In case you weren't following the thread from the beginning, it started with voidhorse criticising Scott Aaronson for "defence of genocide" (and thereby making

In case you weren't following the thread from the beginning, it started with voidhorse criticising Scott Aaronson for "defence of genocide" (and thereby making an implicit claim of genocide): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44317728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44317728 On a forum like HN I think it's reasonable to be asked to justify strong claims that one makes. However, I wasn't even doing that. Rather, I was asking whether voidhorse thought false claims of genocide were equally bad as defence of genocide. It turns out the answer is no: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44320889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44320889. I disagree, but fair enough, other people think differently. So, I have what I originally asked for. I don't actually have any questions for you. I was only asking since I perceived you were trying to convince me of something. If you're not, that was just a misunderstanding on my part, and no need to continue the conversation. I'm not trying to persuade you of anything! That said, I'm happy to continue to participate in a process of reasoned discussion and inquiry if anyone wants to, but firstly it's going wildly off topic. and secondly I don't see the standards of discussion so far to as particularly high.