People in the west, right now, are going to jail for expressing oppinions. Right now those oppinions are universally seen as bad (e.g. rascism) but does that justify going to jail?
>boycott one probably isn't so far but who cares? If people band together to boycott someone they view as unethical that doesn't seem wrong to me.
You don't find it bad that a bunch of people, based on their own non-objective oppinion get to ruin someones business and/or career? I feel like I'm talking to a Hitler youth right now. If the person is behaving objectively unethically, that's one thing but this is not at all settled.
>Or we're dangerous in large numbers huh?
Yes, when you become a voting block and start outlawing thought, as is already happening. It's distasteful thought at the moment, but this entire discussion shows that things that are potentially great can be targetted.
>Usually the idea that provokes this kind of response is an idea which involves hurting some one or some group.
Not in the case of life extention. The objections are based on people assuming the worst possible case there but the evidence I see suggests the opposite.
>The idea that I can work towards something which hurts a lot of people and not be criticized for it?
Which is not what we're talking about. Only in your own mind. But here is the issue again, as soon as you decide, on your own, that something is "harmful" for however you decide that, now you get to do whatever you want.
>Maybe the someone else is convinced, maybe not, that's called a conversation.
When is shut down when you start off by claiming anyone who believes what you saying is unethical. Do people not understand how to think anymore?