2 ms·

I think the person you're replying to is implying the use of the second amendment as what some would characterize as a 'teachable moment'.

• JoshCole 5y ago
  I have no idea why you think that. You're getting really confused. This really is trivial. So don't continue to do this thing where you inject politics into something for the purposes of confusing yourself for no gain whatsoever. Instead, lets break it down into math so you can see my point more clearly. Let A be the set of things that are a pattern of incompetence. Let B be the set of things that are malice which appear to be incompetence. My claim was that if A = B then the answer is no they are not different and A != B and therefore they are different and that since A != B therefore they are different. He responded by saying that the union of A and B contains elements. I responded with a specific example of elements in the disjoint. If the disjoint of two sets is not the empty set than the two sets are not equal. Get out a pen. Write out the sets. This is simple. The sets aren't equal so I'm not actually asking you to do something impossible that will take a long time. Please. Just try enumerating them. After thirty seconds or so of coming up with examples for each set, just look at the two sets. Are they equal?
  • JoshCole 5y ago
    Also if this is a meta-level play where you're going to intentionally act incompetent while being malicious in doing so: 1. That is brilliant and funny. 2. The guidelines of discourse on Hacker News demand that I assume you are dull rather than malicious.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]