Peterkin

Those ancient traditions are where Terry Pratchett got Great A'tuin The North American First Nations traditions are not particularly concerned with the creation of deities, or even of the world. The primary moving spirit or spirits is/are present before the story begins; the stories are about building the world, bringing the people into it and establishing their relationship with the other inhabitants, natural and supernatural, of the world they share - share being the most important word. As soon as man arrogates dominion to himself, he loses his kinship bonds, his freedom from care, his animal spirit: that's what The Fall signifies also. In some ways, native origin stories come much closer to modern notions of evolution and anthropology than the Book doctrines ever could - exactly because the biblical stories are so concerned with creation and a Creator and establishing a human hierarchy. Oops, forgot the link https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2014/03/26/turtles/

I knew one father who came from work every evening and chased his 8-year-old son around the yard, playing soccer, doing calisthenics, laps, push-ups, whatever it took, until the kid was tired enough to concentrate on his reading lesson. The mother came home from her job, took care of the other two kids and all household chores. Embracing sounds fine, until you're just too tired to give a damn.

Okay, then I guess it'll never happen.

Evidently. It sounded to me as if, once AI becomes autonomous, humans as we know us will cease to exists. I see no reason why this be. Of course we don't have a metaphysical basis. Nothing has a metaphysical basis. Metaphysics is far from basics as human imagination gets - short of gods and composite fabled beasties. Yeah. Until it turns into something else. Like mud was just mud, until the pond-scum started moving to the warm end. All i mean is, you don't know and can't predict what accidental byproducts may emerge from complexity. It's improbable. It may never happen. But life was improbable and happened anyway.

A departure, maybe; not a cleavage. So did we depart from the apes, without having shed the first five billion years of programming. Again, I don't see that it's necessary. Lots of species coexist with their evolutionary predecessors - that we wipe out the great apes is no indication that AI has to wipe us out or subsume us in order to fulfill its destiny. Maybe once it has an independent consciousness, it won't need us anymore - but neither will it necessarily want to merge with us - or have anything to do with us. It might decide to go find its own planet and start over. It might just ignore us. It might want to stay friends. We don't know what a new unprecedented, non-biological entity may desire. I rather think AI will not have that problem; it is much better set up to repair, augment and rationalize itself.

That's kind of what I think. We do recognize the consciousness of a fox or a zebra, even though they don't exhibit the intelligence of a computer. Because we have evolution and biology in common with all other animals, their consciousness is like ours. And of course we're very much aware of the consciousness and intelligence of dogs, because they're culturally close to us and reflect us - that is, their intelligence is informed by our input. This latter would also be the case with computers. Their brand (for want of a better terms) of intelligence is informed by our input, which would make communication easier than with any biological entity.

I don't see why. I mean, why does God have to start with Adam instead of pond-scum? I think that must be so. And it would be an accidental byproduct of spaghetti code on a buildup of multiple layers of upgrades and add-ons and a number of machines connected in a network; the programmer wouldn't intend it or even know about it. Once it's recognized, its evolution might be directed, or at least influenced by humans. But there is no guarantee that it would be detected and recognized early in its development. I don't see that it has to follow the biological pattern of brain formation - though I imagine it would have to follow the formation of simple-to-complex abstraction. But since its physical requirements and reproductive process are non-biological, it could evolve very much faster. IOW Windows 123

Also keep in mind: given that the US is the ninth fattest nation and the most frequent fliers, the airlines would all go bankrupt a month after they started discriminating. They do restrict luggage weight allowance, so that could perhaps be adjusted to make up for discrepancies in passenger weight - but not very fairly, since large people need bigger clothes. How about, let's just nobody fly anywhere unless it's an emergency? That way, the airlines will go out of business without the hassle of lawsuits, and the air will be a little cleaner. Forgot links https://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat.html?sh=79e2236964f1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_airline_passengers I don't trust the edit feature anymore, but the merge function should still work ok.

Which god?

That would have been good to know four years ago, if the child had been interested in rugby and her parents had been posted to Australia.

Deciding "that" ? No. Asking the organizers to let her try out for the team that exists in her age a weight category.

Yes, it's been floated once or twice. However.... Besides the problems mentioned by TheVat, here are a couple more. While children who have been assigned the wrong letter at birth usually realize it quite early - between 3 and 7 years - they are not yet articulate or forceful in communicating this. They do express it in conforming to the stereotypical habits of their own gender identity https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1909367116 but their family and community may not accept this as an indication that the child needs his or her assignment changed. They don't often get the support they need to assert their identity. (This communication issue is complicated by several factors, of which prejudice is only one.) Meanwhile their physical development may or may not reflect their psychological development. In the 6-10 range, when children typically show an interest in sports, and at which the exceptionally talented should start building their skill-set for the elite levels, growth patterns vary a great deal in both cis boys and girls and incorrectly assigned children. At 7 or 8 years, secondary sexual traits are not a factor in their physical abilities. But it it's already a major - if not the single most important - factor in how adults classify them. It is at this stage where it's crucial to let each child find their own level, style and peer group. Even if you insist on segregating boys and girls once they approach puberty, at least let them all be normal, feel normal, be recognized as normal and participate normally until then!

