The Case Against Science

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

Modern science has been around for the last 350 years or so, while human existence has been around for 11,600 years. However, in the last 70 years, science has created a veritable witches' brew of deadly concoctions, ranging from atom-shattering explosive devices, lethal genetic modifications, designer diseases, large quantities of radioactive waste, along with a near 100% recognition that man-made pollution will inevitably destroy the atmosphere and even supposed replication of mini-black holes and strangelets through particle collider experiments.

Among these list of specie's killing machinations are events to highlight the soulless inventions attributed to the scientific method, scientody, and scientists in general. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments, the attempts of hypothermia researchers at the University of Minnesota and Victory University's to use Nazi data collected at Dachau, along with the Atlas of Topographical and Applied Human Anatomy which was written with the use of 1,377 humans executed by the Gestapo, and even our own history in America contains 64,000 forced sterilizations on the hands of eugenicist scientists.

In 3% of humanities existence, science has produce multiple threats to the human race. Moreover, the quantity and lethality of these projects appear to be accelerating, appearing at the late 1/5th of modern science's appearance on the world's stage (and we are talking about global dangers here)

Now, in defense of science, I do not dispute that science has brought us good things, such as an increased life expectancy, childbirth survival rates, electricity and energy. But those 4 things, according to scientists, attribute to our eventual death as a species, overpopulation and man made climate change, of which there is a 99% consensus among the scientific community as being true. So are these good things really good after all if they threaten our species as a whole?

I do not dispute that science has achieved some good things, but I find it an inherently illogical defense, as science has also produced weapons that will wipe out humanity from the Earth, leaving no person to enjoy the benefits of science.

This is the equivalency of multiplying their sum by zero.

In closing, here are two famed scientists who hold chagrin for their inventions. Alfred Nobel, whose dynamite cost him his brother's life and branded him the "merchant of death", and Albert Einstein himself,

"I made on mistake in my life when I signed that letter to President Roosevelt advocating that the atomic bomb should be built."

[leanlifter1]

It's people that need to change not science.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

science? You mean dark sorcery!

[The-Great-One]

First off Alfred Nobel invented dynamite as a tool for mining, which is its main purpose. You state that you do not dispute the good that science has done, but drastically shine a light on the bad things that science has done. Out of all the things you have listed that science has done, every vaccine and advancement in technology for health care and biology for farming can be overturned. You list Alfred Nobel and Albert Einstein.

Well I list Norman Borlaug and Jonas Salk.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

These were the most likely responses I anticipated, the ad homina

This is a silly topic.

Word. I wonder if OP understands the irony of using the internet to decry science.

:Science? You mean dark sorcery!

This one was both a red herring and ad homina

:Yes very silly just like that debate Bill Nye vs that religious freak that claimed he was a scientist but hid behind the good book whenever science was used to explain events.

Now, ad homina is easy to distinguish. If a reply does not even begin to dispute issues raised, then it is invalid and falls under this fallacy. I, the "OP" have nothing to do with the points I raised. I hope I won't have to go further into this in the future.

Alright, this was what I thought would be the 2nd most likely response,

First off Alfred Nobel invented dynamite as a tool for mining, which is its main purpose. You state that you do not dispute the good that science has done, but drastically shine a light on the bad things that science has done. Out of all the things you have listed that science has done, every vaccine and advancement in technology for health care and biology for farming can be overturned. You list Alfred Nobel and Albert Einstein.
Well I list Norman Borlaug and Jonas Salk.

This user did not read very carefully part of my argument, or I did not highlight it enough.

I said, "I do not dispute that science has achieved some good things, but I find it an inherently illogical defense, as science has also produced weapons that will wipe out humanity from the Earth, leaving no person to enjoy the benefits of science.

"This is the equivalency of multiplying their sum by zero."

Vaccinations and health care are founded using science and the scientific method just as splitting atoms and cross-breeding disease are. You say that the advanced quality of life which science brings to the world far outweighs the drawbacks from it's misuse. I say you are wrong.

It does not matter if we can cure the incurable tomorrow using science, or solve world hunger with advanced agrarian methods. For the same method to bring us these gifts can bestow us a fiery death, a smog filled existence, or a short, gravity crunching implosion in the blink of an eye. Who will be left afterwards to enjoy the world free of disease? Who will be left standing to not know the pain of hunger if the world is destroyed? That is what I meant by multiplying by zero.

