Lol, that horizontal line made me think that question was in his signature. I thought it was rather odd. Will update with response shortly.

EDIT: All right, I don't like either of the blog posts. They're both greatly generalizing and make statements that are accepted as truth without solid evidence. A few examples:

Ripard Teg : "To me, the interesting thing about the argument that un-docking serves as consent to PvP is that the people who make this argument invariably make it from a position of enormous strength."
This is incorrect. The element of EVE that first attracted me to it, and in fact got my paid subscription in the first 48 hours, was that I WAS vulnerable to everyone out there. You actually had to PLAY this game, not simply coast along with a set of pre-defined heuristics. There are plenty of players (and my friends) who also state that what drew them to the game were the stories of treachery, backstabbing, and cutthroat behavior sanctioned by a major game company, as you could find this in no other game. It is its uniqueness. (What percentage of new players think as I did is unknown, but you can't simply wave your hand and say none.)

James 315: "Despite the fact that wardecs have been repeatedly nerfed to make highsec safer..."
Actually, the most effective nerf to wardecing was a player-created initiative called DecShield that forced the Devs to actually rewrite how wardecs worked.

"The substance of Ripard's argument is that in the same way women shouldn't need to alter their clothing to avoid sexual assault, a miner shouldn't need to fit a tank to avoid being ganked."
Again, this is ignoring the final words that Ripard put out, which was simply: "This sort of thing happens every single day in EVE and most of us have just come to accept it -- and the cost it wreaks in player unsubs -- as part of the game. The question that started the philosophical debate: should we? I still don't know." Ripard sought to ask a question, not make a conclusion. At least not in that post.

If I had to decide on writing styles and flow of logic, then, I would go with Ripard, as I think James is missing the point. However, as I believe you're asking more if I agree or disagree with James' response to Ripard, I will have to say I agree a lot with James' mindset. When I first moved into my own wormhole, I set up a small tower with as many defenses as it could afford, and spent the time imagining fleets of battleship behind every moon. I loaded the system with scan alts, did what I could to make sure I harvested gas in peace (in my ignorance, simply not opening connections), and used my diplomacy skills to build relationships with like-minded or more powerful groups. I did not cry any time I was blown up, whether by ill fortune or my own stupidity. And now I'm at the lead of a well-established wormhole alliance. I like to tell myself there's a connection.

It ultimately comes down to precedent and how CCP intends for their game to be defined. If it IS truly as an open-ended sandbox, one that promotes both villainy and heroism (or at least common sense), then we need to put in enablers for both types of people. Recent boosts to Destroyers allowed griefers to hit harder with cheaper ships. The recent suspect flags and kill rights, in turn, allowed those griefers to be hunted then or later, perhaps by other people. I am not going to address if the present power struggle is perfectly balanced, just that CCP is attempting to address both sides. As they should.

TL;DR: +1 Ripard for use of logic and writing ability, +1 James for similarity with personal opinions.

Can you rephrase the question in such a way that it does not have such an obvious yes/no response?