Lotion Soronnar wrote...
1) CAN lead to bad consequences. But thing is - you know it. You know where the base is. Cerberus screwup can tehrefore be predicted and contained/solved rahter easily.
2) They don't disregard negative consequences as much as push forward despite them.
Also,everything has the potential to bite you in the ass.
So in the immediate aftermath of the reaper invasion or during the invasion itself, you in one case may not have the resources to deal with a problem and in the other may be somewhat busy, your assumption is dealing with a problem represents no problem.
Off course it does, something you don't seem to take into account because it may somewhat negate your base is key to victory argument.
I don't disregard anything.
Unless you missed it yourself, they are BOTH covered in choice 3, by your own words.
In fact, it is you who disregard everything but the two points above.
I alredy explained before why the danger isn't as great. Several time. I proven it in fact, that the potential benefits outstrip the potential negatives.
Practiciality and reason go out the window. Mistrust of Cerberus is the prime motivator here. Not logic.
While accepting that there is potential negative consequences you continually portray what could be the worst of those consequences as inconsequential, so your tacitly accepting but downplaying and disregarding them.
I don't disregard anything in fact if you read my entire post you'd have seen this, what i said was if you accept the first 2 parts as true, then because of the choice your forced to make, it informs that choice leading to destroying the base.
Which by definition would also mean the opposite.
Insults will get you nowhere. Good arguments will.
Arguments you don't have b.t.w. Which is why you turn to insults. A demonstration of your impotencein this debate and frustration.
Your the one who came on here with his tearing down arguments line, that somehow you alone were the bastion of logic and reason and anyone who disagreed with your opinion should "cry you a river and in fact that is all they can do".
So if i'm insulting you its because your own actions have warranted it.
Your say i don't have any arguments which is why i turned to insults and this is somehow a demonstration of my impotence and frustration in this debate.
I've argued consistently and logically with someone who's response to my or any argument that disagrees with him is to write a response and then claim that this response proves he was right.
When contradicted his response is, you have no arguments, i've torn down your arguments, but i'm the one frustrated, really, thats the best you can come up with.
You have no acceptance that your argument could be wrong or flawed, revert to practically sticking your fingers in your ears when questioned on why that is and then claim its others that are frustrated.
Modifié par alperez, 28 juillet 2011 - 11:48 .