I do not think his defense can be made with pure logic. The leap from "I am trying to understand how to live my life" to "I owe these detractors no duty of explanation" and, more generally paraphrasing, "they are wrong to detract from me," is not a straight forward logical one.

Many accept the idea that what you do in isolation, without interacting with others, is your own business, but what you do with others is a public concern. I think that might be where he is coming from. However, he chooses to draw the line very sharply, saying "my private thoughts are 100% my own, and nobody can ever touch them" and "my business is 100% a public business, and completely unrelated to my private thoughts." If this was the case, his detractors are obliged to target his business for their complaints, and leave his personal thoughts alone.

If you agree with his assertion about where the line between public and private is drawn and how perfectly sharp it should be, then his argument is a reasonable one, even if he is causing other grave problems. The detractors, by that logic, should be focused on enc-cysting his private business, or exiling it so that he can do no more damage as he continues to bumble along trying to learn to live life. If you disagree, and believe that either the line between public and private is muddier than he makes it seem, or if you believe the line should be drawn elsewhere, his argument becomes extremely suspect very quickly.

I do not think his defense can be made with pure logic. The leap from "I am trying to understand how to live my life" to "I owe these detractors no duty of explanation" and, more generally paraphrasing, "they are wrong to detract from me," is not a straight forward logical one.

Many accept the idea that what you do in isolation, without interacting with others, is your own business, but what you do with others is a public concern. I think that might be where he is coming from. However, he chooses to draw the line very sharply, saying "my private thoughts are 100% my own, and nobody can ever touch them" and "my business is 100% a public business, and completely unrelated to my private thoughts." If this was the case, his detractors are obliged to target his business for their complaints, and leave his personal thoughts alone.

If you agree with his assertion about where the line between public and private is drawn and how perfectly sharp it should be, then his argument is a reasonable one, even if he is causing other grave problems. The detractors, by that logic, should be focused on encysting his private business, or exiling it so that he can do no more damage as he continues to bumble along trying to learn to live life. If you disagree, and believe that either the line between public and private is muddier than he makes it seem, or if you believe the line should be drawn elsewhere, his argument becomes extremely suspect very quickly.

I do not think his defense can be made with pure logic. The leap from "I am trying to understand how to live my life" to "I owe these detractors no duty of explanation" and, more generally paraphrasing, "they are wrong to detract from me," is not a straight forward logical one.

Many accept the idea that what you do in isolation, without interacting with others, is your own business, but what you do with others is a public concern. I think that might be where he is coming from. However, he chooses to draw the line very sharply, saying "my private thoughts are 100% my own, and nobody can ever touch them" and "my business is 100% a public business, and completely unrelated to my private thoughts." If this was the case, his detractors are obliged to target his business for their complaints, and leave his personal thoughts alone.

If you agree with his assertion about where the line between public and private is drawn and how perfectly sharp it should be, then his argument is a reasonable one, even if he is causing other grave problems. The detractors, by that logic, should be focused on enc-cysting his public business, or exiling it so that he can do no more damage as he continues to bumble along trying to learn to live life. If you disagree, and believe that either the line between public and private is muddier than he makes it seem, or if you believe the line should be drawn elsewhere, his argument becomes extremely suspect very quickly.

I do not think his defense can be made with pure logic. The leap from "I am trying to understand how to live my life" to "I owe these detractors no duty of explanation" and, more generally paraphrasing, "they are wrong to detract from me," is not a straight forward logical one.

Many accept the idea that what you do in isolation, without interacting with others, is your own business, but what you do with others is a public concern. I think that might be where he is coming from. However, he chooses to draw the line very sharply, saying "my private thoughts are 100% my own, and nobody can ever touch them" and "my business is 100% a public business, and completely unrelated to my private thoughts." If this was the case, his detractors are obliged to target his business for their complaints, and leave his personal thoughts alone.

If you agree with his assertion about where the line between public and private is drawn and how perfectly sharp it should be, then his argument is a reasonable one, even if he is causing other grave problems. The detractors, by that logic, should be focused on enc-cysting his private business, or exiling it so that he can do no more damage as he continues to bumble along trying to learn to live life. If you disagree, and believe that either the line between public and private is muddier than he makes it seem, or if you believe the line should be drawn elsewhere, his argument becomes extremely suspect very quickly.