Here is the 3rd most likely response I foresaw,

It's people that need to change not science.

I will attempt to formulate your position better than you could.

You claimed(?) that science cannot be held responsible for the evils it enables because to do so would confuse facilitation with prescription. You believe that it is non sequitor that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the fault of science. There are a couple of errors with this.

The presence of danger, of world-destroying weapons, is solely due to the existence of these tools. While those who use these horrible crafts should be held responsible for their use, their existence is the fault of their creator's, whom used the scientific method and science for them to come about.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/16/14 07:18 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

You claimed(?) that science cannot be held responsible for the evils it enables because to do so would confuse facilitation with prescription. You believe that it is non sequitor that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the fault of science. There are a couple of errors with this.

The presence of danger, of world-destroying weapons, is solely due to the existence of these tools. While those who use these horrible crafts should be held responsible for their use, their existence is the fault of their creator's, whom used the scientific method and science for them to come about.

Fire is science and without fire the human race would likely not have made it. Fire if abused by man could destroy the whole planet. Does that make fire bad absolutely not. Fire is what it is but it's up to how Humans control it. You are wrong because you claim that things or Science as a whole are bad when they are not even self aware and sentient.

[Camarohusky]

I am all for science. Sure science has done some bad things, but if it weren't for science, I would be dead. So, you could say I owe my life to the scientific advances of the last 70 years.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/16/14 08:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I am all for science. Sure science has done some bad things ...

Correction Science did not do bad things but Humans did. Science is not Sentient. I am glad you are all for logic and advancement.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 2/16/14 07:18 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: These were the most likely responses I anticipated, the ad homina

Let me educate you a little bit about the "ad hominem" fallacy.

I cannot speak for the others who have responded to this thread, but I feel certain that it is the absurdity of your argument that elicits their mocking responses rather than your person. You are merely a username and a few lines of text as far I know. Again, I don't know whether the people in this thread have better knowledge about your person beyond this, but I certainly don't. It's therefore rather hard to attack you personally as a way to discredit you, something which nobody has done in this thread. An ad hominem attack would be more akin to saying, your name is Gary-Gigax; "Gary" is cockney slang for "asshole"; therefore your argument is invalid.

Positing that this thread is silly, or joking that your characterization of science resembles that of evil magic, is not ad hominem.

For my own part, I wondered whether you were aware that your use of the internet, a product of decades if not centuries worth of scientific advancement, as the place where you argue against the use of science, is highly ironic. That, again, is not attacking you personally, it is pointing out a logical flaw in the way you present your argument. Which is not to say that this invalidates your argument, only that your choice of venue was amusing, given the circumstance.

Yes very silly just like that debate Bill Nye vs that religious freak that claimed he was a scientist but hid behind the good book whenever science was used to explain events.

Now, ad homina is easy to distinguish.

"Are" easy to distinguish, but not so for you apparently, because this is not an ad hominem. At best you could claim that it is a non sequitur, or a false analogy.

I said, "I do not dispute that science has achieved some good things, but I find it an inherently illogical defense, as science has also produced weapons that will wipe out humanity from the Earth, leaving no person to enjoy the benefits of science.

Your use of the word "will" instead of "could" ruins this statement. The weapons "will" wipe out humanity? You've seen this in your crystal ball? When will it happen? How do you know that we won't listen to our better angels and work to disarm the world of potentially world-ending weapons?

You've been rallying against the evils of science in this thread, so I'm curious to hear what it is that you're actually proposing. Should we ban any future scientific research? Outlaw the knowledge that we've obtained through science thus far? Go back to the stone age? What is it?

I hope that you realize that without future scientific advancement, the human race is doomed to become extinct along with all other life on this planet. It's estimated that this planet will only be able to support any kind of life for another one or two billion years, after which the sun will have expanded so much that the earth will be much too hot to sustain life. If humanity, or whatever life forms might have descended from humanity, is to have any hope of survival, we must escape from this planet and find a new home elsewhere in the cosmos. How do you propose that we accomplish this without the further use of the scientific method to investigate and test the limits of the universe?

