One metre^(3) of fluid.

That's not cheap nor easy. You need a whole room per execution, time to fill it with nitrogen and defill it to get the next person in and you have to have compressed nitrogen.

If you need an efficient, relatively painless method then boltgun beats guillotine, less set up and prep and more guarantee of breaking the brain beyond functioning.

No for the minimising paedophilia when a woman does it.

No. in context it means a holier than thou religious narcissist. Someone who espouses their own righteousness, forgives their own transgressions but hates those that don't make them feel like their faith is special. It's not a matter of sarcasm, it's just the fact that faith is a form of narcissism and so those most addicted to it are as hypocritical as you'd expect.

And even if it was, imagine arguing to keep your job because you only publicly broke the law by accident and how your boss would look at you. Then imagine you had the highest ranking job in the country.

"I believe that we need to keep discussing whether the prime minister was lying when he didn't know this was a party or is genuinely too incompetent to tell the difference to determine whether him and the people who backed him deserve to continue to wield power and influence over you commoners."
Fuck them. Incompetence is not a reason to keep your job when you broke the law. No more Narcs in power, no matter the cost.

Nobody has an original thought, all thoughts are informed by experience and understanding passed onto us. The same thing the AI will mimic. I don't know why you're so opposed to this logic beyond a need to feel right.

New Writers.* Pretty much anyone without a brand existing could be indistinguishable from AI at that point. Authors don't constantly generate new unique insights into the human experience, they put down a version that resonates with different people, and it is no more plagiarism than GRRM plagiarised Tolkien or Tolkien plagiarised myth or Lewis plagiarised the Bible.
If the AI can teach itself how to conserve meaning whilst rewriting, then the written word becomes a dangerous world indeed.

Lets put it this way, you take someone else's insight on the human experience, change the words in a way that doesn't impact understanding. You now have an insight on the human experience that may resonate better with certain people purely based on the language used. If the AI figures out how to do that reliably, things are going to get very fucky for writers.

This is how to show people who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change the way. Who cares if you don't think it's saving the planet, it's energy independency in a world dominated by controlling manipulative foreign powers. On top of improving air quality by reducing pollution regardless of if you think that air quality is good for the planet or just your own lungs.

I don't know why you're getting downvoted, but yes I did forget live birth.

Nope. You believe God always existed, materialists believe the material has always existed. Thank you for proving the effect of your beliefs on you and thank you for admitting that theism is so obviously undefendable that the only thing a theist can do is slime their way out of accountability. :)
You are transparent, and I don't care that you don't want to be accountable to your beliefs. You theistic Narcissists are nothing but evidence of what theism does to people.

Yup, the mammal template by this point was Warm Blood, Specialised Teeth, legs below plane of body.

If that were true, damaging the meat suit wouldn't damage the ghost. The simplest explanation for damage to consciousness and memory caused by brain damage is that consciousness is a product of the brain.
If you feel otherwise, that's fine, but asserting what you need to be true as what is is bad for honesty in general.

EDIT: Can you thank him for proving my point by blocking me for holding him to his illogic, insults and strawmen. Only proves how thin skinned a need to believe makes you.

Thank you for admitting that you cannot present any logic to believe your position correct. :) And your first sentence sounds like an argument for atheism you're so desperate for me to be wrong.
There was a first cause. By all logic it must have been outside the universe. There is no logic in inventing more complexity to explain no question it doesn't beg of itself.It's not that you are definitively wrong, it's that there is no reason to think you're right, and given that no matter what position is true most humans will be wrong, then your beliefs are not products of truth seeking but a need to be right. Nothing more.

Though I do like the hypocrisy of you shitting on atheists from the strawman of everything from nothing, but when you're held to the fact there's no reason to believe you right or even possibly right then I'm an egotist. Faith is the death of reflective thought it seems.

No. Just that we both accept that there are things we can't understand, and demanding others explain those things for you whilst admitting you can't for them is just showing how faith is narcissism of thought alone.

There is no standard by which to infer the first thing a mind or will. Not prove, not even physically evidence. No standard in human logic.

Once again, nobody thinks the universe came from nothing. Every time you reassert that, you just witness theism is so senseless it cannot be defended logically. There is no logic in asserting an infinitely complex undesigned entity just was by itself, made by nothing, to explain how a less complex existence, the universe, came to be.

And that's proof of how bad faith is. "Well no matter what, I'm right, and that's more important than the truth of what was meant when it was written or the billions of people who've believed otherwise in the middle."

The same way you feel god can make decisions outside of time to make decisions in. Acausal existences are weird. There never was a nothing and every time you guys reassert it you make the addiction of faith look worse.

But they don't except in the head of validation seeking theists. Very few people ever believe there was a nothing, and the good faith attempts to communicate it to you in your language always fall on eagerly closed minded ears.

We both believe in a first thing, you believe it is infinitely more complex than what it caused by merit of being able to hold the details of our universe in its mind and actively create design from them all at once.

Okay, thanks for admitting I was right. :) P.s. two different people. You really wanted to prove a total lack of reflection right?

Sorry if I stole your thunder there but I do love narc-baiting. Loved the joke. :)

And you're showing entitlement, grandiosity and a total lack of reflective ability. And deceptiveness with that open deflection, implying an inability to hold yourself to account.I know what you are.
Last chance before the block now, engage my original explanation, apologise for your aggressive and incorrect attacks, or prove me right again.
EDIT: Sorry, accounting for your disability. Those are three options to pick from, not a list I want you to follow.

I didn't say Rainmace was dumb. I said rainmace thought anduril was being dumb and made a joke about that because he missed Anduril's irony.
Thank you for proving what I said about loud narcissists though.