Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
>>>>>> dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
>>>>>> UTC+2:
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
>>>> pass the Turing test.
>>>
>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
>>>
>>> Bob Harper
>>
>> Nice try.  Here's how it's not going to go.  He reads someone who says
>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
>> help because of lost working class jobs.  He reacts by saying, Oh,
>> that's interesting.  I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
>> wages.
>>
>>
>> Sure.  Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient.  At the least just
>> regurgitating a talking point.  Or all of these.
>>
>> Nothing changes.
>
> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
>
> Bob Harper

You are SO wrong.
Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
have been written here by guys like Berger.)

On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
> > On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
> >>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
> >>>>>> UTC+2:
> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
> >>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
> >>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
> >>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
> >>>>
> >>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
> >>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
> >>>> pass the Turing test.
> >>>
> >>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
> >>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
> >>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
> >>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
> >>>
> >>> Bob Harper
> >>
> >> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
> >> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
> >> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
> >> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
> >> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
> >> wages.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
> >> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
> >> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
> >>
> >> Nothing changes.
> >
> > You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
> > to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
> > telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
> >
> > Bob Harper
> You are SO wrong.
> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
> have been written here by guys like Berger.)

Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.

Ray Hall, Taree

On 7/20/2022 9:42 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>
>>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
>>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
>>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
>>>> wages.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
>>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing changes.
>>>
>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
>>>
>>> Bob Harper
>> You are SO wrong.
>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
>
> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

There you go. As predicted.

On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 12:28:37 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 7/20/2022 9:42 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
> >> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
> >>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
> >>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
> >>>>>>>> UTC+2:
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
> >>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
> >>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
> >>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
> >>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
> >>>>>> pass the Turing test.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
> >>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
> >>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
> >>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bob Harper
> >>>>
> >>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
> >>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
> >>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
> >>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
> >>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
> >>>> wages.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
> >>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
> >>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nothing changes.
> >>>
> >>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
> >>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
> >>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
> >>>
> >>> Bob Harper
> >> You are SO wrong.
> >> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
> >> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
> >
> > Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
> >
> > Ray Hall, Taree
> There you go. As predicted.

Of course. What else?

Ray Hall, Taree

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 4:32:31 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 4:11:19 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:40:49 AM UTC-7, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
> > According to this:
> >
> > - The technological changes that matter are the ones that allow people to live safe and pleasant lives, pursuing intellectual challenge and pleasure, rather than simply trying to stay alive.… But that’s not how they’re being used right now. Right now they’re largely being used to exploit human psychological weaknesses for very short-term gains for a very few people, and any benefits the rest of the world derives along the way exist merely to sweeten the pot. This is a consequence of combining unbridled capitalism with technology in the absence of empathetic humanity or public responsibility.
> >
> > https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/10/28/themes-about-the-next-50-years-of-life-online/
> - Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.
>
> Albert Einstein

According to this recent article on BLADE RUNNER:

- It's been 40 years since Ridley Scott's sci-fi flick warned us – not about the evils of technology – but humanity.

https://www.salon.com/2022/07/16/blade-runner-anniversary-robot-rebellion/

On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>
>>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
>>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
>>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
>>>> wages.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
>>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing changes.
>>>
>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
>>>
>>> Bob Harper
>> You are SO wrong.
>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
>
> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
intelligent fellow.

Bob Harper

Bob Harper schrieb am Mittwoch, 20. Juli 2022 um 21:16:55 UTC+2:
> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
>
> Bob Harper

Thank you for your words. They sure give me hope in this godforsaken place ;D

You may not like my attitude sometimes, but you see... I have seen enough, I have also seen enough in this ng. I am not willing to be lenient anymore.

People like James Goodzeit spreading hate onto a whole group of people (while thinking that he is some sort of liberal... Like... how far does James has his head up his ass?) and then not even willing to discuss his narrow-mindedness... I am done with this sort of attitude.

I really wonder, are Goodzeit and Bornfeld Jewish, or are they Philistines? ;D

Gerard schrieb am Mittwoch, 20. Juli 2022 um 23:22:37 UTC+2:
> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
> > You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
> > to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
> > telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
> >
> > Bob Harper
> You are SO wrong.
> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
> have been written here by guys like Berger.)

It is you that is wrong. But maybe you have been living in this cave for too long - there is a world outside of this ng, and people actually do change their minds.

No matter how difficult it is to get things to change (in the right way), you should not surrender. And you seem to have a lot to change about yourself as well:

Calling a thread "Trump's Untergang" which obviously invokes some connotations to Hitler... Are you out of your mind?! Chamenei is a modern Nazi; Trump is not, not in the slightest.

And then talking about Trump "sending the SS to Democrat states and cities"... you really have lost your mind, eh? You have learned NOTHING from the past. THAT is the truth.

How delusional (as wkasimer rightly pointed out) do you have to be to talk such nonsense?!

Marc S schrieb am Donnerstag, 21. Juli 2022 um 06:56:57 UTC+2:
> Gerard schrieb am Mittwoch, 20. Juli 2022 um 23:22:37 UTC+2:
> > Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
> > > You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
> > > to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
> > > telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
> > >
> > > Bob Harper
> > You are SO wrong.
> > Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
> > have been written here by guys like Berger.)
> It is you that is wrong. But maybe you have been living in this cave for too long - there is a world outside of this ng, and people actually do change their minds.
>
> No matter how difficult it is to get things to change (in the right way), you should not surrender. And you seem to have a lot to change about yourself as well:
>
> Calling a thread "Trump's Untergang" which obviously invokes some connotations to Hitler... Are you out of your mind?! Chamenei is a modern Nazi; Trump is not, not in the slightest.
>
> And then talking about Trump "sending the SS to Democrat states and cities"... you really have lost your mind, eh? You have learned NOTHING from the past. THAT is the truth.
>
> How delusional (as wkasimer rightly pointed out) do you have to be to talk such nonsense?!