Science, although risky, is our only hope for a future outlasting our home planet, whereas to give up on science would be a death sentence to the human race.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 2/16/14 08:17 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Positing that this thread is silly, or joking that your characterization of science resembles that of evil magic, is not ad hominem.
For my own part, I wondered whether you were aware that your use of the internet, a product of decades if not centuries worth of scientific advancement, as the place where you argue against the use of science, is highly ironic. That, again, is not attacking you personally, it is pointing out a logical flaw in the way you present your argument. Which is not to say that this invalidates your argument, only that your choice of venue was amusing, given the circumstance.
"Are" easy to distinguish, but not so for you apparently, because this is not an ad hominem. At best you could claim that it is a non sequitur, or a false analogy.

Alright, these are fair.

I said, "I do not dispute that science has achieved some good things, but I find it an inherently illogical defense, as science has also produced weapons that will wipe out humanity from the Earth, leaving no person to enjoy the benefits of science.

Your use of the word "will" instead of "could" ruins this statement. The weapons "will" wipe out humanity? You've seen this in your crystal ball? When will it happen? How do you know that we won't listen to our better angels and work to disarm the world of potentially world-ending weapons?

Perhaps I should have said "I wouldn't take the risk." Because I find it far more likely than unlikely that this will happen. Better angels? I think your optimism for science has replaced your scrutiny of humanity, which ought to be highly cynical of it.

You've been rallying against the evils of science in this thread, so I'm curious to hear what it is that you're actually proposing. Should we ban any future scientific research? Outlaw the knowledge that we've obtained through science thus far? Go back to the stone age? What is it?

I wouldn't want to go back to the stone age, but it is a tad ironic you said that considering Einstein predicted the Fourth World War would be fought with stones and clubs. I am not advocating a return to the stone age, I am pointing out that evidence suggests that in some circumstances, less knowledge is preferable than more knowledge, because there is risk involved in progress, and that not all risks are worth taking. I'll end this paragraph with the fact that we the ordinary people outnumber the scientists by a very large margin and leave it at that.

I hope that you realize that without future scientific advancement, the human race is doomed to become extinct along with all other life on this planet. It's estimated that this planet will only be able to support any kind of life for another one or two billion years, after which the sun will have expanded so much that the earth will be much too hot to sustain life. If humanity, or whatever life forms might have descended from humanity, is to have any hope of survival, we must escape from this planet and find a new home elsewhere in the cosmos. How do you propose that we accomplish this without the further use of the scientific method to investigate and test the limits of the universe?

This is all moot considering the eventual heat death of the universe. The edges of space expand, matter disperses until it becomes too spread out to coalesce into stars. Escape? Where would we escape to? We'd be running from fate until it caught up to us, if we made it that far.

Science, although risky, is our only hope for a future outlasting our home planet

Leanlifter1 and others make this point, although minus the astrophysics. I really haven't decided how to respond to it yet.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/16/14 08:43 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

This is all moot considering the eventual heat death of the universe. The edges of space expand, matter disperses until it becomes too spread out to coalesce into stars. Escape? Where would we escape to? We'd be running from fate until it caught up to us, if we made it that far.

Your self being a self defeatist is a pity. Humans are a young species but we have learned great amounts of knowledge in a short time. We don't have the math to explain how many stars and Galaxy's there are in the Universe so logically the math says that there is probably more planets out there that can sustain life. Planet's that might be many many many times better that Earth.

Science, although risky, is our only hope for a future outlasting our home planet

Leanlifter1 and others make this point, although minus the astrophysics. I really haven't decided how to respond to it yet.

I did not say anything of the sort. What I am saying is that you need not fear Science rather you should fear the evil men that control it. Do you think Einstein wanted to make the A Bomb or was he forced to by some evil power hunger American ass holes. Even Atomic weapons might have a profoundly great purpose/s in years ahead when we learn new things and are more advanced.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 2/16/14 08:43 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At 2/16/14 08:17 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Your use of the word "will" instead of "could" ruins this statement. The weapons "will" wipe out humanity? You've seen this in your crystal ball? When will it happen? How do you know that we won't listen to our better angels and work to disarm the world of potentially world-ending weapons?

Perhaps I should have said "I wouldn't take the risk." Because I find it far more likely than unlikely that this will happen.

You'll get no argument from me that the presence of catastrophic weapons doesn't pose a real and imminent danger against humanity, because I believe that to be indisputable.

