4 ms·

> That isn't "name calling". It's just naming. I see, fair enough. It was clearly wrong to assume you viewed his actions as either moral or immoral. > Avis [i

by dlss 11y ago

> That isn't "name calling". It's just naming. I see, fair enough. It was clearly wrong to assume you viewed his actions as either moral or immoral. > Avis [is] an amoral, predatory agent > Approving of it [...] makes the problem worse. > you've helped normalize exploitation as a behavior On second thought, I'm pretty sure "name calling" was spot-on. OP bought a good for the lowest price he could find. If you want to call that exploitation, more power to you, but please don't try to pass off your moral opinions as objective truths. It's slimy.

wpietri 11y ago
That it is parasitic is factual. That parasitism is immoral is my opinion.
- dlss 11y ago
  Progress! Let's keep going. I think you meant to say "That it is parasitic is factual if I make a bunch of assumptions about AVIS' profit margin and intent, as well as OP's past and future business dealings with AVIS. That hypothetical parasitism is immoral is my opinion." As you get more practice making distinctions between what's true and what's opinion, I think you'll find it easier to interact with different viewpoints from your own :)
  - wpietri 11y ago
    There is no progress; my view has not changed. Nor will being anonymously snotty do a lot to change it.
    - dlss 11y ago
      I didn't ask you to change your opinion, I merely asked you to become better at expressing it as such. Think of it like asking a Christian to say "X is what I believe" rather than "you're going to hell"... it's more respectful to other viewpoints :)
      - wpietri 11y ago
        Continuing to be an anonymous, smug, superior dick is not improved by putting smiley-faces at the end of it. If you're actually trying to be helpful, then start with enough respect that you consider that I might have already considered carefully the boundaries of opinion and fact.
        dlss 11y ago
        In your 12 comments on this thread, you called OP or likened him to a parasite, immoral, exploitative, wasteful, crazy, a pickpocket, a medical quack, net negative to our society, a con artist, a scam artist, a Nigerian scammer, "why we can't have nice things", morally bereft, manipulative, a time waster, a waster of resources, and selfish. I responded to this by asserting that you were making those claims by making large assumptions about AVIS, OP's mental state / situation, and OP's past and future dealings with AVIS. I simply don't see how you can know the things your claiming to know without access to that information. For example, you'd need to have an answer to: did AVIS make a profit on all this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10215662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10215662 would seem to imply AVIS did make a profit, and OP is overvaluing airline miles in an economic sense. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10221662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10221662 calls it into question from a different perspective. If I was wrong in assuming you don't have that information, please correct me and post it! I will happily read through it and perhaps join you in judging OP. If you don't have the information, but feel there that the information is not necessary, please describe how and I'll read it and respond. If neither of these is true, please consider adding caveats to your statements in future. It will help others understand you, and make debates more fruitful (#include the replies to your other comments on this thread) I don't normally engage with people making schoolyard-type statements, but did so in this case because it felt like my civic duty -- it matters to me that HackerNews remain a place for intelligent discussions. As you are probably aware, my intent with the ":)"s were not to be mean but rather to let you know I didn't have a problem with you as a person, only with your specific behavior. It's hard to call out behavior civilly, but I tried (and think I succeeded) in this case. That you then proceeded to call me snotty, smug, and a superior dick is only serving to prove my point: you're assuming, and mistaking those assumptions for reality.

by dlss 11y ago

wpietri 11y ago

That it is parasitic is factual. That parasitism is immoral is my opinion.

dlss 11y ago
Progress! Let's keep going. I think you meant to say "That it is parasitic is factual if I make a bunch of assumptions about AVIS' profit margin and intent, as well as OP's past and future business dealings with AVIS. That hypothetical parasitism is immoral is my opinion." As you get more practice making distinctions between what's true and what's opinion, I think you'll find it easier to interact with different viewpoints from your own :)
- wpietri 11y ago
  There is no progress; my view has not changed. Nor will being anonymously snotty do a lot to change it.
  - dlss 11y ago
    I didn't ask you to change your opinion, I merely asked you to become better at expressing it as such. Think of it like asking a Christian to say "X is what I believe" rather than "you're going to hell"... it's more respectful to other viewpoints :)
    - wpietri 11y ago
      Continuing to be an anonymous, smug, superior dick is not improved by putting smiley-faces at the end of it. If you're actually trying to be helpful, then start with enough respect that you consider that I might have already considered carefully the boundaries of opinion and fact.
      - dlss 11y ago
        In your 12 comments on this thread, you called OP or likened him to a parasite, immoral, exploitative, wasteful, crazy, a pickpocket, a medical quack, net negative to our society, a con artist, a scam artist, a Nigerian scammer, "why we can't have nice things", morally bereft, manipulative, a time waster, a waster of resources, and selfish. I responded to this by asserting that you were making those claims by making large assumptions about AVIS, OP's mental state / situation, and OP's past and future dealings with AVIS. I simply don't see how you can know the things your claiming to know without access to that information. For example, you'd need to have an answer to: did AVIS make a profit on all this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10215662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10215662 would seem to imply AVIS did make a profit, and OP is overvaluing airline miles in an economic sense. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10221662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10221662 calls it into question from a different perspective. If I was wrong in assuming you don't have that information, please correct me and post it! I will happily read through it and perhaps join you in judging OP. If you don't have the information, but feel there that the information is not necessary, please describe how and I'll read it and respond. If neither of these is true, please consider adding caveats to your statements in future. It will help others understand you, and make debates more fruitful (#include the replies to your other comments on this thread) I don't normally engage with people making schoolyard-type statements, but did so in this case because it felt like my civic duty -- it matters to me that HackerNews remain a place for intelligent discussions. As you are probably aware, my intent with the ":)"s were not to be mean but rather to let you know I didn't have a problem with you as a person, only with your specific behavior. It's hard to call out behavior civilly, but I tried (and think I succeeded) in this case. That you then proceeded to call me snotty, smug, and a superior dick is only serving to prove my point: you're assuming, and mistaking those assumptions for reality.