I tell you that I have done the computation, and that the utility of hearing,
discussing, and allowing discussion of the banned topic are all negative.
Furthermore, they are negative by enough orders of magnitude that I
believe anyone who concludes otherwise must be either missing a
piece of information vital to the computation, or have made an error
in their reasoning. They remain negative even if one of the probability
or the effect-if-not-dangerous is set to zero.
You sum doesn’t seem like useful evidence. You can’t cite your sources, because that information is self-censored. Since you can’t support your argument, I am not sure why you are bothering to post it. People are supposed to think you conclusions are true—because Jim said so? Pah! Support your assertions, or drop them.
You sum doesn’t seem like useful evidence. You can’t cite your sources, because that information is self-censored. Since you can’t support your argument, I am not sure why you are bothering to post it. People are supposed to think you conclusions are true—because Jim said so? Pah! Support your assertions, or drop them.