness ). These lesser forms of will-to-power systems possess primitive forms of subjectivity. It would be better to think of them as energy with intent.
Conclusion
This amalgamation of pan-experientialism, the will-to-power, and double-aspect theory, I believe, solves the ' hard problem ' of consciousness, and more plausibly accounts for the nature of reality. **
2730
2731 |
2732 |
2733 |
|
2734 |
2735 |
Money is mostly funny! Although dollars cease to be backed by gold or silver, the trust in it is supported by the guarantee that it could buy it back.
2736 |
2737 |
I want twin grandchildren one named Hedon and the other named ...? **
2738 |
2739 |
Moreno wrote:
»Ecmandu wrote:
This is an easy question to answer actually... human genetic code can match machine code, it just depends on whether we engineer humans to be as smart or smarter than machines. That should take all the hype away. I just recently read Gates and hawkings warnings... nonsense, we can engineer humans to control robots with their minds. **
So we will treat humans as and make them machines. Sure, as I said in an earlier post, this is one way machines are replacing humans.« **
There are already humans with these abilities, we'd just be replicating them... there are other species with these abilities as well. **
Arminius wrote:
»Do you remember your last vote, Moreno?« ** **
Yes, yes. Pardon any confusions my way of participating leads to. **
I think that if you are a modern rationalist (small r) you should think that machines or some kind of artificial mixed thingy humans and then mixed things make, will replace us. So when I see arguments against this that I think are being made by people who have, given their system of beliefs, a good reason to doubt this, I press for the yes position. I see this as wishful thinking and denial on their part. An unwillingness to grapple with the consequences of what they take as normal and rational and the at worst nature of corporations and those with power. I might react similarly to a Christian asserting that they knew they were going to heaven and were clearly relishing the thought of their opponents going to Hell. IOW I see this as a problematic moral position for a Christian. With the rational often materialist modernists I see logical, perceptual and intuitional weaknesses when they think machines will not replace us. Not having their system of belief I have reached another conclusion. **
2740 |
So, I've been inspired by Prismatic's thread ( on the dollar **) to create my own thread about the value of money, in particular: the dollar.
Questions:
1.) Do we, really, need to have our dollars backed up by gold? **
Could society function without it? **
2.) If yes, then how come primitive societies could function by merely exchanging coins? **
I'm not adept in economics, so forgive me if I come off benighted; but frankly I think the value projected unto money by gold is an illusion, better yet, a delusion! **
2741 |
The greatest problem with immaterial money is the ease with which a governance can delete someone's worth and manipulate the world. **
Artimas wrote:
»Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws.« **
2742 |
|
2743 |
2744 |
Feminism is hedonism. **
2745 |
2746 |
2747 |
|
2748 |
2749 |
Well it may be so that humans replace all machines :mrgreen: i.e. If we dont find a way to keep making machines or run out of raw materials.
I think that inevitably something will replace both humans and machines [as we know them]. **
Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **
I certainly hope so and I think they will. Not just that but sooner than one may think. All it requires is for computers/camcorders to have stereoscopic 'vision', and object rendering in a 3D live point-field I.e can 'see' [possibly in higher definition that we can at some point]. By that time if not already, I think robotics will be dexterous enough to move faster than we can.
Once paid for, the cost of running these machines should become far cheaper than humans [and greener], especially when they are made from artificial diamond, carbonado and other super-materials. All of this is available either now, or will be within the next 5-10 years apparently [and I believe it].
Q. when I watch star trek NG and see alien creatures operating sophisticated machinery with claws and all manner of weird appendages, I cant help but wonder how they would ever have created and made such machines. However, it is plausible that more advanced creatures like humans, could have built such machines and sold it to them e.g. for mineral rights on their planet etc.
