Earlier quoted context omitted.
> to have such a hard time understanding this view. If I were a fiction writer, I could write a dozen different reasons as for what the problem is. But the issue is, that although I could definitely make up reasons, in my fiction book, as for why this is an issue, it tells me nothing about how this actually applies to the Rust community. If you actually make the argument yourself, then it allows people to understand…
> > to have such a hard time understanding this view. > If I were a fiction writer, I could write a dozen different reasons as for what the problem is. But the issue is, that although I could definitely make up reasons, in my fiction book, as for why this is an issue, it tells me nothing about how this actually applies to the Rust community. You're still not getting it: It's NOT A MATTER OF "applies". It's a question…
Principles could apply to a given community in different ways. One principle in one context, could be more important than others. Thus, the person explaining their position out, even further, is useful.
For example, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", is very important for law, because it involves locking people up.
But it is likely much less important, for determining if your friend lied to you about why they didn't want to go to dinner yesterday. The only consequence of this, is maybe you'll be a little bit annoyed at your friend.
Or take the principle of "free speech", which people talk about as a principle, and not just a law, all the time. Free speech is a principle, but it is still more important when it relates to the government, than to private individuals and what individuals allow to be said in their houses.
Thats why bringing up the principle, as it relates to the rust community, is important for a knowledgeable person to do.
> He already made his argument in full.
If someone is making, this pretty.... shall we say... specific argument which is straight up "There are no negative consequences at all to this, but I don't care", it is important to be more clear about it.
The reason, is because that is an opinion, that many people would normally only accuse someone of having, as a straight up attack. As in, People attack someone, by claiming that this is their position.
And because someone in good faith, might not want to attack someone, unjustly, it is important for the person making the original argument, to be even more clear, than normal.
I would be extremely hesitant to accuse someone of holding that position, unless they say, multiple times, that they simply do not care about any negative consequences, in the most forceful, and extreme way, because if I mistakenly, accidently accuse someone of holding this position, they might think I am unjustly attacking their position.
> it is an argument.
It is an argument, for which many people would get upset if I claimed that this is what they are arguing. And part of acting in good faith, is not accusing someone, of very extreme opinions, unless they are even more clear, than normal.
Instead, before accusing someone of holding that position, I would leave open the possibility that there are some other, unstated arguments, that they could actually mean.
Holding open the possibility, that someone could mean many different things, as opposed to the most extreme position, is a good thing to do, so that one does not jump to accusatory conclusions.