5 ms·

Ah, the “you just want people to die” argument. I wondered when that would show up. How about a largely deregulated area where you can mix housing and business

Ah, the “you just want people to die” argument. I wondered when that would show up. How about a largely deregulated area where you can mix housing and business zoning. Like we use to with downtowns. At the same time get rid of the caps on building height. Tokyo has tall buildings and earthquakes. Allow SF to modernize. A 60 story apartment building neutralize the cost of the property. Another option is to make SF a stronghold for the rich. Nothing wrong with that either. Push the poor out to locations they can afford. Few will die in either scenario.

dredmorbius 8y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- virmundi 8y ago
  The OP literally made the argument that, in the extreme, people must have to die if regulations are relaxed. OP did not assume good faith. OP pushed the argument to the extreme. I responded by pointing out that out. I appreciate civility, but won’t assume good faith when the other participant has shown bad faith.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    "Ah..I wondered when that would show up." was just being condescending and snarky. "But they started it!" is not a defence.
    - virmundi 8y ago
      Nope. I’ve just been here for a while. If you take the conversations on HN and put the them through a Bayesian Network, you can tell as soon as “deregulation” appears, the conversation will take a turn for “people will die” worse.
      - yesenadam 8y ago
        "Nope."? You're missing my point. I'm not saying you're not right about that, but that being so condescending and snarky is unacceptable on here, whether you're right or not, and however the person you're replying to spoke to you.
        virmundi 8y ago
        Then ban me for using colloquialisms. I'd frankly love it. Flag the comment, "He said something in a way I don't agree with. Also, if you checkout his comment history, he fails to use the Oxford Comma. That has to be worth something!" Also, you don't need to include the period when you're quoting me. "Nope"? is valid too.

dredmorbius 8y ago

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

virmundi 8y ago
The OP literally made the argument that, in the extreme, people must have to die if regulations are relaxed. OP did not assume good faith. OP pushed the argument to the extreme. I responded by pointing out that out. I appreciate civility, but won’t assume good faith when the other participant has shown bad faith.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  "Ah..I wondered when that would show up." was just being condescending and snarky. "But they started it!" is not a defence.
  - virmundi 8y ago
    Nope. I’ve just been here for a while. If you take the conversations on HN and put the them through a Bayesian Network, you can tell as soon as “deregulation” appears, the conversation will take a turn for “people will die” worse.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      "Nope."? You're missing my point. I'm not saying you're not right about that, but that being so condescending and snarky is unacceptable on here, whether you're right or not, and however the person you're replying to spoke to you.
      - virmundi 8y ago
        Then ban me for using colloquialisms. I'd frankly love it. Flag the comment, "He said something in a way I don't agree with. Also, if you checkout his comment history, he fails to use the Oxford Comma. That has to be worth something!" Also, you don't need to include the period when you're quoting me. "Nope"? is valid too.