National standards in China are not what they are in most western nations. If manufacturing standards are what were applied these buildings could have been printed with asbestos and leaded paint (amongst other things that would not be allowed here) and the structural rigor of the design and material might well not be what would be viewed as acceptable here.

That said, it is a good start. Now if we could 3d print a house that is safe for human occupation, that would be an even more significant step.

You have stated that you begin our discussions with your assumption about me, and that you apply that assumption regardless of the discussion or what I say. I have asked you how I could possibly convince you otherwise and you went back to stating that you always return to that assumption. Hence you have to way for me to convince you that your assumption is faulty.

I enter the discussion in the interest of discussing the topic. It appears you cannot say the same. I don't just randomly enter discussions and bring up matters willy-nilly; you however cannot seem to claim the same.

If you enter the discussion with that assumption, and refuse to partake in an actual discussion because of that assumption, then why do you enter into the discussion at all? You have stated that it is impossible for me to convince you that your assumption is incorrect, hence you have chosen to lock yourself out of discussion.

Being subjected to an external analysis, and being effected by it, are two different things. Just because your reasoning is circular doesn't mean you care. It appeared that your question about external analysis was along the lines of whether or not you cared if your reasoning was obviously flawed and circular. Or are you claiming such moral authority to be entitled to shout down any other person's analysis of your circular reasoning on the basis of them just not being you?

Is that supposed to somehow relate to this discussion? I don't recall your misquote of Bill Maher relating to the Communist Manifesto. Just because he looks like (your misunderstanding of) a communist in comparison to your worldview doesn't mean the two ideas are magically connected.

Because you seem to enjoy wasting my time?

I never made any such claim. Rather, I was asking what I could possibly do to have an actual discussion with you rather than having you continue to act like this instead.

You are, of course, free to make whatever wild-assed assumptions you want. However when you post a claim that it might be possible for me to post in a way that would get you to stop making these crazy assumptions - and actually have a discussion of the material instead of personal silliness - and then promptly turn around and admit that no, such a situation is not possible, you disqualify your own statement. You are, quite simply, presenting a circular argument.

Which does get back to a question i asked you some time ago. Why do you bother posting to discussions in response to opinions that differ from your own, if you have no interest in a discussion on that which you hold different opinions on?

You certainly haven't made any effort to suggest that to be inaccurate other than by your own claim of grave injury.

I asked you what it would take to get you to stop assuming my comments to be garbage. You subsequently stated that you believe my arguments to not be made in good faith. In other words, your reasoning is circular and gives me no ability to get you to ever read my comments without you applying your standard baseless assumptions.

So indeed, you presented no actual reasoning, but you did present your own logical fallacy.

The commercial shows the kid playing Mike Tyson's Punch-Out with the Power Glove. The problem, though is it was completely, utterly, worthless for that game. Sure, moving like a punch would have your player punch. But pulling back your fist? That used a power punch (which would pretty much never land correctly as a result).

Best game for the glove? Hands down, Top Gun.

How does pointing out your circular reasoning not show that you are using circular reasoning?

You did not initially present it as someone else's quote. You presented it the same way you presented all your other blog posts, as if they were your own original thoughts. The initial post gave no indication whatsoever that it came from anyone else; it had no quotations or links. You did correct it later, but your initial presentation gave the idea that the idea was yours.

Here's a wacky idea - maybe we should try going back to my initial comment in this JE discussion and discussing the points I raised there, instead of continuing to wander further away from it?

Pretending that not to be true does not prevent it from being true. You did eventually give proper citation of the material, but you initially presented it as if it came directly from you. I'm even willing to give you enough slack to say that it could have been a simple oversight, but you prefer to use that slack to hang yourself, apparently.

Here's your sign.