spendius wrote: A public debate is not conducted between people who agree with each other. It is the audience that is of prime importance.
"The Audience" as primary importance is a conceit only of those as fancy themselves performers, not applicable to those engaged in functioning as substantive participants
Quote:That you two continually castigate your opponents in the ungentlemanly manner you do, which obviously implies self-praise for your own position, will be noted by anybody with a degree of perspicacity, as will your continuous repetitive tone, constant use of smear tactics and total refusal to answer any point raised.
That you continually attempt to portray your participation in these discussions as substantive and topical though offering no substantive, topical commentary, all the while bemoaning and mischaracterizing the rightful scorn and criticism your inanities receive, unambiguously identifies you as a performer, a poseur, not a constructivist participant.
Quote:The debate can only be about social consequences as the science is obvious, simple and irrefutable as has been readily conceded.
Case in point. You simultaneously acknowledge there is no debate to be had and attempt to frame an irrelevant debate on your own terms.
Quote:The science, for example, a minor one chosen for discretion, is supposed to give insurance companies the power to determine the approximate age of death of those whose lives it insures. Were that science to be fully exploited insurance premiums would be no different from a money box with storage charges.
No idea how this from you might be relevant to the discussion at hand, but I submit that the insurance industry precisely is "
... no different from a money box with storage charges" ... that in a nutshell is how and why it works.
Quote:There are many areas of science which legislation has seen fit to mitigate for no other reason than the fear of the social consequences
That such may be so is not at dispute, and that it be incorrect and unacceptable is no less applicable today than was it in Gallileo's day.
Quote:and I can tell from your contributions that you have no knowledge of those of them which have not been mentioned in the literature you have read.
You infer much from very little, and often, as in this particular, purport to infer the nonexistant from the unpresented, your allegation being contraindicated by recorded fact and by the fact that declaring what another may or may not have read is a matter of precision beyond the capabilities of the resources available to you.
Quote:That many people fear science, and especially its rigid applications, is amply justified by the general tone of those on here who supposedly speak for it, which they don't. One would be sensible to have grave reservations about the future if you two bombastic poltroons were in charge of it and your principles were put into practice.
You are supposed to serve the nation by getting on with your science and leaving the decisions on its uses to those elected to that responsibilty.
Now, there's an amusing example both of red herring and straw man, neatly illustrating the sum and substance of the entire body of your interactions in this and kindred discussions on thes boards.
Quote:Meredith wrote-
"The sentimentalist is he who would enjoy without incurring the immense debtorship for a thing done."
You have no responsibility in the matter and thus no right to preach on it.
And don't say I preach because I don't. I simply defend the status quo and accept any changes those who are responsible set in train.
Bullshit; preaching exactly and only is what you are doing.
Quote:Not 1% of the population would buy into your position if it was taken within a 1000 miles of where it logically leads and with nothing to stop it it would go the whole hog inexorably. You are dipping your toe into it.
It would be a singular blessing to me, and I should think others, if you would be so kind as to refrain from repeating your trite mantras.
We have them off by heart. They are emanations from an insulated box of abstract thought. The only purpose they serve at this stage is as a vehicle on which to hang a similarly trite set of insults. If others are drawn to such things so be it but they are repellant to most people, especially me, particularly on the thousandth circuit.
One readilly may imagine you presenting that bit of criticism to the visage presented by your shaving mirror.
