hahaha your post made me laugh for several reasons.
1. You tried to sound all clever and deep and meaningful, but did not pull it off.
2. You said earlier that you don't think there is any difference between implausible and alternate history, and seem to be sticking by it despite my ridiculous example regarding Finland. How about Italy building a space rocket to the moon? Mussolini decides that this would be a good idea and according to you "implausible alternative becomes a plausible reality through alternate decisions." Where do you draw the line? Travelling to the moon in '42, or Japan invading Norway? Both are ridiculous and would not or could not have happened - except when the AI is in control.
3. You think that primary school teachers are not adults, or do not think like them :rofl:
usually, when people start laughing its a sign of weakness. so you've pretty much shot yourself there in the foot.
to answer your questions
1. the intent was not to sound 'all clever and deep and meaningful', the intent was to put a logical point(s) into the argument and make my case as you clearly were against the point being made.
2. thats the point. as ridiculous as it sounds to you, whether it is plausible to you or not, identifying where the line is drawn is mutually objective, to a certain point. each person's line, each soceity's line is subjective. however, it does not mean that implausible situations, as ridiculous as it sounds to you, are not plausible. otherwise you limit your alternatives and limit yourself to what is plausible or not. only hindsight gives a person authority on what is plausible or not. whether its technically achievable or not, is another case. however, if you put your mind to it and if the will and neccissity is there, the implausable becomes an alternative. in response to your moon idea with mussolini; i have one better for you, fdr+truman et al= atom bomb, who during ww2 would have that that was plausible in developing such a destructive weapon before the end of the war? (rhetorical, dont answer) certainly not einstein. if you didnt understand that from my post, then that is your problem. and regarding the moon idea, it wasnt too long after ww2 that kennedy made the decision to send someone to the moon from the same ww2 generation. so your implausiblity, allowed the americans to send a man to the moon first.
3. from my own experience, teachers, in most cases, are limited in scope and awareness and are generally dumb. it all depends on the individual being taught and the teacher. if the individual is genuinely interested in learning and the teacher is genuinely interested in teaching, then it is the teacher's responsiblity to identify the pupil and enhance the pupil's knowledge, whether in military warfare or math, science etc. whether the teacher is able to enhance this ability or not is evident in our world today. generally, a world full of mediocrity is not classified as teachers succeeding in their jobs. unfortunately, today, teachers are expected to accomplish miracles with a generation of obsolute imbeciles who in most cases, do not go to school to learn, rather it is a compulsory duty. hence to answer your question, its subjective and it all depends on the teacher and pupil. sure, they're adults, in age.
this is probably the last i'll post in your way as you clearly wasted my time in replying
with my point. my reason of posting was to drive the message 'home' to you. "arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded". unfortunately for me, i'm classified with you in this as i have allowed myself to reply back to your obvious neglect of understanding what i've written in the context of the point being made in the original post. whether you understand it, interpret it wrongly, that would be your problem.
