4 ms·

Some employers require sterilisation as part of the job. That does not mean you have to work for them! Working for someone is voluntary!

throw10920 2y ago
> Some employers require sterilisation as part of the job Such as? > That does not mean you have to work for them! If most employers require it, and your school requires it, and airlines require it to fly, then it's effectively mandatory.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > If most employers require it, and your school requires it, and airlines require it to fly, then it's effectively mandatory. Back to the above, working for someone is voluntary. And you certainly don't have to fly anywhere; that's a choice you make. Leaves only school, and that's often more or less voluntary too.
  - throw10920 2y ago
    > working for someone is voluntary You missed the word "most" in there. If most employers mandate it, it's effectively mandatory. School is also effectively mandatory in this economy. Ergo, my point stands. Don't be intellectually dishonest.
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - throw10920 2y ago
        The fact that you stalked my other comments and then engaged in personal attacks against me in other threads [1] (in addition to ideologue statements such as "I'm fairly sure there are schools ryun by anti-vaxxer nutjobs") proves conclusively that, in addition to completely disregarding the HN guidelines, you never had any intention of engaging in honest debate, that you only wish to push your political agenda regardless of facts or logic, that you're willing to lie and abuse words in order to do so, and that it's futile to respond. I do not need to defend myself against someone who behaves like this. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290855
        CRConrad 2y ago
        1) You've got your chronology and causality wrong[1]. No, I did not "stalk [your] other comment threads" after my other response to you. 2) And no, pointing out flawed logic in an argument is not a "personal attack". 3) My interests and motivations don't affect the validity of my arguments. I just said that working for a particular employer is a choice, not mandatory (here), and that assertions aren't proofs (elsewhere, at your link above). Hitler could say either of those, and it would still be correct. So could Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Emperor Bokassa, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Churchill. See how it has nothing to do with ideology? 4) What you claim are "proofs" are still just assertions, and working for a particular employer is still a choice. You were wrong, that is all. ___ [1]: I think I've replied to you exactly twice before, and you posted this exact same (apart from the link) response to both. Since what you're saying is either "you attacked me elsewhere, and then followed me here!" or "you attacked me here, and then followed me elsewhere!", it's confusing as Hell. Which is supposed to be "elsewhere", and which "here"? It even took me a while to realise both links were valid, and not some weird loop... (I was beginning to speculate whether Dan G had moved one sub-thread or both into some offshoot. That is, after I realised they are two separate sub-threads in the first place.)
        throw10920 2y ago
        > 1) You've got your chronology and causality wrong[1]. No, I did not "stalk [your] other comment threads" after my other response to you. My chronology is correct, and the available evidence points to you stalking: Comment where I said "Don't be intellectually dishonest." to you on the CDC thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290599, 2024-08-19 12:49:16 Your personal attack in a completely separate thread on Google/Meta: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290855 2024-08-19 13:23:48, around half an hour later. You had no comments on that Google/Meta thread before I posted my first one at 12:49. My comment calling out your stalking on the CDC thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41295767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41295767, 2024-08-20 00:47:02, around 12 hours after that. Your comment on the CDC thread (that I'm replying to) denying the events above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41298836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41298836, 2024-08-20 11:05:21, around 11 hours after that. > 2) And no, pointing out flawed logic in an argument is not a "personal attack". You're not pointing out flawed logic - you're using a comment I made on one thread to attack me in a completely separate thread. And you used the phrase "And, hey, at least I'm not the one calling my bare assertions "proofs." How's that for "intellectually dishonest"?" That's a personal attack. > 3) My interests and motivations don't affect the validity of my arguments. Of purely logical arguments, yes. However, someone who is fundamentally dishonest cannot be trusted to act in good faith, avoid concealing, distorting, or lying about evidence, or reason intellectually, or use words correctly without using alternative definitions or changing their use of them mid-argument. Your personal attacks, your blatant partisan political statements ("I'm fairly sure there are schools ryun by anti-vaxxer nutjobs"), and your lie about the chronology of your personal attack indicate that you're not interested in being honest, only pushing an agenda. > 4) What you claim are "proofs" are still just assertions, and working for a particular employer is still a choice. You were wrong, that is all. I do not need to defend myself against someone who behaves like this. > I think I've replied to you exactly twice before, and you posted this exact same (apart from the link) response to both Yes, because I think it's helpful for future readers of both threads to see that you're making personal attacks from one thread into another. That's important context when evaluating the truthfulness of the writers. dang: if you read this, I apologize for degrading the quality of the discourse, but I feel a need to defend myself when other users engage in personal attacks and gaslighting against me, and it isn't flagged.

throw10920 2y ago

> Some employers require sterilisation as part of the job Such as? > That does not mean you have to work for them! If most employers require it, and your school requires it, and airlines require it to fly, then it's effectively mandatory.

