Good. There are still people who are able to get the point and not stoop to personal attacks.
-
-
Were we sincere when we wrote the papers & genuinely believe men should be trained like dogs? No. Bad faith, then? OK. Are we sincere in saying the reasons we did this was because we care about knowledge production & consistent ethics? Yes. Bad faith? No.
-
Yes, you did a hoax with good intent. I agree. But it's steeped in falsified data, deceit, youtube yuks, etc. James says "Our motivations are irrelevant." Now show them to be so. Don't double down with a feeling of righteousness; refine your good message for 1 more audience.
-
You are missing the point. Our motivations are irrelevant to what the results show. They're not irrelevant to who we are and the ethical principles we are arguing for. This really shouldn't be difficult to understand.
-
I appreciate your feedback but I think we will continue arguing for what we think is important, defending our motivations if necessary and pointing out that they don't impact on the results anyway in precisely the way we think best.
-
Of course; that's all we all ever do. Still, VBW has a point that you might not be effecting the change you claim to want. They are the sort of folk you'd like to impact (admit it or not). You're failing to do so; they're telling you (indirectly) how to succeed. If u want it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.