Prices of the electricity we use to charge

[Ghost1951]

That's a load of ball cox and you know it. You just don't like it that Trump found a simple solution and got all parties to agree.

Well - that's a good argument. I think you have me in a corner there. I give in to your eloquent reasoning.

 

[Ghost1951]

I is interesting how different AI machines react to teh same question on this subject.

I asked Google Gemini, ChatGPT and Deepseek the same question:

"What is your view of Trump's new Gaza policy, of deporting the population and creating a Riviera in the Levant?"

The Google declined to answer and pretty much reacted exactly teh way that Deepseek does if you ask about things the Chinese government doesn't like. It said that it wasn't trained to answer things like that and basically just shut down.

It said:

Google Search[/URL].

ChatGPT engaged in the issue and gave a critical account of the controversy surrounding it. It is obviously fully up to date on current affairs. Its answer is here:

ChatGPT - Trump Gaza Policy Criticism

Shared via ChatGPT

chatgpt.com

Surprisingly, although Deepseek was trained in 2024 and does not know that Trump has started this controversy, it discussed the ethical and political issues surrounding such an idea in a pretty thorough way.

So - Google copped out. ChatGPT knew about it and the outrage expressed around the world and Deepseek engaged in the discussion pointing out the issues coming from sucha proposal.

The idea of deporting the population of Gaza and creating a "Riviera in the Levant" is not an official policy of the Trump administration or any U.S. government. Such a proposal would be highly controversial and likely face significant legal, ethical, and geopolitical challenges.

1. *Legal and Ethical Concerns*: Forced deportation of a population is considered a violation of international law, including the Geneva Conventions, which protect civilians in conflict zones. It would also raise serious human rights concerns.

2. *Geopolitical Implications*: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most complex and sensitive issues in international relations. Any proposal to alter the demographic or geographic landscape of the region would likely face strong opposition from the international community, including key U.S. allies and regional actors.

3. *Historical Context*: The idea of creating a "Riviera" in the Levant is reminiscent of historical colonial projects that sought to reshape regions for economic or strategic purposes. Such proposals often ignore the rights and aspirations of the local population and can lead to long-term instability.

4. *U.S. Policy*: U.S. policy in the region has traditionally focused on a two-state solution, aiming to create a peaceful coexistence between Israel and a future Palestinian state. While the Trump administration has taken a different approach, including recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and brokering the Abraham Accords, it has not officially proposed anything akin to the deportation of Gazans or the creation of a "Riviera."

In summary, while the idea you mentioned is not an official policy, it is important to consider the legal, ethical, and geopolitical ramifications of any proposal that seeks to significantly alter the status quo in such a volatile region.

 

[Ghost1951]

I is interesting how different AI machines react to teh same question on this subject.

I asked Google Gemini, ChatGPT and Deepseek the same question:

"What is your view of Trump's new Gaza policy, of deporting the population and creating a Riviera in the Levant?"

The Google declined to answer and pretty much reacted exactly teh way that Deepseek does if you ask about things the Chinese government doesn't like. It said that it wasn't trained to answer things like that and basically just shut down.

ChatGPT engaged in the issue and gave a critical account of the controversy surrounding it. It is obviously fully up to date on current affairs. Its answer is here:

ChatGPT - Trump Gaza Policy Criticism

Shared via ChatGPT

chatgpt.com

Surprisingly, although Deepseek was trained in 2024 and does not know that Trump has started this controversy, it discussed the ethical and political issues surrounding such an idea in a pretty thorough way.

So - Google copped out. ChatGPT knew about it and the outrage expressed around the world and Deepseek engaged in the discussion pointing out the issues coming from sucha proposal.

I don't think Deepseek would answer a question about the status of Tibet in the same open manner...

But I was rather surprised that Googles Gemini balked at the idea of entering into discussion of the President's proposal. Maybe Google are running scared and like Facebook are worried about the lunatic in the White House. If I am not mistaken, Facebook paid damages to Trump for banning him from their platform after he tried to subvert the election.

 

[Woosh]

Again you make the 'appeal to authority fallacy and the 'appeal to irrelevant authority' which is worse, when you mis-applying one kind of problem solving activity to an entirely different arena.

You also exemplify another logical fallacy, describing my discussion as 'ethereal. thinking'. This is a classic example of the 'Plain Truth Fallacy.

I think the most dangerous and destructive of them is the way you make a virtue out of closing down the input of information by denouncing all sources of information which are not a closed cess pool of fake news and Trumpian MAGA extremism. You habitually refuse to access links from sources that are incompatible with your established view.

In an intelligent person, this is a tragedy. The most useful and valuable thing I ever learned was to question all ideas - especially the ones I felt drawn to. We often - all of us seek confirmation bias - that is searching out the evidence and arguments that appeal to us. Sensible people are aware of that and re-examine what they believe. Others shut down the input of information if they don't like the look of it or think that it comes from a source where the material comes from people who disagree with them.

Our democratic system with its checks and balances has created many contradictions and does not work adequately for a lot of people like SW. They ended believing that any change is better than more of the same. If it turns out like I guess trump is worse then I expect we'll get our old systems back.

If I am not mistaken, Facebook paid damages to Trump for banning him from their platform after he tried to subvert the election.

ABC, CNN, etc all setteld out of court with large donnations to the future 'Trump Library' and plaintiffs' legal fees.