Paul Conti

But there's no good to something that's created as destructive.

When we look at forest fires, like, look, controlled burns.

You say, there's a forest burning down.

But that's, okay, there's some destruction there.

There's a tearing down there.

But it's in the service of the next fire not running through the community, the town that's on the other side of it.

That's very different than a forest fire, say, started by arson.

So you might say they're both a tearing down, they're a tearing down of the forest.

But one is in the service of goodness, even though it's hurting the animals and the plants, it's not all good, right?

But it's in the service of something, as opposed to something else that's wantonly destructive.

I think there's no good to the racial slur, there's no good to the arson, right?

That's destruction in a way that's incorporating, I think, the malice of envy, something that's really purely, if there's a yin and yang,

That's the destructive, that's the badness end.

That's the problem with it.

No, I agree completely.

The control of language, there are slippery slopes there.

I think there's a very big problem there.

So I agree.

I think...

Again, split parsing out the language.