So I’m right in concluding that you views on if the “what” is acceptable or not are driven by the “who” doing it.I'm focussing on the "who is doing the what" because of the repeated and sustained attempts to deflect from the "who is doing the what".
As a functioning adult, I disagree. As I pointed out yesterday, I can see a certain amount of logic in the “hair dryer up the nose” thinking (despite me disagreeing with it). I also pointed out that modern western society requires leaders and experts to take a “No, because…” rather than a traditional “Trust me, I’m better than you” approach when leading the public. That means it is essential for anyone refuting stupid ideas is able to convincingly articulate why it’s a stupid idea to a possibly sceptical and mistrusting audience.It surpasses belief that the "what" can become reasonable based on the "who" but that's the sum total of your argument. The "what" in this case was never reasonable, any more than Trump's 'injecting disinfectant' was. Any functioning adult knows that, regardless of whether they can explain why.
My 30 years of answering stupid questions from squaddies, matelots and crabs is the cause of my belief in the need for the “No, because…” approach, because they will happily rip you apart if you’re not on top of your brief.
But I do agree that the ”injecting bleach“ idea is a bit Daggenham (one stop beyond Barking).