seeds wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
And it’s too bad that you don’t understand the concept of what it means to be a hypocrite.
It roughly means the same thing as "being human". All humans are hypocrites. You included.
seeds wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
You keep wanting to make this an argument about extinction when in truth it is an argument about your brazen hypocrisy.
No. I think you are trying to derailing the debate by putting together a character assassination. Because my hypocrisy cannot possibly be more important than humanity. Surely?
Lets see if my theory holds.
seeds wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
Let’s do a quick review:
You had it pointed out to you that Americans produce almost two and a half times more co2 pollution per capita than the Chinese per capita, to which you argued that China - as a whole - produces way more pollution than America.
The problem is that you failed to include the fact that China’s population is more than four times that of America.
In which case, it doesn’t take a lot of math skills to determine that if America’s population matched that of China’s population then we would be out-polluting them by leaps and bounds.
So far my hypothesis stands. See IF population matched China's population .... doesn't matter because in this game total emissions matter.
And we have the Pareto principle in which 80% of the effects are caused by 20% of the players.
And now i can pull my ace card and slap you in the face with a 10 inch black cock. I was never defending the USA in this one
You assumed it. When in fact the USA is just as guilty. So is Australia.
Pick your 20%.
seeds wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
The point is that your “do as I say not as I do” hypocrisy completely strips you of any semblance of moral authority to pass judgment on China.
I never claimed to be a moral authority. You are the one who fell off his moral high horse when you tried to apply Kantian ethics to extinction events.
seeds wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
Furthermore, the very idea that destroying the world in all-out nuclear war in order to save the world from pollution is so ludicrous that I can barely believe that I am actually having this conversation.
Well, I am not having this conversation - you are. That's the straw-man you contrived.
You are not saving the world from anything. Certainly not saving the world from pollution. The world doesn't need saving - it has managed just fine without us for 14 billion years.
The man-ape needs saving. More often than not - the man-ape needs saving from its own stupidity.
And if the man-ape doesn't can't be convinced to educate itself, recognise the negative consequences of its actions and adjust its own behaviour, then the man-ape is a liability to those who CHOOSE to believe in the future.
The fact of the matter is - the choice is already made for you. It's extinction OR plan B.
Anything is better than extinction. Because the worst thing that can happen is.... extinction.
seeds wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
Now with that being said, I’m just going skip over all of your charges of me erecting strawmen, along with your childishness in calling me “wis
DUMB the philosopher” and go straight to this gem...
It's a factual assertion. You are an idiot. Because you think dying by malaria is better than dying by murder.
Obviously, calling you an idiot gave you the escape hatch and strategy you desperately needed.
Because you couldn't actually justify WHY you prefer "death-by-malaria" to "death-by-murder" you are now trying to draw attention away from yourself and attacking my character again.
Maybe I was right
Good thing I called you an idiot. Otherwise you were totally cornered.
Now you can play the "you are so childish" card.
seeds wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
Earlier you accused me of not understanding what the word “rationality” means. You even went so far as to insist that it has nothing to do with logic and reason.
And when I provided you with its dictionary definition...
Yet more evidence that you can't think for yourself. You appeal to dictionaries
Rationality is achieving your goals. If the goal is to avoid extinction and your actions undermine your goal - you are not rational.
If your goal is to become financially secure and you keep living beyond your financial means. You are not rational.
Logik/reason is just a tool for achieving that which you set to achieve. But it seems to me you've set out to achieve - well. Nothing really.
You've set out to feel good about yourself.
seeds wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
...a definition that clearly states that “reason and logic” are precisely what the word refers to, you offered this in return:
The problem with your approach is that you do not understand the limits of logic. You are ascribing it powers it does not have and in the process appealing to it as an authority on judgments/choice. It's not any of those things.
BUT if you believe that it is - it's even more evidence that you can't think for yourself.
Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:28 am
...you always impressed me as being a highly articulate person who is in possession of a wealth of statistical knowledge (all of which still holds true).
However, if you cannot be honest and humble enough to admit to such a trivial and obvious mistake, then not only can you not be trusted with your understanding of word meanings, but you are demonstrating that you have no integrity.
What do you mean.I am admitting it and you are having hard time processing it. I am admitting it now - YOU have made an error in reasoning. I am trying to correct you.
I have integrity. I would kill you if you endangered my family and I had no other way of stopping you from causing harm.
I would kill you if you endangered humanity and I had no other way of stopping you from causing harm.
That's more integrity than you ever knew what to do with.
The fact that you can't swallow that hard pill is simply because you are a sheep who can't think or act for himself.