8 ms·

On something like global warming, I find it easy to trust the Scientific Method, rather than individual papers or individual scientists (or worse, the media tra

by beat 8y ago

On something like global warming, I find it easy to trust the Scientific Method, rather than individual papers or individual scientists (or worse, the media translation thereof). The core counter-explanation to the scientific consensus is "Scientists are greedy liars in a giant conspiracy to get rich on research grants", which I find, um, problematic. And, while the phrasing may get prettier, that's what most of these arguments lead to, what most of the people who reject global warming believe. In a related manner, I tend to judge ideas by who agrees with them. Be careful who you're standing with, they can tell you a lot about the validity of where you're standing. (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".) So, for something like global warming, if you're standing with people who believe in and work within the scientific method, you're probably good (assuming you believe in science), and if you're standing with people who believe the world was created in seven days 5500 years ago and corporations whose core business model is to put greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... well.

1337biz 8y ago
I think the general problem behind issues like these are that the public has repeatedly been over and over deceived by autoritative voices - might it be experts, academics or government positions. As a consequence, when people have the gut feeling that something might be off many trust that feeling over whatever truth is them presented. Also: >> (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".) is just amazingly simple minded. By the same logic all dogs are Nazis just because Hitler's dog (probably) loved him and Hitler was a Nazi after all.
- FeteCommuniste 8y ago
  It would be the same logic if Hitler’s dog loved him for being a Nazi (killing Jews, conquering Europe), rather than because of petting and food and playtime.
  - 1337biz 8y ago
    Thanks for understanding my point. Hitler's dog loved him because the dog cared about food and getting petted. The bad elements were not the main priority of the dog. Just caring about one thing and not caring about the other does not make the dog a Nazi. Even more ridiculous, in the logic of OP, all other dogs who think this is behavior is okay, Nazi dogs.
    - josefresco 8y ago
      > The bad elements were not the main priority of the dog. The dog has no concept of "the bad elements".
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      > caring about one thing and not caring about the other > in the logic of OP, all other dogs who think this is behavior is okay No. The OP did not talk about approval. They talked about specifically thinking the candidate is racist.
      - beat 8y ago
        As the OP, the logic goes like this... "I'm a racist. And I like Candidate X because I believe Candidate X is also a racist, based on the things Candidate X says". Now, it's possible that Candidate X is not a racist. But if the racists are confused about it, maybe Candidate X needs to be more clear. Because the racists look at Candidate Y and "We hate Candidate Y, because they're opposed to our beliefs". No chance of misunderstandings there. Now, Candidate X will certainly have other supporters saying "We don't believe Candidate X is a racist", but I look at them sidelong and say "Don't listen to me, listen to the racists".
- WhatIsDukkha 8y ago
  I'm sorry what? A dog isn't a reasoning human being. Using the dog, this way, in the argument is irrelevant and distracting to any of the issues. I think we can say that EVERY person around Hitler was in fact a bad person regardless of whether they loved dogs. It may be that people used fallacious reasoning to justify their own support of Hitler (ignoring his other qualities conveniently) for such reasons as "he likes dogs therefore he is a good person". "I like X because he agrees with me in this narrow way therefore I'll support X doing terrible terrible things but justify it with this narrow reason." That's a bad person supporting a bad person.
  - 1337biz 8y ago
    Alright, let's make it about humans: Person A prefers apple over oranges and potatoes over tomatoes. Person B prefers also potatoes over tomatoes but does not care about apple or oranges. Original poster now argues that it is okay for Person C to say Person B is an oranges hater, just because Person B prefers potatoes. Replace Person A/B/C with your favorite groups of adversaries.
- beat 8y ago
  I don't think that's actually the same logic at all.
Droobfest 8y ago
> "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist" I honestly think ideas like this are one of the most problematic beliefs in the current political discourse. This type of thinking only means we look less and less at the merits of someone's arguments and more and more at the tribe they associate with, or even worse the tribe that chooses to associate with them. We have absolutely no control over these associations. If some nutjob chooses to support my cause does that somehow means my arguments are less valid?
- beat 8y ago
