I guess the civility continues to drop…
Can't say I'm surprised, of course, what with my experiences here …and with humanity in general.
Quote from Amplify1
Honestly this will probably be my last comment on this, or I'll just respond to one or two specific parts, as I don't have the time for comments that are this long. I've been typing bits of it slowly over the day in my bits of free time and can't keep that up long term.
Complicated conversations do get a bit complicated and involved. It's a lot to deal with.
Okay, I'll try laying it out again, as clearly and simply as possible:
You just re-stated how you propose making a second Earth and inviting people to itThe one and only bit of #2, that was always clear and understandable, and which I NEVER asked about or expressed any confusion or lack of comprehension towards.
explanation of, or even so much as addressing
how or why it would be necessary and/or beneficial.
That did NOT
Not my problem, they wouldn't be invited to come, as I keep trying to make clear and for some reason you don't understand.
Except for the ones who do it, AFTER
Or the children of those who were invited.
…and saying that you'd exile them to the OG Earth, isn't a solution. It's just moving
the problem, to somewhere else. (or are you saying that the people in OG Earth don't matter? 'Cause that sounds like the attitude of a psychopath)
Also, the people on the OG Earth who do it, have to be dealt with. (i.e. be put in prison)
It's not wrong, and it can be proven statistically.
Statistically? Are you for real?
Yes, seat belts save lives overall if you look no deeper than the surface, but seat belts kill pedestrians.
I'll not even bother replying to those… audacious claims.
None of that address the point that was argued, for which seat belt laws were only a convenient example. (well… usually convenient)
You didn't give any relevant reply, to my arguments/counter-arguments, but instead spouted a complete Red Herring.
Hopefully you won't get yourself killed in the process so that you can learn a valuable lesson and be far more careful next time
So you're fine with letting tons of people die needlessly and pointlessly. You think, if they're not smart enough, then let them die?
That also kinda sounds like the argument of libertarians, that you don't need health regulations for restaurants, because people will just avoid the places where you risk getting poisoned …except you can't know if a place is risky (even if it's been risk-free for ages. You can have a change of rules/regulations/staff/boss), until someone dies there, and you're just as likely as anyone else, of being the first one.
The government is not your parents.
The people who say that, are invariably talking of not government overreach, but more a desire for pretty much anarchy and letting people fend for themselves
(…and also typically for parents to have far too great a power, over their children)
They are perfectly fine
impediments to ones freedom …as long as they are private
impediments, rather than public/government
impediments. (leading to far less overall freedom)
…and with what followed, you showed yourself to be no exception.
It is not there to protect you from yourselves
They can make all the information available so that you can make an informed choice
No they can't.
No one can.
Humans are not all knowing (or knowing all that humanity knows), nor are they capable
of being so.
The notion that people are, or can be, aware of all the options and all the facts, to be able to make informed decisions, is an absurd fiction.
As I've previously said, I'd want to put things into place that would get people the help they need
…and even if you have every possible thing in place, to get them the help they need, that would only somewhat reduce
it from happening. It could never prevent it from ever happening. It would still happen, with some regularity.
or at least see about making sure only those who are mentally well enough do things that are potentially lethal.
We're not talking about something as relatively harmless, as extreme sports here.
What possible reason could there exist, to allow it? …and how would someone who would do it, be "mentally well"?
Also, as I've said:
The notion that it doesn't affect others, is flawed.
You seem to enjoy assuming the worst, jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth, and frankly it's getting tiresome.
…says the guy who has as made bizarre and inexplicable mistaken assumptions about what I've
I am simply recognizing the consequences of what you say. Thinking about it, on more than just a superficial level. (I say "thinking", but I recognize the flaws instantly/automatically as soon as I read it, without need for any conscious thought. Not that I don't put further thought into it, after having read it, of course but…)
If you can't see beyond any more than one or two steps deep into the things you are proposing, then the fault is not on me
…and it's not my fault that you are utterly terrible, at expressing yourself. I'm not that good at it myself, but I'm light-years above you
I already hand-waved the first part as I'm assuming that healthcare is a complete non-issue
Why would you do that? That makes no sense.
as It would need to be basically infinite and renewable to the level of seeming like waving a magical wand.
It would need to be? Based on what?
…and the scenario is that you'd magically be the ruler of the world, not that you'd be omnipotent.
It is the job of the "people left behind" to tell them to wear a seatbelt, or otherwise persuade them not to do (dangerous thing).
It's kinda hard to convince a dead person.
…and a permanent cripple is a permanent cripple, regardless of whether he/she learns his/her lesson.
Where the fuck do you get that from?
