Space warfare Scenerio: Jupiter system vs Ceres Belt

[GeneralVeers]

I'm not talking even little like them. The prerequisite for a violent response is for THEM to initiate violence

Wrong. You're the one initiating violence. Just convert to their religion, and there's no violence, and everything's fine. Shouldn't be such a big deal.

See? That's the problem. The other guy doesn't see it the same way you do. The zealots think your heretical beliefs will draw down the Wrath Of God. They think your atheism is a threat to their safety. They think the violence is your fault for refusing to convert.

Hmm... Yes, and those people who think that we shouldn't be allowed to dump mercury in drinking water without fear of prosecution? They're just a religious zealots looking to control the way we think!

Nailed that one on the head, bro. And I'm saying that with zero sarcasm.

Nothing to do with the fact that mercury is proven beyond reasonable doubt to cause neurological damage. And of course, they're completely analogous to genocidal Jovian jihadists (alliteration intended)

They're merely trying to save you from an eternity in hell. That makes them the good guys. In their minds, anyway.

[peadar1987]

Nailed that one on the head, bro. And I'm saying that with zero sarcasm.

They're merely trying to save you from an eternity in hell. That makes them the good guys. In their minds, anyway.

You really think that somebody who thinks mercury is wonderful, and should be in the drinking water for everybody, regardless of scientific evidence, is in any way comparable to a government official trying to stop them putting mercury in the water supply?!

[GeneralVeers]

Ummmmm......well, letsee.......did I SAY anything about "somebody who thinks mercury is wonderful, and should be in the drinking water for everybody"?

That's right! No, I did not! Congratulations, you just pulled a Tater (i.e. a "straw man" fallacy)

It was originally "those people who think that we should be allowed to dump mercury in drinking water without fear of prosecution". Amazing how easily that idea morphed into something else entirely, isn't it?

And my answer is this: next time you eat a BLT sandwich for lunch, keep in mind the sandwich was made of living things. A pig for the bacon, harmless plants for the lettuce and tomato. Every time you eat, you're killing something. Your computer? Your cell phone? All those fancy electronics you've got? The price of manufacturing those was a dose of various toxic byproducts (including mercury) into the environment. Boo hoo.

But here's the real kicker: obviously you can't believe I typed those things I typed in my previous post, right? Your tone in reply sounds quite incredulous. Well, guess what--I still typed them, and I wasn't being sarcastic, either. The thing you need to wrap your brain around in order to understand a religious zealot is that other people generally don't think the same way about things as you do.......

[tater]

Wrong. You're the one initiating violence. Just convert to their religion, and there's no violence, and everything's fine. Shouldn't be such a big deal.

See? That's the problem. The other guy doesn't see it the same way you do. The zealots think your heretical beliefs will draw down the Wrath Of God. They think your atheism is a threat to their safety. They think the violence is your fault for refusing to convert.

Nailed that one on the head, bro. And I'm saying that with zero sarcasm.

They're merely trying to save you from an eternity in hell. That makes them the good guys. In their minds, anyway.

There is no difference between them murdering to convert/subjugate than gray tanks and jackbooted troops marching into other countries to murder wrong religious beliefs. The solution is to expunge them, or their ideas, not to joint them. Europe could have just surrendered, and joined the Reich, right?

[GeneralVeers]

The solution is to expunge them, or their ideas, not to joint them.

Bingo. Just keep in mind, they think the same of you.

Also keep in mind, I haven't told you which side of the religion controversy I'm actually on, or whether or not I would actually approve of you going to war against/blowing up/expunging religious radicals......

[tater]

No, they don't, because I would not presume to do anything about it unless they started to murder first. If they don't convert "by the sword" and merely try to convince people with rhetoric, they can do as they wish. They have to demonstrate via actions that they are willing to destroy worlds, and otherwise use violence because their set of ideas is so bankrupt they cannot use reason. By going to "the sword" for the sake of what is basically a philosophical argument, they have demonstrated they are not rational, so argument won't ever work with them.

It's not the same at all.

It is in effect MAD. Do what you like, but if you attack in a way that is an existential crisis for our society, we respond as the US or CCCP would have responded to a nuclear first strike in the cold war.

[Rakaydos]

Well, this topic is getting far afield. lets get back on topic.

The Jovians decide to start by conquering their trojan asteroids. When they star building Laserstars (see other topic) people get nervous and buillding their own ships- when the laserstars are launched on a good Jupiter-SJL4 transfer, the L4 trojan miners request assistance from the belters.

How long will it take the jovian laser stars to reach L4, given reasonable TRL4 tech? With the same tech, what's the least time it would take any point in the belt to respond to help the trojans? What ships do you build to counter laserstars, with TLR4 tech?

