Are you not doing the same thing that the author is doing? The author has a bias against blockchain, sees blockchain proponents making a poor argument, and that

Are you not doing the same thing that the author is doing? The author has a bias against blockchain, sees blockchain proponents making a poor argument, and that reinforces their bias against blockchains. You have a bias seemingly in favor of blockchains, you see a blockchain critic making a poor argument, and that reinforces your belief in blockchains. I think the linked post makes good points (e.g. git and blockchains are related but not broadly comparable) wrapped up in a lot of unnecessary opinion. Surely the rational approach is to just discount bad arguments, not to treat them as evidence to reinforce the opposite position.