Today I used the Canada Marriage Equality Stamp

To Regular Post Mail a follow up letter to the Canada Federal Human Rights Commission, asking where the 10 claim forms that I requested last month are.

I am in jurisdictional limbo, complaining about the Federal Level to the Provincial

I still need to send a copy of that to the BC Human Rights Tribunal, along with the Translink correspondence, and the letters that I still have to do to Shopper’s Drug Mart and Royal Columbian Hospital.

Meanwhile, online this morning

The FCC wants to destroy net neutrality and give giant cable companies control over the Internet

Starting a Human Rights Complaint

Canada v China: Human Rights or Religion Rites?

Oh CanaDUH: Human Rights, eh?

Translink and BC Human Rights

Human Rights, wot a concept

From the Holocaust to 9/11: Queer Rights are Human Rights

Can someone clarify the human rights committee?

Posted in Canada, Emergency Preparedness, Uncategorized, Z, Zeitgeist Analytics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

People vs Professions

Doctors challenge Ontario policy requiring referral for services that clash with morals

Dear Doctors

You do not get “personal” anything when you are acting as a Profession

get your fucking shit together and focus on the patient

not profits and especially not prophets




Shoppers 2 and a List To Do

Dear Shoppers Draft Letter

Shoppers Drug Mart sucks



Double Hospital Day

Dear St. Paul’s Hospital:

Hospitals and Healthcare

Three Jesuses Walk into a Mental Hospital



Public Transit

Translink and The Last Straw

Translink and BC Human Rights

Translink: Second Level

HRC: Translink

Dear Translink re: The JWs

Posted in Agoraphobic Philosopher, Canada, Living Well, Raw Recovery Specialist, Zeitgeist Analytics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Talking About and Across Demographic

Watch Bill Maher Apologize for Using the N-Word, Get Schooled by Ice Cube – Maxim
Watch Bill Maher Apologize for Using the N-Word, Get Schooled by Ice Cube - Maxim
  • Jonathan Ellis's profile photo
    Notice how Bill Maher cut off the black woman when she tried to add her comments.

    Ebony Skeptic's profile photo

    yup…Ain’t that some shit?!
  • Kymberlyn Reed's profile photo

    The real conversation is not, nor has it ever been about the word “nigger”. It’s really about a white supremacist mindset being told that it cannot do something, or in this case, say something. They don’t like that.

    Of course, the go-to defense is “well Black people use it too”, as if they know the minds of millions of Black people around the world, and many of us do not.

  • Ebony Skeptic's profile photo


    I find it appalling that someone would even want to use the “free speech” ploy when it comes to using derogatory offensive words. Is that the justification for defending racism now? If so that’s fucking pathetic and the tactics of a closet racists.

  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    make him admit Germ Theory too, eh.
  • T. Slap66's profile photo
    I guess I made a fool of myself 25 years ago when I supported NWA & Bill Maher on the grounds of free speech as I’m opposed to censorship.😟🔫
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    people are entitled to make absolute asses of themselves, free speech is not consequence free, nor limited to first speech, eh – people with public platforms and moreso in position of trust have to be held to a higher standard then mere mortals
  • T. Slap66's profile photo
    Cancel your HBO subscription or use your remote control if your so upset…it’s a pay channel. He’s apologized and it’s still a fire storm, now what…a pound of flesh? Seems we have much larger problems.
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
     such as the complete inability of people to having a casual conversation without over-reacting?
  • Ebony Skeptic's profile photo
    He apologized…whoopie-doo. 😒😒😒
  • T. Slap66's profile photo
    Perhaps a fine is justified for this retched malfeasance? Execution in the public square is what is required to quench the masses.

    Jonathan Ellis's profile photo


    We take this free speech and run with it, but that 1st amendment goes both ways. These libertarian and anarchists degenerate fucks love to yell free speech. Here is how it works. Bill Maher had the right to use the word Nigger, and we have the right to complain and talk shit about it.

    There you have it. Free speech.

  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    men are rarely willing to admit any man is in error, nor ever concede any woman have a point, until another man repeats it, eh?
  • T. Slap66's profile photo
    Agreed… unfortunately protecting free speech also means vile, crude and detestable speech.
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    there is nothing compelling anyone to defend that, this is why there are community standards and those who oppress are not victims when they are told they may not. Free Speech was not intended as an oppressive defense, but to protect those who speak out against it
  • Kymberlyn Reed's profile photo

    to let some people tell it, “free speech” only goes one way, while the rest of us are taken to task for speaking out or told “there are more important things to deal with”.

