I promote two separate concepts.
The first is a new form of government.
The second is a promotion for the use of the scientific method to validate ideas for new forms of government, mine as well as others.
I get people who want to “argue” with me.
This is my response.
I am fully aware of the challenges associated with conveying a new concept to people stuck in a box that only allows known concepts to be considered.
I am open to answering questions to further explain my new idea to people who ask, for the purpose of understanding better, what i am attempting to discuss.
However there is a clear and obvious difference between that sort of “query”, and one intended to argue against the concept being discussed.
These argumentative queries range between two general varieties,
Those that are based on a misunderstanding of the concept, which, may in turn be categorized, as willful or confused, misunderstanding.
The other is arguments based on an understanding of the concept, adequate to sustaining rational statements about the topic.
I will address the latter to start.
I have no interest in arguing about my proposal, with anyone for any reason. If you do not agree, fine, i accept that, and you are welcome to state your disagreement and reasoning for that disagreement, then see yourself to the door.
I have valid reasons for my attitude about arguments here, and if you do not understand what those reasons are, then you were NOT paying attention, and do NOT understand what i am doing and why.
Which brings me to the former.
If you are willfully misunderstanding my concept, then you are being intellectually dishonest, and I have no interest, nor can there be any value to me, to argue with a person, who is intentionally being dishonest in discourse.
If you are confused, that means you are ignorant. That is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. You do not know what I am talking about, you are confused about the subject and do not have knowledge enough of the topic to be unconfused, which is defined as being ignorant on a matter.
Arguing from ignorance has no value, to me or to the other party. It is senseless and wastes my time and theirs.
When an objection or query is posed to me, as the ORIGINATOR of this concept, it is usually absolutely apparent and transparent to me what sort of query i am presented with.
Objections are just as obvious, and are simply not welcome here, I have no value to be gained from objections.
I hope this has clarified my responses to various attempts to discuss my proposals.