4 ms·

> But I don't care about whether or not people on HN would talk about it. You certainly don't have to care, but that is the discussion taking place. It is a ne

> But I don't care about whether or not people on HN would talk about it. You certainly don't have to care, but that is the discussion taking place. It is a necessary precondition for this supposed parallel to exist. If you're trying to tell us that you can't focus and are flailing around like one of those whacky blow up thingys down at the used car lot, have fun with that. It no doubt goes well with your comedy show. > This entire sub-discussion is about fallacious arguments Oh, I see, so you really are unable to focus. I get why you appear to be so confused now. It is not so much that you're confused in what you write, but that you're off in your own world. Well, that's pretty funny, at least.

Apocryphon 2y ago
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- randomdata 2y ago
  And most of all, have fun.
  - Apocryphon 2y ago
    Are those tears really from laughter, or are you laughing through the tears? The original post I was responding to was about people who get upset about Ozempic who "show up over and over again on any discussion of these drugs." Maybe the poster did include HN as a place of those discussions, but I interpreted it as in general, in other internet spaces and in meatspace. I then posted a similar fallacious argument that I felt paralleled it because ultimately they're both arguments out of a perceived lack of personal responsibility being "rewarded" by a quick fix. You chose to introduce logic and reason by arguing that opposition to student loan debt forgiveness is motivated by the complainers becoming bag-holders. I agree that might be a (strong) motivation, but it is not the only one, because many people become busybodies when it comes to attacking others' personal (ir)responsibility when those others receive a windfall. "Taking the easy way out." This subthread might have been a meandering road, but we have arrived right at where we started, with you bizarrely attacking a critique that I do not believe in, out of sheer pedantry perhaps. Now, are you going to attempt a defense, a refutation, or whatever, or continue to hurl insults that both flout the guidelines of this forum and only serve to demean yourself?

Apocryphon 2y ago

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
randomdata 2y ago
And most of all, have fun.
- Apocryphon 2y ago
  Are those tears really from laughter, or are you laughing through the tears? The original post I was responding to was about people who get upset about Ozempic who "show up over and over again on any discussion of these drugs." Maybe the poster did include HN as a place of those discussions, but I interpreted it as in general, in other internet spaces and in meatspace. I then posted a similar fallacious argument that I felt paralleled it because ultimately they're both arguments out of a perceived lack of personal responsibility being "rewarded" by a quick fix. You chose to introduce logic and reason by arguing that opposition to student loan debt forgiveness is motivated by the complainers becoming bag-holders. I agree that might be a (strong) motivation, but it is not the only one, because many people become busybodies when it comes to attacking others' personal (ir)responsibility when those others receive a windfall. "Taking the easy way out." This subthread might have been a meandering road, but we have arrived right at where we started, with you bizarrely attacking a critique that I do not believe in, out of sheer pedantry perhaps. Now, are you going to attempt a defense, a refutation, or whatever, or continue to hurl insults that both flout the guidelines of this forum and only serve to demean yourself?