  Nutjobs agreeing with someone doesn't mean they're wrong, but it's strong evidence they might be wrong. I mean, why are the nutjobs agreeing? That's worth thinking about. This is especially important because clever politicians can say things that seem reasonable on the surface, but aren't really. What I'm talking about here is really an application of the Pareto Principle, the 80/20 rule. Support of nutjobs is 80% likely to be evidence of nutty ideas.
  - abnry 8y ago
    If the reasoning skills of nutjobs are already suspect, you can't take as trustworthy their endorsements.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > Nutjobs agreeing with someone doesn't mean they're wrong, but it's strong evidence they might be wrong It doesn’t really work well for politics - it’s clear nutjobs support both major parties here in the US.
    - a1369209993 8y ago
      That's not a very convincing counterargument given that both parties seem to enthusiastically support things like corporate welfare, bogus patents, copyright and other censorship, warrentless surveilance and other domestic spying, private citizens being less well armed than goverment thugs, various horrendous dysfunctions of the health care system, and conditional welfare that cuts people off if they make any progress toward climbing out of poverty, and oppose things like nuclear power, basic income, common carriage requirements for ISPs and gigasites like facebook and google, and crackdowns on techinically-not-lying in contracts and advertisement.
whiddershins 8y ago
I think you are misusing the term scientific method here. Scientific method revolves around hypothesis and tests. Global warming science is based on something else entirely. Edit: My wording seems to have provoked confusion as to my point. Apologies. My point is that not all science utilizes the scientific method.
- fghtr 8y ago
  On what is it based then? There are computer simulations ("hypotheses"), which scientists compare with available data ("verifications"). Then verified simulation tools are applied to predict what happens depending on our behavior. The latter part is a hypothesis without a test, but if it turns out to be true, we are in trouble. It's better to trust it and take action...
  - gadders 8y ago
    Obligatory Dilbert Cartoon: http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14 http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14
    - crooked-v 8y ago
      Of course, one must consider that the climate models that have gotten ignored over the years have generally been ignored because they were too pessimistic, despite those ones turning out to be the more accurate ones.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  So you don't consider astronomy a science?
  - fghtr 8y ago
    We have a lot of measurements in astronomy, which often proove or disprove our hypotheses.
    - 8y ago
npmaile 8y ago
I could not disagree more with your second point. Just because a group of misguided individuals support a specific idea, person, or ideology, doesn't mean that the thing they support should be judged based on the merits of those people. The things should be evaluated based on the individual merits of whatever it is. Following your logic, I could easily say that Hitler was a vegetarian, so if you don't eat meat, you stand with Hitler.
- beat 8y ago
  "I could be wrong. I'm often wrong." The guilt-by-association rule is not a hard and fast airtight conclusion. This is the stock criticism everyone is making, and it simply doesn't follow. It's evidence of a flaw, but not every bit of evidence is incontrovertible proof of whatever. Really, doesn't anyone study logic anymore?
  - ikeboy 8y ago
    Perhaps people are associating your arguments with other, flawed, arguments and assuming yours are flawed as well. Might not be incontrovertible proof but it's enough to critique you.
devonkim 8y ago
I usually like to use the argument that if climate change scientists were held by so much money you’d see a lot more rich scientists / early retirement scientists outside pharmaceuticals, medicine, and oil & gas. In contrast, I have never, ever heard of a petroleum engineer or oil & gas company manager living in poverty or struggling to find work. Where is all that George Soros money going? You can only fund so many scientists that risk their careers, Hollywood celebrity sex cults, and paid protestors of hundreds of thousands. I did some back of the napkin math with a guy at a bar using his own conspiracy theory addled numbers and it came out to at least $10 BILLION PER YEAR. That’s complete absurdity. I know the Koch brothers are worth a lot but I couldn’t ever think they’re paying that much to fund conservative crap unless they get something in return, which you absolutely can from corporations compared to uh... a lot of papers and bad wardrobes from research scientists?
- User23 8y ago
  A lot of it is legal tax avoidance by funneling money through foundations, non-profits, and so on. https://nccs.urban.org/data-statistics/quick-facts-about-nonprofits https://nccs.urban.org/data-statistics/quick-facts-about-non.... As you can see, 10 billion is a drop in the bucket.
jbandela1 8y ago
> The core counter-explanation to the scientific consensus is "Scientists are greedy liars in a giant conspiracy to get rich on research grants", which I find, um, problematic. I think this is a core counter-explanation for anti-vaccine and GMO as well.
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