    Things that make you go hmm…😒😒😒😒.

  • Jonathan Ellis's profile photo
    They think free speech, the right to assembly, and the right to bear arms on applies to them.
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    the funny part is how those “they” hunker in the house bunkers with ammo stockpiles, oppressing others while fearing retribution in kind; it never occurs to them, stop oppressing, stop whining that you can’t oppress anymore, no one has sympathy for that and your other false issues. Then they troll on line to explain what smart victims they are, and wondering why they don’t get the reverence they demand as respect. Seriously, makes me glad to be a lesbian and have a get out of white card, those ammosexuals are embarrassing and not invited to the new Norse Temple in Iceland.
  • they only understand with or against, they do not understand the in/out community and understanding the boundary difference, why they complain about tolerance, when acceptance and not being bothered that others exist and respecting that they get to.
  • so, when celebs do an anti-queer slur, they do pay fines to profession regulators or have to do rehab … what is the proper repentance in the court of public opinion these days
  • Ebony Skeptic's profile photo
    Celebs get a serious backlash for racists, sexists and homophobic remarks in general. They lose sponsors, ratings drop and some ppl don’t want to work with them. Paula Dean is a great example.
    Now Donald Trump apparently can say what he wants because his spokes ppl claim we take his words out of context. 🤔🤔🤔😒
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    yeah, those “Family Values” types and their oppressive language that they do not think others are able to decode, eh. their biggest fear is intersectionality and all those demographics they oppress, working together to remove their social power
Canada walks the talk on global women’s rights: Ottawa is now making the single largest contribution in bilateral funding to women’s rights organizations
Canada walks the talk on global women’s rights
Canada walks the talk on global women’s rights
  • Griffin Walker's profile photo
    What rights does Sharia law give the Muslim woman ? What feminist is calling them out ?

    Patrick B's profile photo

    What in the world do women’s rights organizations actually do besides peddle dollars out to leftists causes. I’d you want women the have the same respect as men, it will only happen when women’s rights organizations disappear.

    Griffin Walker's profile photo

    600 million to push abortion in underdeveloped nation’s.. That’s not what I pay taxes push a corruptive global agenda of depopulation..

    Nina Tryggvason's profile photo

    +Griffin Walker this one: – Ayaan Hirsi Ali – Wikipedia

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Wikipedia

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali –
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    +Griffin Walker overpopulation is the major human cause of all the rest of the planet destroying we do, Womens programs benefit not only the women, but their children too – and into the community and women having reproductive control gives them freedom from the men who would not support them. so they are not having 8 children so 2 live to adulthood, and without choice of her own, but at the men’s pleasure
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    +Griffin Walker that you pay taxes is of no matter to government budgeting, and does not give you anything more than a vote, but you get to enjoy all the infrastructure.
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    +Patrick B if men could respect women, then those organizations wouldn’t have needed to exit in the first place

    Nina Tryggvason's profile photo

    +Griffin Walker the same zero rights as Christianity, because they are the same religion
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    Lewis’ law was first articulated by Helen Lewis on Twitter in August 2012: “Comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.” …
  • Griffin Walker's profile photo
    Come on…you know Gloria Steinmann was a bought and paid for corporate shill to create a new consumer base…do some research…
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    +Griffin Walker I didn’t mention her, you ignored my response
  • Griffin Walker's profile photo
    It began with her..
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    +Griffin Walker the Suffragette movement was before the 1970s, and men like you are part of the problem of women’s oppression, not the solution. you need to take a hard look at you and your demographic
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    +Griffin Walker let me explain what other people are reading in this exchange: Your isms pretending to be concerned for women under Islam; and blaming women for not speaking out. You ignored the relevant example I gave you, to insert a 1970s reference and attack her; then, you pretended to be a bigger feminist than a lesbian and told me to learn something when I have demonstrated a greater subject matter body of knowledge, and you ignore or fail to understand the points I have made and monologue with your emotionalist need for relevance, when your commentary is the status quo to be overcome.



