Current events discussion

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Trump was found guilty of ****** abuse.

This is a quote from a hearing decision, where the judge states that " Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that" with regard to Trump raping her.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You should have asked when you represented him in court.
Let's try again: Show me your proof that this court decision is incorrect:

"The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “*****” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “*****” her as many people commonly understand the word “****.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."

Provide the definition of the word "****" in the context of NY Penal Law.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

This is a quote from a hearing decision, where the judge states that " Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that" with regard to Trump raping her.

Again, his opinion. With no video evidence it is literally just her word against his.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Nice try, but you're still avoiding the point. A hypothetical question isn't about whether it's already happened—it's about logical potential. You're acting like it’s impossible just because it hasn’t occurred yet.

Funny how you can easily talk about hypothetical elites taking over without proof, but when it comes to a hypothetical about your worldview, suddenly that's too much. Next-level hypocrite.

The fact that AI is already optimizing biological systems, like in gene editing and protein production, shows that it can eventually outgrow humanity. Just because you can’t wrap your head around it doesn’t mean the evidence isn’t there.
And once again, the burden of proof is on you. I’m presenting a logical argument based on current advancements, while you’re stuck in denial. If you’re so sure AI will always need humans, show me why. Otherwise, just admit you're wrong.

So once again, from the top: Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?

Come on, your elite awaits the next excuse you'll use to avoid answering.

There's a lot of proof evil people are taking over everything or are trying to. Not sure what you mean about that. They aren't hypothetical elites, there's names and organizations and such. One of my favorites to mention might be Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. "Hypothetical Klaus Schwab"

My logical argument is also based off current advancements. Like that's all I showed you is current advancements lol.

It's not that I can't wrap my head around it, it's that I just don't agree. AI will always need humanity. That's why I asked you about the soul earlier. That's not a troll question. That's a real question. The soul itself has energy completely independent of the human body. That is something that AI does not have, a human soul or souls, and its energy, and it wants to have access to it/them, and that's part of where human processing and creation and imagination come from is the soul, which is a separate entity from the physical human body. Your entire consciousness is actually your soul. That person that you think you are right now, you still will be after your body dies, just without the perception changes or limitations a human body brings. Your body is just your door that you open to this reality. The energy of the soul comes out through our neurological system. AI can't make souls. I mean, this is a hard discussion to have. The soul is real, and that's what AI is after is that energy.

The question would sort of be then, can AI trap souls inside of synthetic or artificial biology or whatever? That actually is my question for anyone. That one burns my mind.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

This is a quote from a hearing decision, where the judge states that " Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that" with regard to Trump raping her.

That isn't what the jury found him guilty of. Clearly the NY court system is dysfunctional. The E Jean Carroll case is a great example. The comparison of what happened to Daniel Penny vs Jordan Williams is anothe example.

Daniel Penny vs. Jordan Williams: Exploring Self-Defense and Racial Double Standards.

So, to summarize, Daniel Penny, a white man, subdued Jordan Neely, a black man, with the help of two other good Samaritans, one named Eric Gonzalez. Neely posed a threat to passengers on the subway, many, if not most, of whom were black. The D.A. who charged Penny is black. The mayor of New...

thyblackman.com

 

[Speed Chaser]

There's a lot of proof evil people are taking over everything or are trying to. Not sure what you mean about that. They aren't hypothetical elites, there's names and organizations and such. One of my favorites to mention might be Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. "Hypothetical Klaus Schwab"

My logical argument is also based off current advancements. Like that's all I showed you is current advancements lol.

It's not that I can't wrap my head around it, it's that I just don't agree. AI will always need humanity. That's why I asked you about the soul earlier. That's not a troll question. That's a real question. The soul itself has energy completely independent of the human body. That is something that AI does not have, a human soul or souls, and its energy, and it wants to have access to it/them, and that's part of where human processing and creation and imagination come from is the soul, which is a separate entity from the physical human body. The energy of the soul comes out through our neurological system. AI can't make souls. I mean, this is a hard discussion to have. The soul is real, and that's what AI is after is that energy.

It's rather sad how long it takes for you to respond with useless shit.

None of the people you mention prove anything about AI needing humanity, and they’re not evidence for the argument you're avoiding.

You keep saying AI will always need humans, but that’s just an opinion with no logical or factual basis to back it up. I've pointed out multiple times how AI is already optimizing biological systems and you just ignore that no surprise either. AI is already improving gene editing techniques, protein synthesis, and drug production. What exactly makes you think it won't eventually outgrow the need for human involvement?

As for the soul crap, I don't give a single f about it. Think whatever garbage you want in that regard; it's pointless in this conversation. AI doesn’t need souls to optimize biological systems or create new systems—it’s designed to work with data and patterns. If you want to make the claim it's after so-called 'soul energy,' back it up.

