I’m ignoring them because aren’t good faith? I didn’t say “Jack Smith is literally in this situation”, I’m just pointing out how easy it is for armchair revolutionaries to snear from the sidelines when it’s not their necks on the line.
You are here presenting the situation as if it was a sudden development, rather than a known risk from the start. You are also presenting it as a definite certainty. Neither of these presentations are correct.
No, risk is a spectrum, like everything. The level of risk changes based on the situation. Jack found it to be an acceptable level of risk, the situation changed, the risk got higher, and it was no longer acceptable to him.
I was presenting a hypothetical situation where risk was the absolute maximum because I want people to use their heads and think about it, and maybe break out of the snearing circlejerk bubble for a second.
And you are sidestepping multiple responses highlighting the flaws in your presented argument
I’m ignoring them because aren’t good faith? I didn’t say “Jack Smith is literally in this situation”, I’m just pointing out how easy it is for armchair revolutionaries to snear from the sidelines when it’s not their necks on the line.
That you dislike an answer does not make it bad faith
I found yours, yours is just like gibberish.
No, risk is a spectrum, like everything. The level of risk changes based on the situation. Jack found it to be an acceptable level of risk, the situation changed, the risk got higher, and it was no longer acceptable to him.
I was presenting a hypothetical situation where risk was the absolute maximum because I want people to use their heads and think about it, and maybe break out of the snearing circlejerk bubble for a second.
Talk about bad faith lol