*it was Bob Harper who pointed it out, with wkasimer agreeing - and from what I read from wkasimer in that thread, I want to thank him as well!

Thanks Bob, Frank and Wkasimer for your words in these regards!

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 4:32:31 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:

> - Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.
>
> Albert Einstein

“The problem with internet quotes is that you cannot always depend on their accuracy.”
― Abraham Lincoln 1864

On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 14:41:38 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
> >> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
> >>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
> >>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
> >>>>>>>> UTC+2:
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
> >>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
> >>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
> >>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
> >>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
> >>>>>> pass the Turing test.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
> >>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
> >>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
> >>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bob Harper
> >>>>
> >>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
> >>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
> >>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
> >>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
> >>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
> >>>> wages.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
> >>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
> >>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nothing changes.
> >>>
> >>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
> >>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
> >>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
> >>>
> >>> Bob Harper
> >> You are SO wrong.
> >> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
> >> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
> >
> > Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
> >
> > Ray Hall, Taree
> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
> taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
> on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
> is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
> intelligent fellow.
>
> Bob Harper

Why not discuss minimum age? Because you seem to want to avoid the subject. Minimum wage, of course, strikes at the heart of right wing inclinations, which if one includes their other leanings, does its best to exclude any form of humanity or real empathy offered to others, many of whom are truly struggling.

In fact, on the contrary, it is those on the right in this forum, who refuse to discuss most matters. Lets go through them briefly.
1. Taxes. You say they they should be cut. Evidently, because the right wing worship every dollar that is taken away from the pie. Others will disagree, and say this money should be used for community benefits, health, social care, roads, etc.
2. Crime. Mostly due to the inequality that exists in the type of society you desire.
3. Abortion. Even I am on the fence here, but I do happen to side with women's rights as the individuals they clearly are.
4. Immigration. I don't see those who exploit immigrants complaining, and most western countries are built on immigration.
5. Race relations. It is quite clear to many that most race hatred is perpetrated by white people, and history backs this up. Not completely one way, but there are obvious reasons why.

To say that I don't engage is a complete lie. It is you who doesn't expound exhaustively, as you are well known for your "yeps" which are showered on the same people. One could go on, but the right wing mindset is utterly alien to me, and most others too.

Ray Hall, Taree

On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 15:48:44 UTC+10, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 14:41:38 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
> > On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
> > >> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
> > >>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> > >>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
> > >>>>>>>> UTC+2:
> > >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
> > >>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
> > >>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
> > >>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
> > >>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
> > >>>>>> pass the Turing test.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
> > >>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
> > >>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
> > >>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Bob Harper
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
> > >>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
> > >>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
> > >>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
> > >>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
> > >>>> wages.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
> > >>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
> > >>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Nothing changes.
> > >>>
> > >>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
> > >>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
> > >>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Bob Harper
> > >> You are SO wrong.
> > >> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
> > >> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
> > >
> > > Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
> > >
> > > Ray Hall, Taree
> > Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
> > taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
> > on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
> > is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
> > intelligent fellow.
> >
> > Bob Harper
> Why not discuss minimum age? Because you seem to want to avoid the subject. Minimum wage, of course, strikes at the heart of right wing inclinations, which if one includes their other leanings, does its best to exclude any form of humanity or real empathy offered to others, many of whom are truly struggling.
>
> In fact, on the contrary, it is those on the right in this forum, who refuse to discuss most matters. Lets go through them briefly.
> 1. Taxes. You say they they should be cut. Evidently, because the right wing worship every dollar that is taken away from the pie. Others will disagree, and say this money should be used for community benefits, health, social care, roads, etc.
> 2. Crime. Mostly due to the inequality that exists in the type of society you desire.
> 3. Abortion. Even I am on the fence here, but I do happen to side with women's rights as the individuals they clearly are.
> 4. Immigration. I don't see those who exploit immigrants complaining, and most western countries are built on immigration.
> 5. Race relations. It is quite clear to many that most race hatred is perpetrated by white people, and history backs this up. Not completely one way, but there are obvious reasons why.
>
> To say that I don't engage is a complete lie. It is you who doesn't expound exhaustively, as you are well known for your "yeps" which are showered on the same people. One could go on, but the right wing mindset is utterly alien to me, and most others too.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree
Minimum wages ---- not Minimum age

Op 2022-07-21 om 06:41 schreef Bob Harper:
> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
>>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
>>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
>>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
>>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
>>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
>>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
>>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
>>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
>>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
>>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
>>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
>>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice try.  Here's how it's not going to go.  He reads someone who says
>>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
>>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
>>>>> help because of lost working class jobs.  He reacts by saying, Oh,
>>>>> that's interesting.  I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
>>>>> wages.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure.  Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
>>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient.  At the least just
>>>>> regurgitating a talking point.  Or all of these.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing changes.
>>>>
>>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
>>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us
>>>> from
>>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Harper
>>> You are SO wrong.
>>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
>>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
>>
>> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all,
>> they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned
>> about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the
>> increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless,
>> like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
>>
>> Ray Hall, Taree
>
> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
> taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
> on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
> is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
> intelligent fellow.
>
> Bob Harper

It does not matter how many other subjects there are.
1. Because this ng is not about those subjects (except for those bulk
posters who see this ng as their public toilet for everything).
2. Because "discussing" those subjects leads to absolutely nothing
(except for massive pollution and heat in this "toilet").
You could better "engage" for whatever you'ld like on the platforms
intended for those subjects.