CRConrad 2y ago
> If most employers require it, and your school requires it, and airlines require it to fly, then it's effectively mandatory. Back to the above, working for someone is voluntary. And you certainly don't have to fly anywhere; that's a choice you make. Leaves only school, and that's often more or less voluntary too.
- throw10920 2y ago
  > working for someone is voluntary You missed the word "most" in there. If most employers mandate it, it's effectively mandatory. School is also effectively mandatory in this economy. Ergo, my point stands. Don't be intellectually dishonest.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - throw10920 2y ago
      The fact that you stalked my other comments and then engaged in personal attacks against me in other threads [1] (in addition to ideologue statements such as "I'm fairly sure there are schools ryun by anti-vaxxer nutjobs") proves conclusively that, in addition to completely disregarding the HN guidelines, you never had any intention of engaging in honest debate, that you only wish to push your political agenda regardless of facts or logic, that you're willing to lie and abuse words in order to do so, and that it's futile to respond. I do not need to defend myself against someone who behaves like this. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290855
      - CRConrad 2y ago
        1) You've got your chronology and causality wrong[1]. No, I did not "stalk [your] other comment threads" after my other response to you. 2) And no, pointing out flawed logic in an argument is not a "personal attack". 3) My interests and motivations don't affect the validity of my arguments. I just said that working for a particular employer is a choice, not mandatory (here), and that assertions aren't proofs (elsewhere, at your link above). Hitler could say either of those, and it would still be correct. So could Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Emperor Bokassa, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Churchill. See how it has nothing to do with ideology? 4) What you claim are "proofs" are still just assertions, and working for a particular employer is still a choice. You were wrong, that is all. ___ [1]: I think I've replied to you exactly twice before, and you posted this exact same (apart from the link) response to both. Since what you're saying is either "you attacked me elsewhere, and then followed me here!" or "you attacked me here, and then followed me elsewhere!", it's confusing as Hell. Which is supposed to be "elsewhere", and which "here"? It even took me a while to realise both links were valid, and not some weird loop... (I was beginning to speculate whether Dan G had moved one sub-thread or both into some offshoot. That is, after I realised they are two separate sub-threads in the first place.)
        throw10920 2y ago
        > 1) You've got your chronology and causality wrong[1]. No, I did not "stalk [your] other comment threads" after my other response to you. My chronology is correct, and the available evidence points to you stalking: Comment where I said "Don't be intellectually dishonest." to you on the CDC thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290599, 2024-08-19 12:49:16 Your personal attack in a completely separate thread on Google/Meta: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290855 2024-08-19 13:23:48, around half an hour later. You had no comments on that Google/Meta thread before I posted my first one at 12:49. My comment calling out your stalking on the CDC thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41295767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41295767, 2024-08-20 00:47:02, around 12 hours after that. Your comment on the CDC thread (that I'm replying to) denying the events above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41298836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41298836, 2024-08-20 11:05:21, around 11 hours after that. > 2) And no, pointing out flawed logic in an argument is not a "personal attack". You're not pointing out flawed logic - you're using a comment I made on one thread to attack me in a completely separate thread. And you used the phrase "And, hey, at least I'm not the one calling my bare assertions "proofs." How's that for "intellectually dishonest"?" That's a personal attack. > 3) My interests and motivations don't affect the validity of my arguments. Of purely logical arguments, yes. However, someone who is fundamentally dishonest cannot be trusted to act in good faith, avoid concealing, distorting, or lying about evidence, or reason intellectually, or use words correctly without using alternative definitions or changing their use of them mid-argument. Your personal attacks, your blatant partisan political statements ("I'm fairly sure there are schools ryun by anti-vaxxer nutjobs"), and your lie about the chronology of your personal attack indicate that you're not interested in being honest, only pushing an agenda. > 4) What you claim are "proofs" are still just assertions, and working for a particular employer is still a choice. You were wrong, that is all. I do not need to defend myself against someone who behaves like this. > I think I've replied to you exactly twice before, and you posted this exact same (apart from the link) response to both Yes, because I think it's helpful for future readers of both threads to see that you're making personal attacks from one thread into another. That's important context when evaluating the truthfulness of the writers. dang: if you read this, I apologize for degrading the quality of the discourse, but I feel a need to defend myself when other users engage in personal attacks and gaslighting against me, and it isn't flagged.