|
|
|
|
|
|
by calf
876 days ago
|
|
|
You're missing the point and context. Person above me says this analysis is quite telling, then points out the counterfactual historical hypothetical, which makes no sense. Yann thinks supersonic flight is not worthy of precautionary principle ethics in 1925? I'm saying the same thing--Yann's terrible, nonsense analogy is indeed poorly argued, but plausibly would make sense as a Freudian slip inconsistency of some sort. Ergo, "it is quite telling". As to what contents in his mind, or his motivations, I don't care to speculate. The fact that you make insinuations about what I think is pretty aggressive and terrible similarly, this forum ought to have better manners than that when writing replies to complete strangers. Not everyone who has a different opinion is some crypto conspiracy theorist, and you are wrong to jump to such a suggestion. |
|
|