Posted in Agoraphobic Philosopher, Emergency Preparedness, Raw Recovery Specialist, Uncategorized, Zeitgeist Analytics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mild Panic Attack Today

Caused by my Skyrim video game. So, I turned the game off and went back to bed.

I lay very still until the swirling and nausea went away

there was enough air

I wasn’t in danger of falling down and hurting myself

I could calm my breathing and know it was silly

a blur of frustration at the task repetition,

the video game character in a dark cave stuck in water to the waist

freaking dragons attacking too often

so I just turned it off and laid down until

my brain calmed down and I lightly dozed

laughing at the imaginary danger

but aware of the physical reality

of the brain/body response to stimulation

even simulated;

there are not many games for the playstation 4 that are not action/adventure/fantasy

So, in response to the question posed in the previous post

how does one know how ethical one is


the usual response is the cliche of doing the right thing when no one is watching

and I think the more interesting test is to do a simulation

and see how many wrong things you are comfortable doing to simulated people

when it is what real people are going through

determine your level of tolerance towards the suffering of others

just so you don’t have to

or see how good you can be, and where that goes you too, eh.

leaders and followers, enablers and resististors

that technology leveraged into the generational gap and overturning

of demographic class struggle of who gets in the front vs back door

who owns vs drives the car


Violence: Visceral vs Video Games

Raw Recovery Specialist on Video Games

GamerWorld to Science: Duh

CGI TV is pretty close to Virtual Reality Video Games

Posted in Agoraphobic Philosopher, Living Well, Raw Recovery Specialist, Zeitgeist Analytics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Religion is mental illness

CNBC’s Joe Kernen: At Worst Climate Change Is ‘A Socialist, Global Wealth Redistribution Scheme’
  • Joel Krugler's profile photo
    Why worry about Kernan’s non-expert view of climate change? He’s a well established idiot.
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    the lawyers from tobacco deniers work for the oil companies,
The Problem with Liberal Opposition to Islamophobia
The Problem with Liberal Opposition to Islamophobia
  •  All religions need to be flushed down toilet
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend; and christian and islam is the same bad copy of judaism… and yes. all religions have the same zero evidence and the same sub optimal social impact.
  • David Allee's profile photo
    Those religions are inhabited by real people you know.
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    +David Allee not when they do not allow others personhood and oppress them as a result of said religion
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    Public Education is supposed to compensate for family failures to reach civil and social responsibilities, and religion does not deserve any special consideration and it has never made a person or people better.
  • Curtis berger's profile photo
    public education is nothing but a prison system…to get sheep in line to follow
  • David Allee's profile photo
    Then how are you any better than they? Where is your moral high ground when you would kill them or put them in camps?
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    +David Allee I already explained public education, this is why religion does not confer personhood, when genocide is to go to assumption. My moral high ground is the Canada Charter of Rights and is evidenced by the better quality of life in Canada than in the USA. religion, with it’s money hoarding and pedophile priests along with social oppression has no moral ground.
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    +Curtis berger American education, yes, it also fails to qualify the average person for meaningful work since it sends more students to prisons than careers
  • . – COMMENTARY: At long last, Canada’s blasphemy law is dead

    COMMENTARY: At long last, Canada’s blasphemy law is dead

    COMMENTARY: At long last, Canada’s blasphemy law is dead
  • 12m
  • David Allee's profile photo
    You haven’t answered my question. How is YOUR moral ground higher?
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    +David Allee you need to re-read the entire thread, because I already explained before you accused me of being genocidal – which says everything about your morals applied.
  • David Allee's profile photo
    Nina Tryggvason's profile photo and +Curtis berger You both seem pretty young and a bit naive. I have been an atheist since 1979 and have seen many changes and know that people are people whether religious or not. I still understand what I not longer accept.
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    +David Allee and yet, you continue to not understand how to have a civil conversation, can you do anything other than emotional value judgements and dom/sub circle jerks? failure to recognize the humanity in the person with whom you are conversing is the Gobottery of saying respect and demanding reverence. Actually intelligent moral/ethical people do not lead with demeaning disrespect of your POV being better than unknown education/experience of others.
    Pity you for being raised in it in the first place, it explains why you play more atheist than thou, as if there’s a contest. You have clearly more to learn about being a humanist.
    Those who Oppress Others, do not get to claim to be victims when they are told they may not.
  • David Allee's profile photo
    I still understand what I no longer accept. Rant noted – good riddance.

