The "you're angry" comment again... You're really just so completely stupid that you don't understand that is almost literally impossible?

I would have to be THREATENED by you to be angry. How could you possibly threaten me? And absent that... absent some sort of fear on my part... how could I possibly be angry?

Anger is product of fear... retard. I would have to "FEAR" you to be "ANGRY".

Wow you're stupid.

I don't get angry with you morons... I just get a bit frustrated because you're just that stupid. It's like playing whack-o-mole with idiots.

I don't know how many of you there are... I suspect fewer than it seems. your whole AC thing you've got going makes it impossible to tell if I'm talking to two douchebags or five.

I don't believe in the tactic of "not feeding the trolls"...

I engage them.

And really you're just admitting that I'm right, aren't you troll filth? :D

The problem with the don't feed the trolls concept is that it only works if you can outright censor them. You have to ignore them until someone comes in and bans you.

but that isn't going to happen in most places so this "don't feed the trolls" idea actually becomes "surrender to the trolls".

I don't surrender to trolls. I blow through you idiots like a freight train through a paper mache carnival. I have no reason to avoid contact.

No... down with the people appropriating people that don't share their ideology or way of thinking as members of their group.

As to circles... sure I can... right hand holds the left... no? :D

As to the notion that you can retain accuracy and precision with 9 percent response rates, ignoring people that only have cellphones, really just a tediously long list of reasons you're wrong... believe what you like. They can make up whatever they want with that system and dupes like you will drop to their knees,close their eyes, and suck their rewards out of a "hose"...

So you're a raging idiot that can be ignored... thanks.

Are you talking to yourself? Because I was on topic throughout.

You're just another of these lackwit would be sages that memorizes some very trite arguments someone fed to you and then reguritate them the situation comes up as if any of it is your own thinking.

I LOVE frustrating people like you because I don't work that way. I come up with my own arguments and my own thinking so twits like you with chicken mcnugget responses don't have anything contextually relevant to say.

Watching you flounder as you try to push me into one of your cookie cutter scenarios that I need to argue for your counter arguments to work is hilarious.

It really is one of the more rewarding things about thinking for yourself... the absolute bafflement of zombies like you people. It's delicious. I'm positively turgid with satisfaction.

*smacks lips*

moral relativism is not the same thing as being open minded.

What is more, moral relativism largely becomes a problem when you presume to still judge people morally AFTER you accept a premise of moral relativism.

The automatic consequence of moral relativism is that morality can't be used to judge a situation because its all relative to the morality being used. Thus you have to make your judgements on something besides morality... ethics... or something objective.

As to critical thinking... that is a core belief of mine and I would certainly instill that.

As to causality... also something I think is very important.

As to being poisoned by mixed premises... that's more a question of your personal intelligence actually. It has been said that a sign of a first quality mind is the ability to hold two mutually exclusive concepts in your mind at once and be able to think in both terms at once.

Not to toot my own horn but I can maintain dozens of compartmentalized mentalities in my mind at once.

I use some of them to model the behavior of other people by emtulating what I believe to be simulations of their thought process. I also have expert system mentalities that are myopically focused on being hyper competent in specific tasks while not especially useful in any other role. And then I divide my personality into different elements to control aspects of my mind that need to be contained and also give a freer reign to my better angels if you will.

I've done this for years and as time goes on, I get better at it.

I think I first started consciously doing it after reading the "User Illusion" which was a book about the illusion of human consciousness/awareness from a neurological and psychological perspective.

I read that book at the same time I read Dune and some other books that were psychologically transformative.

Regardless, those books at that formative time in my life allowed me to organize my mind. I do not suffer conflicting premises because I compartmentalize them into different mentalities. Each mentality is intellectually pure.

The only thing that changes is which I listen to more from one second to the next.

My mind is something of a council... no one gets a vote but me... but I take advice from one and all.

In FPSs that isn't the case especially if they're all copying each other and balanced similarly which many of them are.

Also... I think you have to admit that Blizzard's actions in that case were an exception even for blizzard and the rest of the industry doesn't do that.

Regardless... your objections don't show why esports are bad or invalid as sports simply because some corporation has control over various versions of the game.

The sports leagues control all professional sports. You possibly could set up your own league but no one will pay any attention to it. Its totally dominated by the franchises.

The ultimate result is that there is less of a difference here than you're attempting to claim.

So I'm driving long range... you want me to stop for 40 minutes to restore 80 percent of my max range... when if I were in a gas car it would take less than 5 minutes?

