@aegistoronto F 'em. People are total idiots when it comes to a lot of things: vaccines, climate change, dog training, all sorts of stuff where having an idealistic view clashes with practical realities. I've spent my career in science and engineering, and what the dog training folks call "science" to justify not ever using aversive methods would not pass muster in any field I've worked in. They are pretty much activists at this point, and their actions can be explained by the viewpoint that they believe dogs shouldn't be "forced" to do anything they don't want to do. Well I race Greyhounds, so sorry, I don't think we're going to get along!
My position is tools are okay, as long as you understand the tradeoff and the benefits outweigh the risks for the dog and human handler pair. Aversive methods have risks, but they increase capabilities and lead to a more enriching life for the dog if used correctly. That's just reality for the many human dog relationships. For others, R+ techniques are great and will get you everything you need if you have the time/money, in fact, they are what I would prefer. For a racing dog, you don't want to inhibit them at all, for a mal, it's an entirely different story.
At the end of the day it's you saying goodnight to your dog, and what methods you choose is something you must live with. If you know your dog and what you are doing, there's no one you must answer to but yourself!