>
https://jimbellproject.org/press-release-hackers-congress-paralel-polis-oct-7-2017/>
>> " North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, and Zimbabwe"
>
>> "The leaders of these nations must be stopped immediately, by
>> any means necessary, before they kill more."
>
>> Who are these 'leaders' killing, exactly?
>
>> And why did you forget to mention that the number one guy in
>> the death prediction market should be the US president, trump?
>To be fair, Jim did give the rest of the world a mention, directly
after the bit you quoted:
>“But this is only the beginning because most other nations are
also grossly abusive of people's rights.”
It is interesting that Juan was sufficiently dishonest that he would selectively quote my citation of four of the worst nations, while omitting the material you pointed out, and yet criticizing me as if I had not mentioned it. In any case, Juan's criticism is foolish: From the very beginning (1995) I repeatedly pointed out that one of the big advantages of AP is that it won't have some sort of centralized agenda: Neither _I_ (nor anyone else) won't be the one to control it. HE may think that the main target should be "X", while I think the main target should be "Y", etc. Neither needs to be "right", neither needs to be "wrong". Both targets get taken out if they are considered worthy by the public. (If people donate, a target will ultimately go.)
I didn't mention over 7 billion people. Of what significance is that? Juan is obviously very self-centered.
>I have a sense that AP may not be nearly as fool proof as Jim posits..
That depends on the implementation, no doubt. I thought of the idea; I didn't say how it should be implemented. But perhaps we can agree that if the implementation is good, the results should be good, as well.
>One of the stated goals, “to study and debate the AP system”, is
definitely interesting ;)
Yes! What I claim it can do is certainly worthwhile to discuss. Why it has taken so long without a thorough debate is beyond me.