And that is with an 80,000 dollar electric car.

And you think you're winning the case that this is practical? HOW?

As to driving ranges... I routinely drive 200 miles round trip... practically every weekend.

Regardless your example is one of the worst possible examples because its an 80k car.

Why did you throw 80k at a car that you can get equivalent quality from a gas car that is half that price? Who is going to be able to afford that monster? That is fucking expensive car.

Seriously, you don't think I couldn't find a car that is equally nice with similar specs for about 40k or even less? Look at BMW, Mercedes, Lexus... if you like the imports... you can find MANY cheaper alternatives that are every bit as nice as the Model S.

Which means you're doing what... paying 40k for electric? Why? No really.

WHY are you doing that?

My belief is that you are "SAYING" you would do it for some reasons. But do you personally own an electric car? I doubt you do. Do you own a car at all? 50/50 on that. Is your car actually a gas car? If you have a car at all it almost certainly is gasoline. Why is your car a gas car?

I'm just guessing... the vast majority of people advocating these cars can't possibly actually own one. So I don't understand how they can be so gung ho for it when they don't put their wallet where their mouth is...

And to make matters funnier the stats show that many a lot of people that buy hybrids are replacing them with all gasoline cars now. The hybrids have been out for awhile... they wear out and people replace them. And so here we are... and what are they replacing their hybrids with? Gas cars.

I'd like a little less evangelism on the stupid electric cars and a little more pragmatism.

Here are some things that I think could make electric cars... really all cars more affordable. Make them more modular. Rather than trying to sell people on the new model... sell people on the new modules. Have a core standardized frame and rather than people buying a whole new car... maybe they buy a new engine, a new shell (the thin skin that sits on top of the frame),... just upgrades.

it would be cheaper and the car would be more of an investment because it wouldn't depreciate as hard.

Just an idea. I don't know if that would work but I think the 80k car concept might work better if rather than asking someone to throw that kind of money down all at once it was something people could build up to. Maybe you get the frame with a gas motor and at some point upgrade to get electric motors put into the wheels... then you start adding batteries ... and once that gets to a good place you either dump the engine or swap it for a smaller on the road charging engine.

One thing that I'd like to see tried is a turbine standby engine. Just something to top the battery up. I think Aston Martin might have actually done that with a hybrid super car they built. If I recollect... they used electrical generation turbines rather than automotive engines and they only kick on to top the battery up which gives you gasoline range with a plug in hybrid super car.

That specific model is of course impractical because its an aston martin and those are inherently impractical unless you're james bond on an expense account.

I also remember seeing a fellow that gutted an H2 Hummer and custom installed a hybrid system. I think he said he was getting 60 miles to the gallon... in an H2 Hummer. Also an obviously impractical car for so many reasons.

But the point is that rather than going in for these quasi religious transformations we need to be a bit more practical about it.

You'd think Apple/Mac customers would be fairly comfortable with the flexibility vs simplicity trade-off by now?

Because in practice, that default position morphs into "incapable of critical thinking about objective reality and causality, and spending your life trying to make sense of the world while being poisoned with a crippling case of mixed premises and moral relativism" - that's why. Being open to new facts is important and wonderful. But being an intellectual invertebrate is unfortunately what's generally being indoctrinated.

Sure, if you look at water use by comparing it locally where intensive fracking operations are in remote areas that are essentially unpopulated. Otherwise that's utter nonsense.

Really... tell me the profound difference between pre Korean War Korea and pre vietnam war Vietnam.

Educate me. I'm listening. If all you've got is more vague allusions to secret knowledge that you refuse to back up then I'm going to generally call bullshit on the whole thing. Your move.

Word of warning... any difference you cite is going to be taken as a challenge for me to find another country in the region that has the same cultural beliefs etc that is economically successful thus disassociating your citation with economic failure.

Maybe I'm wrong and you've got a good argument. I'll keep an open mind. But I don't see how you can sustain this argument.

... and not a single falsifiable statement in there anywhere.

Good job. It is literally impossible for you to be wrong. Why? Because you didn't make complete argument in there anywhere. And as such... you can't be wrong... you also can't be right but I imagine you don't care about that.

Your real worry is being proven wrong and surrendering any ability to be right in the process is probably a small price to pay.

Make a complete argument or your fucking statement is null. Idiot.

Person/organization X is Y Ideology

VS

Specific Poll R is biased to support Y ideology.

Is this not obvious?