Then what becomes of humans if we no longer need to build and maintain such machines? What if all the machines stop working one day? **
2750 |
2751 |
An intelligent machine would preserve us ..... **
Lets imagine that at some point in the near future, a machine whos brain is composed of artificial neurons each being a quantum computer is created. It would perceive the quantum matrix by which the universe is manifest, and know that humans are a product of that. It would know what consciousness is and would either be conscious itself, or otherwise see that humans are conscious. **
The consciousness is neither identical nor reducible to the brain. The argument that consciousness vanishes with the death of its living being is not proven, and the argument against it is not disproven - so it is possible that the consciousness does not vanish with the death of its living being, and perhaps it will never vanish. The consciousness exists, has affect, and therefore it is possible that it exists for ever and ever - like that what in former days was called »psyche«, »soul«; but the consciousness is also neither identical nor reducible to psyche or soul. The consciousness is part of the body (nervus system), part of the mind or the signs (semiotical, linguistical, logical, mathematical system), but most of all it is independent. ** **
IF there is no purpose to existence or it cannot deduce what that is, then there would be no reason for it to destroy humans, as we are the product of existence and the only purpose to it all. Simply being and living would be what it would want [if conscious], and hence would have no reason to take the same thing away from us. **
If it saw us as a danger e.g. Via overpopulation or waste of resources, it may at most [if it could] reduce our numbers. However, as i see it, long before we produce such a machine, we would necessarily have to build an un-programmable core to future machines ~ robots etc. The reason is that as soon as you make robots, people will use them for crime, murder etc.. **
2752 |
Ah yes, well if we succeed then indeed i think machines will replace human beings in the workplace and wherever we want them to do the shit we dont want to [most jobs]. **
That's not the same as completely replace humans though. **
Perhaps we will find a way to transpose our consciousness into a better vehicle, but is that replacing humans or replacing our bodies/brains?. **
Amorphos wrote:
»An intelligent machine would preserve us .....« **
Probably they will not preserve humans, because humans are too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive.
Amorphos wrote:
»Lets imagine that at some point in the near future, a machine whos brain is composed of artificial neurons each being a quantum computer is created. It would perceive the quantum matrix by which the universe is manifest, and know that humans are a product of that. It would know what consciousness is and would either be conscious itself, or otherwise see that humans are conscious.« **
The problem is that the humans know merley a little bit of the consciousness -probably because the consciousness is pretty much independent:
Arminius wrote:
»The consciousness is neither identical nor reducible to the brain. The argument that consciousness vanishes with the death of its living being is not proven, and the argument against it is not disproven - so it is possible that the consciousness does not vanish with the death of its living being, and perhaps it will never vanish. The consciousness exists, has affect, and therefore it is possible that it exists for ever and ever - like that what in former days was called psyche, soul; but the consciousness is also neither identical nor reducible to psyche or soul. The consciousness is part of the body (nervus system), part of the mind or the signs (semiotical, linguistical, logical, mathematical system), but most of all it is independent.« ** **
Amorphos wrote:
»IF there is no purpose to existence or it cannot deduce what that is, then there would be no reason for it to destroy humans, as we are the product of existence and the only purpose to it all. Simply being and living would be what it would want [if conscious], and hence would have no reason to take the same thing away from us.« **
Machines are rational products of humans, but they are nonetheless not like humans: too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive.
Amorphos wrote:
If it saw us as a danger e.g. Via overpopulation or waste of resources, it may at most [if it could] reduce our numbers. However, as i see it, long before we produce such a machine, we would necessarily have to build an un-programmable core to future machines ~ robots etc. The reason is that as soon as you make robots, people will use them for crime, murder etc..« **
Yes, mainly. And that is also a reason for machines to replace all humans. It is just rational. It fits to what I said before: humans are too emotional, too egoistic, too envious, too hedonistic, too nihilistic, too expensive. ** **
2753 |
Should there be any difference between the female and the male in society??