I see people doing this, but only selectively when it benefits their existing beliefs. They look at the worse groups agreeing with those they disagree with, while ignoring the worst groups that agree with them.
robomartin 8y ago
Except that global warming/climate change has now been distorted beyond recognition. What most believe is no-longer aligned with reality: - Read Google’s research report for the jaw-dropping reality they uncovered without intent - Study ice core data - Understand the concept of planetary scale rate of change - Understand the fact —FACT— that if we had Captain Kirk erase the entire United States from this planet by trasporting everyone and everything into space CO2 accumulation would continue - Understand that if we erased all of humanity next monday it would take somewhere in the order if 25,000 to 50,000 years for CO2 levels to drop 100ppm - Now explain how much in resources and energy would be required to bend the planetary-scale rate-of-change of atmospheric CO2 from about 100 ppm per 50,000 years to 100 ppm in 50 year (a 1,000 x improvement over the natural process) - Now explain how this massive amount of energy and resources will not produce massively more CO2 (and more) - If you said “renewable energy” go back to the top and read the Google paper This global warming thing has been turned into a political football by both sides. What’s sad is the truth isn’t at either end of the scale. Most people who now believe “the scientific truth” are believing sonething as false as those who deny it. The Google paper is the starting point of something that should have shifted the dialog on the subject years ago. However, their conclusion doesn’t lead to easy money and raises more questions than it answers; a real invonvenient truth.
- robomartin 8y ago
  Here you go: https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-...
  - aldoushuxley001 8y ago
    So what's the jaw-dropping reality uncovered here?
    - robomartin 8y ago
      Sorry, had to go do real work an the entire day flew by. Now I am on my phone and it won't let me copy and paste the relevant passage. I’ll try in the morning from my computer. The finding, in a nutshell, was that if every source of clean energy was deployed optimally at a global scale, not only would atmospheric CO2 accumulation not stop, it would continue to rise exponentially. Convert the entire planet to the most optimized versions of “green” energy sources and you pretty much fix nothing. This is a sobering realization. I urge you to read the paper, there’s a lot more detail there. They set out to prove renewables could “save the planet” only to discover it would be an exercise in futility.
__________ttttt 8y ago
It can be tough to judge by who you stand with. I like socialism and communism. I think it can bring lots of good to the world. But people who propagate it are some of the worst people to have ever walked the earth. I think they were just mistaken. 100 million deaths with errors bars bigger than the number of people killed in the holocaust. I don’t want to be judged for propagating social welfare just because some monsters committed horrendous acts. Similarly in the US, I support left wing and sanders. But I won’t want to be judged as if I stand with cop killers, antifa, the Congress baseball game killer, etc. I don’t think it’s a good idea to use this formula frankly. It’s also easy to manipulate.
- roenxi 8y ago
  Experimentally, we have found that there are two choices for who runs a country: 1) Politicians who are greedy, self-centred and ruthless. 2) Politicians who are liars, greedy, self-centred and ruthless. The big issue with "I like communism" (for socialism the argument changes) is that any time anyone tries it they try to appoint champions of the people to their ruling class and discover they have actually got liars and monsters. This doesn't happen because they got unlucky - this is because there are no champions of the people at that level of power. There are only people with incentives, and communism really screws up the incentive structure. The best incentive structure, by far, is free markets and democracy, even if the people who rise to the top are all scum. Somehow, "by luck" (bah, people don't get incentives) it all works really well.
aldoushuxley001 8y ago
Your comment is dripping with contempt and your attitude is frankly disgusting. Science is not a popularity contest... nor is science so black and white. You'll find plenty of good scientists questioning just how much humans are contributing to global warming, so long as you phrase it like that (nuanced), rather than asking flat out whether people believe in global warming or not (black and white). But what you're trying to do is demonize all scientists who don't agree with your opinions and I find it frankly disgusting. Shame on you.
- beat 8y ago
  I have zero problem with good scientists doing good science that is at odds with the consensus. But the people to whom my comments apply are not scientists, by and large. And yes, I am dripping with contempt at people who reject observation and reason because they don't like where it leads. I don't think that's disgusting, I think that's rational.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- dang 8y ago
  Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another comment is or how someone's attitude seems. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting to HN.