It is ridiculous to judge and criticise people because they don't
participate in those useless "discussions".

On 7/21/2022 12:41 AM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
>>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
>>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
>>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
>>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
>>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
>>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
>>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
>>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
>>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
>>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
>>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
>>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice try.  Here's how it's not going to go.  He reads someone who says
>>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
>>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
>>>>> help because of lost working class jobs.  He reacts by saying, Oh,
>>>>> that's interesting.  I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
>>>>> wages.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure.  Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
>>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient.  At the least just
>>>>> regurgitating a talking point.  Or all of these.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing changes.
>>>>
>>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
>>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
>>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Harper
>>> You are SO wrong.
>>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
>>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
>>
>> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
>>
>> Ray Hall, Taree
>
> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion, taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably intelligent fellow.
>
> Bob Harper

How intelligent can he be? He uses Google Groups.

On 7/21/2022 1:48 AM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 14:41:38 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
>> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
>>>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
>>>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
>>>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
>>>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
>>>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
>>>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
>>>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
>>>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
>>>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
>>>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
>>>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
>>>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
>>>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
>>>>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
>>>>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
>>>>>> wages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
>>>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
>>>>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
>>>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
>>>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>> You are SO wrong.
>>>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
>>>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
>>>
>>> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
>>>
>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
>> taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
>> on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
>> is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
>> intelligent fellow.
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> Why not discuss minimum age? Because you seem to want to avoid the subject. Minimum wage, of course, strikes at the heart of right wing inclinations, which if one includes their other leanings, does its best to exclude any form of humanity or real empathy offered to others, many of whom are truly struggling.
>

This is not engaging. This is defamation.

> In fact, on the contrary, it is those on the right in this forum, who refuse to discuss most matters. Lets go through them briefly.
> 1. Taxes. You say they they should be cut. Evidently, because the right wing worship every dollar that is taken away from the pie. Others will disagree, and say this money should be used for community benefits, health, social care, roads, etc.

No one here is an anarchist. What is the "right" or ""best" size of government? The more the merrier?

> 2. Crime. Mostly due to the inequality that exists in the type of society you desire.

Agree crime is largely due to inequality. What "type of society" are you referring to?

> 3. Abortion. Even I am on the fence here, but I do happen to side with women's rights as the individuals they clearly are.

I agree with you.

> 4. Immigration. I don't see those who exploit immigrants complaining, and most western countries are built on immigration.

I agree with you.

> 5. Race relations. It is quite clear to many that most race hatred is perpetrated by white people, and history backs this up. Not completely one way, but there are obvious reasons why.
>

Who here is racist? Show your work.

> To say that I don't engage is a complete lie. It is you who doesn't expound exhaustively, as you are well known for your "yeps" which are showered on the same people. One could go on, but the right wing mindset is utterly alien to me, and most others too.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 21:43:32 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 7/21/2022 1:48 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 14:41:38 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
> >> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
> >>>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
> >>>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
> >>>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
> >>>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
> >>>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
> >>>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
> >>>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
> >>>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
> >>>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
> >>>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
> >>>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bob Harper
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
> >>>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
> >>>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
> >>>>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
> >>>>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
> >>>>>> wages.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
> >>>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
> >>>>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nothing changes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
> >>>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
> >>>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bob Harper
> >>>> You are SO wrong.
> >>>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
> >>>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
> >>>
> >>> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
> >>>
> >>> Ray Hall, Taree
> >> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
> >> taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
> >> on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
> >> is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
> >> intelligent fellow.
> >>
> >> Bob Harper
> >
> > Why not discuss minimum age? Because you seem to want to avoid the subject. Minimum wage, of course, strikes at the heart of right wing inclinations, which if one includes their other leanings, does its best to exclude any form of humanity or real empathy offered to others, many of whom are truly struggling.
> >
> This is not engaging. This is defamation.

Why is the truth as I see it defamation?

> > In fact, on the contrary, it is those on the right in this forum, who refuse to discuss most matters. Lets go through them briefly.
> > 1. Taxes. You say they they should be cut. Evidently, because the right wing worship every dollar that is taken away from the pie. Others will disagree, and say this money should be used for community benefits, health, social care, roads, etc.
> No one here is an anarchist. What is the "right" or ""best" size of government? The more the merrier?

I never remotely mentioned anarchism or implied it.

> > 2. Crime. Mostly due to the inequality that exists in the type of society you desire.
> Agree crime is largely due to inequality. What "type of society" are you referring to?

Societies driven by unrestrained capitalism.

> > 3. Abortion. Even I am on the fence here, but I do happen to side with women's rights as the individuals they clearly are.
> I agree with you.

> > 4. Immigration. I don't see those who exploit immigrants complaining, and most western countries are built on immigration.
> I agree with you.

> > 5. Race relations. It is quite clear to many that most race hatred is perpetrated by white people, and history backs this up. Not completely one way, but there are obvious reasons why.
> >
> Who here is racist? Show your work.

