@catchamber

Wizardry topic, brother but I think I'm done trying to, motherfucking. split the atom of the abstract if you grab my gooftroop.

Not upset or salty or anything. Just don't think I got anything more to add on your topic. Just giving you the old trumpet exit so you there ain't an ambiguous silence lurking in your languages. Wondering if I'm gonna pounce with paragraphs out of nowhere and all that.

@Arawak Absolutely. I could have gone on about why mass-scale renewable energy development won't happen until it's too late, but I only wanted to bring up the points that were semi-relevant to my argument at this time; where the struggle for solar power and the struggle for taking back our prisons are parallel to each other, in the form of sabotage at the hands of private interests.

Never mind the fact that the Democrats will oppose anything the Republicans try to do just to be petty and vindictive. Never mind the fact that some people sincerely believe global warming and the dangers of pollution are myths. Never mind that even if we took all personal vehicles off the roads and powered all personal homes with renewable energy, that's still a drop in the ocean compared to the enormous environmental strains of our industrial infrastructure (shipping and transportation, manufacturing, etc.). It goes on and on.

.

Photovoltaic efficiency is constantly increasing

If I go from spending my whole waking day sitting sedentary at my computer jerking off on RoleplayerGuild, to spending 99.9% of my day on the Guild and the other .1% lifting a ten-pound dumbbell for a minute and a half, I've "improved" my physical fitness. That doesn't mean I've improved enough (quantitatively), or that I'm improving quickly enough to see practical results.

.

And 46% isn't enough to be a sustainable energy source for such enormous countries. Even when it reaches 99% (in how many years, again?), do you not understand the gargantuan scale of such a problem as replacing oil and coal altogether with sustainable energy infrastructure?

So my analogy stands. Sorry to pop your bubble on that one.

You're having trouble seeing the forest because there's too many damn trees in your way, darling. I remind you of what you said in your OP:

For all to have energy, we must diversify capture, transfer, and storage. We must stop subsidizing inefficient methods, given we have cost effective and safer ones. For instance, algae fuels can replace corn biofuels and fossil fuels.

You think sustainable energy is a life-saving, problem solving solution to the world's energy and pollution crises. Not at 46% efficiency it isn't. Not by waiting three more decades for that efficiency to crawl its way up to a practical level, either.

Too idealistic and fantastical. Not enough realism. (But then, what did I expect from someone who thinks people disagreeing with him is "insulting"? A rich imagination is a spice of life, I suppose.)

.

And you're choosing to ignore the geopolitical, sociological, and economic implications...why? Do you choose to be deluded, or are you just failing to wrap your head around it?

Let's pretend for the sake of argument that solar paneling is a feasible way of fueling an entire country right now. All 54 billion square feet that we'd need to fuel the USA if it happened tomorrow. Let's pretend it will never be cloudy and that we'd get as much sunlight in the winter months as we do in the summer.

Are you choosing deliberately to forget that lobbyists and think-tanks in the pockets of the coal and oil industries are still going to try to impede your progress every step of the way? Are you choosing to forget that a single panel costs $250 right now, and that millions of them will cost several billions of dollars? (Because you cannot appeal to the common good when you want thousands of workers setting these things up; they have families to feed just like most other taxpayers. They're not going to do it for free, no matter how charismatic a speech you think you can give.) Are you forgetting that if the government doesn't subsidize those building costs, it's coming out of the taxpayers, some of whom will object to the project? Are you forgetting that in addition to the cost of setting up the solar panels, you'll also need to build the lines which transport this electricity country-wide (because more than likely they'd have to be built in a flat, sunny area like the southwest)? And what about the non-contiguous states? Will Alaska and Hawaii see their taxes go up to subsidize solar panels which they won't even benefit from, since the electricity won't be able to travel across the Pacific ocean, and since Canada will probably give us shit for building these lines through their territories? Or is Alaska not going to receive this new electricity? Is that fair to them? Furthermore, if, for whatever reason (like, I don't know, the aforementioned clouds), there's less electricity than the country needs, how do you plan on enforcing a nationwide rationing plan so that critical infrastructure has its needs met before the general public do? Will there be priority lists of who deserves electricity more during times of scarcity? Will this be challenged as an assault upon people's civil rights, and as a staunch class divide and offensive inequality in a supposedly free nation?