Better angels? I think your optimism for science has replaced your scrutiny of humanity, which ought to be highly cynical of it.

I'm under no illusions with regards to the shortcomings of humanity. We're far too primitive a creature to freely wield this sort of power, which is why it is so important that we support the expansion of the scientific community in an ethical and peace oriented direction. Science is just one half of the solution to what ails us though. With science we can discover ways to make resources more abundant and sustainable. The other side of the coin is political reforms that ensure a fair and equal distribution of those resources across nations and economic classes.

So that's what we need, in my view. I find your attitude of "science = bad" to be unhelpful.

I wouldn't want to go back to the stone age, but it is a tad ironic you said that considering Einstein predicted the Fourth World War would be fought with stones and clubs. I am not advocating a return to the stone age, I am pointing out that evidence suggests that in some circumstances, less knowledge is preferable than more knowledge, because there is risk involved in progress, and that not all risks are worth taking.

There's always risk involved when exploring the unknown and what we might discover there, but that's no reason to stop and stay in place, because as mentioned, that would mean the end of us. Instead we ought to focus on making sure our scientific inquiries are conducted ethically and in the spirit of peace.

I'll end this paragraph with the fact that we the ordinary people outnumber the scientists by a very large margin and leave it at that.

But the scientists have their laser guns and jetpacks! Our numbers are useless against them! :(

I have no idea what you mean to imply with this statement. Are you expecting a fight between the scientists and the "ordinary" people?

I hope that you realize that without future scientific advancement, the human race is doomed to become extinct along with all other life on this planet.

This is all moot considering the eventual heat death of the universe. The edges of space expand, matter disperses until it becomes too spread out to coalesce into stars. Escape? Where would we escape to? We'd be running from fate until it caught up to us, if we made it that far.

With that attitude, we might as well blow ourselves up right now and be done with it. After all, it's all going to end sooner or later, so why not sooner? Perhaps you should consider becoming a proponent of nuclear annihilation?

I dunno man, use your imagination. Maybe we'll discover (with science) time travel and/or travel to parallel universes that we could inhabit. It's not going to do us any good to just sit on our hands and assume that we're doomed no matter what.

[aviewaskewed]

At 2/16/14 02:05 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Modern science has been around for the last 350 years or so, while human existence has been around for 11,600 years. However, in the last 70 years, science has created a veritable witches' brew of deadly concoctions, ranging from atom-shattering explosive devices, lethal genetic modifications, designer diseases, large quantities of radioactive waste, along with a near 100% recognition that man-made pollution will inevitably destroy the atmosphere and even supposed replication of mini-black holes and strangelets through particle collider experiments.

ZOMG! Some people have badly applied science and used it for awful purposes! Seeing as how this has never ever happened with anything else, surely we must ban science...also the hadron collider has never actually been proven to be dangerous so...it shouldn't be in there with the things that we KNOW for a fact are.

Among these list of specie's killing machinations are events to highlight the soulless inventions attributed to the scientific method, scientody, and scientists in general.

I can go down the list of things that governments and religion have done that are equally heinous if not worse in fact.

Nagasaki, Hiroshima, the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments,

All government directed misapplications of science. It's like trying to say that Christianity ordered the atrocities of the inquisition or the worst aspects of the Crusades instead of pointing the blame where it belongs on the Catholic Church who were the directors of both.

the attempts of hypothermia researchers at the University of Minnesota and Victory University's to use Nazi data collected at Dachau, along with the Atlas of Topographical and Applied Human Anatomy which was written with the use of 1,377 humans executed by the Gestapo,

So, because bad guys did terrible things, we aren't allowed to study that research and see if there might at least be SOME benefit in it? You'd rather all of those people have died for nothing more then the madness of some racist shit bags? Really?

and even our own history in America contains 64,000 forced sterilizations on the hands of eugenicist scientists.

Once again leaving out that it is "science" that did it, but that it was specifically directed by specific individuals using the scientific method and the knowledge gained from it to bad ends.

In 3% of humanities existence, science has produce multiple threats to the human race.

Compared to the other 97% in which religion, government, and the planet itself has produced all the rest. You also continue to lump contrasting ideas (government made, funded, and directed weapons tech vs. CERN type knowledge experiments) together inappropriately.