????? I am an electrical engineer, and I live and observe on this planet.

> > To say that I don't engage is a complete lie. It is you who doesn't expound exhaustively, as you are well known for your "yeps" which are showered on the same people. One could go on, but the right wing mindset is utterly alien to me, and most others too.
> >
Ray Hall, Taree

On 7/21/2022 9:45 AM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 21:43:32 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 7/21/2022 1:48 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 14:41:38 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
>>>>>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
>>>>>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
>>>>>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
>>>>>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
>>>>>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
>>>>>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
>>>>>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
>>>>>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
>>>>>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
>>>>>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
>>>>>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
>>>>>>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
>>>>>>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
>>>>>>>> wages.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
>>>>>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
>>>>>>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
>>>>>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
>>>>>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>> You are SO wrong.
>>>>>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
>>>>>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
>>>> taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
>>>> on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
>>>> is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
>>>> intelligent fellow.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Harper
>>>
>>> Why not discuss minimum age? Because you seem to want to avoid the subject. Minimum wage, of course, strikes at the heart of right wing inclinations, which if one includes their other leanings, does its best to exclude any form of humanity or real empathy offered to others, many of whom are truly struggling.
>>>
>> This is not engaging. This is defamation.
>
> Why is the truth as I see it defamation?
> `

The fact that you have to ask why impugning the character of people who disagree with you (excluding any form of humanity or real empathy...") is defamation is troubling. Why you have feel you have the moral high ground on issues instead of just being correct is troubling.

>>> In fact, on the contrary, it is those on the right in this forum, who refuse to discuss most matters. Lets go through them briefly.
>>> 1. Taxes. You say they they should be cut. Evidently, because the right wing worship every dollar that is taken away from the pie. Others will disagree, and say this money should be used for community benefits, health, social care, roads, etc.
>> No one here is an anarchist. What is the "right" or ""best" size of government? The more the merrier?
>
> I never remotely mentioned anarchism or implied it.

I didn't say you did. By saying that I am saying that the conservatives you seem to hate so much also want to tax and spend. The question is how much. What percent of GDP should the government account for. You didn't engage
>
>>> 2. Crime. Mostly due to the inequality that exists in the type of society you desire.
>> Agree crime is largely due to inequality. What "type of society" are you referring to?
>
> Societies driven by unrestrained capitalism.
>

Red herring. Ho one here is in favor of "unrestrained capitalism." You made that up.

>>> 3. Abortion. Even I am on the fence here, but I do happen to side with women's rights as the individuals they clearly are.
>> I agree with you.
>
>>> 4. Immigration. I don't see those who exploit immigrants complaining, and most western countries are built on immigration.
>> I agree with you.
>
>>> 5. Race relations. It is quite clear to many that most race hatred is perpetrated by white people, and history backs this up. Not completely one way, but there are obvious reasons why.
>>>
>> Who here is racist? Show your work.
>
> ????? I am an electrical engineer, and I live and observe on this planet.
>

Failure to engage, again.

>>> To say that I don't engage is a complete lie. It is you who doesn't expound exhaustively, as you are well known for your "yeps" which are showered on the same people. One could go on, but the right wing mindset is utterly alien to me, and most others too.
>>>
> Ray Hall, Taree

On 7/20/22 10:48 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 14:41:38 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
>> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
>>>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
>>>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
>>>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
>>>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
>>>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
>>>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
>>>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
>>>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
>>>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
>>>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
>>>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
>>>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
>>>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
>>>>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
>>>>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
>>>>>> wages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
>>>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
>>>>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
>>>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
>>>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>> You are SO wrong.
>>>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
>>>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
>>>
>>> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
>>>
>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
>> taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
>> on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
>> is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
>> intelligent fellow.
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> Why not discuss minimum age? Because you seem to want to avoid the subject. Minimum wage, of course, strikes at the heart of right wing inclinations, which if one includes their other leanings, does its best to exclude any form of humanity or real empathy offered to others, many of whom are truly struggling.
>
> In fact, on the contrary, it is those on the right in this forum, who refuse to discuss most matters. Lets go through them briefly.
> 1. Taxes. You say they they should be cut. Evidently, because the right wing worship every dollar that is taken away from the pie. Others will disagree, and say this money should be used for community benefits, health, social care, roads, etc.
> 2. Crime. Mostly due to the inequality that exists in the type of society you desire.
> 3. Abortion. Even I am on the fence here, but I do happen to side with women's rights as the individuals they clearly are.
> 4. Immigration. I don't see those who exploit immigrants complaining, and most western countries are built on immigration.
> 5. Race relations. It is quite clear to many that most race hatred is perpetrated by white people, and history backs this up. Not completely one way, but there are obvious reasons why.
>
> To say that I don't engage is a complete lie. It is you who doesn't expound exhaustively, as you are well known for your "yeps" which are showered on the same people. One could go on, but the right wing mindset is utterly alien to me, and most others too.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

Sigh. QED

Bob Harper

On 7/21/22 4:36 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 7/21/2022 12:41 AM, Bob Harper wrote:
>> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
>>>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
>>>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
>>>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
>>>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start
>>>>>>>>> failing
>>>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem
>>>>>>>> capable of
>>>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would
>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
>>>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
>>>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice try.  Here's how it's not going to go.  He reads someone who
>>>>>> says
>>>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites
>>>>>> research in
>>>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
>>>>>> help because of lost working class jobs.  He reacts by saying, Oh,
>>>>>> that's interesting.  I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
>>>>>> wages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure.  Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
>>>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient.  At the least just
>>>>>> regurgitating a talking point.  Or all of these.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
>>>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us
>>>>> from
>>>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>> You are SO wrong.
>>>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
>>>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
>>>
>>> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After
>>> all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are
>>> concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about
>>> the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery.
>>> Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
>>>
>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>
>> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
>> taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
>> on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose
>> mind is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
>> intelligent fellow.
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> How intelligent can he be? He uses Google Groups.

