by “agenda pushing” do you mean those who have an agenda to have breathable air? because that seems like an entirely reasonable agenda to me.
For my part I am prepared to accept that XAI might attempt to flout regulations. If I knew more about their operating practices I might even expect it. Even in that case I would not expect it to be the case that you could assume that they had done in any individual case.
While this isn't criminal law, the principle that underlies innocent until proven guilty still applies. I don't think it's acceptable do condemn people because you are assuming that they are doing the kind of thing you expect them to do. I think it is still incumbent upon accusers to make their case and for that accusation to be robustly challenged. Not just by people who stand something to gain by one outcome over another, but by people who want to find out the truth.
I tend to challenge ideas that support my viewpoint more than oppose, I find it incredibly irritating to encounter a flawed argument concluding something I agree with. Somewhat annoyingly it seems to cause people to assume I believe the opposite to what I actually believe, because there seems to be a presumption that you should accept all arguments in favour of your viewpoint no matter how bad they are. Apparently I'm not the right sort of team player.
>by “agenda pushing” do you mean those who have an agenda to have breathable air? because that seems like an entirely reasonable agenda to me.
I don't see how you could in good faith reach that conclusion from reading the comment above. It seems to me to be talking about the agenda of people expressing concern for others. That's the "Think of the children" kind of argument. Invoking disadvantaged groups in this manner very rarely expresses the agenda of the groups in question, it is usually made by people claiming that there own agenda is in the interests of the group indicated, frequently without input from that group. I don't know it that is an accurate claim to make in this instance or not, but it is certainly not characterising having the ability to breath as an agenda.
That immediately caused us to think "What's your agenda".
Another commenter wrote a rebuke - we're waiting for your response.
If anything my agenda here is to suggest to people that they should not imagine the opinions that exist in other people's minds and to respond to what they say and do.
If you must know my political leaning, It would be a non-relativistic form of far left. By non-relativistic I mean based upon a principle that is fixed cannot change. That principle is compassion. To some this makes me right wing because I reject demonisation of the wealthy, I defend radicalised people from abuse, I criticize the use of violent imagery like the guillotine by people who consider themselves Left wing. In simple political compass terms I am a left liberal. I don't feel that captures the sentiment exactly.
George Orwell once reflected on the term fascist, since due to his writing he was often called upon as an arbitor to categorize instances. Essentially concluding that the term had largely lost meaning due to people applying it to whatever they didn't like. He is often quoted with the same complaint that people have to this day. However most quotes do not place it fully in context. He wrote: "...almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come". I think there is a critical point here. My left wing principle of compassion goes against the principles of many self identifying left wing people of bullying those who's opinions they disagree with. That's not a progressive stance, it is taking the ground newly won by progressives as the new normal. In time they will come to fight the progressives as they remain stationary and the progressives, ...well, progress
It was bought up here because it seemed like the post I was replying to was contesting the reasons for making a point rather than the point it was making.
>Folks who cause harm should be punished not excused.
In this instance I think the issue is not think that was suggested otherwise. The issue was more of Are the claims true, Does it have the impact stated, and who caused them.
Personally I do not want those who cause harm to be punished. I want them to not cause harm. Seeking vengeance on harm already done is unlikely to lead to an understanding of why their actions were harmful. It motivates them to not get caught in future, I would much rather they not want to harm.
