I have mentioned before some of my favourite games to play with the gullible. One of the best is my tale of the reason the Romans built straight roads. It was because they hadn’t invented steering. We installed roundabouts everywhere to fox them and built winding, twisty roads they couldn’t negotiate, and that is why the Roman empire collapsed and why we have all those bendy roads and roundabouts today. All we had to do was run around a corner and they couldn’t get us.
It is complete and utter nonsense, of course. Why do people believe it? Because it is logical. The argument is utter bilge but it is internally consistent, that is, it does not contradict itself.
Even when I add in that the reason America doesn’t build roundabouts, and prefers straight roads, is that they were never invaded by the Romans. Obvious nonsense to anyone with even a meagre grasp of historical timelines but not many people have any more. It’s logical and consistent so I can get a drone to believe it every time.
I wonder, then, how the antismokers and anti-internet brigade, both of which are now championed by the Daily Mail, get the drones to believe this pile of crap.
If Farcebook addiction is genetic, and it’s the same genetics as smoking, and the Farcebook addicts are mostly women… why are the smokers mostly men? Surely, if it’s genetic and both occupations are run by the same genes, then there should be a strong correlation between smokers and Farcebookers. There would also be no presence of ASH on Farcebook because that is an addiction which is exactly the same, genetically and metabolically, as smoking.
But ASH are on Farcebook. The Dreadful Arnott is on there. How can this be?
The drones in the Mail comments don’t seem to have noticed the glaring inconsistency in this argument.
I wonder, now, just how ludicrous I can really make those drone games. If there’s no need for even internal consistency in my already Dada-esque lectures on ‘fact’, things could get very, very strange in the future.
What, no comments yet?
Maybe everyone has quit their internet habit addiction?
See, all we needed was re-educating!
Hello? Anybody here?
Just me, then…
Internet addiction? Ban It! Just think of the health costs and the ‘costs to society’. Can’t have these hopeless addicts wandering around ruining everything for us clean living, chosen, people. I don’t need the internet so I can’t see why anybody should.
Anybody have any idea what ‘costs to society’ means? (and can’t you tell I read the Mail every day)
Think of the cheeeldren!
It’s illegal to think about children.