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

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 15 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.