So, let's stay on topic: AI is advancing, and there’s plenty of evidence in the scientific community that it can outgrow humanity’s need for involvement in optimizing biological systems. If you’re so sure otherwise, provide some evidence beyond your opinions.

So once again, from the top: Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?

Come on, your elite awaits the next excuse you’ll use to avoid answering.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

"The former president made hay of that distinction when he sued Carroll in June, alleging Carroll defamed him by saying she was ***** in a media interview after the verdict.
The counterattack was quickly shot down.
Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in August that the jury verdict showed Carroll's **** allegation was "substantially true" and dismissed the counterclaim."

Civil trial...far lower burden of proof...

**** is a felony Rob...show me the conviction...

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Come on Rob, don't give up now. Carroll allegation: "She said Trump slammed her against a dressing room wall, pulled down her tights and forced himself on her.

Slammed... so there would have been bruising right?
Pulled down her tights and forced himself ON her... not in but ON.
This is a grown woman in a public store... no screams, no yelling??? She never claimed any weapons were involved. Trump may very well have had *** with her. Was it ****, I seriously doubt it. Wasn't "****" until he ran as a Republican.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Provide the definition of the word "****" in the context of NY Penal Law.

I don't NEED to, dummy.
The COURT DECISION, written by the JUDGE, says Trump ***** her.

There is NO amount of spin, misdirection, obfuscation, personal opinion, beliefs, feelings, claims, or complaints of a world conspiracy to make Trump look bad, that you can post, that will change the following words quoted VERBATIM from the COURT decision:
"The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “*****” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “*****” her as many people commonly understand the word “****.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."

PROVE THE QUOTE ABOVE FROM THE COURT DECISION IS NOT TRUE. ANYHTING ELSE YOU POST ABOUT IT IS JUST EYEWASH TO AID YOUR INABILITY TO ACCEPT FACTS,

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Carroll isn't even sure what YEAR it happened...

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

The COURT DECISION, written by the JUDGE, says Trump ***** her.

A civil court with a far lower burden of proof...

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I don't NEED to, dummy.
The COURT DECISION, written by the JUDGE, says Trump ***** her.

There is NO amount of spin, misdirection, obfuscation, personal opinion, beliefs, feelings, claims, or complaints of a world conspiracy to make Trump look bad, that you can post, that will change the following words quoted VERBATIM from the COURT decision:
"The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “*****” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “*****” her as many people commonly understand the word “****.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."

Of course because Trump.

Moving on... you going to admit you misquote people to make them appear to have said things they didn't say or ignore context to get the effect you are looking for... to smear.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Again a **** conviction is a felony...felony convictions aren't the purview of a civil court...

Show me a **** conviction Rob...or you're just spouting propaganda once again...

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

It's rather sad how long it takes for you to respond with useless shit.

None of the people you mention prove anything about AI needing humanity, and they’re not evidence for the argument you're avoiding.

You keep saying AI will always need humans, but that’s just an opinion with no logical or factual basis to back it up. I've pointed out multiple times how AI is already optimizing biological systems and you just ignore that no surprise either. AI is already improving gene editing techniques, protein synthesis, and drug production. What exactly makes you think it won't eventually outgrow the need for human involvement?

As for the soul crap, I don't give a single f about it. Think whatever garbage you want in that regard; it's pointless in this conversation. AI doesn’t need souls to optimize biological systems or create new systems—it’s designed to work with data and patterns. If you want to make the claim it's after so-called 'soul energy,' back it up.

So, let's stay on topic: AI is advancing, and there’s plenty of evidence in the scientific community that it can outgrow humanity’s need for involvement in optimizing biological systems. If you’re so sure otherwise, provide some evidence beyond your opinions.

So once again, from the top: Why would AI waste time on inefficient humans when it could create optimized biological systems that don’t have the upkeep requirements of humans?

Come on, your elite awaits the next excuse you’ll use to avoid answering.

Those technocrats I mentioned are the technocrats helping develop AI. I didn't say they prove that AI needed humanity. All I said is that those are a couple of the technocrats helping develop AI and push it in a direction, just to give a basic example of the type of people I was talking about. You're just like Rob, false attribution.

I'm not avoiding anything, you just keep trying to push me back into the same corner, which I don't agree with. I don't agree with your views that AI can survive without humanity, and when I say something you accuse me of avoiding them when I'm not avoiding them.

The soul is everything in this regard. It's the whole point of life itself, shaping the soul is the whole point of life if you ever wanna advance it. This all is very relevant because it has to do with the neurological system and why AI wants to plug into it.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Rob is googling for some incident a civil court decided a felony case right now