I guess you're right, while force can be used as an instrument to speed up the acceptance of an idea

Doesn't make that idea good, and if it was a good idea it's not the moment force is used

, it still is going to be negatively received.
That's exactly like saying that rape is going to be negatively received, glad you kinda, in a fucked up way believe that it's right, that force can be used as an instrument, as if force, or VIOLENCE, is an instrument.

This negative reception could, in time, give birth to a negative resistance negating the idea's initial acceptance speed.

Because forcing people is not needed for good ideas, and if you force them you're going to have a bunch of people that YOU ASSHOLE decided they needed to adapt this idea or else. Nobody wants to be told what to do, and especially not what is "a good idea", but you certainly make a good case for that exception, you'd be fine with people telling you that gangbang on your asshole is a good idea, regardless of how much you want to object.

So let's say force is bad because it has many variables that can't be accounted for when looking into the future.

Who's this WE you're implying in So let's say. Let's not fucking say is bad because it has many variables that can't be accounted for when looking into the future, as if that is even a reason for why force is bad, force is bad because you wouldn't have yourself be forced help then why would you FORCE HELP others? And if you do want to be forced gangbang, and expect that from people, doesn't mean that everyone likes people making such decisions on their behalf.

So you understand why force is wrong, always? Because in a world where everyone forced each other there would be no more reason for free will, and the only free will is of those that want to force other people, because nobody else would want to force other people since they wouldn't want to be forced in return. People like to get along, and agree to things, NOT TO BE FORCED, do you understand now why force is bad, always, unless you're defending yourself or others.

You say "I will come over with my friends and we will force you into gang rape because it's for your benefit, obviously we decided that, it will make you into a more better version of yourself." But what do we do with the people with disabilities and lower level of capabilities, some need help but will resist the help that is needed.

We weren't talking about "forcing" people with disabilities, which reffers to providing them assistance for help, which I doubt is against their will, and if you know it's against their will then you are wrong, leave people alone, not everyone wants to have decision over helping handed over to others. You want to be forced gangbanged because you don't see it as rape, if I claim it's for your benefit"

Yes, I must ask myself who am I to step in and stop nature's course. However, with that being said, I still have to think, who am I to stop natures course of putting me here with the ability to help and still choose not to.

Stop the rigamarole, we aren't talking about force here anymore. ok.
You have yet to give one real world example where an idea was helped because of force, and not in spite of it, and you keep evading to resolve the contradiction of others deciding on your behalf and forcing you to adapt or see good ideas, a contradiction which makes you either responsible over your own self, or others, and if this applies to everyone then who's responsible for anything.

Force is bad(depending on the moral compass), force is unproductive in the long run, and force is primitive..but to say that everyone is capable of making sound choices for themselves is irresponsible.

To say that you are more capable to chose for others, or to chose whats sound choice, is about as immoral, absurd and simply evil as it gets. You don't have that right, because you don't give me that right over you if you don't recognize the right you want over me to be helped against my will if I force my help onto you in the form of gangbang, but you don't also have that right because nobody agrees to be forced against their will, because once they agree to be "forced" they aren't forced, if they chose to stop agreeing and force stops, it was never forced to begin with, but if force doesn't stop and you scream no I don't want to be gangbanged and we don't stop then we have assaulted you because it was against your will, and only because it was against your will, and it is wrong.

What is one to do? Do I let nature run it's course and see if he is strong enough to survive or do I intervene because I think I am trying to help him?

Why are you still asking the obvious, the real question is do you know it will be force or rescue, and if you know it's force do you see how it's wrong to go against people's will?

How can you have such a sure stance on something that either way leaves people in such vulnerable positions? Is it the lesser of two evils to not make the choice to force what you consider help or is it the only choice that is not evil? Who are we to make a choice, but who are we to not make a choice?

What people to position themselves in is their choices, what people accidentally end up in even if it's a result of their choices it's not what they chose, it's an accident, you help people in accidents as you would want other's to help you in turn.

I wish we lived in a world where the best idea wins and the greatest ideas dominate, but what makes an idea great? Is it how many people you can successfully market to?

We do, do you think there's no reason that the founder of this platform is an anarchist, has built it on anarchist principles, that is why transparency is a good idea, you cannot force math on people any more than you can force transparency on people and expect that to be a good idea, it's a good idea because people have a choice, they recognize the idea as good, and chose the idea in it of itself. Can good ideas be censored, can good ideas be attacked, hardly! While a good can have it's definition changed to mean chaos and lawlessness, the idea still survives without force and in spite of force. While you can burn all the literature you cannot erase the idea in the minds of those that read it, and you cannot know who did that.

Good ideas are recognized by people, even stupid people will recognize a good idea, and forcing stupid people to use the idea isn't HELPING them, it's forcing them.

Who decides that the idea is the best idea?

Who is talking about "the best idea", we are talking about good ideas needing force.

As I type this I realized that it is coming back full circle to force being the reason obsolete technologies and ideas are adopted. So maybe force is the root of all evil?

Maybe you should go back through this whole conversation and evaluate why you said that good ideas require force.