chat

Ah, right. I still don't know that I'd agree (at least to the point of absolutism), although I can see where you're coming from. I'm not saying I think you're inherently wrong, so much as that I think your stance is very extreme and inflexible to the point of being unreasonable. Suppose that one were to use a real example of history rhyming without outright repeating as a basis for informing a logical extrapolation pertaining to future events. Like, contrasting societal and political developments of 1930's Germany to contemporary America. Well, why then would it be less valid or useful to contrast FBI's early efforts with the Total Information Awareness program, let alone NSA's later efforts with Orwell's 1984 or Dick's A Scanner Darkly? Why would there be absolutely no value in arguing against the infinite distractions of the Bread and Butter Circus of modern entertainment supported by Huxley's A brave New World or rail against the value of seeking digital immorality for only those who can afford the price of admission by referencing Edding's The Bin or, hell, CP2077?

Edit: Uh, I am of couse just playing Devil's Advocate to your hard stance here. One could of course trivially come up with any number of much less justifiable examples, in which case(s) I'd obviously agree with you. I'm not arguing you cannot be right (and often will be), just that I don't think it's a universal truth that always applies.