The degree of tunnel-vision with which you're approaching this discussion is ludicrous.

.

.

I laughed because it's fucking funny, kiddo. From your words themselves right down to the very format of your posts, I gave you a chance to present yourself, but it's clear at this point that you don't plan on considering the full context of a situation before you attempt to confront it. Instead you'll dissect everything into individual sentences, and then attack them individually, pretending all the while that your opponents are the ones who are leaving out details and neglecting to think from various angles. All this time you've basically created strawmen through omission, and with your latest post it's evident this isn't an anomaly; it's a pattern. This is your staple method of, uh, "arguing," so anything else I write about this will evaporate before it reaches your ears, just like the five posts which came before.

You use the word "concede" to insinuate not only that you're right, but that you were right all along, and I was just too daft to realize it. (noun: To acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit.) And if your definition of "winning" debates is being so deliberately dense that your opponents refuse to debate further on the principle that you're a vampire sucking away at their finite time on this earth, then yeah, good job, you've won. If "winning" means having the last word, regardless of whether you've said anything of significance or merit in the meantime, then congratulations. Anyway, I wonder how long the others in this thread will last too—that is if they haven't left already. It's hard to tell sometimes whether silence on the internet means "concession," or that a longer and more convoluted post is being written in retort.

Ciao, baby. Let me know when the world realizes how brilliant you are and I'll be the first in line to stroke your fur and purr into your ear about how incredible you are. Until then, please post your governors' responses when you mail this thread to them. I think we all want to see what they think of your profundities.

.

So, you're going to ignore all the mathemathical, scientific, and political rebuttals to your previous claims?

When you selectively ignore parts of my post at a time, so you can present your perfect little argument in sterile laboratory conditions unaffected by real-world dilemmas and obstacles?

You fucking bet.

.

About 40% of your posts in this thread. (8 guilty posts out of 21 total; went back and counted.)

The most recent offender being this one.

Dissecting a post into individual sentences and arguing with it one sentence at a time is a deliberate omission of context. If you didn't sincerely believe some of the tripe you're spewing in this thread then I'd accuse you of being a con artist, because frankly it's so blatant that I cannot believe you don't understand what you're doing or why it's considered poor form. Personally I think you were playing dumb precisely in the hopes that people would give up like I have (under the sophomoric notion, of course, that having the last word means your argument is better than theirs).

It's probably not a coincidence that the others have given up. I might actually be late to the lifeboat party after all, as everyone else has already abandoned this scuttled ship of a thread.

.

What about the other 7 posts?

I guess the high school social studies teacher who inspired this thread didn't teach you how "credibility" works, huh?

Anyway, another player said the exact same thing as I've been saying. You blew him off too, but he stated it more eloquently than me, so I defer to him:

The problem is that we have reached a juncture in which it has become extremely cheap to exploit the resources of the Earth while simultaneously leaving pollution in one's wake. These types of technologies would need to be scaled up to many nations in order to have an appreciable impact on the Earth's environment and population to effectively stave off any disaster/crisis. This leaves the plans much more vulnerable to the intricacies of global politics, budgeting, human rights, etc.

This paragraph, in a nutshell, explains why this entire thread is a delusion, a pipe-dream, and an all-around shitshow.

.

Why would I respond to the "other seven" posts (nice math BTW; 8+13=21) when:

1. You've already used the exact same slimy tactics on those people
2. They've already grown frustrated with your slimy tactics, and abandoned the discussion
3. They have nothing to do with my point at the time, which was that if I can only trust 60% of what you say on average, you don't deserve for your opponent to put actual effort into refuting you
4. Most of those posts addressed things I never cared to argue about (I never feigned at trying to dismantle your every point; only the most egregious of them)
5. You've not had the courtesy to respond to anyone else's arguments yourself as a singular, cohesive whole, unless their posts are extremely short and usually just one paragraph per

?

Are you pretending to be daft, or do you seriously have no idea how to follow a train of thought through more than two steps? In addition to your ideas to save the planet being unfit for the real world, you don't even know how a proper debate is realized. Simultaneously you manage to hold delusional opinions and argue them fallaciously.

Keep up the rhetorical questions to imply I don't know really simple things, though. At least the desperation is entertaining, if nothing else.

.