So instead of a war, let’s look at a potential asteroid strike. It takes an enormously expensive project to deflect an asteroid which has absolutely no motive to hit the earth, and nothing to gain from it. It’s just there, and unless we funnel countless billions of dollars into stopping it, civilization is screwed. Would the project to stop it be pointless and futile? If not, what distinguishes it from the Voldemort scenario?
In any case, Voldemort almost certainly had motives for going to war (MoR Quirrelmort at least is very much not a “for the hell of it” sort of guy,) his motives are simply opaque.
I am trying to understand what you write, but the idea that it’s somehow more pointless to resist utility hits from people who’re acting for bad reasons than sensible ones doesn’t make sense to me, and I don’t see how anything you’ve said so far clarifies why that should be the case.
So instead of a war, let’s look at a potential asteroid strike.
I didn’t say that there weren’t good reasons for resisting the pointlessly-occurring phenomenon. I said only that it was pointless. Or are you now going to impose fundamental purposefulness and agency onto the very fabric of the cosmos? This gets exceedingly ridiculous. I have never once argued that your usage is invalid. Why do you insist on refusing to recognize mine, despite the legitimacy of the terms and the framing with which I have presented them demonstrating clearly that I was using a definition you were not?
This is what passes for reasoned discourse?
Revise your position.
but the idea that it’s somehow more pointless to resist utility hits
Oh bloody hell. I never said anything of the sort. Update your position, and stop tilting at windmills. This conversation has ceased, in the meantime, to be worthy of any investment by me.
So instead of a war, let’s look at a potential asteroid strike. It takes an enormously expensive project to deflect an asteroid which has absolutely no motive to hit the earth, and nothing to gain from it. It’s just there, and unless we funnel countless billions of dollars into stopping it, civilization is screwed. Would the project to stop it be pointless and futile? If not, what distinguishes it from the Voldemort scenario?
In any case, Voldemort almost certainly had motives for going to war (MoR Quirrelmort at least is very much not a “for the hell of it” sort of guy,) his motives are simply opaque.
I am trying to understand what you write, but the idea that it’s somehow more pointless to resist utility hits from people who’re acting for bad reasons than sensible ones doesn’t make sense to me, and I don’t see how anything you’ve said so far clarifies why that should be the case.
I didn’t say that there weren’t good reasons for resisting the pointlessly-occurring phenomenon. I said only that it was pointless. Or are you now going to impose fundamental purposefulness and agency onto the very fabric of the cosmos? This gets exceedingly ridiculous. I have never once argued that your usage is invalid. Why do you insist on refusing to recognize mine, despite the legitimacy of the terms and the framing with which I have presented them demonstrating clearly that I was using a definition you were not?
This is what passes for reasoned discourse?
Revise your position.
Oh bloody hell. I never said anything of the sort. Update your position, and stop tilting at windmills. This conversation has ceased, in the meantime, to be worthy of any investment by me.
It looks like the pair of you are having trouble communicating. Would you like to:
Taboo “pointless”, “futile” and “lose”,
Hug the query?