4 ms·

You are equivocating murder with sharing a small piece of data, I can't even take this as a good-faith argument.

• Tomte 8y ago
  I am not, and the fact that you accuse me of that proves your malignant intentions. And maybe learn what "to equivocate" means.
  • dang 8y ago
    Would you please not break the site guidelines, regardless of whether someone else did? Let alone escalating the malice. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• claudiawerner 8y ago
  The comparison works because it's an argument against reductionism, not an argument for or against "sharing a small piece of data" which is very similar to insider trading, or child pornography (after all, it's just a sequence of one's and zeros right?). The point here is that saying "it's ok, it's data" isn't itself a good argument because it relies on reductionism or consideration of the effects of sharing the information. You could say you don't care about the effects, but it is invalid to deny their existence. For the record, I'm anti-copyright and anti-patents.
• dllthomas 8y ago
  For the purpose of analogy, the comment aligns "moving through the room with my knife extended" with sharing a small piece of data; "murder" with whatever the deliberate import was of sharing that small piece of data. In no case is it saying any pair of things are the same thing or equally bad (except the two patterns of reasoning).
• dang 8y ago
  This comment breaks the site guidelines, which ask: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.