This type of argument can be used against pretty much any group that has ever existed, then either it's too broad and not a meaningful critique of the group itself or a critique of humans getting together in general.
Sorry, you've lost me here. Which part of my argument are referring to?
I'm not criticizing a group, btw. I'm criticizing ideas. Ideas have specific consequences. Some ideas inspire good actions. Some inspire bad actions that outweigh the good.
When an idea claims to have big consequences in the distant future, we can look at its consequences in the present day to help us guess the likely nature of those future consequences.
Oxford deals in ideas, and gets to decide which ones to host and fund. Sometimes they get it wrong, mistaking bad ideas for good ones. That's unfortunate, but it's nice when they come around to the right assessment eventually.