That's not very kind, Frank :-)

Bob Harper

On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 00:17:44 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 7/21/2022 9:45 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 21:43:32 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 7/21/2022 1:48 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 14:41:38 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>>> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
> >>>>>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
> >>>>>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
> >>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
> >>>>>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
> >>>>>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
> >>>>>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
> >>>>>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
> >>>>>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
> >>>>>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
> >>>>>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something..
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Bob Harper
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
> >>>>>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
> >>>>>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
> >>>>>>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
> >>>>>>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
> >>>>>>>> wages.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
> >>>>>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
> >>>>>>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nothing changes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
> >>>>>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
> >>>>>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bob Harper
> >>>>>> You are SO wrong.
> >>>>>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
> >>>>>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
> >>>> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
> >>>> taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
> >>>> on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
> >>>> is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
> >>>> intelligent fellow.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob Harper
> >>>
> >>> Why not discuss minimum age? Because you seem to want to avoid the subject. Minimum wage, of course, strikes at the heart of right wing inclinations, which if one includes their other leanings, does its best to exclude any form of humanity or real empathy offered to others, many of whom are truly struggling.
> >>>
> >> This is not engaging. This is defamation.
> >
> > Why is the truth as I see it defamation?
> > `
>
> The fact that you have to ask why impugning the character of people who disagree with you (excluding any form of humanity or real empathy...") is defamation is troubling. Why you have feel you have the moral high ground on issues instead of just being correct is troubling.

Because I know I have a higher ground. Empathy and humanity will never be discussed on right wing media, or any other right wing cesspit.

> >>> In fact, on the contrary, it is those on the right in this forum, who refuse to discuss most matters. Lets go through them briefly.
> >>> 1. Taxes. You say they they should be cut. Evidently, because the right wing worship every dollar that is taken away from the pie. Others will disagree, and say this money should be used for community benefits, health, social care, roads, etc.
> >> No one here is an anarchist. What is the "right" or ""best" size of government? The more the merrier?
> >
> > I never remotely mentioned anarchism or implied it.
> I didn't say you did. By saying that I am saying that the conservatives you seem to hate so much also want to tax and spend. The question is how much. What percent of GDP should the government account for. You didn't engage

Of course I am engaging, but all you do is question. Do you honestly think I can give you numbers? Terms such as "not enough, or too much" are sufficient enough. As per usual you are using obfuscation to cloud any issue you engage in. How about you give me some figures, but they will be meaningless outside any points of reference.

> >
> >>> 2. Crime. Mostly due to the inequality that exists in the type of society you desire.
> >> Agree crime is largely due to inequality. What "type of society" are you referring to?
> >
> > Societies driven by unrestrained capitalism.
> >
> Red herring. Ho one here is in favor of "unrestrained capitalism." You made that up.

I used the phrase because they are words in a dictionary. Evidently the term prickles with you.

> >>> 3. Abortion. Even I am on the fence here, but I do happen to side with women's rights as the individuals they clearly are.
> >> I agree with you.
> >
> >>> 4. Immigration. I don't see those who exploit immigrants complaining, and most western countries are built on immigration.
> >> I agree with you.
> >
> >>> 5. Race relations. It is quite clear to many that most race hatred is perpetrated by white people, and history backs this up. Not completely one way, but there are obvious reasons why.
> >>>
> >> Who here is racist? Show your work.
> >
> > ????? I am an electrical engineer, and I live and observe on this planet.
> >
> Failure to engage, again.

Wrong again. I am not here simply to answer your questions. How about you engaging for once instead of obfuscating? Else I see no reason to interact with you at all.
Ray Hall, Taree

