Trayvon Martin Case

[CRedskinsRule]

I just realized RR is actually JR trying to get me to claim lawyers are needed. AAARRRGGGGHHHHH

[JoeRedskin]

@ fd - The girlfriend's testimony make's it very clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. Her phone records will show the time of the conversation.

As for RR's -- despite the fact that none have existed to date, fundamental to his argument is the belief that an "unbiased programmer" can exist who will create a system to govern humanity better then the we poor, backward and deeply flawed luddites could ever hope to do. In accepting this as a truism, RR demonstrates faith in a being whose existence he cannot prove and in whom he will entrust the judgment of life and death over humans.

A man of such deep and unprovable faith cannot be convinced of the fallacy of said faith.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

@ fd - The girlfriend's testimony make's it very clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. Her phone records will show the time of the conversation.

As for RR's -- despite the fact that none have existed to date, fundamental to his argument is the belief that an "unbiased programmer" can exist who will create a system to govern humanity better then the we poor, backward and deeply flawed luddites could ever hope to do. In accepting this as a truism, RR demonstrates faith in a being whose existence he cannot prove and in whom he will entrust the judgment of life and death over humans.

A man of such deep and unprovable faith cannot be convinced of the fallacy of said faith.

It's SCIENCE!!!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

It's SCIENCE!!!

That is so f***'ing beyond excellent, I am almost speechless with laughter.

I will be laughing at that all day and into tomorrow "Kowalski"!!

[saden1]

Fascinating discussion...I'm also interested in knowing what kind of algorithm/logic this Perfect Judge computer will use? Who writes the logic? Are we going to outsource the work?

...tell me more.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Fascinating discussion...I'm also interested in knowing what kind of algorithm/logic this Perfect Judge computer will use? Who writes the logic? Are we going to outsource the work?

...tell me more.

No worries saden1, the prophet RR shall preach unto you of acheivable perfection through imperfect means. The algorithm will come ... trust in science.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As for RR's -- despite the fact that none have existed to date, fundamental to his argument is the belief that an "unbiased programmer" can exist who will create a system to govern humanity better then the we poor, backward and deeply flawed luddites could ever hope to do.

Why would we use one programmer? The system would be inherently flawed. We would use a consortium that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the system. Your argument is invalid.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

In accepting this as a truism, RR demonstrates faith in a being whose existence he cannot prove and in whom he will entrust the judgment of life and death over humans.

I do not accept that as a truism, it's just your weak attempt to frame an argument I'm not making in order to weaken my argument.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

A man of such deep and unprovable faith cannot be convinced of the fallacy of said faith.

Oh, like religious types? Ok, gotcha!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Why would we use one programmer? The system would be inherently flawed. We would use a consortium that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the system. Your argument is invalid.

Your faith in the ability of a group of flawed human programmers to overcome the flaws of a single programmer is reassuring - especially since it is a provable theory supported by extrinsic historical evidence.

All hail the imperfect beings' perfect creation.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Oh, like religious types? Ok, gotcha!

<sigh> and here I thought you were intelligent enough to see the thinly veiled - but cleverly invoked - sarcasm. I'll try to be less subtle in the future.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Why would we use one programmer? The system would be inherently flawed. We would use a consortium that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the system. Your argument is invalid.



I do not accept that as a truism, it's just your weak attempt to frame an argument I'm not making in order to weaken my argument.



Oh, like religious types? Ok, gotcha!

Hey asshat, try actually quoting the right person.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Hey asshat, try actually quoting the right person.

Or you could just point out that I quoted the wrong person.

[RedskinRat]

It's interesting to me to see how people are dismissive of technology and yet completely open to superstition.

That's fascinating....

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

It's interesting to me to see how people are dismissive of technology and yet completely open to superstition.

That's fascinating....

We are simply trying to get the the bottom of how this Perfect Judge computer will operate. Will it have the capability of diagnosing the terminally naive? Asses mental instability? How will it call balls and strikes and will it be better at it than John Roberts?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

We are simply trying to get the the bottom of how this Perfect Judge computer will operate. Will it have the capability of diagnosing the terminally naive? Asses mental instability? How will it call balls and strikes and will it be better at it than John Roberts?

Yes, I promise it will.

<fingers_crossed>

[firstdown]

Lawyers would never allow it to happen because then they couldn't pick the dumbest people on earth to sit on a jury.