Enough already. You may not like my “solutions” (though I am just exploring options, not proposing anything more specific than a bunch of secularist scientists beating feet). Your suggestions that I was (and you did call me) like Dr. Megele, was an attack on me, not so much on my thought process. You may argue all you want re: the definition of ad hominem, but please don’t try to deny that that was a pretty direct attack on me. Remember, you did this in a public forum, so there are witnesses!
If you don’t like the ideas I have discussed, then give alternatives that are more to your liking and/or refute mine on scientific grounds, not emotional vindictiveness. The suggestion that I made re: sterilization was to point out to psiconoclast that it might be necessary in order to achieve his stated goal, which I characterized as a “soft landing” outcome. I am not the first person in recent years to point this out as a possibly necessary evil, if indeed it is “evil” in the religious sense.
If this is a rational group of people, discussing serious problems (which my position has been that they will be made more complicated and severe by religion) and not prone to blind moralization, then it seems to me we don’t need to resort to the sort of arguments that you present.
I don’t suppose that it has occured to you that you have offered many opinions throughout this discussion board and supported some of them with very weak arguments - never any real science, just your take on history - but most have gone without any backup. You have a history of trying to argue down your “opponent” who happens to be anyone you take a shot at, or happens to question something you’ve stated. Then in the few cases where someone has put forth solid, or at least the best scientific arguments of the time, you try to sidetrack the argument with non-sequiters. But you never take up the challenge to do some deep investigation and refute on scientific grounds the claims that others have made.
When you stick to politics you fare better. I suspect that is just because politics is such an intellectually corrupt environment today. It is owned by pundits (on both the left and the right) who don’t get paid for presenting the world as it is, but only as their employers would like it to be.
I suggest you stick to the political arguments where you can liken your opponent to Megele, Hitler, Pol Pot, or whoever you think captures your “feelings” about the opponent. And they can do the same. If you want to talk science, please adopt a less vindictive approach.