Alex_Krycek

The disparity in communicative ability wouldn't even have to be this extreme. Communication is only engaged in by intelligent beings if there is the perception of some meaningful exchange of data / information; absent this perceived value the initiative to communicate does not exist. Think of how many of your own species you have no interest in communicating with, even those who are comparably on par with you in terms of intelligence. If it is your perception that the energy expended in the interaction will not be redeemable in terms of meaningful data reciprocated by the interlocutor, communication becomes an exercise in futility rather quickly. This brings to mind Sam Harris's amusing diagram used in his "Can we build AI without losing control over it?" TED talk. Harris outlined a spectrum of intelligence with a normal human, John Von Neumann, a chicken, and a potential expanse of intelligence of which we cannot possibly fathom.

A very powerful speech by Matthew McConaughey, who is from Uvalde, Texas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD1EC48TTO0

Yeah, it is steep for a rental price. I think they're only streaming it through their website for now.

Did you catch The Ariel Phenomenon yet? Full length documentary about what happened at the Ariel School in 1994. https://arielphenomenon.com/

@OP. Have you considered the Holonomic Brain Theory proposed by David Bohm and Karl Pribram? If so, how would their ideas factor into your hypothesis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Holonomic_brain_theory

This argument brings to mind a film called Ex-Machina which I saw recently. An employee of a fictional big tech firm is tasked with assessing whether a robot truly possesses AI. Part of the dilemma is whether the robot has been purposefully crafted to present the illusion of AI - that is, to present to the observer all the criteria that would qualify it as true AI. The issue of course, if that this would be a mere charade, a parlor trick. So the creator of the robot had a secret test: to see if the robot could manipulate the human observer into letting it escape the research facility. The observer, being somewhat gullible and inexperienced with the opposite sex, was duped by the robot, thus it was able to escape, and passed the test as being truly "intelligent".

This assumes that reality is purely subjective based on one's own perception. I disagree.

The very act of hardware and software design is a transmission of impetus as an extension of the designers and not an infusion of conscious will. Very interesting opening premise. I see some connections with your ideas and Roger Penrose's work.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment to the US Constitution It should be noted that this amendment was written when the US had no standing army to protect itself (the founding fathers were opposed to a professional military, seeing it as a threat to liberty). Instead, Militias, informally assembled of the common man, were seen as more trustworthy protectorates of freedom. Nowadays one might question the relevance of a "well regulated militia" to the "security of a free State" when said "free state" has the most formidable military in the world.

It also makes the baddies job a lot easier when attacking the goodies.

Interesting report from David Pakman about Putin having Cancer. This has supposedly been verified by three independent sources. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD9-z-RZto8

Ironically this is the same argument the gun crowd uses to justify no change: "There is an infinitesimal chance of being killed in a mass shooting so its illogical to do anything about it."

The AR-15 is just a dressed up prop for the gun nerds. It's just a standard semi-automatic rifle with relatively low power compared to something like an M1 Garand or the new MCX Spear which is now commercially available. Nothing special about the AR except the marketing and how common it is. To answer your question IMO a handgun with stopping power (.45 calibre or greater) or a shotgun is the best for home defense. Rifles aren't practical in close quarters.

I don't see it as a conflation. When someone is attacked, many times that person is at a physical disadvantage. They are older, weaker, smaller in stature, etc. Despite how many Aikido videos you watch of an old woman flipping a 250 assailant, the reality is that the assailant prevails in that situation 9 times out of 10. Bigger, stronger, more violent people typically win the fight, unless the defender is particularly adept in martial arts, which most people are not. Thus it becomes entirely logical to level the playing field, to equip the weaker defender with a tool that can be wielded to render superior force against the stronger attacker: the firearm. In matters of exigent life and death when someone is under attack, this is the only way to give them a fighting chance. A splendid approach if you live in the suburbs. Don't know if you've been to America recently: it's tough to build trust with a meth addict who wants to break into your home. Unfortunately not everyone can come round for tea and biscuits for a good natured chat.

Yes, there is a very legitimate reason: self defense. We have a right to protect our homes, family, and property from criminals. Why would you want to disarm citizens and make them vulnerable to harm?

I believe the right to self defense is inalienable. If someone is attacked, they should have the means to defend their life (and by extension their liberty and happiness). The UK has a different view: you believe that a person does not have the right to self defense. This can be shown quite simply by your laws even against mace / pepper spray. Consequently, vulnerable populations are left undefended in the UK. For example, the amount of sexual violence against women in the UK is staggeringly high, and women in the UK can do little to nothing about it. https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/statistics-sexual-violence/ But remain on your high horse, all to preserve the myth that the UK is somehow a safer country for the vulnerable.

