3 ms·

Why do you think it’s ok to strip those people of their agency like that? Is it because they’re brown and you consider them to be primitive people?

by prvit 4y ago

hackinthebochs 4y ago
Arguments like this are so transparent. Do better.
- prvit 4y ago
  Your argument is akin to blaming NATO for the war in Ukraine.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    Are you even capable of making an argument in defense of your claims, instead of laundering the moral sentiment of the issue of the hour?
    - prvit 4y ago
      Defend my claim against what? I made a specific claim about deaths caused by US forces, nobody has seriously tried to dispute that. You’re trying to push some absurd logic that would also imply that Gavrilo Princip was personally responsible for the tens of millions of deaths caused by WW1.
      - mistermann 4y ago
        > I made a specific claim about deaths caused by US forces, nobody has seriously tried to dispute that. Incorrect. I disputed it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33396768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33396768
        prvit 4y ago
        No you didn’t. At no point did you attempt to present conflicting numbers. Instead you sunk to lazy trolling with “is anything true?? question everything!”. Yeah, you can dismiss literally any conversation like that. You started playing games with meanings of well defined words like “terrorism”. It’s like arguing that the sky being blue is just a matter of opinion, completely pointless.
        mistermann 4y ago
        > No you didn’t. Yes, I did. > At no point did you attempt to present conflicting numbers. a) False: "Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War" b) Presenting a competing theory is not even a requirement of disputing a claim - dispute: "to question the truth or rightness of dispute a statement" > Instead you sunk to lazy trolling with “is anything true?? question everything!”. Yeah, you can dismiss literally any conversation like that. Do you lack the ability to see what you are doing here? Are you not literally asserting that appealing to what is actually true is necessarily ~invalid, and can only be "trolling"? > You started playing games with meanings of well defined words like “terrorism”. It’s like arguing that the sky being blue is just a matter of opinion, completely pointless. I often wonder: what would people like you do if someone was to ever take away your memes...do you have anything to fall back on? I challenge you to utilize the same mode of thinking that you would apply when discussing code, processors, or that sort of thing. If you instead choose to continue with your current mode, I will continue to mock you as I am doing now (and to moderators: if people can engage in insults and bald-faced lying, is some teasing in response really that inappropriate?). I look forward to seeing your reaction.
        prvit 4y ago
        > a) False: "Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War" I say: “Distance between x and y is 10 kilometers” You say: “Another common reference states that the distance between y and z is 10000 kilometers” You are not disputing anything, you’re either particularly stupid or trolling. > I challenge you to utilize the same mode of thinking that you would apply when discussing code, processors, or that sort of thing You first.
- mistermann 4y ago
  Some people say that the first prerequisite step in solving such problems is that one first realizes one has a problem. In my experience, people are not very good at self-awareness...in general, but particularly during the discussion of certain topics. There is no shortage of evidence of this archived in social media conversations.

Why do you think it’s ok to strip those people of their agency like that? Is it because they’re brown and you consider them to be primitive people?

by prvit 4y ago

Why do you think it’s ok to strip those people of their agency like that? Is it because they’re brown and you consider them to be primitive people?

hackinthebochs 4y ago

Arguments like this are so transparent. Do better.

prvit 4y ago
Your argument is akin to blaming NATO for the war in Ukraine.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  Are you even capable of making an argument in defense of your claims, instead of laundering the moral sentiment of the issue of the hour?
  - prvit 4y ago
    Defend my claim against what? I made a specific claim about deaths caused by US forces, nobody has seriously tried to dispute that. You’re trying to push some absurd logic that would also imply that Gavrilo Princip was personally responsible for the tens of millions of deaths caused by WW1.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > I made a specific claim about deaths caused by US forces, nobody has seriously tried to dispute that. Incorrect. I disputed it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33396768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33396768
      - prvit 4y ago
        No you didn’t. At no point did you attempt to present conflicting numbers. Instead you sunk to lazy trolling with “is anything true?? question everything!”. Yeah, you can dismiss literally any conversation like that. You started playing games with meanings of well defined words like “terrorism”. It’s like arguing that the sky being blue is just a matter of opinion, completely pointless.
        mistermann 4y ago
        > No you didn’t. Yes, I did. > At no point did you attempt to present conflicting numbers. a) False: "Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War" b) Presenting a competing theory is not even a requirement of disputing a claim - dispute: "to question the truth or rightness of dispute a statement" > Instead you sunk to lazy trolling with “is anything true?? question everything!”. Yeah, you can dismiss literally any conversation like that. Do you lack the ability to see what you are doing here? Are you not literally asserting that appealing to what is actually true is necessarily ~invalid, and can only be "trolling"? > You started playing games with meanings of well defined words like “terrorism”. It’s like arguing that the sky being blue is just a matter of opinion, completely pointless. I often wonder: what would people like you do if someone was to ever take away your memes...do you have anything to fall back on? I challenge you to utilize the same mode of thinking that you would apply when discussing code, processors, or that sort of thing. If you instead choose to continue with your current mode, I will continue to mock you as I am doing now (and to moderators: if people can engage in insults and bald-faced lying, is some teasing in response really that inappropriate?). I look forward to seeing your reaction.
        prvit 4y ago
        > a) False: "Another common reference is this one, which has numbers as high as 1,000,000+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War" I say: “Distance between x and y is 10 kilometers” You say: “Another common reference states that the distance between y and z is 10000 kilometers” You are not disputing anything, you’re either particularly stupid or trolling. > I challenge you to utilize the same mode of thinking that you would apply when discussing code, processors, or that sort of thing You first.
mistermann 4y ago
Some people say that the first prerequisite step in solving such problems is that one first realizes one has a problem. In my experience, people are not very good at self-awareness...in general, but particularly during the discussion of certain topics. There is no shortage of evidence of this archived in social media conversations.