Moreover, the quantity and lethality of these projects appear to be accelerating, appearing at the late 1/5th of modern science's appearance on the world's stage (and we are talking about global dangers here)

What do you propose we do about it then? Because I know what I would do but...I'd like to see if we are even close to a similar page here.

Now, in defense of science, I do not dispute that science has brought us good things, such as an increased life expectancy, childbirth survival rates, electricity and energy. But those 4 things, according to scientists, attribute to our eventual death as a species, overpopulation and man made climate change, of which there is a 99% consensus among the scientific community as being true. So are these good things really good after all if they threaten our species as a whole?

Overpopulation isn't entirely about life expectancy going up, it's also overbreeding in certain parts of the world which is really the bigger contributor then better medical tech. Electricity should not be lumped with the burning of fossil fuels or use of chemicals like CFC's, DDT, TEL, or any of the other harmful toxins we've dumped into the environment. Electricity wasn't INVENTED, it was DISCOVERED and HARNESSED. Big difference.

I do not dispute that science has achieved some good things, but I find it an inherently illogical defense, as science has also produced weapons that will wipe out humanity from the Earth, leaving no person to enjoy the benefits of science.

I can do this with religion, government, anything else really that's a human invention and be just as patently wrong because I'm trying to turn a complex issue into a simple black and white issue when it isn't.

In closing, here are two famed scientists who hold chagrin for their inventions. Alfred Nobel, whose dynamite cost him his brother's life and branded him the "merchant of death", and Albert Einstein himself,

"I made on mistake in my life when I signed that letter to President Roosevelt advocating that the atomic bomb should be built."

At least they are admitting their mistakes. Never heard much from the governments who used these weapons or and I surely have not heard apologies from the Catholic Church for protecting all those pedophiles.

[sharpnova]

How about doing some real research on things you post?

There hasn't been much of an increase in life expectancy of healthy humans at all.

The increase in *average* life expectancy is due to less baby deaths. People were living to 70-80 hundreds of years ago and it was perfectly normal.

And you buy into the hilarious global warming myth.. so you fail there as well.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/16/14 09:50 PM, sharpnova wrote: There hasn't been much of an increase in life expectancy of healthy humans at all.
The increase in *average* life expectancy is due to less baby deaths. People were living to 70-80 hundreds of years ago and it was perfectly normal.

These folks, while taking your general position, stll say otherwise. http://gcanyon.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/life-expectancy-in-the-1800s-not-as-bad-as-reported/

The adult life expectancy was still below 60 years. The increase to an average of 76 is pretty darn good. (That's an accross the board increase larger than the entire lifespan of a few users here.)

[ASmallOstrich]

Sounds more like man is flawed, not science.

[NightmareWitch]

Not all science is bad.. like medicine and health relate things.

[Light]

Jesus Christ, saying that science is bad or immoral because some individuals throughout history have used it maliciously is like saying that all knives should be banned because people sometimes get stabbed by them.

I'd post a lengthy rebuttal to your flimsy argument, but aviewaskewed and Angry-Hatter have beaten me to the punch and are doing an excellent job of it.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 2/17/14 05:12 PM, Light wrote: Jesus Christ, saying that science is bad or immoral because some individuals throughout history have used it maliciously is like saying that all knives should be banned because people sometimes get stabbed by them.

Keep that in mind regarding a lot of things.

I'd post a lengthy rebuttal to your flimsy argument, but aviewaskewed and Angry-Hatter have beaten me to the punch and are doing an excellent job of it.

I don't even care enough to respond to aviewhatever's condensed cocktail of progressive talking points, snide hysteria and utter intolerance for other people's views. Angry-Hatter is a bit more, what's the word, temperate? (but the opposite is true of our friendly neighborhood moderator, half of the reason why this is fruitless for me -_-)

I actually don't believe anything I posted. I was trying to illicit a reaction out of the "elite" frequent visitors here. I had been meaning to try something like this for a while, but now I'm a little bored with it. That, and if I have to come back here every time someone replies to it? I'm afraid I'd turn in to you people. And that is a dig, don't mistake me.

I see this subforum of newgrounds as the underworld of Hades, a grim and gloomy land of shadow, where poor lost souls wander lost in the darkness of their ignorances for eternity, groping the black for answers, a reprieve, anything, always in a condition of semi-consciousness, and never allowed to be free, to think, for the cheerless lord of the realm, Avie, won't let his sad kingdom be deprived of others who would wallow in his miserable existence with him. Which is what the monstrosity of a "rebuttal" you saw was all about.

