> Well, if our arguments are going to devolve into trite cliche then I might trot out: primum non nocere -- First, do no harm. Oh get over yourself. I used a “

> Well, if our arguments are going to devolve into trite cliche then I might trot out: primum non nocere -- First, do no harm. Oh get over yourself. I used a “trite cliche” as a way to give a general sense of the point I was trying to make before going into it more detail. Had I responded with only that, sure, that would be devolving the argument, but I didn’t. > It is not clear to me that this approach is free from potential harm. On the contrary, limiting people's access to participation seems like the kind of tool a wealthy elite would gladly wield against the poor and disenfranchised. I strongly doubt that it would primarily be used to protect the weak. That’s a strong argument and one that I’m inclined to agree with.