[GeneralVeers]

It is in effect MAD.

Bad idea. MAD is ineffective in controlling a religious zealot who is already willing to die for a cause. If you threaten to kill him, he simply says "bring it, infidel".

The Jovians decide to start by conquering their trojan asteroids. When they star building Laserstars (see other topic) people get nervous and buillding their own ships- when the laserstars are launched on a good Jupiter-SJL4 transfer, the L4 trojan miners request assistance from the belters.

How long will it take the jovian laser stars to reach L4, given reasonable TRL4 tech? With the same tech, what's the least time it would take any point in the belt to respond to help the trojans? What ships do you build to counter laserstars, with TLR4 tech?

Hmm, so we move from general strategy to specific stuff. Given my experience in KSP, I would say the Cerians could actually get to the Trojans at L4 and L5 much sooner than the Jovians. The problem for the Jovians is that Jupiter is in the same orbit as the Trojans. Accelerating a ship from a point in an orbit to a point further along in the SAME orbit takes a surprising amount of delta-V. You can't just accelerate prograde, you have to nose down (i.e. towards the Sun) and cut inside Jupiter's orbit in order to reach a Trojan. Flying the other direction to reach the LaGrange point BEHIND Jupiter is even harder!

A prograde transfer from a Ceres asteroid to a Trojan would take a lot less fuel and time. If the Cerians had a base at approximately the right transfer point, of course.

[peadar1987]

Ummmmm......well, letsee.......did I SAY anything about "somebody who thinks mercury is wonderful, and should be in the drinking water for everybody"?

That's right! No, I did not! Congratulations, you just pulled a Tater (i.e. a "straw man" fallacy)

It was originally "those people who think that we should be allowed to dump mercury in drinking water without fear of prosecution". Amazing how easily that idea morphed into something else entirely, isn't it?

I would have thought it would be fairly obvious what we were talking about from context.

You said people who believe in AGW are religious whackjobs, and want to control the way everybody else thinks, with the implication being that this would be done through force, given that the context of the discussion is on "convert or die" extremists.

By way of analogy, I mentioned people who don't think people should be allowed to knowingly and willingly dump mercury in the drinking water supply.

You wholeheartedly agreed with my tongue-in-cheek statement that the people who don't think they should be allowed to do this are "religious zealots looking to control the way we think!"

You then accuse me of a strawman argument when I, completely reasonably, assume that you would see the people you have literally just described as religious zealots in the same way as a religious zealot on the opposing side of the debate (Our hypothetical mercury dumper).

You didn't say it explicitly, but we're not robots. Language is a nuanced thing, and if you insist on going off on strange tangents, people are going to have to infer what their relevance to the debate actually is.

And my answer is this: next time you eat a BLT sandwich for lunch, keep in mind the sandwich was made of living things. A pig for the bacon, harmless plants for the lettuce and tomato. Every time you eat, you're killing something. Your computer? Your cell phone? All those fancy electronics you've got? The price of manufacturing those was a dose of various toxic byproducts (including mercury) into the environment. Boo hoo.

And?

Because some environmental damage is unavoidable, environmental regulation shouldn't be a thing at all? People who argue that we should minimise our impact as much as is reasonably possible are basically Osama Green Ladin? I don't see your point here.

But here's the real kicker: obviously you can't believe I typed those things I typed in my previous post, right? Your tone in reply sounds quite incredulous. Well, guess what--I still typed them, and I wasn't being sarcastic, either. The thing you need to wrap your brain around in order to understand a religious zealot is that other people generally don't think the same way about things as you do.......

You'd think after spending so long on the internet I'd be less surprised by just how wrong people can be, but yes, I was incredulous that you think people who are against the wholesale dumping of heavy metals in the drinking water supply are some kind of religious extremists. You're reducing the term to mean "anybody who thinks that people should or shouldn't do something", i.e. to a level at which it loses all meaning.

[GeneralVeers]

You then accuse me of a strawman argument when I, completely reasonably, assume that you would see the people you have literally just described as religious zealots in the same way as a religious zealot on the opposing side of the debate (Our hypothetical mercury dumper).

That's not what drew the "straw man" accusation. You morphed from "WedgeAntilles says environmental regulations should be scrapped" to "WedgeAntilles says mercury in the water supply is awesome". Those may sound similar, but they're very very different.

Side note: I have never once told you what my positions on environmental regulations or mercury in the water supply actually are. Yes, I said that people opposed to mercury in the water supply are zealots trying to control the way you think. I never said whether I consider that a good thing, or a bad thing......