On 7/21/2022 12:17 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 00:17:44 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 7/21/2022 9:45 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 21:43:32 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 7/21/2022 1:48 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 14:41:38 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
>>>>>>>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
>>>>>>>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
>>>>>>>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
>>>>>>>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
>>>>>>>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
>>>>>>>>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
>>>>>>>>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
>>>>>>>>>> wages.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
>>>>>>>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
>>>>>>>>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing changes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
>>>>>>>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
>>>>>>>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>>>> You are SO wrong.
>>>>>>>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
>>>>>>>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>>>> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
>>>>>> taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
>>>>>> on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
>>>>>> is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
>>>>>> intelligent fellow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not discuss minimum age? Because you seem to want to avoid the subject. Minimum wage, of course, strikes at the heart of right wing inclinations, which if one includes their other leanings, does its best to exclude any form of humanity or real empathy offered to others, many of whom are truly struggling.
>>>>>
>>>> This is not engaging. This is defamation.
>>>
>>> Why is the truth as I see it defamation?
>>> `
>>
>> The fact that you have to ask why impugning the character of people who disagree with you (excluding any form of humanity or real empathy...") is defamation is troubling. Why you have feel you have the moral high ground on issues instead of just being correct is troubling.
>
> Because I know I have a higher ground. Empathy and humanity will never be discussed on right wing media, or any other right wing cesspit.
>
>>>>> In fact, on the contrary, it is those on the right in this forum, who refuse to discuss most matters. Lets go through them briefly.
>>>>> 1. Taxes. You say they they should be cut. Evidently, because the right wing worship every dollar that is taken away from the pie. Others will disagree, and say this money should be used for community benefits, health, social care, roads, etc.
>>>> No one here is an anarchist. What is the "right" or ""best" size of government? The more the merrier?
>>>
>>> I never remotely mentioned anarchism or implied it.
>> I didn't say you did. By saying that I am saying that the conservatives you seem to hate so much also want to tax and spend. The question is how much. What percent of GDP should the government account for. You didn't engage
>
> Of course I am engaging, but all you do is question. Do you honestly think I can give you numbers? Terms such as "not enough, or too much" are sufficient enough. As per usual you are using obfuscation to cloud any issue you engage in. How about you give me some figures, but they will be meaningless outside any points of reference.
>
>>>
>>>>> 2. Crime. Mostly due to the inequality that exists in the type of society you desire.
>>>> Agree crime is largely due to inequality. What "type of society" are you referring to?
>>>
>>> Societies driven by unrestrained capitalism.
>>>
>> Red herring. Ho one here is in favor of "unrestrained capitalism." You made that up.
>
> I used the phrase because they are words in a dictionary. Evidently the term prickles with you.
>
>>>>> 3. Abortion. Even I am on the fence here, but I do happen to side with women's rights as the individuals they clearly are.
>>>> I agree with you.
>>>
>>>>> 4. Immigration. I don't see those who exploit immigrants complaining, and most western countries are built on immigration.
>>>> I agree with you.
>>>
>>>>> 5. Race relations. It is quite clear to many that most race hatred is perpetrated by white people, and history backs this up. Not completely one way, but there are obvious reasons why.
>>>>>
>>>> Who here is racist? Show your work.
>>>
>>> ????? I am an electrical engineer, and I live and observe on this planet.
>>>
>> Failure to engage, again.
>
> Wrong again. I am not here simply to answer your questions. How about you engaging for once instead of obfuscating? Else I see no reason to interact with you at all.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

How you can say my constant posts, talking about issues and asking questions is "not engaging" is mysterious. Of course you don't have to answer any questions, but not doing so is the very definition of "not engaging." You have stopped making any sense at all.

On 7/21/2022 12:17 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 00:17:44 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 7/21/2022 9:45 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 21:43:32 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 7/21/2022 1:48 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 14:41:38 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
>>>>>>>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
>>>>>>>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
>>>>>>>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
>>>>>>>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
>>>>>>>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
>>>>>>>>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
>>>>>>>>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
>>>>>>>>>> wages.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
>>>>>>>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
>>>>>>>>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing changes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
>>>>>>>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
>>>>>>>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>>>> You are SO wrong.
>>>>>>>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
>>>>>>>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>>>> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
>>>>>> taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
>>>>>> on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
>>>>>> is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
>>>>>> intelligent fellow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not discuss minimum age? Because you seem to want to avoid the subject. Minimum wage, of course, strikes at the heart of right wing inclinations, which if one includes their other leanings, does its best to exclude any form of humanity or real empathy offered to others, many of whom are truly struggling.
>>>>>
>>>> This is not engaging. This is defamation.
>>>
>>> Why is the truth as I see it defamation?
>>> `
>>
>> The fact that you have to ask why impugning the character of people who disagree with you (excluding any form of humanity or real empathy...") is defamation is troubling. Why you have feel you have the moral high ground on issues instead of just being correct is troubling.
>
> Because I know I have a higher ground. Empathy and humanity will never be discussed on right wing media, or any other right wing cesspit.
>
>>>>> In fact, on the contrary, it is those on the right in this forum, who refuse to discuss most matters. Lets go through them briefly.
>>>>> 1. Taxes. You say they they should be cut. Evidently, because the right wing worship every dollar that is taken away from the pie. Others will disagree, and say this money should be used for community benefits, health, social care, roads, etc.
>>>> No one here is an anarchist. What is the "right" or ""best" size of government? The more the merrier?
>>>
>>> I never remotely mentioned anarchism or implied it.
>> I didn't say you did. By saying that I am saying that the conservatives you seem to hate so much also want to tax and spend. The question is how much. What percent of GDP should the government account for. You didn't engage
>
> Of course I am engaging, but all you do is question. Do you honestly think I can give you numbers? Terms such as "not enough, or too much" are sufficient enough. As per usual you are using obfuscation to cloud any issue you engage in. How about you give me some figures, but they will be meaningless outside any points of reference.
>
>>>
>>>>> 2. Crime. Mostly due to the inequality that exists in the type of society you desire.
>>>> Agree crime is largely due to inequality. What "type of society" are you referring to?
>>>
>>> Societies driven by unrestrained capitalism.
>>>
>> Red herring. Ho one here is in favor of "unrestrained capitalism." You made that up.
>
> I used the phrase because they are words in a dictionary. Evidently the term prickles with you.
>
>>>>> 3. Abortion. Even I am on the fence here, but I do happen to side with women's rights as the individuals they clearly are.
>>>> I agree with you.
>>>
>>>>> 4. Immigration. I don't see those who exploit immigrants complaining, and most western countries are built on immigration.
>>>> I agree with you.
>>>
>>>>> 5. Race relations. It is quite clear to many that most race hatred is perpetrated by white people, and history backs this up. Not completely one way, but there are obvious reasons why.
>>>>>
>>>> Who here is racist? Show your work.
>>>
>>> ????? I am an electrical engineer, and I live and observe on this planet.
>>>
>> Failure to engage, again.
>
> Wrong again. I am not here simply to answer your questions. How about you engaging for once instead of obfuscating? Else I see no reason to interact with you at all.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

Oh, and you can stop "interacting" any time you like. Am I supposed to take that as a threat? Ha Ha.