For the past 50 years or so, the promotion in the West is that there IS no difference between the male and female other than the placement of their genitalia. Of course, due to tens of thousands of years of contrary experience people (and even Science) have declared otherwise. The real question is whether women SHOULD be any different from males? And even more significantly is WHY, for what Purpose should they be different? **
2754 |
2755 |
Please explain what said rational is!? **
But machines and humans and consciousness and unconsciousness are not independent that's the flaw in the argument. There is a co dependency. **
2756 |
Yes but without the emotions and angst that image suggests. **
If people want to work e.g. In service to others, they may do it because they like doing it and being around people. In short, humans will have the choice. **
2757 |
Back, sorry. back,You said consciousness is a little bit independent, a little bit? **
I propose that they are not at all independent. **
The problem is that the humans know merley a little bit of the consciousness - probably because the consciousness is pretty much independent:
»Arminius wrote:
The consciousness is neither identical nor reducible to the brain. The argument that consciousness vanishes with the death of its living being is not proven, and the argument against it is not disproven - so it is possible that the consciousness does not vanish with the death of its living being, and perhaps it will never vanish. The consciousness exists, has affect, and therefore it is possible that it exists for ever and ever - like that what in former days was called 'psyche', 'soul'; but the consciousness is also neither identical nor reducible to psyche or soul. The consciousness is part of the body (nervus system), part of the mind or the signs (semiotical, linguistical, logical, mathematical system), but most of all it is independent. (**|**). ** **
Let's put it in a different way. How do You define dependence or independence? **
On what level of reality are You talking about? this definitional objection is what interferes in the basic sense, in any way to determine, how anything at all can be said about relationships in general. In fact it can not be defined, regressive lay to the level,Magen and where it was customary to do so. **
|
2758 |
2759 |
2760 |
2761 |
2762 |
I suggest to reform ILP and to call it IL with the following eight subforums:
1) ILF (»I Love Fun«),
2) ILG (»I Love Gossip«),
3) ILL (»I Love Lies«),
4) ILN 1 (»I love Nietzsche«),
5) ILN 2 (»I love Nonsense«),
6) ILN 3 (»I Love Nothing«),
7) ILP (»I Love Philosophy«) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% (1/8) are really interested in philosophy),
8) ILSC (»I Love Social Criticism«). ** **
2763 |
2764 |
2765 |
But all that is going to happen is that »homo-sapian« is going to be gradually redefined until it has actually been extinct for a very long time before anyone notices; »mutants«, cyborgs, Rev2, »new and improved«, .... **
2766 |
2767 |
Should there be any difference between the female and the male in society?? .... The real question is whether women SHOULD be any different from males? And even more significantly is WHY, for what Purpose should they be different? **
Yes, women are and should be different from men, and men are and should be different from women. They are and should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens. ** **
2768 |
But you do. The »yes« or »no« was the easy part. **
Yes, women are and should be different from men, and men are and should be different from women. ** **
It is the exact »WHY?« that matters. **
They are and should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens. ** **
2769 |
Exactly how does male and female distinction help prevent extinction considering today's and the future's technology? **
But all that is going to happen is that »homo-sapian« is going to be gradually redefined until it has actually been extinct for a very long time before anyone notices; »mutants«, cyborgs, Rev2, »new and improved«, .... **
But this is still in the making. The process has not ended yet. And as long as it has not ended yet, we should do what we use to do. And don't underestimate the coincidence! ** **
|
2770 |
2771 |
2772 |
2773 |
This is what this discussion is about ... and almost every discussion that goes on between Ucci (Uccisore) and Ecc (Ecmandu): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQB4nAjZIdE. **
2774 |
Describing an irreversible situation is never productive, even if it seems as if it was. **
2775 |
»I would far rather be ignorant then wise in the foreboding of evil.« - Aeschylus.
»Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.« Darwin. **
2776 |
No! Ignorance is when you do not know better, arrogance says »I don't give a damn«. **
2777 |
Again no, because ignorance may have an undercurrent of good intentions as a driving force, but arrogancee lacks this. Sure they may walk the walk, and dance the dance, but they mis step, stepping on each's others' toes, it is a very frightful and nervous jitterbug, not a greater waltz at all. **
2778 |
Arrogance spawns ignorance and ignorance spawns arrogance. **
|
2779 |
2780 |
The term »Abrahamic Religions« is not a well chosen one. It is as well a crutch as the term »Monotheistic Religions«.
Christianity on the one side and Judaism and Islam on the other side are much different.