Canada’s strangest laws: From witchcraft to blasphemy to sleigh bells

COMMENTARY: At long last, Canada’s blasphemy law is dead – National |
COMMENTARY: At long last, Canada’s blasphemy law is dead
COMMENTARY: At long last, Canada’s blasphemy law is dead

In Denmark, it took the looming spectacle of a man facing trial for burning a Koran to convince that country to scrap its centuries-old blasphemy law.

In Ireland, it took a police investigation into actor and comedian Stephen Fry (who said in a television interview, among other things, that “the god who created this universe, if it was created by God, is quite clearly a maniac”) to prompt a conversation about whether that country’s blasphemy law makes any sense. It’s still on the books, at least for now.

Fortunately here in Canada it didn’t take any sort of outrageous prosecution to convince the government to scrap our blasphemy law. In fact, it was accomplished with relatively little fanfare.

On Tuesday, the Liberals unveiled Bill C-51, which aims to “clean up the Criminal Code” by further clarifying sexual assault laws and also by eliminating a number of provisions that have been found unconstitutional, are similar to those found unconstitutional, or are simply obsolete and/or redundant.

READ MORE: Government bringing sexual assault law up to speed with the courts, times 

That includes section 296 of the Criminal Code, which is the prohibition on publishing a “blasphemous libel.” It will now be relegated to the ash bin of history, along with other such relics as “challenging someone to a duel,” “possessing or publishing crime comics,” and “fraudulently pretending to practice witchcraft.”

A law prohibiting blasphemy should be anathema for any country that purports to value freedom of expression and freedom of religion — and that includes Canada. It’s arguable that it never should have been drafted in the first place, but it certainly should have been scrapped long ago.

Canada has had a blasphemy law on the books since 1892. It’s been 90 years since the last person was convicted: Toronto atheist and Rationalist Society member Ernest Victor Sterry was convicted of blasphemy in 1927 and sentenced to 60 days in jail.

READ MORE: Canada’s strangest laws: From witchcraft to blasphemy to sleigh bells

But the charge itself has been used as recently as 1980. The owners of a movie theatre in Sault Ste. Marie were charged with blasphemous libel for the “crime” of screening Monty Python’s Life of Bryan, a British satire film about the life and death of Jesus Christ.

Fortunately, Ontario’s attorney-general stepped in to put a stop to the case. Had he not, though, how far would it have gone? How much would the theatre owners have had to bear in terms of legal costs to simply assert their basic rights as Canadians?

It’s all but certain that a charge under section 296 would not have held up in court, but it should never have to get to that point. The Liberals deserve credit for making this long overdue change.

As one Danish lawmaker recently put it, “Religion should not dictate what is allowed and what is forbidden to say publicly. It gives religion a totally unfair priority in society.” As it happens, of course, there are numerous countries when religion does in fact dictate what it forbidden to say publicly. In countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, blasphemy is punishable by death.

READ MORE: Duel challenges, fake witchcraft and crime comics, finally, may soon all become legal

If Canada is going to be a voice for human rights on the world state and speak out against the abuses of these regimes (which certainly we should), it undermines our cause when our own laws concede the point that blasphemy is a crime. To that end, the elimination of section 296 sends a strong message.

Furthermore, though, it demonstrates the clear and obvious correlation between the countries where blasphemy laws are most vigorously enforced and those countries where freedom religion is most nonexistent. Abandoning this law helps to strengthen freedom of religion in this country.

That freedom guarantees one’s right to believe, but it bestows no obligation upon anyone else to respect those beliefs. “God is great” and “God is a myth” should be equally protected speech. Freedom of religion entails the freedom to reject a religion or reject all faith entirely. The state itself must remain neutral on such matters — what we might also refer to as “secularism.”

It’s unfortunate that’s it’s taken 125 years to figure this out, but it’s a victory worth savouring.

Rob Breakenridge is host of “Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge” on Calgary’s NewsTalk 770 and a commentator for Global News. 


