I agree with this and I have said this to you many times. I've patiently explained to you that you can't slap your political ideology broadly to the world and society and hope it works. I've explained that to you, after it became obvious to me that you lacked a sophisticated understanding of many topics external to your political ideology. I believe the topics were related to deforestation, ecosystems, species decimation, riparian zones, trophic cascades, edge effects, etc.

Thank you for summarizing my viewpoint (and undermining yours) in one succinct sentence.

Someone thinks he belongs to the intellectual elite. Then start debating the intellectual elite, which, apparently, the likes of myself, AyeYo, fergalish and Hawker are not. Do you want me to provide you with some names that you can debate, since we're not up to par?

Regarding consequences, last time I checked, consequences are what lie in my future, and everybody else's. And what's in our future is all we have. Literally.

You're totally missing the point.

If your ideas are reasonable, not absurd, and make sense, then demonstrate it. You haven't convinced Hawker, ferfalish, AyeYo, or me. Let's see how some random sampling of people outside of this thread react to your ideas after you have presented them and argued in defense of them.

It's not that we need their help. Rather, we wish to make a point. Or, instead, you can demonstrate to others that we're the ones who can't see things reasonably.

Would you rather I found some eco-conservation forum for us to all debate? Obviously not. Honda automobiles are pretty neutral on the political spectrum, so it seems as good as any place to debate. Just sign up. I knew nothing of that forum until twenty minutes ago, and you don't see any hesitancy on my part. Get Freddie and whomever else you want over there. Put your ideas to a real test. Educate others beyond this forum about the benefits of your views.

Or should we assume that your hesitancy speaks volumes about your confidence in your ideas?

Are you signed up over there? Same username?

Just do as you wish over there. I just signed up. Same name.

But I'm willing to start fresh, and assume a clean slate over there.

We'll follow the rules of the honda-tech forum. I don't know what they are, but I'm willing to agree to their rules (nor yours) without even having read them.

It seems that you would actually want to spread your ideas, no? Don't you want to move beyond the limited audience of this forum?

As I stated above, I'm not engaging in personal attacks. I will take your hesitancy to join the honda-tech forum as an indication that you are afraid to float your ideas in any environment other than here.

bitcoin2cash,

Join the above politics forum, and I will join it as well. Feel free to invite others who have participated in this thread. Hopefully, AyeYo will join in as well. You will then have the opportunity to show how immature AyeYo and I are to others.

By what metric do you qualify your arguments as mature (as you claim above)? Because many of us here do not feel your arguments are mature.

I would qualify ridicule as more along the lines of saying you're cross eyed, pimply, and have crooked buckteeth. Such statements would be mean and irrelevant. But to say that your arguments and statements are absurd - that isn't ridicule - it's an observation that is relevant to the debate. In conjunction with thousands of words written to explain why your position is absurd, it is perfectly reasonable and justified to succinctly summarize your position by stating that your statements are absurd.

If a car is red, it's reasonable for me to state that it is red. If a dog is barking, it's reasonable for me to state that it is barking. If someone continually makes absurd statements, then it's reasonable to state that their statements are absurd.

You can test this. Instead of seeking affirmation of your ideas on a forum where you expect agreement, go float your ideas to people walking out of a store. Or go to a public place and engage in random polls. Feel free to report back the results here - just be honest. Then tell me that my claim that your statements are absurd is false.

When the life raft is full to capacity, and maybe a little beyond capacity, there exists the right to deny further boarding. But when the capacity is ten people, and the first aboard claims ownership in the face of a tragedy such as a ship sinking, then that is absurd, but as usual, you usually post absurd ideas.


The knife wielding juggler is decidedly not attacking the other individuals aboard the raft. However, he is engaging in foolish behavior at the very least. It is acceptable to restrain him. Absolutely. And knowing his behavior, it would've been acceptable to relieve him of his knives prior to boarding the raft.

But the knives might be useful, if they could be attached to a pole and used as a harpoon while aboard the raft.

Nukes might be useful in the hands of a nation to use as a deterrent against other nations which possess nukes, if the nation does not have the technology to neutralize any and all inbound nukes from an attacking nation. However, their is no reason to allow an individual to have possession of a nuke as a citizen of a nation. We can say that such behavior is foolish at the very least.

I do. Claiming ownership in such instances is a selfish act. Once again, you fail to differentiate the finer nuances of individual situations.

This is hilarious. The shipping line owns the raft, but that is irrelevant to those on the raft while the ship is 10,000 feet below the surface. It's simply absurd for anyone to claim ownership of the raft.

Contradicting yourself again? That is not what you said before. Review the original thread. Furthermore, your alternate and different proposed solution here is just as disgusting.

One side has already convinced the other. Want proof: your society does not exist as a successful or respected society anywhere in the world. Ours does many times over.

You're putting words in our mouths. None of us wished the juggler dead. We only refused to let him juggle while on the raft. If necessary, we would restrain him for the duration of our time on the raft. Same goes for WMDs. The goal is to simply not allow the key components of WMDs to be available.

Consider:

Your solution to the juggler: you declared it was our fault to even have gotten on the raft with him. Does that mean, that while the ship was sinking and we had only minutes to hop in a life raft, we were supposed to engage in a search of all other people in the raft, and search all proceeding to get in the raft, and furthermore, search all people getting in the raft after we're already in the raft. That seems like a violation of rights right there. Furthermore, if the juggler is getting on the raft after us, after searching all of his pockets, we then need to understand what the knives are for: "Why all the knives?" The juggler replies: "I'm part of a circus act - see, here's my credentials." We buy his statement, which in fact, is true, but we neglected to imagine that he would actually practice juggling the knives while on the raft. Ahh, but you claim we should know all things and be prepared, or have a traveling entourage of security personnel who can divine all these things. And finally, the ultimate insult, if we actually suspect that he would juggle on the raft, we must remove ourselves from the raft and find another, and if there are no others, than we should have been intelligent enough to never have chosen to book passage on the ship in the first place.

Our solution to the juggler: He pulls out the knives out of his pocket and everybody's eyebrows rise, wondering what this clown is up to. The instinctive intelligent people on the raft, who couldn't give a rat's ass about NAP, hopefully restrain him before the raft is pierced or anyone is injured.

Oddly, your solution and our solution to WMDs is almost diametrically opposite that of the juggler (in certain ways). That's what makes your position so utterly strange - not only is it nonsense on end of the spectrum, but nonsense on the other end of the spectrum.

You see, in the case of the juggler, you expect us to anticipate and plan for the unlikely and absurd when we have no time to do so, but in the case of WMDs, you claim we should let all things be, when we have the opportunity to prevent to the best of our ability the existence of such weapons. It's mind boggling.

But in either case, you insist that we must allow for nonproductive and and life threatening behavior that is desired by only a few.

What we desire is to allow for both productive and nonproductive behavior to everyone that is not life threatening to people.