I mean to say that you were concerned or at least wondered if he endorses what he is seeing or not. I felt the need to comment because I usually ran into people thinking i supported a stance just because i was able to characterize it. It’s a typical reaction. I prefer to keep in mind that we don’t know his stance. He might be pessimistic and or frustrated with the issue. Alternatively he could be an idiot who enjoys the bad situation. It would be somewhat idiotic if he has no moral qualms because he would benefit more by not drawing attention into the root cause of the issue.
He doesn’t need to come up with a comprehensive solution. I imagine he could have confidence in his perspective but not so much about how to resolve it. He characterized the situation in a way that seems callous but aligned with reality. You don’t have to cover all the basis when commenting.
If you agree with the characterization you can debate potential solutions. Seems more productive than doubting the stance the person who is bringing a potentially useful perspective. Generally it’s necessary to have a good grasp on reality when trying to solve an issue. Id rather see it as the first step towards a solution.
Would you be in favor of mandatory explosive implants in the brain that can only be activated by police? Consider all the crimes that could be stopped dead on their tracks.
They weren’t telling people not ti wear masks they were telling people that they didn’t need to wear them and had no effect. He made groundless statements because they wanted to ensure there was enough supply for healthcare workers. Then they started saying that they actually work and we must wear them.
Personally I do think they can help. But the government has been consistently dishonest. It’s not difficult to see how people won’t believe a known liar.
I am not the person you’re responding to but if you know history you can see why everything else has failed and can’t be an improvement over capitalism. It would show a lot of good faith if you actually made a history backed argument instead of vaguely alluding to the existence of an argument.
It’s pretty clear you are not part of the industry. Your preference for trade like titles shows you don’t have real world experience in this industry and are just sharing opinions based on your political beliefs with no real basis on reality.
And if you really are in the industry it’s difficult to believe that you failed to realize that 95%+ are not tradesmen and have profesional degrees in software engineering or something similar.
Did you mean software engineers? A professional degree is not required but it is mostly software engineers taking the positions. The job title is also software engineer.
Because it’s been hyped. They had announced it could pass the medical licensing exam with good scores. The belief that it can replace a doctor has already been put forward
I guess you have a point in that you can do worse than a homophobic slur and get away with it. It’s like job discrimination laws, you can still discriminate ugly people which is just as bad as discrimination of a protected class.
I don’t have a good answer, if it’s any consolation they can be just as vile or more so long as they don’t use homophobic slurs.
I am content with showing to others how well meaning but shortsighted (due to arrogance or incompetence) policies like what you propose are extremely dangerous
Edit : and to be clear I didn’t “pick apart your words” that is a very lazy way to dismiss an argument without confronting it. It’s similar to how you advocate for a policy but dismiss the potential negative effects. it’s delusional.
Ok so in your views the consequences of appeasement are hypothetical. And we should continuously consider what needs to be changed and empower those who commit violence to effect more changes to suit their beliefs.
In reality the consequences can be more severe than whatever you sought to prevent
I mean to say that you were concerned or at least wondered if he endorses what he is seeing or not. I felt the need to comment because I usually ran into people thinking i supported a stance just because i was able to characterize it. It’s a typical reaction. I prefer to keep in mind that we don’t know his stance. He might be pessimistic and or frustrated with the issue. Alternatively he could be an idiot who enjoys the bad situation. It would be somewhat idiotic if he has no moral qualms because he would benefit more by not drawing attention into the root cause of the issue.