| > I'm suggesting to not help people make their bad ideas more palatable when the more palatable version is still unacceptable. That's where we disagree, I guess. I feel like the more palatable version, in this case, is debatable. An important part of democracy is to recognise that others may have different opinions, and to be willing to engage in good faith. If the norm is to systematically lie, all you get is polarisation. And it is ironic to argue in favour of lying for your cause, but then to complain when the other side lies as well for theirs. > I gave you one in the other thread And I think it is debatable. But more generally, if your opinion is that you should lie and yell to defend your ideas, that your government does not represent the people at all to the point where they would prevent teenagers from contributing to FOSS (is that a thing somewhere?), then I wonder if you actually live in a functioning democracy. I mean no offence here. I mean, your argument is pretty much "We should remove all laws, because laws come from the government, and the government will abuse that capability. They will make schools illegal, and future generations should have the same opportunities we did". My point, again, is that in a functioning democracy, we should strive to debate in good faith. |