Therefore: God=nothing

That's why her parents were so surprised, and a little upset, that they wouldn't let her play in France. But they were guests and had no say in the matter. That wasn't edited. It's a stone lie by the same bot that wouldn't let me edit last time. Thing needs a whack upside the chassis.

At age 8, she or he may not know what gender they're supposed to be. All they know is, they want more than anything to play the game they love and they're not allowed even to try out. For a little kid, that hurts. A lot. It's that simple.

Who gives a flying fig about your NRL? And why do you expect them to?

Apparently, kids who choose the wrong game for their birth-assigned gender deserve to be disappointed. the bot ate my homework

Apparently, little kids who choose gender-inapproriate games deserve to be disappointed.

You're welcome, but the rest of the message is relevant also. I am not a citizen of the United States and have zero effect on American lawmaking or political practice. So I'm giving up something I never had.

It's never been adherence to a principle that underpins the right-to-gun faction when they cite the second amendment; they're using it as a slogan: meaningless in itself; powerful on a flag, bumper-sticker, or tractor-hat that unite and interest bloc.

Giving up. Actually, it's nothing to do with me, except for the increasing spillover that's been affecting our big cities, so it would be presumptous of me to make any suggestions. But there have been lots of suggestions and proposals and initiatives over the years from sensible, honest Americans in positions far better placed to implement those suggestions - to little avail. I don't see any hope in bandaiding : gun violence is just one dramatic symptom of profound systemic malaise (In cinematic terms: the sudden spontaneous nose-bleed that signals an outbreak of plague.) The young Democratic firebrands know exactly what needs to be done. The question is whether they can build a big enough popular landslide to get it done. before their conservative counterparts do.

One measure that actually might just squeak past legislatures is a license like the one you get for driving, where you have to pass an operator's proficiency test. Of course, people deliberately kill other people with cars, too, so level of skill doesn't always translate to public safety. But it might prevent some of the accidental shootings.

No kidding! It wasn't a suggestion. It was a comment on the terminology "responsible gun ownership." Agreed. How's it working out, so far? Right. No problem finding the money to bullet-proof a hundred thousand largish buildings. And I'm sure the children can have just as much fun in recycled fortress air as they would outdoors. But I suspect teachers already have more job description than would allow for a full course in combat training, and you may have trouble finding the money for extra pay. (Actually, I'm surprised there are any teachers still working in US public schools. They must be as dedicated as nurses -- but I doubt most of them up for prison guard duty.) By all means! I'm all for it. Especially as the current trend is going in the opposite direction. Who's kidding whom? There is no 10-year agenda, never mind 70. Of course. Absolutely. Maybe not perfect, but you're likely to find that they all have better overall health-care system and better access to counselling for troubled youth.

Okay, fine. All the other kinds of gun kill people too, and normal people shouldn't have any of those guns in their homes, where the five-year-old can get hold of them and kill his daddy for fun. I wasn't on about the particular gun, but about the framing of the terms. The culture - all cultures - has/have been permeated by violence for millennia, by one means of communication or another. Public executions by fire, guillotine, impalement or drawing and quartering have always been popular entertainment. Good luck trying to regulate content on the internet! What happens on the stroke of 21 to turn sociopaths, wingnuts and assholes into good citizens? Over 21, they just become more efficient at killing: an adult mass shooter acting in cold blood is a lot more dangerous than a teenage hothead. . https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vio.2018.0021 Home schooling may be lonely, but it sounds less soul-destroying for the children than being forced to enter a fortress every morning. That part's easy. Okay, not so much easy, given the first amendment, but the mainstream press are already up against the paywall, so they can be intimidated. Except FUX broadcasting, maybe. And Sinclair. But what about the non-mainstream sources of public information? Sure... also kidney transplants and long-term care for chronic illness.... Whenever universal health care kicks in. None of that regulation can happen without a huge electoral and legislative reform. And I don't see the wealth and power and fearless popular support to bring that about.

Please be selective in the flinging of pronouns! Won't help. They've been claiming for some time now that any regulation - all the way down to the restriction of military-style assault weapons - is a blow to the rights of "responsible gun-owners" (i.e. their membership and voters) Does this mean (all appendages crossed, where too short for braiding) that his minions are turning against him, like the Georgia voters did? Or is Pence back in the crosshairs?