| ▲ | jorgeleo 7 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
No need to reconcile because one thing does not excuse the other. If I go complaining that you go around beating people up, and that is why I will go and beat you up, and at the end I claim that it is ok because I agree with hitting people is ok doesn't excuse my action. Also, stating the obvious (SA needs to get back to its roots) serves in this case as a straw man argument, the point was how bad an inexcusable was the editor behavior, not what the roots of SA should be. This article is closer to the son of the president in the "Don't look up" movie than anything else. It tries to push the previous editor to a square of just do scientific work... but there is a point, in defense of the editor, where people claiming that the earth is flat need to be push back. Objective truth needs to prevail regardless of how people feel about it politically, and it is ok, in my book, to defend that | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Levitz 7 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
But there is nothing about that. The point of the article is that SA can't sacrifice science to push propaganda. That's it. Like this point of yours: >but there is a point, in defense of the editor, where people claiming that the earth is flat need to be push back. Objective truth needs to prevail regardless of how people feel about it politically, and it is ok, in my book, to defend that Is true, for the article, not for the editor. That's his whole point. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||