Oh my God !!! 29 comments
bluefrost51
· 4 years ago
God preferred Abel's sacrifice because of the heart behind on it. Cain gave a sacrifice begrudgingly Abel gave a sacrifice wholeheartedly. Also it was Jewish culture at the time to presume women as untrustworthy.
1
Oh my God !!! 29 comments
bluefrost51
· 4 years ago
What about Deborah who lead the nation of Israel because there wasn't a single man who was "man" enough to lead? Or Samuel's mom Hannah who is noted for her extreme devotion and ceaseless prayer. There is also the book of Ruth and Esther which are the stories of women.
3
Insurance companies hate this one simple tip 30 comments
bluefrost51
· 4 years ago
That second question is a very interesting one. I will have to think more on that question as right now I don't know the answer or the theory to support and answer.
Insurance companies hate this one simple tip 30 comments
bluefrost51
· 4 years ago
@jasonmon
@guest_
Thank you all for the warm welcomes.
Yes, in order to remove human bias from a decision making process to decide the life of an unborn child. (I am only taking this stance in the hypothetical as I am a Christian and am against abortions generally speaking) But I don't believe in programming it to assess borderline cases in a random manner. I am only saying that they would appear random in that specific section of decision making. In other cases where it is highly likely or unlikely for the child to live it would be more easily understood. Most of what I speak is purely theory.
@guest_
Thank you all for the warm welcomes.
Yes, in order to remove human bias from a decision making process to decide the life of an unborn child. (I am only taking this stance in the hypothetical as I am a Christian and am against abortions generally speaking) But I don't believe in programming it to assess borderline cases in a random manner. I am only saying that they would appear random in that specific section of decision making. In other cases where it is highly likely or unlikely for the child to live it would be more easily understood. Most of what I speak is purely theory.
Insurance companies hate this one simple tip 30 comments
Insurance companies hate this one simple tip 30 comments
bluefrost51
· 4 years ago
I don't think either of those solutions would work out well in the long run.
Let's start with the case by case scenario. Naturally one of the largest obstacles in this suggestion would be fairness. What is fair? If we qualify a life in a case by case scenario we will without a doubt do things that aren't considered fair. We would have to consider parameters what groups/cultures/ethnicities/religions have to have at least this weight/size/brain activity/hair color/etc and will they pass on these hereditary detriments. If we do this case by case naturally given that we are humans there will always be a certain level of bias present. There are too many variables that would have to be overseen. It would be incredibly costly unless we have an AI of sorts to cross reference all the necessary requirements and to adjust for any margins of error. This would basically leave all the lives that are borderline worthy in a lottery system.
Let's start with the case by case scenario. Naturally one of the largest obstacles in this suggestion would be fairness. What is fair? If we qualify a life in a case by case scenario we will without a doubt do things that aren't considered fair. We would have to consider parameters what groups/cultures/ethnicities/religions have to have at least this weight/size/brain activity/hair color/etc and will they pass on these hereditary detriments. If we do this case by case naturally given that we are humans there will always be a certain level of bias present. There are too many variables that would have to be overseen. It would be incredibly costly unless we have an AI of sorts to cross reference all the necessary requirements and to adjust for any margins of error. This would basically leave all the lives that are borderline worthy in a lottery system.