by beat 8y ago

1337biz 8y ago

I think the general problem behind issues like these are that the public has repeatedly been over and over deceived by autoritative voices - might it be experts, academics or government positions. As a consequence, when people have the gut feeling that something might be off many trust that feeling over whatever truth is them presented. Also: >> (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".) is just amazingly simple minded. By the same logic all dogs are Nazis just because Hitler's dog (probably) loved him and Hitler was a Nazi after all.

FeteCommuniste 8y ago
It would be the same logic if Hitler’s dog loved him for being a Nazi (killing Jews, conquering Europe), rather than because of petting and food and playtime.
- 1337biz 8y ago
  Thanks for understanding my point. Hitler's dog loved him because the dog cared about food and getting petted. The bad elements were not the main priority of the dog. Just caring about one thing and not caring about the other does not make the dog a Nazi. Even more ridiculous, in the logic of OP, all other dogs who think this is behavior is okay, Nazi dogs.
  - josefresco 8y ago
    > The bad elements were not the main priority of the dog. The dog has no concept of "the bad elements".
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    > caring about one thing and not caring about the other > in the logic of OP, all other dogs who think this is behavior is okay No. The OP did not talk about approval. They talked about specifically thinking the candidate is racist.
    - beat 8y ago
      As the OP, the logic goes like this... "I'm a racist. And I like Candidate X because I believe Candidate X is also a racist, based on the things Candidate X says". Now, it's possible that Candidate X is not a racist. But if the racists are confused about it, maybe Candidate X needs to be more clear. Because the racists look at Candidate Y and "We hate Candidate Y, because they're opposed to our beliefs". No chance of misunderstandings there. Now, Candidate X will certainly have other supporters saying "We don't believe Candidate X is a racist", but I look at them sidelong and say "Don't listen to me, listen to the racists".
WhatIsDukkha 8y ago
I'm sorry what? A dog isn't a reasoning human being. Using the dog, this way, in the argument is irrelevant and distracting to any of the issues. I think we can say that EVERY person around Hitler was in fact a bad person regardless of whether they loved dogs. It may be that people used fallacious reasoning to justify their own support of Hitler (ignoring his other qualities conveniently) for such reasons as "he likes dogs therefore he is a good person". "I like X because he agrees with me in this narrow way therefore I'll support X doing terrible terrible things but justify it with this narrow reason." That's a bad person supporting a bad person.
- 1337biz 8y ago
  Alright, let's make it about humans: Person A prefers apple over oranges and potatoes over tomatoes. Person B prefers also potatoes over tomatoes but does not care about apple or oranges. Original poster now argues that it is okay for Person C to say Person B is an oranges hater, just because Person B prefers potatoes. Replace Person A/B/C with your favorite groups of adversaries.
beat 8y ago
I don't think that's actually the same logic at all.

Droobfest 8y ago

> "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist" I honestly think ideas like this are one of the most problematic beliefs in the current political discourse. This type of thinking only means we look less and less at the merits of someone's arguments and more and more at the tribe they associate with, or even worse the tribe that chooses to associate with them. We have absolutely no control over these associations. If some nutjob chooses to support my cause does that somehow means my arguments are less valid?

