It is possible to strongly disapprove of both Israel's policies in Gaza and the present regime in Iran. Or is it the case that you support the present regime?
Of course that’s possible — but the context matters doesn’t it? You know - the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Iran because it wasn’t sufficiently pro-west? The installation of a brutal shah who eventually got overthrown in a popular revolution and all the subsequent attempts to attack Iran and overthrow its government (by the CIA and Mossad) — this is all important context.
We can all have our ideological preferences (democracy, socialism, free-market capitalism, etc) but geopolitics does not operate in the world of ideals — there are adversarial relationships that force governments to act in a certain way in order to remain sovereign.
Zionists want to rewrite history so we can all ignore the long list of grievances the Iranians have with the west (Israel in particular) and instead operate in a false reality where the only criminals are the Iranian. The bottom line is you can’t spend decades savagely attacking a nation to undermine its government (because you don’t like their policies ) and then expect to easily paint the government as the evil ones as they fight for survival with the kind of brutality you can expect from a government that has its back to the wall. We all saw you wage economic war with sanctions. We saw you block medicine and food. We saw you assassinate their intellectuals and academics. We saw you bomb their embassies and assassinate their leaders. We can dislike the brutal Islamic dictatorship but we know who is the greater evil — the Zionist hypocrisy doesn’t go far with the free people in this world.
This is one reason why artificial general intelligence is impossible. It is because most of the knowledge needed would require knowledge that does not already exist in text form.
Here's a question. Suppose a corporation made its money off a particular product. And suppose the corporation's own scientists discovered that this product caused major harm. How would the corporation respond, among three choices
1) Stop making and selling the product, and support its being banned.
2) Continue to sell the product, but with a clear description of the harm.
3) Engage in a campaign to fool everyone into believing it is not harmful.
My first computer was a Z80. It was an Amstrad 8256, also known as the Joyce. It was sold as a word processor, but it came with a copy of cp/m you could load in. I bought it because it was about as powerful as the Apple computer of the time, but at half the price. That was a great little computer.
If string theorists are now unemployable, and they have to rebrand themselves as doing ML, then it seems to me that string theory is disappearing on its own, even if there are still some with tenure who continue to publicly promote it, but will eventually die off. So maybe when a child who was born this year becomes old enough in the future to develop an interest in physics, they won't even hear about it, except as a footnote.
When global climate change first came to broad attention about three decades ago, the conservatives predicted it was absolutely certain that renewable energy would always remain so extremely expensive that no one would every adopt it unless the government forced them to.
Is it your view that this set of ideas is mistaken? If so, kindly present some arguments.
Or perhaps you know they are correct but don't want to admit it, so you are trying to divert people's attention from the ideas to the question of the NYT'S intentions.
Is it your position that, since the Islamist government of Iran is the enemy of Israel, we can be certain it is good in both its foreign and domestic policies?
reply