"I never claimed that things that are terrible, malicious, or misguided are not necessarily entirely bad. I just said things weren't black and white. You again here have tried to make them as such."
Actually, that's exactly what you claimed. That's exactly what it means to say they "weren't black and white", unless you have some other interpretation of that phrase.
"All of this to say, that it's extremely naive to assume you know what other people's intentions are. In psychology they would refer to that as a cognitive disortion of "mind reading".
In this situation it is not. In many situations, we can't be certain of other people's intentions. In this situation, we can be sure of either utter incompetence or malice because there is no other possibility. I don't need to be able to read minds to come to that conclusion.
For example, an electrician who magically happens to always make his customers buy more expensive things than they need for no reason can be easily shown to be either very incompetent (to the point that they would never would have been able to pass the tests required to become an electrician) or malicious, because they want to make more money.
"Your assumptions that every other person buying or trading crypto (which has been made incredibly easy to do lately), actually has in-depth knowledge to understand the evils of the system. People may be buying it to make money as you mentioned, but it may be that from their understanding, they believe the technology will be useful. If they're not overly tech savvy person, I don't think this makes this "willfully ignorant"."
I made no assumption. Like the witch doctor example I gave, the point is that I don't need to know what they do or don't know. If somebody says to you that they have a massively profitable scheme you can invest in, and you ask no questions about how that scheme works or how it makes its money - this is malice, not incompetence, because nobody who is merely incompetent would go out of their way to avoid being informed about how this scheme magically makes loads more money than any other scheme. This is a basic concept called Due Diligence, and most financial providers and indeed many other kinds of company can be legally punished for failing to do their due diligence. There are huge financial regulations for this exact concept.
This is no different for crypto. If you invest in something you don't understand, but didn't do your due diligence, you don't get to say later that you didn't know it was bad or evil or anything else when you never tried to find out first.
"But the fact that you can't seem to get past the above point is why I know we cannot reach an understanding. Almost all things can be categorized as systems, and systems are notoriously complex. Things exist on spectrums, not just binary scales."
No, not really. Some things exist on spectrums; it's actually the case that *you* are making the strawman argument here, by claiming everything is complex and difficult to define when in fact it's often pretty easy to define them. There are plenty of systems that can easily be shown to be good or bad with objective, provable facts. On the other hand, what you have done here - to suggest that we can't know anybody's mind and that every system must be complex - is the easiest, and most often used, argument to justify any bad system or any bad behaviour. You can justify absolutely anything with the logic you have used here (yes, really - anything at all).
