I may use that. Thanks.

Don’t cut yourself on that razor wit.

Ah, we have a defensive enthusiast.

Agreed. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of canned spaghetti.

Yes, you’ve got the idea

And is right out

Not “so?”. “So”.

For example.

So…the pizza is on fire

You’re making a show about killing money men. Good luck convincing the money men to fund it. And that’s how it works.

Otoh, making video is pretty cheap these days.

No, my point is that the human is smart and the system is dumb. Therefore the human is better than the system for running things.

Hate and empathy do not enter into it.

Then allow me to enlighten you.

A system of laws is not human. Tho built by humans. Much like a car or a toaster. And as such lacks the intelligence, depth and flexibility of a human. And is subject to gaming, breaking, and all the other problems of machines that interface with reality and humans.

That is my point.

Not smart, just an absence of dumb. Is this an important distinction?

You should write children’s books.

What’s mindfulness?

(No links or quotes please.)

Is that a big difference?

I believe that you are avoiding my question.

It was just an example.

My point is the specific utility of beliefs. You seemed to be offering an interesting one.

Imagine a landscape made of beliefs. In it you are always standing on some bunch of beliefs. So choosing and navigating is going to be important. To get to the good beliefs and avoid the bad ones.

I think that nazi is an expression of trauma, given form by propaganda.

Take away the trauma and nazi disappears.

Take away the propaganda and you get, I dunno, less organized bad behavior.

You people, always so concerned with being right. It gets in the way of conversation.

Is the phrase diminished if you leave out the author’s name?

Are you saying that beliefs are useful (necessary even) for navigating other beliefs?

For example, I believe that my neighbors wont kill me. I do that to stave off the belief that my neighbors will kill me.