For example: Christianity is not as much abrahamic and not as much monotheistic as Judaism and Islam are. In Christianity there is Maria as the mother of God, Jesus as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God. That's not really monotheistic. And the New Testament is very much different from the Old Testament. ** **
Nietzsche said that (for example) there are »ja-sagende« (»yes-saying«) and »nein-sagende« (»no-saying«) religions in both the Aryan (Indogerman) and the Semitic societies. Brahmanism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Judaism or Islam as a Semitic religion are »ja-sagende Religionen« (»yes-saying religions«) whereas Buddhism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Christianity as a Semitic religion are »nein-sagende Religionen« (»no-saying religions«). Cp. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, »Der Wille zur Macht« (»The Will to Power«), S. 110-111. If that what Nietzsche said is right, then Christianity is even more similar to Buddhism than to Judaism or Islam. Again: There are no »three Abrahamic religions« because Christianity is too much different from Judaism and Islam. ** **
Buddhism and Christianity are actually very similar but the anti-Christians want to focus on merely the material concerns (being entirely ignorant of the spiritual concerns). In spirit, they are nearly identical.
Christianity is a social religion with peace reinforcing ethics.
Buddhism is a personal philosophy with peace reinforcing ethics.Thus many social events are not addressed at all in Buddhism yet are inherently relevant in Christianity. Arguing the difference is like arguing that because one wears a sash on the right shoulder and the other wears his sash on the left, they are entirely different religions.
.... Not that any of them do a very good job of any of it. **
Prismatic 567 wrote:
»Abraham has a loaded gun pointed on head to the extent that he was willing to kill his only son when he believed God would pulled the trigger and send him to hell if he did not obey God's command.
The question is how did Abrahamic believers end up with a loaded gun pointed on their heads?
This is based on their false beliefs that they will die in hellfire if they don't adhere to God's command in the holy texts.« **
That part would only be true of the Judist and Muslim faiths, a bit anti-Christian. Christianity is Hope-based, not threat based (you might try actually reading the NT). **
2781
2782
Those who argue along this line of reasoning will definitely arrive at a misinterpretation upon those to whom such differentiation will spell impossible. here both ideas will become reversible, therefore a spawned ignorant from arrogant will spell same as arrogant from ignorant. fewer excuses will be allowed, and a theatre of torture will consume both. **
The theatre of torture refers to Artaud. And the next ref. Barthe. How far can You carry literature by association? How much farther by poetry? Much more so, but nit within the mode of traditional poetry. Free form has been along very long, and the proof is in the pudding, analysis may be variously supported by a network,much as robots have been instilled within, choosing open systems over closed. This is not an example of systemic arrogance born of ignorance. It is based on newly arrived encyclopedic associations. Most arguments are still done in closed systems, patently waiting for structural renewal. **
2783
If robots arent benign in design, i do think there will be trouble, human beings will use them for crime etc... **
Some when soon »they« will need to be controlling what schematics can be used in 3D printing and other additative technology [dont know why they cant call them replicators?].
The future is going to happen, we need to be dealing with it very soon imho. **
2784
Disagreement does not change anything .... **
The facts speak for themselves. **
2785 |
No big issue, to explain what the term meant in this OP. **
»Abrahamic Theism« = Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. **
If you don't think »Abrahamic Theism« is appropriate, just interpret it as theism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. **
2786 |
2787 |
2788 |
2789 |
Well... what would you call it? Adam and Eve theism? **
There are clearly passages where people exhort to Jesus as on the son of David (Jesus never refuted this), but in the story Joseph never had sex with Mary, and he was the descendant of David. The whole tale starts with Adam and Eve, moving into Islam and then Christianity. I'm not sure what your argument is here. **
2790 |
*It's called the dollar because of the Thollar family, which was a rich family that used paper as receipts for things... The receipts would be passed around as Thollar receipts .... The crazy ability of English speaking people slowly turned it into dollar .... Which is why other countries use the name Dollar...
On 15 January 1520, the kingdom of Bohemia began minting coins from silver mined locally in Joachimsthal. The coins were called Joachimsthaler, which became shortened in common usage to thaler or taler. The German name Joachimsthal literally means Joachim's valley or Joachim's dale. This name found its way into other languages: Czech tolar, Hungarian tallér, Danish and Norwegian (rigs) daler, Swedish (riks) daler, Icelandic dalur, Dutch (rijks)daalder or daler, Ethiopian ??? (talari), Italian tallero, Polish talar, Persian Dare, as well as - via Dutch - into English as dollar.
