I don't understand why someone having a different experience automatically invalidates mine. I can hear theirs and understand it. But if theirs says "there is no danger" and mine says there is - isn't the responsible thing to do to prepare for the possibility of there being danger?
Then why the pushback? Why the fighting over semantics? We don't know what we're dealing with. Not fully. It's irresponsible to ignore it, and it's suicidal to pretend that what we've faced so far hasn't faced a very real chance of dividing and killing us.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
[ he is, he's not just saying that. ]
no subject
I can hear theirs and understand it.
But if theirs says "there is no danger" and mine says there is - isn't the responsible thing to do to prepare for the possibility of there being danger?
no subject
[ to prepare for the possibility - but not to the certainty. ]
no subject
Why the fighting over semantics?
We don't know what we're dealing with. Not fully. It's irresponsible to ignore it, and it's suicidal to pretend that what we've faced so far hasn't faced a very real chance of dividing and killing us.
no subject
What do you want an explanation for? On what points I disagree with you, or on what points others seem to disagree, or why, in my view?
no subject
no subject
[ the world is not black and white. their safety, choices regarding the right thing to do - those are not black and white. ]
no subject