beat 8y ago
Nutjobs agreeing with someone doesn't mean they're wrong, but it's strong evidence they might be wrong. I mean, why are the nutjobs agreeing? That's worth thinking about. This is especially important because clever politicians can say things that seem reasonable on the surface, but aren't really. What I'm talking about here is really an application of the Pareto Principle, the 80/20 rule. Support of nutjobs is 80% likely to be evidence of nutty ideas.
- abnry 8y ago
  If the reasoning skills of nutjobs are already suspect, you can't take as trustworthy their endorsements.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > Nutjobs agreeing with someone doesn't mean they're wrong, but it's strong evidence they might be wrong It doesn’t really work well for politics - it’s clear nutjobs support both major parties here in the US.
  - a1369209993 8y ago
    That's not a very convincing counterargument given that both parties seem to enthusiastically support things like corporate welfare, bogus patents, copyright and other censorship, warrentless surveilance and other domestic spying, private citizens being less well armed than goverment thugs, various horrendous dysfunctions of the health care system, and conditional welfare that cuts people off if they make any progress toward climbing out of poverty, and oppose things like nuclear power, basic income, common carriage requirements for ISPs and gigasites like facebook and google, and crackdowns on techinically-not-lying in contracts and advertisement.

whiddershins 8y ago

I think you are misusing the term scientific method here. Scientific method revolves around hypothesis and tests. Global warming science is based on something else entirely. Edit: My wording seems to have provoked confusion as to my point. Apologies. My point is that not all science utilizes the scientific method.

fghtr 8y ago
On what is it based then? There are computer simulations ("hypotheses"), which scientists compare with available data ("verifications"). Then verified simulation tools are applied to predict what happens depending on our behavior. The latter part is a hypothesis without a test, but if it turns out to be true, we are in trouble. It's better to trust it and take action...
- gadders 8y ago
  Obligatory Dilbert Cartoon: http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14 http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    Of course, one must consider that the climate models that have gotten ignored over the years have generally been ignored because they were too pessimistic, despite those ones turning out to be the more accurate ones.
ForHackernews 8y ago
So you don't consider astronomy a science?
- fghtr 8y ago
  We have a lot of measurements in astronomy, which often proove or disprove our hypotheses.
  - 8y ago

npmaile 8y ago

I could not disagree more with your second point. Just because a group of misguided individuals support a specific idea, person, or ideology, doesn't mean that the thing they support should be judged based on the merits of those people. The things should be evaluated based on the individual merits of whatever it is. Following your logic, I could easily say that Hitler was a vegetarian, so if you don't eat meat, you stand with Hitler.

beat 8y ago
"I could be wrong. I'm often wrong." The guilt-by-association rule is not a hard and fast airtight conclusion. This is the stock criticism everyone is making, and it simply doesn't follow. It's evidence of a flaw, but not every bit of evidence is incontrovertible proof of whatever. Really, doesn't anyone study logic anymore?
- ikeboy 8y ago
  Perhaps people are associating your arguments with other, flawed, arguments and assuming yours are flawed as well. Might not be incontrovertible proof but it's enough to critique you.

devonkim 8y ago

I usually like to use the argument that if climate change scientists were held by so much money you’d see a lot more rich scientists / early retirement scientists outside pharmaceuticals, medicine, and oil & gas. In contrast, I have never, ever heard of a petroleum engineer or oil & gas company manager living in poverty or struggling to find work. Where is all that George Soros money going? You can only fund so many scientists that risk their careers, Hollywood celebrity sex cults, and paid protestors of hundreds of thousands. I did some back of the napkin math with a guy at a bar using his own conspiracy theory addled numbers and it came out to at least $10 BILLION PER YEAR. That’s complete absurdity. I know the Koch brothers are worth a lot but I couldn’t ever think they’re paying that much to fund conservative crap unless they get something in return, which you absolutely can from corporations compared to uh... a lot of papers and bad wardrobes from research scientists?

User23 8y ago
A lot of it is legal tax avoidance by funneling money through foundations, non-profits, and so on. https://nccs.urban.org/data-statistics/quick-facts-about-nonprofits https://nccs.urban.org/data-statistics/quick-facts-about-non.... As you can see, 10 billion is a drop in the bucket.

jbandela1 8y ago

> The core counter-explanation to the scientific consensus is "Scientists are greedy liars in a giant conspiracy to get rich on research grants", which I find, um, problematic. I think this is a core counter-explanation for anti-vaccine and GMO as well.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

I see people doing this, but only selectively when it benefits their existing beliefs. They look at the worse groups agreeing with those they disagree with, while ignoring the worst groups that agree with them.

