Not one of the downvotes. Just pointing out the flaw in your plan.
Trust me I am aware that everyone is a hypocrite. We are all liars and those that deny it the most just refuse to face it in themselves.
I will say it’s not authoritarian to point out the real and legitimate concerns and issues on this and hopefully guide people to not use such a detrimental patch for other issues and hopefully you can see the difference in the 2 or else you become a hypocrite as well. Its a fine line for sure between real and controlling and most miss the mark.
But the person that said they want this banned to protect poor countries is hilariously in your comment.
Downvotes are disabled on my instance. I don’t see any except for your comment.
“It’s not authoritarian to point out real and legitimate concerns” is correct, but I did not argue that point. What you have done is create a straw man, a weak argument which can easily be beaten and then defeated. You are claiming that I hold the straw man argument. I do not.
My argument is that defending the criticism of chat GPT (or religion) to validate one’s beliefs is hypocritical. These two things are different. Sorry but if you lack the rhetoric to debate this point then I have no interest in responding.
Not one of the downvotes. Just pointing out the flaw in your plan.
Trust me I am aware that everyone is a hypocrite. We are all liars and those that deny it the most just refuse to face it in themselves.
I will say it’s not authoritarian to point out the real and legitimate concerns and issues on this and hopefully guide people to not use such a detrimental patch for other issues and hopefully you can see the difference in the 2 or else you become a hypocrite as well. Its a fine line for sure between real and controlling and most miss the mark. But the person that said they want this banned to protect poor countries is hilariously in your comment.
Downvotes are disabled on my instance. I don’t see any except for your comment.
“It’s not authoritarian to point out real and legitimate concerns” is correct, but I did not argue that point. What you have done is create a straw man, a weak argument which can easily be beaten and then defeated. You are claiming that I hold the straw man argument. I do not.
My argument is that defending the criticism of chat GPT (or religion) to validate one’s beliefs is hypocritical. These two things are different. Sorry but if you lack the rhetoric to debate this point then I have no interest in responding.
Have a day