On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 02:38:36 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 7/21/2022 12:17 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 00:17:44 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 7/21/2022 9:45 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 21:43:32 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>> On 7/21/2022 1:48 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 14:41:38 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
> >>>>>>>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
> >>>>>>>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
> >>>>>>>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Bob Harper
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
> >>>>>>>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
> >>>>>>>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
> >>>>>>>>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
> >>>>>>>>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
> >>>>>>>>>> wages.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
> >>>>>>>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
> >>>>>>>>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nothing changes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
> >>>>>>>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
> >>>>>>>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Bob Harper
> >>>>>>>> You are SO wrong.
> >>>>>>>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
> >>>>>>>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
> >>>>>> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
> >>>>>> taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
> >>>>>> on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
> >>>>>> is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
> >>>>>> intelligent fellow.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bob Harper
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why not discuss minimum age? Because you seem to want to avoid the subject. Minimum wage, of course, strikes at the heart of right wing inclinations, which if one includes their other leanings, does its best to exclude any form of humanity or real empathy offered to others, many of whom are truly struggling.
> >>>>>
> >>>> This is not engaging. This is defamation.
> >>>
> >>> Why is the truth as I see it defamation?
> >>> `
> >>
> >> The fact that you have to ask why impugning the character of people who disagree with you (excluding any form of humanity or real empathy...") is defamation is troubling. Why you have feel you have the moral high ground on issues instead of just being correct is troubling.
> >
> > Because I know I have a higher ground. Empathy and humanity will never be discussed on right wing media, or any other right wing cesspit.
> >
> >>>>> In fact, on the contrary, it is those on the right in this forum, who refuse to discuss most matters. Lets go through them briefly.
> >>>>> 1. Taxes. You say they they should be cut. Evidently, because the right wing worship every dollar that is taken away from the pie. Others will disagree, and say this money should be used for community benefits, health, social care, roads, etc.
> >>>> No one here is an anarchist. What is the "right" or ""best" size of government? The more the merrier?
> >>>
> >>> I never remotely mentioned anarchism or implied it.
> >> I didn't say you did. By saying that I am saying that the conservatives you seem to hate so much also want to tax and spend. The question is how much. What percent of GDP should the government account for. You didn't engage
> >
> > Of course I am engaging, but all you do is question. Do you honestly think I can give you numbers? Terms such as "not enough, or too much" are sufficient enough. As per usual you are using obfuscation to cloud any issue you engage in. How about you give me some figures, but they will be meaningless outside any points of reference.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>> 2. Crime. Mostly due to the inequality that exists in the type of society you desire.
> >>>> Agree crime is largely due to inequality. What "type of society" are you referring to?
> >>>
> >>> Societies driven by unrestrained capitalism.
> >>>
> >> Red herring. Ho one here is in favor of "unrestrained capitalism." You made that up.
> >
> > I used the phrase because they are words in a dictionary. Evidently the term prickles with you.
> >
> >>>>> 3. Abortion. Even I am on the fence here, but I do happen to side with women's rights as the individuals they clearly are.
> >>>> I agree with you.
> >>>
> >>>>> 4. Immigration. I don't see those who exploit immigrants complaining, and most western countries are built on immigration.
> >>>> I agree with you.
> >>>
> >>>>> 5. Race relations. It is quite clear to many that most race hatred is perpetrated by white people, and history backs this up. Not completely one way, but there are obvious reasons why.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Who here is racist? Show your work.
> >>>
> >>> ????? I am an electrical engineer, and I live and observe on this planet.
> >>>
> >> Failure to engage, again.
> >
> > Wrong again. I am not here simply to answer your questions. How about you engaging for once instead of obfuscating? Else I see no reason to interact with you at all.
> >
> > Ray Hall, Taree
> Oh, and you can stop "interacting" any time you like. Am I supposed to take that as a threat? Ha Ha.

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 9:17:47 AM UTC-7, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 00:17:44 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> > On 7/21/2022 9:45 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 21:43:32 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >> On 7/21/2022 1:48 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 14:41:38 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
> > >>>> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
> > >>>>>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
> > >>>>>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
> > >>>>>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
> > >>>>>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
> > >>>>>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
> > >>>>>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves. I
> > >>>>>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
> > >>>>>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Bob Harper
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
> > >>>>>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
> > >>>>>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
> > >>>>>>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
> > >>>>>>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
> > >>>>>>>> wages.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
> > >>>>>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
> > >>>>>>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Nothing changes.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
> > >>>>>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
> > >>>>>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Bob Harper
> > >>>>>> You are SO wrong.
> > >>>>>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
> > >>>>>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
> > >>>> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
> > >>>> taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
> > >>>> on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
> > >>>> is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
> > >>>> intelligent fellow.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Bob Harper
> > >>>
> > >>> Why not discuss minimum age? Because you seem to want to avoid the subject. Minimum wage, of course, strikes at the heart of right wing inclinations, which if one includes their other leanings, does its best to exclude any form of humanity or real empathy offered to others, many of whom are truly struggling.
> > >>>
> > >> This is not engaging. This is defamation.
> > >
> > > Why is the truth as I see it defamation?
> > > `
> >
> > The fact that you have to ask why impugning the character of people who disagree with you (excluding any form of humanity or real empathy...") is defamation is troubling. Why you have feel you have the moral high ground on issues instead of just being correct is troubling.
> Because I know I have a higher ground. Empathy and humanity will never be discussed on right wing media, or any other right wing cesspit...