Posted in Agoraphobic Philosopher, Living Well, Raw Recovery Specialist, science, Uncategorized, Zeitgeist Analytics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

King and Queen Day

I have placed my order at an actual music store for the Sony A Boy From Tupelo release next month
they didn’t have it in their system, so they wrote my name down on paper
Oddly, I do not feel confident

however, today, I picked up 2 cds: Queen on the Air all their BBC performances


I went out with both parents, first to a medical building stop, where I had had a coffee shop adventure already, – I can’t remember a keyword to find the post to link to

there was a racist incident with the coffee shop owner, wherein I bought a muffin for a toddler on behalf of a young mother

I sat in the vehicle rather than wait in the building, then it was off to Guildford Mall

brunch at The Pantry

then, the Sunrise Records music story with CDs and LPs and related products.

Then, I walked through the mall to the Nespresso, then, meeting up with the parents for the return home

I spent most of the day playing Skyrim and then we watched the Denzel Washington Magnificent Seven; and while it’s a been a while, the original was better


an agoraphobic day

Posted in Agoraphobic Philosopher, Raw Recovery Specialist | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Trouble with Trolls

Brian Salter
Jun 9, 12:20 PM
Chomsky doesn’t believe that brain-machine interfaces will work.
Musk is worried that we’ll be killed by our AI’s.
Hawking is afraid that little green men will come here and get us.

Just because you’re an expert in one area, it doesn’t mean you know a goddamn thing about everything else.


Nina Tryggvason
two of those guys are experts in the area of their concerns


Brian Salter
+Nina Tryggvason Uhhhh, no. None of those guys are experts in the areas of their concerns. That’s what concerns me.


Nina Tryggvason
+Brian Salter how expert does one have to be regarding aliens or People not managing science (which anyone who’s read science fiction understands)?


Brian Salter
+Nina Tryggvason Well, these guys don’t even write sci-fy, so they have no expertise even with imagined scenarios.
Once out of their fields, they’re pretty much just blow-hards. (Except for Musk, who is always a blow-hard, and has no real expertise in anything.)


Nina Tryggvason
+Brian Salter which is more subjective wordage, and your inability to recognize other people’s expertise level reveals your lack of.


Brian Salter
+Nina Tryggvason Hmmm, in a phrase: Bugger off, bitch.


Dear Brian: don’t dish it, when you can’t take it, eh


JK Rowling just gave an epic lesson on sexism to a man who called Theresa May a ‘whore’
JK Rowling just gave an epic lesson on sexism to a man who called Theresa May a ‘whore’
Connecting our consciousnesses to artificial intelligence has long been an idea floated in science fiction, but at the end of April, two major companies announced their intentions to make that a reality.
On April 20, Facebook announced that it was working on building a device that could turn your thoughts directly into texts without you speaking or typing.
A few days after that, Elon Musk announced a similar project that would let you turn your thoughts into text and connects the brain directly to the Internet.
While the challenges Facebook and Musk have talked about facing are mostly technological based on building better brain sensors, both must overcome our lack of understanding of the mind itself.
In order to read your thoughts, a machine would need to understand how you think, and exactly how language works.
To try and answer those questions, Inverse spoke with Noam Chomsky professor emeritus at MIT and the father of modern linguistics about the connection between language and thought, and the rising technology of brain computer interfaces.
Chomsky says that he thinks the tech is nearly impossible to create, and that if it can be built it is ultimately dangerous.Do you think it’s possible for a machine turn your thoughts into words?
It would first of all have to have a way of determining where our thoughts are. Nobody knows how to do that. You and I, for example, when we introspect into what we’re now doing, producing complex sentences, we can’t access the thinking that’s lying behind it. There’s no known technology that can do it, either.
What you can do, maybe, is finding ways to determine whether an organization of motor activity in the brain which can be detected could, say, move a level or something. That’s conceivable. Anything like finding out what our thoughts is is just beyond science fiction.You’ve talked before about how we don’t necessarily think in words. Is that what makes this so difficult?
The kind of thinking that we have introspective access to is typically in words, but I should say, there’s nothing much understood about this.
To take a classic example, when Alan Turing wrote his famous article about can machines think, he started off by saying that the question of whether machines can think is too meaningless to deserve discussion. What he said is, “The problem isn’t the notion of thinking. It’s just so vague that you can’t ask a serious question about it.” He said when he’s asked, “what is thinking,” about the only thing he can say is, “That kind of buzzing that goes on in my head.” That’s how much we understand about it.
A lot’s been learned, and there’s a little known about the neurophysiology of it, but it’s a very difficult topic. It’s one of the hardest questions in the sciences.