"Canada’s government is to legislate for a national freeze on handgun ownership that would prevent people buying and selling them anywhere in the country." “The day this legislation goes into effect it will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns in Canada,” said the prime minister, Justin Trudeau. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/31/handgun-freeze-in-canada-and-five-round-limit-on-magazines -------- To score political points, Trudeau is removing the right to self defense from practically the entire Canadian population. I guess the logic is if someone is violently attacked and can't defend him/her self it's that person's own responsibility. “Other than using firearms for sport shooting and hunting, there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives,” Trudeau said. What an utterly absurd and ignorant statement.

I see Trudeau's busy limiting the rights of gun owners. Easy to take away someone's rights, no so easy to protect them.

What will never work: Banning all guns. (too many in circulation, too many people would violently resist) Focusing on one type of weapon or controlling ammunition / magazines, etc. What might work and would have an immediate impact: Raising the minimum age to own a firearm Significantly cracking down on illegal gun ownership Increasing mental health counseling for young people "Red flagging" certain convictions as barriers to gun ownership Criminalizing gun ownership if a person states intent of harming others

True but... "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. archives.gov/federal-register/constitution I don't think these requirements are realistic when we're talking about rescinding the second amendment. Also there would likely be a civil war from the far right...but that's another story.

Won't work in America. Owning a firearm is a constitutional right. While some types of guns can be regulated (it's illegal to own a machine gun, for example) banning all guns would be an extremely difficult endeavor that would probably be struck down by the Supreme Court in the end. Regulating content wouldn be as easy or easier than regulating guns in America. Personally I would be in favor of mandatory psychological checks to get a 2 year permit to own a gun. Every two years the license must be renewed after another mandatory visit to the psychologist. The problem is such a measure would probably be struck down in court as unconstitutional. I'm not talking about guard towers and barbed wire fences. Bullet proof security doors and windows, fully trained staff who keep the building secure from unauthorized intruders. These are things that would not have to interrupt the fun environment happening inside. Many options here. Easier to get a consensus on mental health legislation before universal heath case. Step by step. On this timeline we're looking at 50-75 years before any meaningful systemic change takes effect. We should be looking at measures that can be implemented right now.

The focus on the "military-style assault weapons" is a red herring, in my opinion. The AR-15 is just a standard semi automatic rifle when it comes down to it (glorified to look cool for the gun nerds). There are actually considerably higher caliber rifles available such as the Army's new MCX Spear which are now available on the commercial market. The constant focus on banning the AR-15 is a non-sequitur and would be drop in the ocean in terms of actual prevention. My sugestions on how to mitigate these massacres: 1. Address the fixation on violence and control in the media (movies / TV / video games). A shift has occurred in the last 20 years in the mindset of young people where extreme violence is considered acceptable (normalized through the aforementioned forms of media). Unfortunately, this kind of violent entertainment is the most profitable in a free market system. There should be significantly increased regulation on what type of content is available to those under 21. 2. Raise the age of gun ownership to 21 everywhere. Nobody under 21 should be able to buy a firearm. Giving a firearm to a person under 21 should be a felony in every state. 3. Every school funded with taxpayer dollars must be airtight in terms of security. Schools are the number one soft target for this kind of terrorism. Schools should be impenetrable fortresses to anyone without security clearance, and should be regularly inspected to maintain standards of security. 4. Make it illegal for the media to report the assailant's name and identity. These terrorists are doing this in part for ego manifestation/glorification; they should know that even after their atrocity is committed ,they will remain anonymous. The mass shooter event has unfortunately become a meme now in our society, driven in part by the attention sought by the assailants. As a society we should begin to dismantle the perceived psychological rewards the attacker's see in committing such crimes. 5. Significantly increase mental health counseling / services for young people. With the exception of the Las Vegas shooter, it seems that young people predominantly commit this particular type of atrocity. There should be a place for them to get help free of charge. The barriers around mental health treatment must come down.

What-about-ism. Classy.

In case it hasn't been established yet, thought I'd point out the obvious that what Russia is doing clearly qualifies as genocide: From the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (United Nations) Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (killing Ukrainians because of their nationality) (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (civilians targeted everywhere in Ukraine) (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (widespread indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas) (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (bombed maternity hospital) (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (relocating women and children from Ukraine to camps in Russia) Source: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf

Might also be a cover story to sideline them while the FSB's internal affairs investigation moves forward. The Kremlin must be rife with paranoia about who might turn / have turned against Putin.