4 ms·

Sure... saying it is expensive isn't much of an explanation as to why. But the why isn't that difficult to come up with. I've made more detailed comments on t

by adekok 9y ago

Sure... saying it is expensive isn't much of an explanation as to why. But the why isn't that difficult to come up with. I've made more detailed comments on the other Mars story (see my comment history). But whatever my issues, I'm definitely getting downvoted for saying engineering reality is preferable to pipe dreams. And the counter-arguments of "but people have dreamed for years!" or "no, YOU have to prove why it's unfeasible" are inappropriate. Similarly, your attempt to call me out on a pedantic detail, but at the same time ignoring the illogical counter "arguments" really is the new HN. Illogic and group-think are becoming more important than reality-based discussions.

jamesrcole 9y ago
> Sure... saying it is expensive isn't much of an explanation as to why. But the why isn't that difficult to come up with. You're dodging the issue. You said there was no reason for people to criticize your comments because "I'm just explaining why Mars is expensive and likely not feaasible". I pointed out that that claim was completely false. You say "saying it is expensive isn't much of an explanation as to why" - actually, it's no explanation as to why it is expensive, or why it is "likely not feasible". Then you say "But the why isn't that difficult to come up with" which has nothing to do with the issue of whether you're claim about what you did in the thread is true or not. > I'm definitely getting downvoted for saying engineering reality is preferable to pipe dreams. Even if you're getting some of those downvotes for that, look at how loaded such a statement is. What, again, is your justification for calling it a "pipe dream"? And anyway, pleanty of things that were once called "pipe dreams" have become reality. Also, it's ridiculous to use "engineering reality" as the benchmark - because unless you believe that there's no progress or evolution in our engineering capabilities, then what is "engineering reality" will not correspond to the reality in 5, 10, 15, 50 or 100 years from now. > Similarly, your attempt to call me out on a pedantic detail You made a substantive false claim that all you were doing was "explaining why Mars is expensive and likely not feaasible" and I called you out on it. And it wasn't an "attempt". I called you out and you weren't able to show anything that backs up that claim.
- adekok 9y ago
  > You made a substantive false claim <sigh> If you're nit-picking over details, it's definitely the new HN. I've had people attack me vociferously over "back of the envelope" calculations being off by a factor of 2. This isn't really much different. And what would be your reaction if my previous comment had said "I'm just explaining that Mars is expensive and likely not feasible" instead of why? Given the level of outrage you're showing, I'll bet you would have had a pretty similar response, as you showed here The point is that you're not arguing against the "substantive false claim" I made. You're arguing from an emotional position that I said bad things about your dreams. A subject which is emotionally important to you. > And anyway, pleanty of things that were once called "pipe dreams" have become reality. And as I said earlier, most pipe dreams haven't become reality. Appealing to "dreams can become reality" is just false logic. People who down-vote counter-arguments, or argue in favor of such statements are just upset that a cynic like me points out most dreams don't become reality. So... will you admit that your argument is based on nonsense? Or can you only see the speck in someone else's eye, while ignoring the plank in your own eye? > Also, it's ridiculous to use "engineering reality" as the benchmark Ah yes, because no one has any idea how to to it today, we will rely on magical technology (i.e. pipe dreams) which will be available in 100 years. I like hope as much as the next person, but you're pretty much admitting that colonizing Mars is a dream, and isn't based in reality.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    It's clear you have no intention of actually engaging with what people have said or playing by the standards of fair argumentation. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to engage with you
    - adekok 9y ago
      i.e. I engage with what you've said, admit your point that I mispoke, and point out errors in your position. Your counter-argument is then "No YOU'RE a bad man! I'm taking my toys and going home". That's... not convincing. And pretty much proves my point that I've hit an emotional position. One which can't be addressed rationally. And which provokes an irrational response.

by adekok 9y ago

jamesrcole 9y ago

> Sure... saying it is expensive isn't much of an explanation as to why. But the why isn't that difficult to come up with. You're dodging the issue. You said there was no reason for people to criticize your comments because "I'm just explaining why Mars is expensive and likely not feaasible". I pointed out that that claim was completely false. You say "saying it is expensive isn't much of an explanation as to why" - actually, it's no explanation as to why it is expensive, or why it is "likely not feasible". Then you say "But the why isn't that difficult to come up with" which has nothing to do with the issue of whether you're claim about what you did in the thread is true or not. > I'm definitely getting downvoted for saying engineering reality is preferable to pipe dreams. Even if you're getting some of those downvotes for that, look at how loaded such a statement is. What, again, is your justification for calling it a "pipe dream"? And anyway, pleanty of things that were once called "pipe dreams" have become reality. Also, it's ridiculous to use "engineering reality" as the benchmark - because unless you believe that there's no progress or evolution in our engineering capabilities, then what is "engineering reality" will not correspond to the reality in 5, 10, 15, 50 or 100 years from now. > Similarly, your attempt to call me out on a pedantic detail You made a substantive false claim that all you were doing was "explaining why Mars is expensive and likely not feaasible" and I called you out on it. And it wasn't an "attempt". I called you out and you weren't able to show anything that backs up that claim.

adekok 9y ago
> You made a substantive false claim <sigh> If you're nit-picking over details, it's definitely the new HN. I've had people attack me vociferously over "back of the envelope" calculations being off by a factor of 2. This isn't really much different. And what would be your reaction if my previous comment had said "I'm just explaining that Mars is expensive and likely not feasible" instead of why? Given the level of outrage you're showing, I'll bet you would have had a pretty similar response, as you showed here The point is that you're not arguing against the "substantive false claim" I made. You're arguing from an emotional position that I said bad things about your dreams. A subject which is emotionally important to you. > And anyway, pleanty of things that were once called "pipe dreams" have become reality. And as I said earlier, most pipe dreams haven't become reality. Appealing to "dreams can become reality" is just false logic. People who down-vote counter-arguments, or argue in favor of such statements are just upset that a cynic like me points out most dreams don't become reality. So... will you admit that your argument is based on nonsense? Or can you only see the speck in someone else's eye, while ignoring the plank in your own eye? > Also, it's ridiculous to use "engineering reality" as the benchmark Ah yes, because no one has any idea how to to it today, we will rely on magical technology (i.e. pipe dreams) which will be available in 100 years. I like hope as much as the next person, but you're pretty much admitting that colonizing Mars is a dream, and isn't based in reality.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  It's clear you have no intention of actually engaging with what people have said or playing by the standards of fair argumentation. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to engage with you
  - adekok 9y ago
    i.e. I engage with what you've said, admit your point that I mispoke, and point out errors in your position. Your counter-argument is then "No YOU'RE a bad man! I'm taking my toys and going home". That's... not convincing. And pretty much proves my point that I've hit an emotional position. One which can't be addressed rationally. And which provokes an irrational response.