Sorry, but that’s not a quid pro quo. The calm downs and crosses are ad hominems directed at me, while the slavery and gang rapes are metaphors for a political system. Ordinarily, you would be the first to point that out.
What I said, I stand by. It is remarkable to me that there exists a political ethic that allows for the taking of resources from human beings, while forbidding the taking of resources from a distant rock.
No, because it’s incorrect. Telling you to “calm down” or “get off the cross” is not in fact an ad hominem argument: that is, it is in no way an attempt to substitute a criticism of you personally for a criticism of your position. I admit it was a little rude, but it wasn’t an ad hominem.
Then we have no room for reasoned discussion. If you can’t discuss my sincerely held political beliefs except in terms of comparisons to slavery and rape, then I see no reason why I should bother to discuss your sincerely held political beliefs in any other terms than irrational, antisocial fantasies of individualism run amok, and idolization of the concept of private property over the concept of human well-being.
And at that point, we are no longer “listening to each other”, and there’s no point in continuing any discussion on the topic. Goodbye.
No, because it’s incorrect. Telling you to “calm down” or “get off the cross” is not in fact an ad hominem argument: that is, it is in no way an attempt to substitute a criticism of you personally for a criticism of your position. I admit it was a little rude, but it wasn’t an ad hominem.
Then we have no room for reasoned discussion. If you can’t discuss my sincerely held political beliefs except in terms of comparisons to slavery and rape, then I see no reason why I should bother to discuss your sincerely held political beliefs in any other terms than irrational, antisocial fantasies of individualism run amok, and idolization of the concept of private property over the concept of human well-being.
And at that point, we are no longer “listening to each other”, and there’s no point in continuing any discussion on the topic. Goodbye.
You’re mistaken. They were comments directed “to the man”. Arguments don’t have amygdalas or martyr complexes.
But we came back to the beginning, see. I’m comparing the taking of resources from people to the taking of resources from rocks, as I did in my original post. No slavery. No gang rape. You’ve yet to respond to that original remark.
You said that already, unless you meant something unusual by “I’m going to sit out”.
I only just now read the article linked to in the OP :o . It seems to me that the author isn’t greviously worried about keeping the moon pristine so much as he regards extraterrestrial mining and industry as an extension of the resource-intensive industrial civilization here on Earth that he seems to disapprove of.
I should have used that darn wink smiley. 
Heck, I once proposed using a network of lasers to draw a corporate logo on the new moon. I figure Pepsi’d pay big bucks for it.
Why is it so remarkable? As you pointed out, it’s just a temporary condition. When it’s more feasible (or necessary), there will exist some legitimate mechanism for extracting lunar resources. Right now there are practical reasons not to allow mining up there, and they may presently outweigh the benefits of the opposite position.
As for the taking of resources from human beings, I’d argue that there are good practical reasons to sometimes allow that, as well, but I imagine you’d disagree.
There are no practical reasons to outlaw moon mining because there are no practical means to accomplish moon mining. There may or may not be good theoretical reasons for not allowing moon mining.
Did you ever do a thread about this? It’s kind of an interesting theoretical question as to if it could be done, and how much energy it would take. How wide would lines need to be to be seen by naked eye from earth. I would assume you would have to literally melt the lines into the surface, and as I wouldn’t want to spend the rest of eternity looking at the Pepsi logo, some means to erase it for a new logo to be put in place, like replacing a billboard.
Who will be first to exploit the cheese mines?
The Swiss.
Oh, right…they’ve got the knives for it.
The thing about a race to nationalize/privatize the moon, or anywhere else in space, is this: before you can get to the moon, you have to get into low Earth orbit*. If it ever became a matter of holding territory on the Moon by force or threat of force, it would quickly devolve into a battle to control near-Earth space. Any power that could enforce a monopoly on access to space would be the defacto sovereign of the rest of the solar system. It’s as if the nations with shoreline only on the Mediterranean such as Italy or Greece were in a race to colonize the western hemisphere: it would become a battle to control the strait of Gibraltar.
*OK, so if you wanna get technical, there is such a thing as “direct ascent” to a translunar trajectory, but that doesn’t alter the main argument
Don’t carve or melt, just project it optically, and sell the advertising by time. Pepsi, moonwide from 5:01 to 5:05PM, then Coke, followed by breaking news…
On the one hand, the thought of a Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon laser show projected on the actual moon itself is wonderfully compelling in theory. On the other hand, if this sort of thing were ever put into practice, and it turned out that your idea was responsible for it, I’m afraid that I would be forced to kill you. Several times, if possible.
Yes, but their knives will be confiscated by security before they’re allowed to board the spacecraft.