Laws should be based on logic and reason instead of the bible

>laws should be based on logic and reason instead of the bible

Americans should be banned entirely from Sup Forums because of threads like this

How do you actually base a law on logic and reason?

Take a law that's been around for 2,000 years, and there's reason behind it because it provided a natural selection advantage for the culture that had that law.

Agreed. Ban Americans from Sup Forums. Brits too.

Evolution is heuristic. Just because a law hasn't resulted in societal collapse doesn't mean it's a good law.

>American tries to make thread about laws and logic
>Attacked by other americans because they say an old book isn't a reliable source for governing peoples actions

>Obey your priest, he is the law
>you have no power
fuck right off

Laws should be made for the greater good of a people. Logic and reason hold no meaning on their own

Show flag commie

Laws should be made by the pepole, tge bible is just a guide

How do you determine what the greater good is?

In the end the only truth you have is what you see. For me the greater good is the success of the human species in the long run. It is my duty to support that belief.

>s the success of the human species
Ok but that is your opinion not "logic and reason"

explain me what's the logic behind faggotry?
or women's "right"? (more of privileges when you really think about it)
>a law being around for 2000 years
this.
someone post the "monkeys doing things this way" pic pls (nuked image folder a few month back)

Where does your logic and reason stop if not subject to opinion

Priests aren't the law; Jesus never had a church so priests have no authority.
>Can you read?
>Good, you're a priest now.

>implying the bible isn't our main pillar of morality.

This

Our main pillar of morality is what is made to be accepted as a "core value"

if it ain't broken, don't touch it.

The devil?

Define morality please

Relativist faggot, stop being a coward and face reality.

Once again before you shut down any counter arguments. Please define reality

You set up a networked neural networks in a system that predicts and weighs each persons probable opinion as well as how it would affect them on every piece of law and government it brings into existance.

I'm not talking a sentient program dum-dum, just one that can use statistics and advanced function approximators to guarantee the most fair, robust, efficient and logical government and law system.

Everything else is idiocy.

>Black hair

What happens when pack mentality gets in the way

No oxytocin is the cause of moral behavior, its also the brain chemical that causes you to "feel good doing good things. Without it you would be a amoral sociopath.

I see the problem, however there are tricks to deal with things like that in data science i.e regularization methodologies

Assuming a perfect algorithm is used for generating government structure and law, it will be able to account for when a mass of people hold an opinion how something should be that is clearly not as good an option as another method when statistically analysed.

Define define. We can do it für immer, leaf.

It wouldn't be trivial to implement this but it wouldn't be much harder than youtube's recommendation algorithm imo.

Agreed, but some laws should keep a level of tradition in any country

What about the personal interest of those in power causing damage to the system. A system like that would fail just like every other system once those with individual interest gain power

Ooga booga feefa feefa sum finna bix nood 7 - 1

okay, sit there

Please form a counter argument

They could gain power, change laws and the system to benefit them more.

You cant have an algorithm that prevents people from getting power. However, you could tweak it to make it uncomfortable to get power in areas where you can affect law and government.

With deep reinforcement learning and meta learning, if the reward function for generating these laws is set up to reward them for being set up in such a way as to prevent people from political and governmental positions yet still be as benevolent to the people as possible..

It would never work. People would always just cause shit and break a perfect system to bring it to mediocrity.

Fuck someone help me out here.

Accept relative morality and become a jaded reactionary like me. Eugenics is the only way to go

I actually do think we need Eugenics.
Its such an easy thing to support.

Option 1: Eugenics
>Humanity improves over time
Option 2:
>Humanity decays over time until our genetics are rubbish enough for civilization to fall and new natural selection (natures forced eugenics) starts playing a role again.

However I do believe that when more intelligence is added to a system that it can be improved.

From the backround it can be implemented. Designed to shadow and influence everyone
(and groom new politicians) related to positions of power in law and government. A meta-manipulator.

Have them believe they have the power while they are only the mouth pieces of a global algorithm.

Literaly jews.
Also they would eventualy figure out they're a figurehead

Also forced eugenics would simply be a faster method to a better future. Otherwise yes, natural selection will take place

We need to create the digital jew to out jew the jews. This should legit become a /pol project, on a smaller scale. Make a neural politik bot for spreading Tay level things outside of microsofts hands

Then the jew would create a jew bot to out jew the jew outding jew bot. It would become a series of culturbot proxywars rivaling the redundancy of a metametaregulatory agency

>clearly not as good an option
Not as good to who?

The general populace I assume

How are you going to quantify that?

The average level of the populations living standards dictated by the algorithm i guess

so then what do you do about pic?

Im thinking the point behind the algorithm is to prevent that kind of thing. Btu likeSaid, people are going to be shitheads and ruin everything

>Im thinking the point behind the algorithm is to prevent that kind of thing.
How would it?

See the issue here is that we're talking about some god program. I could very well say it would "weed out those prone to crime and give them experiences that would diminish their want to steal" or some other fuckass reason.

>weed out those prone to crime
What will be a crime and why?

