I agree their treatment of the Uyghurs is deplorable but the way you had to chop that quote like a creationist undermines your point. It’s possible to say China has done both good and bad things, and recognizing the cost rather than denying something factual is probably a more effective.

▲

breve 3 days ago | parent [-]

You're rationalizing slavery. That kind of nihilistic apathy is never useful.

▲

acdha 3 days ago | parent [-]

Not in the slightest. I’m saying that it’s possible to recognize that evil without denying that something else is good. Just do both at the same time, like how we might say that the world has benefited from polyurethane, digital computers (Konrad Zuse), or rocketry without in any way excusing the Nazi government which controlled Germany at the time.

▲

breve 3 days ago | parent [-]

You are entirely rationalizing it.

▲

peterashford 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's assuming the worst possible interpretation of what they were saying. I think you should assume good faith

▲

breve 2 days ago | parent [-]

Slavery is being used to make solar panels. Claiming that is a net good is a rationalization of slavery. That's as good as the faith gets.

The ends don't justify the means.

▲

acdha 20 hours ago | parent [-]

At this point I am struggling to maintain the assumption of good faith. As I’ve said throughout, slavery is bad. That doesn’t change the fact that cheap solar panels are good and will save millions of lives. I have never said that the latter justifies the former, that’s something you invented.

I would suggest a more nuanced understanding that not everything fits into a binary good/bad mentality, especially when talking about decisions made by many people. Even individuals often have decidedly varied track records - Watson is in the news this week, and while his later racism and sexism don’t cancel out his scientific career, you have to know about both to understand how flawed people can still make large accomplishments (repeat for Shockley or Millikan, etc.). Recognizing the conflict helps you understand the whole situation, without detracting from your ability to say certain parts of the story are unambiguously bad.

	▲	breve 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> At this point I am struggling to maintain the assumption of good faith. You began your comments by calling me a creationist. You never had good faith to begin with. > I would suggest a more nuanced understanding There is nothing nuanced or subtle here. This is not complex. We're talking specifically about solar panels. Slave labour is being used to produce those solar panels. You're trying to make the case that's somehow a net good. That's ugly. Your position is not defensible. I doubt you read anything I linked to.

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]