So in other words: bad design is justified by the notion that people shouldn't make mistakes. Praise the lord you don't design anything that can burn, irradiate or cut people.
If you want to say that you disagree with the choice as it was originally made, I agree with that too. Meaning, I disagree with the design. At no time did I say that this or any design was “justified.” That’s your word, not mine. So I think you should stick to espousing your opinions, not disagreeing with things I didn’t say.
I’m very clear that I don’t like the design and don’t use the feature myself. But as I posted elsewhere, I just think that it’s not correct to say that Rails has a security vulnerability and especially that Rails is vulnerable by default. Both of these expressions carry the false connotation that all rails apps are vulnerable and that the fix for the vulnerability lies in patching Rails, when in actuality Rails has a questionable design problem, and every developer has the power in their own hands to secure their application.
My issue is entirely with the nomenclature, not with whether I like or dislike mass assignment.
However, even if it is not technically accurate, in the interest of getting the topic in front of as many Rails developers as possible, it's probably better to sweep that distinction under the rug and let them figure out for themselves whether it applies to them.
That said, I don't think what raganwald was saying was sophistry at all. Sophistry implies an attempt to deceive. He was just being pedantic and a little narrow with his definition of vulnerability.
So when you say his argument sophistry, and then follow up with "... and I'm not interested in playing the "try to be right on the Internet" game with you." you're just lashing out. So that's probably why people (not me) where downvoting without replying.
I'm not interested in playing the "try to be right on the Internet" game with you.
As I said elsewhere:
We probably agree that this feature should be taken out and shot, but are quibbling over which charge should be read off the indictment before giving the order to fire ;-)