Hacker News Reader

That's circular reasoning at best and conspiracy thinking at worst.

They don't want to consider the possibility of X -> if they're wrong about X it would be harmful.

Where's the cycle?

In your assumption that they don't want to consider that possibility. You take your own projection as a given and then continue to argue as though it is true.

1) That's not what circular logic is. Circular logic would be if I said "they don't want to consider it because it's harmful and it's harmful because they don't want to consider it."

2) You asked me why I thought people don't want to consider that possibility, so it's pretty dishonest to now say the premise on which my opinion is based has no basis. If you were arguing in good faith, that's what you would have started with, eg: "People aren't avoiding it" not "Why do you think they are avoiding it."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com