The problem isn’t opposition. It’s spreading misinformation, framing critics as luddites, refusing to acknowledge their misunderstandings about the relevant technologies and how they impact others. There’s no “two sides” to it when one of the sides thinks 2 + 2 is 5.
Sure, but that means everyone who disagrees on that point is arguing in bad faith, which is not possible. People argue what they think is right, and change their minds over time. Everyone was wrong about something at one point.
Just because they have faulty logic doesnt make them bad faith. You have faulty logic in this case, should I assume you are bad faith?
This attitude of “only one side follows facts and it just happens to be mine” is so amnesic, you never were always on the right side.
that means everyone who disagrees on that point is arguing in bad faith
It doesn’t, that’s not my point. Bad faith implies they’re lying despite knowing better, which isn’t what I described. I never claimed bad faith, I said they’re factually wrong in this instance, and that their discourse is harmful regardless of their beliefs.
Just as not all anti-vaxers argue in bad faith, but are wrong nonetheless. Like many other groups who honestly and earnestly defend(ed) everything from racial segregation to genocide. I’m not saying these groups and the harm they cause are equivalent—this should be obvious, but I’m saying it anyway.
Everyone was wrong about something at one point.
When one being wrong hurts innocent people, something has to be done. I expect folks in aforementioned groups to stop being wrong about those things at some point. Otherwise, it’s up to the rest of us to act to protect the victims, not the moral standing of the aggressors because they’re sincere.
This attitude of “only one side follows facts and it just happens to be mine” is so amnesic, you never were always on the right side.
That’s a gross misrepresentation of my position, which I hope is born of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the topic. I tried to clear up any misunderstandings. If you don’t think they’re wrong or causing harm, I’m willing to have a conversation about this to explain it, if you want.
You mean people took opposing sides on a topic on a debate forum? Color me surprised.
The problem isn’t opposition. It’s spreading misinformation, framing critics as luddites, refusing to acknowledge their misunderstandings about the relevant technologies and how they impact others. There’s no “two sides” to it when one of the sides thinks 2 + 2 is 5.
Sure, but that means everyone who disagrees on that point is arguing in bad faith, which is not possible. People argue what they think is right, and change their minds over time. Everyone was wrong about something at one point.
Just because they have faulty logic doesnt make them bad faith. You have faulty logic in this case, should I assume you are bad faith?
This attitude of “only one side follows facts and it just happens to be mine” is so amnesic, you never were always on the right side.
It doesn’t, that’s not my point. Bad faith implies they’re lying despite knowing better, which isn’t what I described. I never claimed bad faith, I said they’re factually wrong in this instance, and that their discourse is harmful regardless of their beliefs.
Just as not all anti-vaxers argue in bad faith, but are wrong nonetheless. Like many other groups who honestly and earnestly defend(ed) everything from racial segregation to genocide. I’m not saying these groups and the harm they cause are equivalent—this should be obvious, but I’m saying it anyway.
When one being wrong hurts innocent people, something has to be done. I expect folks in aforementioned groups to stop being wrong about those things at some point. Otherwise, it’s up to the rest of us to act to protect the victims, not the moral standing of the aggressors because they’re sincere.
That’s a gross misrepresentation of my position, which I hope is born of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the topic. I tried to clear up any misunderstandings. If you don’t think they’re wrong or causing harm, I’m willing to have a conversation about this to explain it, if you want.