robomartin 8y ago

Except that global warming/climate change has now been distorted beyond recognition. What most believe is no-longer aligned with reality: - Read Google’s research report for the jaw-dropping reality they uncovered without intent - Study ice core data - Understand the concept of planetary scale rate of change - Understand the fact —FACT— that if we had Captain Kirk erase the entire United States from this planet by trasporting everyone and everything into space CO2 accumulation would continue - Understand that if we erased all of humanity next monday it would take somewhere in the order if 25,000 to 50,000 years for CO2 levels to drop 100ppm - Now explain how much in resources and energy would be required to bend the planetary-scale rate-of-change of atmospheric CO2 from about 100 ppm per 50,000 years to 100 ppm in 50 year (a 1,000 x improvement over the natural process) - Now explain how this massive amount of energy and resources will not produce massively more CO2 (and more) - If you said “renewable energy” go back to the top and read the Google paper This global warming thing has been turned into a political football by both sides. What’s sad is the truth isn’t at either end of the scale. Most people who now believe “the scientific truth” are believing sonething as false as those who deny it. The Google paper is the starting point of something that should have shifted the dialog on the subject years ago. However, their conclusion doesn’t lead to easy money and raises more questions than it answers; a real invonvenient truth.

robomartin 8y ago
Here you go: https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-...
- aldoushuxley001 8y ago
  So what's the jaw-dropping reality uncovered here?
  - robomartin 8y ago
    Sorry, had to go do real work an the entire day flew by. Now I am on my phone and it won't let me copy and paste the relevant passage. I’ll try in the morning from my computer. The finding, in a nutshell, was that if every source of clean energy was deployed optimally at a global scale, not only would atmospheric CO2 accumulation not stop, it would continue to rise exponentially. Convert the entire planet to the most optimized versions of “green” energy sources and you pretty much fix nothing. This is a sobering realization. I urge you to read the paper, there’s a lot more detail there. They set out to prove renewables could “save the planet” only to discover it would be an exercise in futility.

__________ttttt 8y ago

It can be tough to judge by who you stand with. I like socialism and communism. I think it can bring lots of good to the world. But people who propagate it are some of the worst people to have ever walked the earth. I think they were just mistaken. 100 million deaths with errors bars bigger than the number of people killed in the holocaust. I don’t want to be judged for propagating social welfare just because some monsters committed horrendous acts. Similarly in the US, I support left wing and sanders. But I won’t want to be judged as if I stand with cop killers, antifa, the Congress baseball game killer, etc. I don’t think it’s a good idea to use this formula frankly. It’s also easy to manipulate.

roenxi 8y ago
Experimentally, we have found that there are two choices for who runs a country: 1) Politicians who are greedy, self-centred and ruthless. 2) Politicians who are liars, greedy, self-centred and ruthless. The big issue with "I like communism" (for socialism the argument changes) is that any time anyone tries it they try to appoint champions of the people to their ruling class and discover they have actually got liars and monsters. This doesn't happen because they got unlucky - this is because there are no champions of the people at that level of power. There are only people with incentives, and communism really screws up the incentive structure. The best incentive structure, by far, is free markets and democracy, even if the people who rise to the top are all scum. Somehow, "by luck" (bah, people don't get incentives) it all works really well.

aldoushuxley001 8y ago

Your comment is dripping with contempt and your attitude is frankly disgusting. Science is not a popularity contest... nor is science so black and white. You'll find plenty of good scientists questioning just how much humans are contributing to global warming, so long as you phrase it like that (nuanced), rather than asking flat out whether people believe in global warming or not (black and white). But what you're trying to do is demonize all scientists who don't agree with your opinions and I find it frankly disgusting. Shame on you.

beat 8y ago
I have zero problem with good scientists doing good science that is at odds with the consensus. But the people to whom my comments apply are not scientists, by and large. And yes, I am dripping with contempt at people who reject observation and reason because they don't like where it leads. I don't think that's disgusting, I think that's rational.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
dang 8y ago
Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another comment is or how someone's attitude seems. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting to HN.