Listen here you cheeky fucker

Anyhting that leads to the direct lessening of loving standards for a single or group caused by another single or group seperate from the general poulation

>computer programs can determine what is “good”

Cs freshman fag pls go

#IMWITHHERPES

>direct lessening of loving standards for a single or group caused by another single or group seperate from the general poulation
So ugly people create unhappiness by people having to look at them

>wear a certain type of fabric
>get killed
Ya I'd take anything else over that

Living*

if it hurt my feeling it's bad

Ameripleb not aware of the limits of reason because he never pushed it far enough or read on the matter.
Humans are not reasoned beings user.
The greek mythology was a way better model for laws than reason itself.
As proven by the filthy snake Socrates the precursor of christcucknity who single handly destroyed the greek culture and who influences the very way you think to this day.
Why are you so oblivious to everything amerishart^
Why do you have to make me so sad with your inferior cognitive capacities you mutt^

Logic and reason require context. They can tell you how to do something, but not what to do ( in the bigger picture).

this is true, we need a totalitarian Christian regime

>laws should be based on logic and reason
You can reason anything into existence. Emotional demagoguery is a very powerful force for the masses. Also with corrupted reason you can corrupt logic to any goal you want.

It's not the law, it's the will and temperament of the people that needs to be cultivated and nurtured well.

That's still based on the Bible.
It's called the reign of Antichrist during the Great Tribulation

Even christcucknity is influenced by it.
No greek trio of fags = no massive hard on with virtues = no christcucknity = more tribalism = more domination = europe still belongs to the europeans because they don't believe in the easy way.
Christianity KILLS because it makes you believe in an easy way.
My statement mostly concerned the greek mythology, the only religion that was ever worth following for its deep understanding of human nature.

Again, fuck all Semitic religions.

>romans didnt kill
>they are good guys
>dindu nuffin

Over what timescale? Are living conditions now more important than making sure life continues tomorrow? If continuing life is most important a group that believes it has the mode of living with the best chance of survival is justified in imposing that mode of living on others. Christianity balances the game based on thousands of years of data, you can't replicate that by reasoning through all possibilities.

Before killing a people with weapons you need to kill them spiritually.
That's what the trio of fag accomplished.
If I could go back in time I'd shoot Jesus Socrates and Rousseau in the face without a grain of hesitation.

Listen you fuckers im done arguing a dead theory.
Please talk to me about my earlier statements

Also.
Despite sharing similar gods and mixing them.
When I speak of the greek mythology I mostly speak of exclusively of the greeks with writtings such as Iliad.
Forgive my engrish I didn't try for this one

Yeah it's bad I'll try again.
When I speak of the greek mythology I mostly speak of typically greek writtings such as Iliad.
A little better

> old book
> look that clueless people did not have computers and shit
> how come they knew anything?

Also.
Being from Argentina.
Maybe it isn't the case in south america but I have the feeling that without christianity there is no way we could have conquered north america.
It's what changed their mindset.
When they saw more advanced people who believed in faggoteries it gave them a rest, an easy way out, and they turned their back on their warrior beliefs and became civilized except for the glue sniffing part.
Until then in my book they were superior human beings despite being a few IQ points behind the average submitted European.

I think the polio did more work than anything

Again.
The amerifats didn't lose because they lacked weaponry, far from it.
They lost because they lost the propaganda war.
The pleb ALWAYS under estimates the value of the mindset. That's why they think it's not that bad to arrive 5 minutes late.
You defeat someone in the head before defeating him with your fists.
If he isn't a coward he'll go and you'll have a fight, but 9 times out of 10 it won't reach this point if you managed to break him first and if the fight still takes place it will be way easier for you.
I am not saying the more brutal manners didn't work. But my overall point is that Christianity is a suicidal belief system for the spirit of the warrior and that we shouldn't under estimate how much of an hindrance it can become.
When I see a nigger acting like a nigger I see a human being a human. When I see a white person crying over it instead of thinking about a way to dominate back this nigger to his place I see a filthy christcuck.

Dont you think christianity can pull people together and create a strong bond and ward off cultural detriment?

pretty much. Doing moral things means pretty much just avoiding conflicts with other people. if you can figure out what everybody wants, which isn't actually even too complicated(google probably already knows), you can easily make a program that creates laws for you.

to prove my point here are few examples:
Giving money to poor is 'moral' because poor people want food and if you have a job it isn't such abig deal for you to pay for a sandwhich. Now poor people don't envy your position but rather see you as a kind person and conflicts has been minimized.

Killing is 'morally wrong' because A) the person doesn't want to be killed, if you dont succeed you get a conflict. B) There are probably people who don't want him to be killed. C) Even people who don't know him would feel uneasy around you because they cant know if you are planning on murdering them too.
All this could lead to conflicts with others.

Euthanizing isn't morally wrong if everybody that knows him, and he himself agree that death is a relief. there wouldn't be any conflicts. But however if anyone thinks that he shouldn't be killed, you are creating a conflict, and the person will think you did something 'morally wrong'.

Under the name of christ
For the domination of christ
For his name
I respect Jesus for that I guess. Though unlike me he has no respect for the creations of this world and allows his own will for power to destroy it all into a monotonous blob.
Which is despicable.
Say no to Jesus, Momo, Socrates and many more. That's right I didn't speak out against the kikes because they promote nepotism and that's right.
I believe in the things of this world. It's because of god if the flowers push on top of each others. They simply need more sun than the others and are ready to do more.

Based leaf

>one shall no kill
>who cares bro bible law is bad

That's not quite it.

Which has been extensively altered and modified over the centuries, because it was originally written by a bunch of sexually-depraved child-fucking sand niggers.