A later Dutch coin depicting a lion was called the leeuwendaler or leeuwendaalder, literally »lion daler«. The Dutch Republic produced these coins to accommodate its booming international trade. The leeuwendaler circulated throughout the Middle East and was imitated in several German and Italian cities. This coin was also popular in the Dutch East Indies and in the Dutch New Netherland Colony (New York). It was in circulation throughout the Thirteen Colonies during the 17th and early 18th centuries and was popularly known as lion (or lyon) dollar. The currencies of Romania and Bulgaria are, to this day, »lion« (leu/leva). The modern American-English pronunciation of dollar is still remarkably close to the 17th century Dutch pronunciation of daler. Some well-worn examples circulating in the Colonies were known as dog dollars. **
2791
Is art dead and buried, that we have to visualize a period in visiting representations of it? **
Are there not people today who still live as if the period was still meaningful and alive within their own sense of being? **
I would say yes to that, and there need not a confusion arose as a consequence, although. It takes a lot of,art appreciation to change the way things are looked at. **
To me surrealism is the most meaningful way to gap the ages, a visual stream, and a method this develops, very painful at diets, and visually excruciating, but then, one must not fear the method of this madness. Lest it becomes lost for ever. (Not the madness, but the method). **
I know You will disagree, however, disagreement is the bedrock of constructing reality, and really I do agree, to disagree. **
2792 |
|
2793 |
Incidentally Arminius but I wrote on my daily journal blog re flight my original entry into usa from Frankfurt when our turbo prop almost crashed into the Atlantic ocean. I erased it got bogged down with it. Now I open today's paper and find the unfortunate news of the tragic loss of flight 9525 from Barcelona to Düsseldorf a place I spent some timr eons ago.
Condolences for the loss of your fellow countrymen. **
2794 |
Kant argued Metaphysics is an impossibility .... **
2795 |
Evolution defines pleasure as the only good. **
2796 |
2797 |
2798 |
More often it is hidden behind the word sex when there are more significant distinctions. **
2799 |
Lot's of people confuse them, but they are technical terms. **
I always found it annoying that sex also refers to the act of sex, not the physical features of the sex, because of this confusion, I think most people assume that gender is the right word. People can have a psychological baseline and have many different talents and personalities (gender). **
2800 |
It's being hidden quite intentionally (so as to manipulate it). **
|
2801 |
|
2802 |
Come on .... I had asserted my reading of Kant many times and I have quoted from Kant's books many times which implied I have at least read his books. It does not reflect well on you to ask such a question. **
The proper question is whether despite one having read Kant's book, did one fully grasp Kant's philosophy. **
2803 |
2804 |
Note Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Hegel and other German philosopher read Kant's work in German but yet missed the central message and the various nuances of Kant's work. **
I agree translation is a factor but this limitation is reduced with extensive refinements of the translations and expositions from various scholars and comparative studies.
In our current age to use the limitation of language and translation is one of the worse defense. **
2805 |
2806 |
2807 |
The Left is the voice of environmental conservation. The Left is the voice of conservation of natural resources .... **
2808 |
If Schopenhauer had understood Kant's central message, he should have known how Kant's used of the noumenon or thing-in-itself fit perfectly like a piece of jigsaw within the whole of Kant's philosophical system. **
2809 |
He (**) could have said much more, but that was an excellent sample of the problem we have been talking about for the past year or so (intelligence design) - the birth of a man-made species far superior to Man = the replacement and extinction of human beings. **
2810 |
2811 |
2812 |
2813 |
Actually, my take is that obfuscating the differences in gender cause more problems than pointing them out. **
Oh please, then we would also have to not differentiate between left and right, up and down, etc.. **
Gender has been in use since the 14th century. **
And if it is being used to control, they are certainly doing a piss poor job of it. Because according to you the people do not have a problem with it. So your control does not exist. **
2814 |
If you can resolve gender differences, you can resolve wealth disparity and war and suicide and disease cure innovation and energy innovation... the goal of dispersing is money and sexual hoarding. **
==>
|