5 ms·

Actually, I think it's a reasonable question as to why I care so much. I'd like to say I have a rational justification based on risk/reward analysis, but I don

Actually, I think it's a reasonable question as to why I care so much. I'd like to say I have a rational justification based on risk/reward analysis, but I don't have enough information or time to really do that. Honestly, it's more visceral. They repeatedly try to deceive people to pry away their private information. I want it to stop, and (probably to my discredit) I have strongly vengeful fantasies against the perps.

inetknght 6y ago
Reasonable, arguably. Let me throw some shade though: > "Do you want to eat some cake?" > "No" That's a very reasonable question and answer. > "Why don't you want some cake?" You might think it's reasonable to ask why someone doesn't want cake. I think it's prying. The first time it's asked, okay, fine. > "Would you want some cake if it was chocolate?" You're still asking about cake when the person said no. > "Do you not like sprinkles?" Why are you trying to conflate sprinkles with cake? > "I can help you eat it better if understood why you didn't want it." Seriously. You're building a pattern of abuse here. "No" is a complete answer for permission. Trying to get around that "no" is malicious and abusive.
- pierrebai 6y ago
  Your answer aligns with pretty much all the others. They have in common reprhasing the original situation or questions in extreme way possible. Cake is a personal taste. Are technical choices a question of taste. Your arguing against debates and technical discussions. It's telling that many examples given were using video feed or pickpockets as an analogy to telemetry. These are not interesting explanations. Going to extreme arguments is not illuminating.
  - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
    Sometimes I too take someone's position to a logical extreme. Not to be a jerk, but to start teasing out which parts of their statement need more nuance. Kind of like doing a binary search to find what they really are trying to say. I've mostly stopped this approach though, because it makes people doubt that I'm having the discussion in good faith.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > They have in common reprhasing the original situation or questions in extreme way possible. Nonsense. Using cake instead of privacy is making it less extreme than the original.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  I guess I just heard a different tone in @jonax's post. To me, his/her first question just showed interest in the perspective I'd posted. I took @jonax's later questions as a kind of Socratic questioning. Which can come across as either a way to help sharpen one's position on a topic, or as an unwelcome display of skepticism, depending on the audience. I assumed the former. If I had to criticize that post for something, it would be that it made wrong assumptions about how I'd answer that first question. So the subsequent questions weren't really on point.

inetknght 6y ago

Reasonable, arguably. Let me throw some shade though: > "Do you want to eat some cake?" > "No" That's a very reasonable question and answer. > "Why don't you want some cake?" You might think it's reasonable to ask why someone doesn't want cake. I think it's prying. The first time it's asked, okay, fine. > "Would you want some cake if it was chocolate?" You're still asking about cake when the person said no. > "Do you not like sprinkles?" Why are you trying to conflate sprinkles with cake? > "I can help you eat it better if understood why you didn't want it." Seriously. You're building a pattern of abuse here. "No" is a complete answer for permission. Trying to get around that "no" is malicious and abusive.

pierrebai 6y ago
Your answer aligns with pretty much all the others. They have in common reprhasing the original situation or questions in extreme way possible. Cake is a personal taste. Are technical choices a question of taste. Your arguing against debates and technical discussions. It's telling that many examples given were using video feed or pickpockets as an analogy to telemetry. These are not interesting explanations. Going to extreme arguments is not illuminating.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  Sometimes I too take someone's position to a logical extreme. Not to be a jerk, but to start teasing out which parts of their statement need more nuance. Kind of like doing a binary search to find what they really are trying to say. I've mostly stopped this approach though, because it makes people doubt that I'm having the discussion in good faith.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > They have in common reprhasing the original situation or questions in extreme way possible. Nonsense. Using cake instead of privacy is making it less extreme than the original.
DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
I guess I just heard a different tone in @jonax's post. To me, his/her first question just showed interest in the perspective I'd posted. I took @jonax's later questions as a kind of Socratic questioning. Which can come across as either a way to help sharpen one's position on a topic, or as an unwelcome display of skepticism, depending on the audience. I assumed the former. If I had to criticize that post for something, it would be that it made wrong assumptions about how I'd answer that first question. So the subsequent questions weren't really on point.