4 ms·

Oh, for fuck's sake. Way to straw-man my position. I'm calling out the waste in taking the long way around Africa just to save a few bucks, not saying "DOWN WIT

by rosser 11y ago

Oh, for fuck's sake. Way to straw-man my position. I'm calling out the waste in taking the long way around Africa just to save a few bucks, not saying "DOWN WITH THE GLOBAL SHIPPING SYSTEM, MAN!"

vacri 11y ago
For fuck's sake indeed - you're so emotive about the issue ("no consulting anyone!!!eleventy!") that you should actually be reminded that you're only talking about one leg of a journey, and shipping still has a fuckton of emissions. And since you're so frothy about "no consultation", then you should be limiting your own usage of goods. My point is that you're turning a molehill into a mountain (11 days x 100 ships in 2 months = evil, 17k ships/mo on normal 2-week routes = yawn), and chucking a huge hissy-fit about it - I am not saying that your capitalised words are your argument (so no straw man there), but instead that you're so emotional about it. So if you are a standard western consumer (and not someone like a hippy in a commune with low consumption), then you're being pretty hypocritical. If you're that emotional about these emissions, then put your money where your mouth is and stop being a consumer - ie: you should be 'DOWN WITH GLOBAL SHIPPING'. And encourage others to not be consumers as well, instead of trying to enact punitive legislation on an industry that's famously difficult to regulate.
- rosser 11y ago
  > "no consulting anyone!!!eleventy!" Just so we're perfectly clear, the single exclamation point in the entirety of my contribution to this thread is the one where I was sending up the position you seemed to be making me out to have held. I wouldn't qualify anything I've said as even remotely "frothy", "hissy-fit", or "wailing" — or, frankly, even terribly "emotional" — either. I'd invite you to reconsider your characterization of my position accordingly.
  - vacri 11y ago
    Hissy-fit I should retract, but your entrance to the thread was emotional, you've been making liberal use of italics (emphasis is emphasis, regardless of if it's ! or italics), and you're chasing down stats at length to prove your point on this molehill topic. If the tiny amount of shipping in the article gets you so worked up, then yes, you should generally be 'down with global shipping'.
    - dang 11y ago
      Your comments have been breaking the HN guidelines by calling names and being unduly personal. Please don't do that on this site.

by rosser 11y ago

Oh, for fuck's sake. Way to straw-man my position. I'm calling out the waste in taking the long way around Africa just to save a few bucks, not saying "DOWN WITH THE GLOBAL SHIPPING SYSTEM, MAN!"

vacri 11y ago

For fuck's sake indeed - you're so emotive about the issue ("no consulting anyone!!!eleventy!") that you should actually be reminded that you're only talking about one leg of a journey, and shipping still has a fuckton of emissions. And since you're so frothy about "no consultation", then you should be limiting your own usage of goods. My point is that you're turning a molehill into a mountain (11 days x 100 ships in 2 months = evil, 17k ships/mo on normal 2-week routes = yawn), and chucking a huge hissy-fit about it - I am not saying that your capitalised words are your argument (so no straw man there), but instead that you're so emotional about it. So if you are a standard western consumer (and not someone like a hippy in a commune with low consumption), then you're being pretty hypocritical. If you're that emotional about these emissions, then put your money where your mouth is and stop being a consumer - ie: you should be 'DOWN WITH GLOBAL SHIPPING'. And encourage others to not be consumers as well, instead of trying to enact punitive legislation on an industry that's famously difficult to regulate.

rosser 11y ago
> "no consulting anyone!!!eleventy!" Just so we're perfectly clear, the single exclamation point in the entirety of my contribution to this thread is the one where I was sending up the position you seemed to be making me out to have held. I wouldn't qualify anything I've said as even remotely "frothy", "hissy-fit", or "wailing" — or, frankly, even terribly "emotional" — either. I'd invite you to reconsider your characterization of my position accordingly.
- vacri 11y ago
  Hissy-fit I should retract, but your entrance to the thread was emotional, you've been making liberal use of italics (emphasis is emphasis, regardless of if it's ! or italics), and you're chasing down stats at length to prove your point on this molehill topic. If the tiny amount of shipping in the article gets you so worked up, then yes, you should generally be 'down with global shipping'.
  - dang 11y ago
    Your comments have been breaking the HN guidelines by calling names and being unduly personal. Please don't do that on this site.