According to this:

- Blade runner promotes that empathy is the defining characteristics for humanity.

https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Bladerunner-Humanity-Of-Deckard-Roy-Batty-FKCXMJAZTJ

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 2:55:17 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 9:17:47 AM UTC-7, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 00:17:44 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > On 7/21/2022 9:45 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 21:43:32 UTC+10, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > >> On 7/21/2022 1:48 AM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 14:41:38 UTC+10, Bob Harper wrote:
> > > >>>> On 7/20/22 6:42 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 07:22:37 UTC+10, Gerard wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Op 2022-07-20 om 21:16 schreef Bob Harper:
> > > >>>>>>> On 7/20/22 9:51 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> On 7/20/2022 12:14 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> On 7/19/22 10:24 AM, James Goodzeit wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:19:47 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:43:51 AM UTC-7, Marc S wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dan....gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 19. Juli 2022 um 10:40:49
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+2:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2856XOaUPpg
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is not A.I. becoming sentient - I don't think they can
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - but humans becoming less sentient.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> In the future, I think that more and more people will start failing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> BLADE RUNNER's Voigt-Kampff test.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I wonder if conservatives are sentient, as they only seem capable of
> > > >>>>>>>>>> parroting Republican talking points. I don't believe they would even
> > > >>>>>>>>>> pass the Turing test.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Clearly you have been reading sources that write *about*
> > > >>>>>>>>> conservatives, rather than reading conservatives themselves.. I
> > > >>>>>>>>> suggest you try Kevin Williamson at National Review for starters, and
> > > >>>>>>>>> perhaps David French at The Dispatch. You might learn something.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Bob Harper
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Nice try. Here's how it's not going to go. He reads someone who says
> > > >>>>>>>> he's against minimum wages because he thinks (and he cites research in
> > > >>>>>>>> support) that minimum wages hurt the very group they are intended to
> > > >>>>>>>> help because of lost working class jobs. He reacts by saying, Oh,
> > > >>>>>>>> that's interesting. I'll have to reconsider my position on minimum
> > > >>>>>>>> wages.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Sure. Rather he's likely to call the Conservative/Libertarian who
> > > >>>>>>>> said it a poor-hating racist. Or a n on-sentient. At the least just
> > > >>>>>>>> regurgitating a talking point. Or all of these.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Nothing changes.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> You're probably right, Frank, but as long as hope is a virtue, We need
> > > >>>>>>> to keep trying. Frustrating, to be sure, but that doesn't excuse us from
> > > >>>>>>> telling the truth as we understand--and can support--it.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Bob Harper
> > > >>>>>> You are SO wrong.
> > > >>>>>> Nothing changes. THAT is the truth. (See how many times the same things
> > > >>>>>> have been written here by guys like Berger.)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Same old, same old. What is the point of arguing with them? After all, they are against minimium wages because they say they are concerned about unemployment, and yet seem totally unconcerned about the increase in jobs which amount to nothing more than slavery. Pointless, like talking to a bunch of 4x2s.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
> > > >>>> Ray, there are subjects other than the minimum wage. Crime, abortion,
> > > >>>> taxes, immigration, race relations, etc., etc. If you refuse to engage
> > > >>>> on anything, it's difficult to see you as other than someone whose mind
> > > >>>> is utterly closed, which is too bad as you seem like a reasonably
> > > >>>> intelligent fellow.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Bob Harper
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Why not discuss minimum age? Because you seem to want to avoid the subject. Minimum wage, of course, strikes at the heart of right wing inclinations, which if one includes their other leanings, does its best to exclude any form of humanity or real empathy offered to others, many of whom are truly struggling.
> > > >>>
> > > >> This is not engaging. This is defamation.
> > > >
> > > > Why is the truth as I see it defamation?
> > > > `
> > >
> > > The fact that you have to ask why impugning the character of people who disagree with you (excluding any form of humanity or real empathy...") is defamation is troubling. Why you have feel you have the moral high ground on issues instead of just being correct is troubling.
> > Because I know I have a higher ground. Empathy and humanity will never be discussed on right wing media, or any other right wing cesspit...
>
> According to this:
>
> - Blade runner promotes that empathy is the defining characteristics for humanity.
>
> https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Bladerunner-Humanity-Of-Deckard-Roy-Batty-FKCXMJAZTJ

According to this article on "Frankenstein":

- Through the evolution of the novel, Victor Frankenstein becomes fond and empathetic for those surrounding his life. He begins to realise the consequences for his actions, “did I not as his make, owe him all the portion of happiness that it was in my power to bestow?” (Shelley, 1818, p.141). The sympathetic feelings Victor has portrayed for the monster reflects humane empathy, a quality of what it means to be a human.

https://edubirdie.com/examples/a-sense-of-humanity-in-frankenstein-and-blade-runner/