[PLUG-TALK] Using plug talk...

glen e. p. ropella gepr at ropella.net
Wed Oct 7 18:06:18 UTC 2009


Thus spake Michael Robinson circa 09-10-06 08:54 PM:
> First off, it's true that Obama has a man promoting water poisoning.

No.  It's not true.

> Second thing, how could you 
> be stupid enough to smoke pot let alone advertise that you do this?

I never said I was smoking pot.  I said _if_ I'd been smoking pot, your
joke would have killed me.  Are you incapable of understanding an
if-then statement?  When someone says "If X, then Y", they are not
saying "There exists X".  These are two different types of statements.
This might explain why you totally misinterpret the content of that Fox
News article, too.

> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/

When someone posits a hypothesis (a.k.a. a "hypothetical"), they are not
endorsing it.  They are merely formulating it so that it can be
falsified.  I suspect the reason Holdren et al formulated these
hypotheses was to demonstrate how repressive and unethical they are, as
well as technically infeasible.  If you read the PDFs they provide,
you'll see the following regarding sterilization through the water supply:

"And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion,
militate against the use of _any_ such agent, ..."

(Emphasis on "any" is in the document.)  They are arguing AGAINST
sterilization via the water supply, not for it.

In other words, they posit the hypothesis in order to shoot it down,
which is a common practice amongst rational people.  It's too bad that
when you, who apparently can't understand hypotheses, read it, you get
your panties in a twist, get all confused, and think the person
formulating the hypothesis is an advocate of it.

> If you are still laughing after reading the above Fox news article, 
> you clearly have no respect for human life.

I am still laughing.  And, oddly enough, human life is sacred to me.
But it's simultaneously funny to me.  In fact, all things are both
sacred and funny at the same time.  Life without laughter would be Hell.
 I speculate that's why you're such an unhappy person.  Laughter without
life would be... well, impossible, I suppose.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, http://ropella.net/~gepr




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list