It's a virtue when there is validity to both sides.

But it's extremely harmful when there isn't.

"Alice says murder is bad, while Bob says murder is a fun and healthy recreational activity. Trying to see validity in each point of view is a virtue, not a vice." See, it doesn't work.

The point is you need to TRY in order to have a chance of finding validity. No one is talking about murder here, which a pretty trite counterexample.

In the case of Apple and OpenAI, since that's actually what we're talking about: why is it wrong to suggest that there may be validity to each other's points of view, especially given that we don't have all the facts?