I do not "dismiss objections to the Fermi paradox as speculative inferentially" or otherwise, but you are welcome to infer whatever you wish.
Your reading comprehension skills are poor, or you are willfully being disingenuous. The complete sentence i wrote was: For you to dismiss objections to the Fermi paradox as speculative inferentially suggests that the paradox itself is not speculative.
I was not stating that you inferentially dismiss objections to the paradox as speculative--i was stating that you dismiss the objections to the paradox as speculative, and that that dismissal inferentially suggests that the paradox is itself not
speculative. You have no basis for argument with what i have said if you fail to understand what i've written, which is clear, if you don't butcher my sentences in order to make a false claim about what i've written.
Despite being a long term SF fan, I'm not aware of a convincing substantive counter to the Fermi paradox, speculative counters yes.
Therefore, in describing "counters" to the paradox as speculative, you inferentially assert that the paradox is itself not speculative. It is nothing more than speculation.
I'm well aware of the thread's content, there is nothing new in it, I've read many books on the subject.
No, if you haven't read the thread, you are not aware of the thread's content. Congratulations on your snotty arrogance, however.
You are not obligated in any sense to respond to my posts, and I am quite reasonable in inputting my perceptions irrelative of whether you deem that someone else has said as much already or not. In fact the contents of this entire thread has been said already in many forms at many times, not uncommon for A2K, let alone the big world outside of A2K, get over it.
More snottiness. This thread is intended as a discussion among those who are interested in the subject. I was immediately interested because i have given a great deal of thought to the subject for more than 30 years. I enjoy discussing it. I find your "inputting" to be silly and naive, because of your assumption that you know it all already, have heard it all already, and it is beneath your notice.
Read the thread, you don't know what anyone has said here until you do read it, and to simply dump off "Fermi paradox" in a statement which attempts to suggest that it is conclusive, and in a manner which demonstrates that you haven't read the thread makes you a borish lout interrupting an interesting discussion.
As to my view about "is there an elemental universal drive for intelligence to seek", contrary to your perceptions I consider it a central consideration, and I question the definition of intelligence lacking this feature, but again time will tell.
That is completely false, and a strawman. At no time have i made any remark about you having a view about "is there an elemental universal drive for intelligence to seek." Putting that in quotes suggests that you are quoting me. I made no such remark--to imply that you are quoting me constitutes a lie. In addition to being a boorish lout, you are apparently a liar.
And you silly "time will tell" line which you keep throwing in is rather moronic, as well. If there is no intelligent life "out there," time will never tell us so. If intelligent life is out there, but we die off or destroy ourselves before we confirm that, time will never tell us.
You can rest assured that i will not respond any further to your posts. I am disgusted by people who attempt to argue with what i've written by chopping up my quotes in a manner which makes them nonsensical and a false representation of what i have written; if am disgusted by people who attribute to me quotes that i have not written.
I'd expect better from an elementary school student debating team.