[catshirt]

the fact that i might disagree with it (never said i did by the way), would suggest that others might disagree with it, would suggest it is definitively controversial.

a lot of the country would argue that gun makers don't have too much an ethical concern when building guns. surely you have heard the phrase "guns don't kill people". and so how dare me try and apply that argument here on their behalf.

i think the easiest way to point out the controversy in the statement is that NO ONE HERE SEEMS TO BELIEVE IT? SO HOW IS IT A "FALSEHOOD PROGRAMMERS BELIEVE"?

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> the fact that i might disagree with it (never said i did by the way), would suggest that others might disagree with it, would suggest it is definitively controversial.

In other words, there are no non-controversial statements, as you can always find someone who disagrees and use them as supposed evidence that there are others who also disagree which thus makes every statement ever definitively controversial?

That doesn't sound like a useful definition of "controversial" to me, and certainly not like what people commonly understand it to mean.

> a lot of the country would argue that gun makers don't have too much an ethical concern when building guns. perhaps you have heard the phrase "guns don't kill people". and so i don't think it's crazy to reapply that argument here.

But that is a discussion about concern, not about impact. Whether gun makers are concerned about the impact of their actions does not have any influence whatsoever on whether or not their actions do in fact have an impact.

Mind you also that the same people who use "guns don't kill people" will usually point out that guns will be used for good, such as stopping criminals, which is explicitly an argument that uses the ethical impact of a gun maker's decision to justify their freedom to make and sell guns--so either they are in fact acknowledging that their decisions have an ethical impact.

> i think the easiest way to point out the controversy in the statement is that NO ONE HERE SEEMS TO BELIEVE IT? SO HOW IS IT A "FALSEHOOD PROGRAMMERS BELIEVE"?

Well, on the one hand, people can believe falsehoods simply because they haven't ever reflected on why they believe them, in which case there is possibly no controversy, but simply confusion.

But also, if I accept your implication that "falsehood believed by others" is maybe somewhat of a synonym for "controvery", is your complaint then that a list of falsehoods/controversies starts with ... a falsehood/controversy?

[catshirt]

thank you for a thoughtful response.

your first point regarding "no non-controversial statements" points out a flaw in my logic that i hope we can move past to my example.

i try to illustrate, that the graph of `ACTIONS <-> PEOPLE + TOOLS <-> MAKERS OF TOOLS` has been an obviously controversial one in the past as applied to weaponry, using guns as an example. so why should it not be equally controversial for any profession? the tool is variable.

which you answer with your last point: "guns don't kill people" and an admittance of ethical responsibility are not mutually exclusive. and maybe there has never been a controversy like i am suggesting. which is a great point and presses me to reiterate: where is this programmer who does not believe his job has ethical implications?

and IF IT IS a falsehood programmers believe: you think telling some number of programmers they are ethically insufficient could not possibly lead to a controversial discussion?