If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.
You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!
Their is a certain amount of risk that we face going to war with an Islamic nation. We should multiply the percentage chance of going to war with a nation, multiplied by the estimated cost of this war to estimate the likely amount of money that we would spend to fight that country. This dollar amount is what we already plan on spending in the future fighting them. So lets make up a scenario. Lets pretend that we see a 2% chance of going to war with Egypt, and we believe a war with them would cost a minimum of 1 billion dollars. We would label this amount of money as the money that we could anticipate spending in a war with them. 2% of 1 billion dollars is $20 million dollars. Now if we cold spend 1/2 of that to reform their schools, making it much less likely that they would go to war with us, and they want our help, then we should probably do it, if we are more than 50% confident that it will divert a war. This may sound stupid to most people. We usually don't put much thought into the decisions we make. But this sort of thinking is valid, and is valid in deciding to use money now, to prevent spending way more money later. Perhaps their are other things that we can spend our money on better at home, but maybe not. Choice is good.
If we use money helping countries become stable and provide for their citizens, we won't have to defend ourselves against angry people who are full of hate, with nothing to loose, who want to kill us.
Competition is good.
People who won’t allow parents to have educational choices are trying to advance an agenda with our children.
People who won’t allow parents to have educational choices are trying to brain-wash our kids. They are trying to advance ideas outside of a competitive marketplace. They want a monopoly were only they can decide what children learn.
Many madrasahs teach violent jihad.
If parents had a state-school choice, fewer people would be taught to hate.
Parents should have a choice of sending their kids to public school, or private school.
Many Islamic countries only have religious schools.
Parents should have public schools.
We would only focus on places were madrasahs teach violence. Religious schools are fine, but people should have a choice. It's alright to be practical and have rules that promote non-violent schools, and discourage support to violent schools. Hillary Clinton gave a speech about this, saying that it was wrong to have vouchers that go to private schools, because if you give money to Catholics, you would then have to give money, in her world, to white-supremacist. This is where layer-type-people prove that they have no common sense. This is an example of a larger problem, when you view the world from behind a law school, like Hillary Clinton. The best book that talks about the way that Hillary and Obama look at the world is a book called; “The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America”. If everyone read this book, no one would vote for Obama or Hillary.
Americans will give those who don't like us reasons to be cynical, if we are seen as saying how great religious schools are, if they are from our religion, but trying to shut them down if they are from someone else's religion.
Click the video below to see the way lawyers see the world:
Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.” Similarly, we won’t improve our country until we improve our level of public debate. On these pages I outline how we can automate conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis and solve our problems at a level higher than how they were caused.
To start, we will break our problems down into their sub-components, including beliefs, supporting, and weakening evidence, and arguments. This will allow thousands or millions of us to evaluate each part of an argument and evidence one at a time. We will group beliefs by topic and sort them by their positivity, strength, and level of specificity. This will prevent duplication and allow us to focus on one issue at a time.
The Idea Stock Exchange (ISE) proposes a groundbreaking framework for tackling complex issues, resolving conflicts, and fostering informed decision-making. Here's a detailed breakdown of its key features:
Evidence-driven: Prioritizes verifiable data and logical reasoning, ensuring well-informed conclusions.
Dynamic Ranking System: Inspired by Google's PageRank, it evaluates arguments based on the strength of their evidence, dynamically adjusting as new information emerges.
2. Multi-faceted Evaluation Metrics:
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Assesses proposed solutions by examining potential costs, benefits, likelihoods, and impact.
Argumentative Strength Assessment: Categorizes arguments based on logical consistency, evidence, relevance, and significance.
Maslow's Hierarchy Integration: Aligns the evaluation with fundamental human needs for a broader perspective.
3. Sophisticated Scoring and Ranking Protocols:
Precision Scoring Formula: Combines argument scores with evidence assessments to determine argument validity.
Evidence-Based Ranking System: Leverages algorithms to rank solutions based on predicted costs and benefits, with dynamic updates based on new information.
4. Uniqueness and Redundancy Scores:
Equivalency Score: Identifies similar arguments using semantic similarity metrics and machine learning, coupled with community feedback, to reduce redundancy and develop unique scores.
"Better Ways of Saying the Same Thing": Helps users find alternative expressions of the same idea, enhancing clarity and reducing duplication.
5. Logical Fallacy and Argument Evaluation:
Fallacy Detection: Implements algorithms to identify and flag potentially fallacious arguments, promoting rational discourse.
User-Contributed Evidence Assessment: Allows the community to contribute evidence supporting or weakening arguments for collaborative verification.
6. Technological Integration and User Interaction:
Database Tools: Proposes building tools to map conclusions, assumptions, and their relationships for deeper understanding.
Interactive Interface: Users can actively participate by submitting evidence, voting on argument strength, and suggesting alternative viewpoints.
7. Promoting Quality Debate:
Separating Argument Types: Distinguishes between truth, importance, and relevance arguments for a more nuanced debate structure.
Encouraging Constructive Dialogue: Aims to shift focus from emotional responses to evidence-based reasoning, fostering meaningful discourse over sensationalism.
8. Community-Driven Evolution:
Open-Source Development: Encourages community involvement in refining and evolving the platform, ensuring its adaptability and relevance.
Additional Considerations:
Data Quality and Bias: Implementing robust measures to ensure data accuracy and mitigate potential biases in algorithms and user contributions.
Transparency and Explainability: Providing clear explanations of scoring methods and decision-making processes to build trust and understanding.
User Engagement and Education: Fostering active participation and educating users on the platform's functionalities and responsible use.
We are a political party that organizes all the ideas and arguments by subject, and lets them battle in a survival of the fittest death-match.
We are a political party that supports candidates that promises to make their decisions based on online cost benefit and idea evaluation algorithms. They just have to use a forum that ties the strength of their conclusion to the strength of their assumption, so that when you strengthen or weaken an assumption you also strengthen or weaken conclusions based on the assumption.
We have had the technological ability to create a world based on logic for too long. It is about time we build a rational political party based on the assumption that we support plans, conclusions, activities, and policies that can gather evidence based support, and that we don't do things that don't stand up to analysis.
We will conduct open, online, cost/benefit analysis of each issue. It is about time.
Welcome to the website for the best political party of all time, and the future of reason based decisions making.
"No concept you form is valid unless you integrate it without contradiction into the sum of human knowledge."
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.