2 ms·

> Your question is completely unfair That means your response is completely unfairer! ;) Seriously though, multiple people asked you that question, so it's no

> Your question is completely unfair That means your response is completely unfairer! ;) Seriously though, multiple people asked you that question, so it's not my question. That may be a clue that it isn't actually "unfair". But I don't doubt that you nonetheless hold your opinion that we're unfair and you're fair. Now that you've said your opinion, it'd be awesome if you answer the question we asked you. > the probability of it happening to a random person of a certain group before happening to say a thousand others from the same group is close to zero Ignoring for a moment that it's impossible for something to happen to 1000 people without first happening to the first of them: your position assumes that it isn't bad if this happens to a single person (maybe you), even though it is. Beyond that, I'm not sure we're qualified (data-wise) to judge the probabilities you mentioned and whether they're close to zero, given the data we have available. If you think we are, then I submit the probability is close to 100%. We can then average our two estimates to get to a probability 50%, still well worth considering when you answer. Anyways, it'd be much appreciated if you could go ahead and answer the question multiple people are asking you. I believe you are a talented human capable of answering questions which you personally think are unfair and which others don't think are unfair.

OutOfHere 2y ago
Your question is pretty much the same as asking someone what they would do when confronted by any kidnappers or thieves. Who the specific kidnappers or thieves are hardly matters. You don't need me to tell you that the goal of any kidnapped individual is to creatively try to escape if the alternative is a short life in the gulag. Capture a guard, change clothes with them, and escape. As such, your question adds no new insight.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  > Your question is pretty much the same as... I respectfully don't agree with your opinion here -- the question multiple people asked you, is what it is. There's no point relating it to a totally different question when we could simply discuss it directly. It reminds me of the current situation we're discussing -- the administration, when pressed by a judge to answer what they've tried so far towards returning their victim, refused to do so, giving some pretext about fairness or whatever. The judge essentially responded, okay, thanks for the opinion, but just because you have an opinion about the question doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't answer it. Same goes here: a personally-held opinion that a question is unfair, or biased, or mean, or like this or like that, doesn't mean one can't or shouldn't answer it. What kind of meaningful discussion can be had when everyone avoids answering questions that they don't like, or whose answers make them uncomfortable, and they justify it by claiming that they personally hold the opinion that the question is "unfair"? Bor-ing! > Capture a guard, change clothes with them, and escape See? That said, is this really your proposed recourse for someone (US citizen or otherwise) deported to the gulag in question by the current administration (mistakenly or otherwise)? Seriously?

OutOfHere 2y ago

Your question is pretty much the same as asking someone what they would do when confronted by any kidnappers or thieves. Who the specific kidnappers or thieves are hardly matters. You don't need me to tell you that the goal of any kidnapped individual is to creatively try to escape if the alternative is a short life in the gulag. Capture a guard, change clothes with them, and escape. As such, your question adds no new insight.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
> Your question is pretty much the same as... I respectfully don't agree with your opinion here -- the question multiple people asked you, is what it is. There's no point relating it to a totally different question when we could simply discuss it directly. It reminds me of the current situation we're discussing -- the administration, when pressed by a judge to answer what they've tried so far towards returning their victim, refused to do so, giving some pretext about fairness or whatever. The judge essentially responded, okay, thanks for the opinion, but just because you have an opinion about the question doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't answer it. Same goes here: a personally-held opinion that a question is unfair, or biased, or mean, or like this or like that, doesn't mean one can't or shouldn't answer it. What kind of meaningful discussion can be had when everyone avoids answering questions that they don't like, or whose answers make them uncomfortable, and they justify it by claiming that they personally hold the opinion that the question is "unfair"? Bor-ing! > Capture a guard, change clothes with them, and escape See? That said, is this really your proposed recourse for someone (US citizen or otherwise) deported to the gulag in question by the current administration (mistakenly or otherwise)? Seriously?