nstents

It's a great question. Adherents to the Old Testament point to Original Sin.

But even without religion we can use today's standards of morality to be sure that at some point in human development there was a first time for a person to commit an abjectly "sinful" crime of inhumanity against another. Not having been there to witness the event, I can't tell you the what or why of it. Fratricide, parricide, abuse, and more, I think we can be sure there is a first time for all of these.

Speculation leads to many answers. One, absent religion, is that because we seem to be derived from pond scum "inhumanity" developed somewhat before morals and ethics did, and has found its niche in us.

It's hard to know enough details about the three people most closely involved. To make matters more difficult, a person being "good" or "bad" is a very subjective viewpoint. No, he was probably not good to his wife, and no he admits he wasn't a good father.

At the same time, he was a pro, and his abilities to inspire belief in the goal of being a better person helped countless people believe in something bigger than themselves.

Not to create a strawman out of thin air, but I'd argue that he did more good for far more people than he did to hurt and estrange his family. If there is an equation for such a comparison.

There is no way to condone the damages he caused. I just think it's better overall that we had him as he was, than not at all.

I meant to be saying that the Kogui were not the ones pushing the music production retreat, but it was a third party, the creators of the site, doing so.

My apologies for having allowed a different interpretation in my previous comment.

I think that's an easy conclusion to come to, but the top level page of the site seems to push a different conclusion: "...On this path, we recognize and honor the indigenous peoples of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta — the Kogui, Arhuaco, Wiwa and Kankuamo — as ancestral guardians of the territory and living source of the wisdom that inspires and underpins our work."

Even twins may use the term "you" between each other.

That's quite the box they're put into; they're either completely ignorant of the outside world, or they're completely infected by it. Perhaps there's a middle ground.

Reading Damn Interesting every day, I had no idea. Someone used your insults on AOL, or something like that, repeatedly. Thank you for the laughs.

I can't continue the thread to answer your last, more definite, question.

I used an indefinite article on purpose in order to not go to a particular person. The topic I posed was on the relationship, not on persons. So any democratic socialist mayor for that matter.

If that's an important issue for you, could you use your collective resources more thoroughly in addressing it?

Is not a Democratic Scoialist also a Socialist these days?

What's that got to do with anything?

I love that question. It's a great question because it's designed to elicit avenues of attack.

I'd say that Democratic Socialism, today among the general population of the United States the term Socialism has no set definition, no real understanding of its roots, and no real concept of how it would be enacted politically in a Democratic society.

So I'm really not sure what you mean by Democratic Socialist. I think you mean as defined by Wikipedia.

If so, in short I see Marx as being a root among many to Socialism, and so on to Democratic Socialism. The dogma from Marx follows through to an application for people to obtain their "needs": "More of whatever, less expensive, and better evrything! And AI is actually Socialist, so let's do it and vote for me!!!" That kind of cynical approach.

It's definitely being redistributed through the market. Also, I believe there are efforts underway to create open source AI.

I'm not advocating a Marxist dogma, so I can't affirm "we should take and redistribute AI capacity in some way".