>you've been fairly hostile in this entire conversation
Fair. But I take offence at being told my ideas/thoughts are violating "consistently applied" (universal or wholly agreed upon) principles[0]. It's condescending and smug.
It's especially annoying when you can't seem to clearly articulate what that principle is, or why it trumps the principle that "we should do what is best for society and the economy" that I am putting forth.
[0] Technically, you're right. You didn't say "first principle" so I apologize for that. However, you did say "consistently applied principles" and the gist is pretty much the same (as in "it's a universally agreed upon truth").
Fair. But I take offence at being told my ideas/thoughts are violating "consistently applied" (universal or wholly agreed upon) principles[0]. It's condescending and smug.
It's especially annoying when you can't seem to clearly articulate what that principle is, or why it trumps the principle that "we should do what is best for society and the economy" that I am putting forth.
[0] Technically, you're right. You didn't say "first principle" so I apologize for that. However, you did say "consistently applied principles" and the gist is pretty much the same (as in "it's a universally agreed upon truth").