> Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Your comment isn't necessary, and it isn't making a friend of me. Does this mean that

> Just because something isn't necessary doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Your comment isn't necessary, and it isn't making a friend of me. Does this mean that it's your fault if I attack you? That you should have backed out and minded your own business? Surely you can discern why disagreeing with someone on HackerNews is different from invading their country, seizing their resources, and killing their family members. > So you say. But I can't distinguish that whether that statement is fact or ideology. So I don't believe you, and I shouldn't until you've got some convincing evidence that it's true. You can tell me a story. I don't want a story. And you can distinguish fact from ideology when people say that the solution to terrorism is more of what we're already doing? I can understand you discarding information because you don't believe it's reliable. What I don't understand is that in the absence of information you believe to be reliable, you've still decided to form an opinion and argue for it. If you don't have enough information, it's okay to admit you don't know. > And I really don't see how people committing acts of terrorism are making good decisions that we should support by giving them what they want for doing so. I really don't see anyone proposing that.