Why is it so hard?
There’s all kinds of stuff going on in the brain, but we don’t know how to tap it. Part of the reasons are ethical. We know a lot about the neurophysiology of vision, for example, but the reason is that we’ve done experiments on cats and monkeys who have about the same visual system we do. Whether rightly or wrongly, scientists do invasive experiments with other animals. You put an electrode into the brain and you can find out what a particular neuron is doing. Out of that, you can construct a lot of understanding of the way the brain is analyzing visual signals and so on.
You can’t do that in the case of language, because for one thing, there is no other animal that has anything like the same system, and we don’t permit studies of that kind with humans.
The technology that’s used to study the brain [in humans] is noninvasive, so it’s picking up electrical signals or studying what amounts to blood flow. That’s what fMRI does. That gives you some information about the locations in the brain where things are happening, but it doesn’t tell you very much about the nature of the actual processing that’s going on.

What if instead of trying to turn your thoughts into some representation of them, this actually just connected your mind to someone else’s mind?
We have something like that. It’s called language. Language enables you to express your thoughts in a form which I can understand. That’s an astonishing property unique to humans, and trying to figure out where it came from is a deep problem of science.
To take a concrete example, when we speak, the words have to come out in sequence. One word follows the last. There’s good reason to think that that linear ordering is not part of language. It’s just imposed by the specific sensory motor system, the articulatory system, that just requires that everything come out in a sequence. What’s internal to the mind and is yielding our thoughts probably doesn’t have sequence, but you can’t introspect into that.

Are there specific challenges to developing the technology you would need for that?
We don’t even have the kind of technology that will enable us to understand the most elementary computations of language, the simple things, like why one word follows another.
Take the sentence, “John is a man,” and compare it with, “John are a man.”
The first one is grammatical. The second one isn’t grammatical, but we barely have the beginning of technology that can even make distinctions like that. The technology doesn’t really know what’s happening.
The study of what’s going on in the brain is very hard, even how a memory is preserved. How do you remember what you saw yesterday or five minutes ago? Even that is barely understood.

Thinking about how much we actually understand both language and the brain, what do you think is a realistic next step?
A realistic question, and one that is being studied is: what properties of the human brain enable us to have the capacity to produce new expressions which express our thoughts and are intelligible to others, and to do it over in an infinite range?
Just see what parts of the brain are even involved in this. That’s a hard problem. If that problem is solved (and there are some ideas about it) then the next problem, which is much harder, is to determine how the brain is doing it. That’s way beyond anything we understand, even for much simpler things than language.

If it is eventually possible to read our thoughts, do we actually want to do this?
I think we should not want it, just as I do not want Facebook and Google and the NSA to have access to my activities. They do it, but not because I want them to. If they could have access to our thoughts, which is as I say beyond science fiction, that would be even worse. They shouldn’t even have the access they do have.

I wouldn’t want technology like that to exist. It’s much too dangerous. If you can even imagine something like this being possible, there’s the ethical question about whether it should exist, which in my mind is a little bit like should nuclear weapons exist. Nuclear weapons are a very complex technology, but we’d be better off if they didn’t exist.If it was real, are there things
If it was real, I would think there should be efforts to end it, just as I think there should be efforts right now to prevent private corporations or the national government from obtaining detailed information about my actions and preferences. It’s none of their business.
Noam Chomsky Has a Damning Assessment of “Brain-Machine Interfaces”
Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
Christian and Islam are both variants of Judaism and they form the Abrahamic Trilogy, they are the same religion with a differing century of application and as all other religions, have zero evidence and no bearing on democratic government; separate State from Church/Corporations
  • Brian Scott's profile photo
    oh you are so wrong on that. You need to get that ball out of your mouth and educate yourself on the subject. It’s 2017 and we have Google. Sharia demands that Islam be placed above all forms of government.
  • Nina Tryggvason's profile photo
    +Brian Scott I hope you enjoy your learning discovery. Talmud 1.0 Bible 2.0 Koran 3.0… scribal copies of the Internet Dead Sea Scroll
“Let’s tackle misogyny at its source and find a way to raise boys to be more like the studious, gentle girls many of them have been told to despise.”
Terrorists are misogynists first: Mallick | Toronto Star
Terrorists are misogynists first: Mallick | Toronto Star
Posted in Agoraphobic Philosopher, Raw Recovery Specialist | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment