4 ms·
You've misunderstood what "bad faith" means - it implies lies or dishonesty. What you are describing is just normal disagreement during negotiation. Their posi
by roenxi 1y ago
You've misunderstood what "bad faith" means - it implies lies or dishonesty. What you are describing is just normal disagreement during negotiation. Their position is very clear and there doesn't seem to be any accusations that they are pushing a hidden agenda. They're negotiating in good faith, but you might not like the position they've taken.
- willguest 1y agoI appreciate your optimism, however your position seems to point a willful blindness to the agenda that oil producing countries have maintained. What is hidden to one person may be apparent to another, and completely missed by a third. I absolutely think that their approach is disingenuous, though the line between this and dishonesty is not something I would claim to understand well. You may say that taking a position that is fundamentally self-interested is valid, but I would point out that, given the scale of the impact that arises from the attachment to this stance, good-faith negotiation must include some form of integration of information regarding the consequences of holding this position. At this point, where the negative impacts of plastic over-production, micro-scale pollution of biological systems and climate impacts of manufacture are so well documented, clinging to a "what about me" argument is tantamount to a child repeating the same question over and over in order to avoid listening to the response. So, yes, maybe not classically "bad-faith" but certainly a calculated strategy that prevents progress.