zapatos

Well I certainly hope you stick around this time as long as you did last time, to discuss the topic that you opened.

That's simply not true. There are several effective and well known ways to destroy eternal and immortal souls.

Unlike people who claim aliens are here, now, this is just a mental exercise of what could happen with a civilization millions of years more advanced than us. No one is making any specific claims; only playing a game of "Would They? Could They? Should They?" It is an attempt to have a discussion around the question "Where is everyone?"

Just because you CANNOT imagine something happening, that doesn't move it into the 'unsound' category. I think you are stuck in a 21st century technological mindset.

I saw a video that suggested you could do it with a mass the size of the earth. I can't do the math. I think you could also potentially do it by replacing the sun's core with iron to shut down fusion. That would be a neat party trick.

Primarily because we don't have a blind spot in our brains that disallows seeing this option. You probably should. This is not a discussion about ethics, morals, or guessing how aliens might view the universe they live in. It is a discussion about game theory.

I think at relativistic speeds that is not true. I think we are getting away from the concept of Dark Forest. It doesn't lay out the tactics of an attack, it only suggests that the strategy of eliminating your competitors is a sound idea.

Not everyone around here is an expert. If I think in terms of the dictionary definition I'm familiar with I may quote it to let you know why I am saying what I am saying. Choosing the most respectful interpretation of what someone says is a good option. Choosing to simply ask why they are giving a dictionary definition when you were expecting something more involved is another good option. You can also choose to take what they say as a personal affront, but I'm not so sure that is what I'd call a good option unless you value confrontation over discussion.

Don't play the martyr.

You've clearly decided there is no need for a review of your posting style despite the suggestion of several people. So be it. I anticipate you'll limit your own potential success here.

No, it's not. But go ahead and believe that if it helps you get through the day. You seem to have some trouble discerning who are and are not the trolls. You've been insulting some well respected posters. Perhaps allow discussions to progress longer to better understand what people mean and their posting style before using language that is best reserved for playgrounds.

You mean like calling them a "moron"? Your posting style is non-standard around here. Even the trolls are more polite.

Loved it!! Thanks for sharing! 😀

Sounds like the Prisoner's Dilemma. Attacking your opponents may not result in the best possible outcome, but it does ensure you are unlikely to suffer the worst possible outcome.

Yes, that is the point that both @Moontanman and I are making in our responses to @Markus Hanke. If you don't have FTL attack speed and it takes you at least 10,000 years to take a shot at your opponent you are putting yourself at risk.

From your link: There may be a hesitancy to act according to DF, but ultimately that seems the goal. Agreed. But without it the chances of being successful in eliminating another life form goes way down using the 10,000 LY example @Markus Hanke provided.

It's an argument against Dark Forest, which includes the concept of "wiping out all potential threats".

By firing the first shot you've compromised the advantage of the cover you are afforded by Dark Forest. If a military patrol suddenly loses a man to a sniper, they may not know where the sniper is but now they know he is out there and intends to do them harm. Suddenly the hunter becomes the hunted. As you can never know the intent, complete location or capability of your potential opponent, or your own ability to eliminate with a first strike his potential threat to you, it may be best to just stay hidden until you know with relative certainty that you yourself are at risk.

Gee, do you think you could give me the name of a company that will allow me to take advantage of this fantastic opportunity?

Attacking them might also be a huge gamble. Your current knowledge of them is 10,000 years old. The fastest you can hope to attack them will take at least 10,000 years. As you are assuming they are a threat to "your" resources they have presumably spread beyond their star system. If you don't manage to annihilate enough of them on the first shot, the second shot may be directed at you.

There are reports about events. They go hand in hand. But since you are only talking about someone filing a report without images, radar, or any other evidence to support their claim that an event took place, I'll agree those are not often very useful. However, ridicule of a report from a reliable source is again a rather unscientific (and possibly reckless/unprofessional/immature) response.

I think we need to be careful not to make assumptions about how aliens would think and act. It may be just as likely that they'd hurl an asteroid at us to study how we'd respond to it. Then you've not been paying attention to what has been presented thus far. Events that are completely unexplained and highly unusual should not be dismissed and ridiculed. They should be studied and investigated. The US Air Force as an example would prefer not to have any of their jets bump into an object at 50,000 feet after dismissing some unexplained and unusual activity just because someone in the past created a hoax flying saucer.

When you don't understand it is best to ask questions rather than make assumptions.

Pride and Prejudice

The push back you are getting is because your wording implies the presence of a lab affects the probability of this event having occurred at the location it did. You wouldn't be getting the same reaction if you had simply stated that the presence of the lab near the origin of the virus is suspicious and should be investigated.