5 ms·

Three times with: "Yet you participate in society. Curious!" in the thread! I wasn't even trying to get those kinds of responses. Amazing.

Edman274 5y ago
The reason that the "yet you participate in society" argument works in the original comic you're quoting is that the peasant with sticks on his back is saying "we should improve society somewhat" and the peasant isn't allowed to choose whether they participate in a society. The reason what you're saying is not convincing, and why people keep pointing it out, is that you're saying in effect "a product that I freely use should never have existed". Let me spell it out for you. * The peasant doesn't get to choose whether he participates in society. * The peasant wants to improve society. Here's you: * You get to choose whether you use hacker news, and you have decided to use hacker news. * You think that websites like hacker news should not exist. Do you see why your argument isn't convincing? Your riposte of "yet you participate in society" could be used for literally anything. You're saying that hacker news shouldn't exist, but you don't actually believe that. If you argue things you don't believe, it's not really a good faith discussion.
- brimble 5y ago
  > The reason that the "yet you participate in society" argument works in the original comic you're quoting is that the peasant with sticks on his back is saying "we should improve society somewhat" and the peasant isn't allowed to choose whether they participate in a society. If we're gonna cite the comic, three out of the four panels of the comic do not rely on this, and are precisely about using something by choice even while saying they should be different. The last panel is even more extreme because it's funnier that way, presumably, but the core point does not rely on lack of choice. The other two examples are: posting from an iPhone that Apple ought to treat its workers better, and buying a car without seatbelts while saying cars ought to have seatbelts. > but you don't actually believe that. Nice mind reading. Shall I baselessly speculate about your posts while accusing you of being a bad actor, too? No, no I shall not.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    > The other two examples are: posting from an iPhone that Apple ought to treat its workers better, and buying a car without seatbelts while saying cars ought to have seatbelts. This is more akin to posting from an iPhone and saying phones shouldn't exist.
    - brimble 5y ago
      If someone wrote an op-ed saying they thought newspapers should be abolished, including some amount of explanation for why, sent it to the NYT, and the NYT published it, would you think that's slam-dunk proof that the author of the op ed is lying?
      - mannerheim 5y ago
        I'd be a bit confused if it turned out the author was a regular reader of the Gray Lady.
        brimble 5y ago
        Why? You may also be surprised to find out I'd prefer much more bike- and walking-friendly city planning, even to the point of making it harder to drive places, while in fact I drive almost everywhere. Dealing with the current reality does not prevent one from advocating something else. Am I the one taking crazy pills, thinking that's super-obvious?
        mannerheim 5y ago
        It's possible to make the case that you need to drive to get somewhere. Recreation is an entirely different matter. You don't need to read the New York Times. You don't need to read or post on Hacker News, either. You could go your entire life without these things at very little personal cost. In fact, it costs your attention to be doing these. The fact that you supposedly hold such a strong position as saying 'this platform shouldn't exist' when the cost to you for not using this platform is minimal makes very little sense to me. For the example of a phone, it's not entirely incongruent for someone who's already bought an iPhone to be upset with Apple, and if they generally wish to use a phone, other companies might not be much better. But if somehow they get the notion that phones or smartphones shouldn't exist at all and continued using them, that doesn't make sense. I know people who get around fine without smartphones. If somebody really thought smartphones shouldn't exist yet continued using them, I question the strength of their convictions, and am more inclined to believe they hold their position more for the value of controversy than genuine belief.

Edman274 5y ago

The reason that the "yet you participate in society" argument works in the original comic you're quoting is that the peasant with sticks on his back is saying "we should improve society somewhat" and the peasant isn't allowed to choose whether they participate in a society. The reason what you're saying is not convincing, and why people keep pointing it out, is that you're saying in effect "a product that I freely use should never have existed". Let me spell it out for you. * The peasant doesn't get to choose whether he participates in society. * The peasant wants to improve society. Here's you: * You get to choose whether you use hacker news, and you have decided to use hacker news. * You think that websites like hacker news should not exist. Do you see why your argument isn't convincing? Your riposte of "yet you participate in society" could be used for literally anything. You're saying that hacker news shouldn't exist, but you don't actually believe that. If you argue things you don't believe, it's not really a good faith discussion.

brimble 5y ago
> The reason that the "yet you participate in society" argument works in the original comic you're quoting is that the peasant with sticks on his back is saying "we should improve society somewhat" and the peasant isn't allowed to choose whether they participate in a society. If we're gonna cite the comic, three out of the four panels of the comic do not rely on this, and are precisely about using something by choice even while saying they should be different. The last panel is even more extreme because it's funnier that way, presumably, but the core point does not rely on lack of choice. The other two examples are: posting from an iPhone that Apple ought to treat its workers better, and buying a car without seatbelts while saying cars ought to have seatbelts. > but you don't actually believe that. Nice mind reading. Shall I baselessly speculate about your posts while accusing you of being a bad actor, too? No, no I shall not.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  > The other two examples are: posting from an iPhone that Apple ought to treat its workers better, and buying a car without seatbelts while saying cars ought to have seatbelts. This is more akin to posting from an iPhone and saying phones shouldn't exist.
  - brimble 5y ago
    If someone wrote an op-ed saying they thought newspapers should be abolished, including some amount of explanation for why, sent it to the NYT, and the NYT published it, would you think that's slam-dunk proof that the author of the op ed is lying?
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      I'd be a bit confused if it turned out the author was a regular reader of the Gray Lady.
      - brimble 5y ago
        Why? You may also be surprised to find out I'd prefer much more bike- and walking-friendly city planning, even to the point of making it harder to drive places, while in fact I drive almost everywhere. Dealing with the current reality does not prevent one from advocating something else. Am I the one taking crazy pills, thinking that's super-obvious?
        mannerheim 5y ago
        It's possible to make the case that you need to drive to get somewhere. Recreation is an entirely different matter. You don't need to read the New York Times. You don't need to read or post on Hacker News, either. You could go your entire life without these things at very little personal cost. In fact, it costs your attention to be doing these. The fact that you supposedly hold such a strong position as saying 'this platform shouldn't exist' when the cost to you for not using this platform is minimal makes very little sense to me. For the example of a phone, it's not entirely incongruent for someone who's already bought an iPhone to be upset with Apple, and if they generally wish to use a phone, other companies might not be much better. But if somehow they get the notion that phones or smartphones shouldn't exist at all and continued using them, that doesn't make sense. I know people who get around fine without smartphones. If somebody really thought smartphones shouldn't exist yet continued using them, I question the strength of their convictions, and am more inclined to believe they hold their position more for the value of controversy than genuine belief.