> Kind of like when you accuse anyone pointing out the holes in your argument of being ignorant or apparently unconcerned by atrocities?
Yes! This is exactly the kind of behavior you did in your previous post. I'm glad you acknowledge it.
Of course, I did not do what you state here, since I wasn't actually responding to anyone nor were there any "holes in my argument" since I didn't even make an argument being refuted. (I entered this thread here far down the chain of the discussion, if you actually read it.) But it's cool to see that if I had done something like accusing people of such things without any substantive retorts, you'd agree your behavior was the same kind of dodge.
No, I wrote that, but it wasn't responding to anyone. I was making a general point that failing to consider counterfactuals regarding such technology is an error. You seem to think I was responding to someone who "pointed out holes" in an argument I made. You're imagining this entirely. It's a cool hallucination though, I wonder why you're having it. As best I can tell its utility rests entirely on it giving you an opening to accuse me of hypocrisy for pointing out your presumption of bad faith and malevolence in others. Look at how far you've managed to take us afield using it! Neato.
From the HN guidelines:
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Yes! This is exactly the kind of behavior you did in your previous post. I'm glad you acknowledge it.
Of course, I did not do what you state here, since I wasn't actually responding to anyone nor were there any "holes in my argument" since I didn't even make an argument being refuted. (I entered this thread here far down the chain of the discussion, if you actually read it.) But it's cool to see that if I had done something like accusing people of such things without any substantive retorts, you'd agree your behavior was the same kind of dodge.