But humans weren’t merely objecting on the grounds that I might not be able to fill the role of the objective enforcer—many are opposed to the idea even if that problem could be solved, and I think it is fair to take that as evidence that such humans don’t actually want to be able to send better signals.
Bad in this respect, certainly, but I don’t know how you decided it’s a good idea to simplistically sort humans into the binary “good/bad” categories.
Bad in this respect, certainly, but I don’t know how you decided it’s a good idea to simplistically sort humans into the binary “good/bad” categories.
I haven’t. I merely translated the thought into the language you tend to use when evaluating a specific behavior. It is the sort of thing that usually helps maintain rapport! ;)
I understand you are simply trying to sympathise in order to satisfy the subgoal of improved rapport, and appreciate this effort, but I don’t believe that I simplistically sort humas into a binary “good/bad” categorisation.
I understand you are simply trying to sympathise in order to satisfy the subgoal of improved rapport, and appreciate this effort, but I don’t believe that I simplistically sort humas into a binary “good/bad” categorisation.
My future voting patterns will hold you to that declaration.
They sound like bad humans.
Bad in this respect, certainly, but I don’t know how you decided it’s a good idea to simplistically sort humans into the binary “good/bad” categories.
I haven’t. I merely translated the thought into the language you tend to use when evaluating a specific behavior. It is the sort of thing that usually helps maintain rapport! ;)
I understand you are simply trying to sympathise in order to satisfy the subgoal of improved rapport, and appreciate this effort, but I don’t believe that I simplistically sort humas into a binary “good/bad” categorisation.
My future voting patterns will hold you to that declaration.