In the discussions about my latest blog post, I suggested that people who are concerned about the ethical issues about Google Glass, instead of simply eschewing the technology should engage with it.

If we want to shape the evolution, we need to engage now, and not after others have predominantly determined the course of the technology.

An interlocutor responded,

But this isn't the way to change it.

It's just following a misled crowd. It's mimicry at best. 

I suggested there, and suggest here that such a response is misguided at best and more likely, downright prejudiced. As the discussion continued, Godwin's law took effect, to which pointed out

Hitler's opposition to smoking in no way inhibits my own opposition to smoking.

To put this into a historical context, in the "Articles of Religion, As established by the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in Convention, on the twelfth day of September, in the Year of our Lord, 1801", one section talks "Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments".

The same applies to scientific endeavors. The beliefs, ethics, and methodologies of an investigator does not whether or not their conclusions are correct. For, as the old saying goes, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.