And never far from his master is Cerberus aka CamarauHusky, always keeping the tormented shades in line, making sure they don't get out, or keeping certain minds from getting in. Mostly doing the grunt work of the detested god himself.

This will be my final message here. Get out, fly, run. Drink the river Lethe, forget about this place, and hope you never come back. Me, I just drank the lot of it's banks, and am hoping it kicks in very soon because I can't stand it here any longer.

[aviewaskewed]

At 2/17/14 06:19 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I don't even care enough to respond to aviewhatever's condensed cocktail of progressive talking points, snide hysteria and utter intolerance for other people's views.

Butt hurt is butt hurt. I just read this as you've realized what you said was ill-conceived, ridiculous and indefensible.

[Knis]

“If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.”
― Isaac Asimov

[leanlifter1]

What OP is saying is that ignorance is bliss. So come on everyone lets fuck technology and advancement and go live in caves and fling shit at each other because shit doesn't hurt people but Science does LOL.

[aviewaskewed]

Ok, so Gary has decided to leave....before we go too much further into piling on him (which would be just as wrong as that "final" post he put up), does ANYONE have anything new to add or feel a need to take up his side? Because if this is just going to be flames and proving what horrible dicks we can be, I think it might be time to consider the thread over.

[Korriken]

At 2/17/14 06:56 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Ok, so Gary has decided to leave....before we go too much further into piling on him (which would be just as wrong as that "final" post he put up), does ANYONE have anything new to add or feel a need to take up his side? Because if this is just going to be flames and proving what horrible dicks we can be, I think it might be time to consider the thread over.

I wouldn't say we need to abandon science. At all. Personally, I'd love to see science limited to non globe destroying applies science. I personally could care less if we came from monkeys, got left by the Mothership, just materialized one day, found our way to this planet by riding cosmic motocycles through space and ran out of fuel here, or if we don't even exist but are the figment of someone else's imagination.

[AxTekk]

At 2/17/14 06:19 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I see this subforum of newgrounds as the underworld of Hades, a grim and gloomy land of shadow, where poor lost souls wander lost in the darkness of their ignorances for eternity, groping the black for answers, a reprieve, anything, always in a condition of semi-consciousness, [...]

best fucking post 2014, and it's only february

[leanlifter1]

At 2/18/14 07:18 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 2/17/14 06:19 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I see this subforum of newgrounds as the underworld of Hades, a grim and gloomy land of shadow, where poor lost souls wander lost in the darkness of t...

best fucking post 2014, and it's only february

The irony of this post is astounding. The ignorance remarkable.

[aviewaskewed]

At 2/18/14 07:39 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/14 07:18 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 2/17/14 06:19 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I see this subforum of newgrounds as the underworld of Hades, a grim and gloomy land of shadow, where poor lost souls wander lost in the darkness of t...

best fucking post 2014, and it's only february

The irony of this post is astounding. The ignorance remarkable.

Please stop responding to the I'm leaving post. By rights I should have deleted it but I decided there was enough other content in it that it wouldn't be very fair to Gary (whether he is leaving, or he comes back) if I did. But it IS against the rules to make them, it IS generating some flames (which I've been deleting because I think it's just shit form and borderline rule breaking to kick a guy in the ass when he's going out the door) so please, please, leave that post along and don't be bumping this topic to reply to it.

[laughatyourfuneral]

We will advance in science, we will pass the test to a type 1 civilization or we won't, but what's the point to stay in place?

[Camarohusky]

At 2/22/14 02:11 PM, laughatyourfuneral wrote: We will advance in science, we will pass the test to a type 1 civilization or we won't, but what's the point to stay in place?

Just remember, there is no such thing as space cash.

[Warforger]

At 2/17/14 06:56 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Ok, so Gary has decided to leave....before we go too much further into piling on him (which would be just as wrong as that "final" post he put up), does ANYONE have anything new to add or feel a need to take up his side? Because if this is just going to be flames and proving what horrible dicks we can be, I think it might be time to consider the thread over.

I would like to say that the logic in the OP's post is the same type of flawed logic people use when they say "religion starts war and murders alot of people". It's not flaming as much as it is equivocating with the opposite sides argument.