Because some environmental damage is unavoidable, environmental regulation shouldn't be a thing at all?

I'm going to leave my personal opinion out of it, and just say this: there are people who say the above. They say the above does damage to their well-being because it hoses jobs and wastes money. There really are people in the world who say this, publicly. Yes, a lot of them are CEO's of companies.

There are people who say you shouldn't be allowed to own guns, because the mere presence of guns on your person is a threat, even if you never pull the trigger (your gun could be stolen or blah blah).

There are people who say you shouldn't be allowed to be a global warming skeptic. Said skeptic may consider said skepticism harmless because it's merely an idea, but the alarmists obviously don't see it that way.

See how similar the thought process is? Gun owners and global warming skeptics may never lift a finger to harm anyone around them, but their opponents won't see it that way.

An atheist may think he's completely harmless to those around him, but a religious zealot won't see it that way. The presence of non-believers will draw down the Wrath and cause a second Flooding of the World or cause a volcano to blow up Los Angeles or something. The simple act of not worshipping their god is, to them, a direct provocation that is justification for violence.

Zealotry of every kind is dangerous (though some kinds of zealotry are good!).

What ships do you build to counter laserstars, with TLR4 tech?

Unmanned drones that can turn and accelerate at a few dozen gravities should be able to dodge faster than a laser turret can track......

[peadar1987]

That's not what drew the "straw man" accusation. You morphed from "WedgeAntilles says environmental regulations should be scrapped" to "WedgeAntilles says mercury in the water supply is awesome". Those may sound similar, but they're very very different.

Side note: I have never once told you what my positions on environmental regulations or mercury in the water supply actually are. Yes, I said that people opposed to mercury in the water supply are zealots trying to control the way you think. I never said whether I consider that a good thing, or a bad thing......

And I never said that you did. Read my posts again. The mercury-dumper is hypothetical, (s)he was never meant to be you.

The purpose of the whole thing was to counter your implication that anybody who opposes anything is some sort of religious zealot.

Zealotry is defined as "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals".

Global warming is solid science, not religion (refer to the "understanding the Greenhouse effect" thread. It is your understanding of the underlying science that is flawed, not the science itself).

Neurological damage from mercury is solid science, not religion.

Drink-driving increasing the risk of fatal car accidents, solid science, not religion.

Smoking increasing the risk of cancer, solid science, not religion.

People who advocate investment in low-carbon energy and transport, people who argue for mercury emission limits, people who support drink-driving laws, and people who back banning cigarette sales to under-18s, these people are not necessarily zealots. Of course there are some people who are "fanatical and uncompromising" about these issues, but I think you'll find they are in the minority.

Remember, your original post said "Next time you hear somebody complain about, for example, global warming? That is a person who does say it's appropriate to convert you to their religion, to control what you do and think. Because (they claim) it directly impacts their safety. Take a look at how often that happens, and how easy it is to fall into that same trap."

The meaning of this couldn't be more clear. You are implying that the science of anthropogenic climate change is a religion, and that people who believe in it are dangerous zealots. My hypothetical mercury situation was deliberate hyperbole to highlight the flaws in your reasoning.

I'm going to leave my personal opinion out of it, and just say this: there are people who say the above. They say the above does damage to their well-being because it hoses jobs and wastes money. There really are people in the world who say this, publicly. Yes, a lot of them are CEO's of companies.

There are people who say you shouldn't be allowed to own guns, because the mere presence of guns on your person is a threat, even if you never pull the trigger (your gun could be stolen or blah blah).

There are people who say you shouldn't be allowed to be a global warming skeptic. Said skeptic may consider said skepticism harmless because it's merely an idea, but the alarmists obviously don't see it that way.

See how similar the thought process is? Gun owners and global warming skeptics may never lift a finger to harm anyone around them, but their opponents won't see it that way.

An atheist may think he's completely harmless to those around him, but a religious zealot won't see it that way. The presence of non-believers will draw down the Wrath and cause a second Flooding of the World or cause a volcano to blow up Los Angeles or something. The simple act of not worshipping their god is, to them, a direct provocation that is justification for violence.

Zealotry of every kind is dangerous (though some kinds of zealotry are good!).

There's a very clear difference between rational arguments based on solid evidence, and the ravings of religious lunatics (note that I am not implying all religious people are lunatics, but the genocidal ones introduced by the OP most certainly are).

When you start saying every belief is a religion, whether or not it is based on evidence, and that anybody who acts on any belief in a way that affects anyone else is morally equivalent to each other, all those words, start to lose meaning.

[Rakaydos]

Please take it to PMs, or at least spoilers, please?