That's pretty rich, coming from the person who spouts tons of inexplicable non sequiturs, without any hint of an explanation… and who misinterprets clear statements, and frequently gives completely irrelevant replies… (indicating a clear failure to understand what was said …and/or dishonesty)
To answer the question:
WTF do you mean? How could it be otherwise? …and I just explained it, didn't I?
It would not be mandatory
Your point being…?
You can follow the set route like a mindless robot, you can seek to rebel against it, or it can make you can lose all hope/will and become apathetic.
Neither alternative is anything short of miserable.
You self admittedly don't even have the slightest clue what I was talking about, yet you want to say it can't work?
As I've stated above, I never so much as hinted
at an implication
, that I didn't have the slightest clue, as to what the measure is, that you talk about.
Now give an actual
Okay, now please how me where I said that there would be no enforcement.
"I also don't remember saying one single thing about punishment or jailing
, so I've no idea where you've pulled that from."
"I want them to have any and all possible knowledge and means to obtain happiness and fulfillment (sic) without any coercion, forcing
, pampering and as little interference as is possible from me."
The genie of the lamp can create an omnipotent god, he can create a stats menu.
The genie of the lamp, cannot create something that is logically inconsistent and incoherent. That is simply an impossibility, regardless of whatever magic explanation you use.
Well, except if you completely change humanity and/or the laws of physics, such that you have a world where it would work
…but then you'd have a completely different and unrecognizable world, or at least "humans" who are no longer anything like humans, being completely different and unrecognizable.
This could be addressed as easily as the menu telling you what triggered the change in stats.
That wouldn't make much of a difference.
As for the rest you're going to have to justify your claims.
You seriously don't see the obvious reasons ways in which it would have those effects?
If you can't, then you're so idiotic, that you're beyond help.
There's a limit to what you can do to help people help themselves without being intrusive and forcing them.
The stats-sheet is intrusive. (and misguided)
Also considering that the stats sheer would be automatic and infallible
…and people should obviously trust that it is, because…?
Do you want the government to rule over everybody with an iron fist, to force everybody to not do anything ever that could potentially harm themselves, to put foam padding on every sharp corner and make it impossible for you to so much as scrape your knee?
Just because you're suggesting one extreme, doesn't mean that I am for the opposite extreme.
I am for using some sense. Generally allowing, but putting reasonable limits. Like most countries do. (though one can argue about where exactly they draw the line, and the exact nature of the limits, in some cases)
Because if not that's the sort of assuming you keep throwing at me, and if yes then frankly you're a lunatic.
A lot of what you call "assuming" is actually either questions, simply what you've actually said …or not "assumptions" but "conclusions" based on what you're saying and what that means, its consequences, and what it leads to.
If they want to keep talking drugs to the point of addiction
Seriously, just stop.
You're embarrassing yourself.
If you have some delusion running through your head where it is even remotely possible that everybody holds hands and sings kumbaya forever with nothing bad ever happening, forget about it.
That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Mentioning irrelevant things, isn't going to make you right.
That's rich, coming from you.
How so? Because I keep saying how shit everyone is?
That makes sense, but I've never claimed that I'm an expert on changing peoples behaviour.
It's also irrelevant, because if you are not willing to do a single thing to help your situation then I'm not willing to help either.
Okay, so you admit you're a psychopath, who doesn't give a shit about others, and whose attitude is abhorrent to phycologists, or anyone other relevant authority in these matters…
I can raise the valleys and lower the hills of it as much as is reasonably possible.
You have made it clear, that you won't. That you are unwilling. That you regard it as "pampering".
without government assistance on your own, one foot after the other.
…regardless of whether or not you're in a position of being able to do so, or in a situation where it is extremely difficult…
Yeah, you're a psycho.
It would be pampering if you do it for nothing
UBI is no strings attached.
It is saying that people deserve, to be allowed to live.
but rather than simply handing it out the housing guarantee would take some at least slight effort on the part of the person involved.
You do realise that being homeless makes any effort to improve, getting a job, or getting a home, extremely difficult, even if you make every effort?
…and that it is far cheaper for a country, to simply give the homeless homes, rather than dealing with the costs of the people being homeless?
…and how UBI, without a housing guarantee, would lead to massively inflating the cost of housing?
I'd just more or less eliminate the need for politicians entirely
So you'd go with an eternal dictatorship?
Never allowing democracy.
As for the media, people would be made able to instantly see through any bullshit and know how worthwhile it is to trust a given journalist through any number of methods, no reporting partisan bs and hiding behind a shield, let's have some decent and accurate news for once.
How would you do that?
None of what you've proposed, including the omnipotent god (where the hell did that come from?), would achieve that.
Basically, the stats menu would have to be fine tuned to make the consequences (immediate and long term) of anything readily apparent.