3 ms·

Odd argument. I never went for these relative arguments, as you can always find someone much better or worse off than yourself. At some level, all of us are p

Odd argument. I never went for these relative arguments, as you can always find someone much better or worse off than yourself. At some level, all of us are pampered whiny pussies who should be happy we're in a heated room, aren't beaten, and are at a low risk for being shot. People have their arms and legs cut off by warlords in some parts of the world right now, and my biggest fear is carpal tunnel. But still, carpal tunnel would be a complete bitch if I got it. So I'm blowing more money on a keyboard than many families have to spend on feed in a year. Not that I'm really defending Arrington, nor really attacking. Donno him, don't read techcrunch, don't really care anyway. If he's a douche, then have the non-douche decency to attack with something tangible.

smoody 18y ago
It goes beyond odd. In my uncensored opinion, it's moronic. You can't use the argument of someone having it worse as a justification for not allowing people to be scared and/or unhappy. I agree that Arrington has gone overboard, but that's neither here nor there. If you buy into his argument, then none of us have any reason to be unhappy. The teachers who get abused by their students and women who get stalked have no reason to be unhappy because there are people who can't put food on their table, so they are lucky, right? And the people who can't put food onto their tables can't be unhappy because they're not within minutes of losing their life to cancer, right? And the people with cancer? Well, they're not dead so they shouldn't be crybabies either. It's turtles all the way down. His post is nothing more than a way to generate traffic. How can I be sure? Because he put this near the top of his rant: "Mike, I don't know if you realize, but a lot of people's jobs aren't fun at all. (We're trying to change that with Path 101--sneak preview of new features here!)" In order for his argument to have any integrity, he shouldn't use it as a promotional vehicle. At least Arrington puts the goods up front.
- nihilocrat 18y ago
  I completely understand how the "someone else has it worse" argument is really dangerous and turtles infinitely to the point where everyone becomes a crybaby. I think your counter-argument is sound, but what is the middle ground we should be taking? I don't think it's proper to show zero compassion to those less fortunate (you can argue they created their own problems, but even then we all make mistakes), or to never be thankful of the good fortunes we have (since it would fuel the argument). Also, you could argue that none of us really do have a reason to be unhappy, but that ventures into an even bigger philosophical quagmire.

smoody 18y ago

It goes beyond odd. In my uncensored opinion, it's moronic. You can't use the argument of someone having it worse as a justification for not allowing people to be scared and/or unhappy. I agree that Arrington has gone overboard, but that's neither here nor there. If you buy into his argument, then none of us have any reason to be unhappy. The teachers who get abused by their students and women who get stalked have no reason to be unhappy because there are people who can't put food on their table, so they are lucky, right? And the people who can't put food onto their tables can't be unhappy because they're not within minutes of losing their life to cancer, right? And the people with cancer? Well, they're not dead so they shouldn't be crybabies either. It's turtles all the way down. His post is nothing more than a way to generate traffic. How can I be sure? Because he put this near the top of his rant: "Mike, I don't know if you realize, but a lot of people's jobs aren't fun at all. (We're trying to change that with Path 101--sneak preview of new features here!)" In order for his argument to have any integrity, he shouldn't use it as a promotional vehicle. At least Arrington puts the goods up front.

nihilocrat 18y ago
I completely understand how the "someone else has it worse" argument is really dangerous and turtles infinitely to the point where everyone becomes a crybaby. I think your counter-argument is sound, but what is the middle ground we should be taking? I don't think it's proper to show zero compassion to those less fortunate (you can argue they created their own problems, but even then we all make mistakes), or to never be thankful of the good fortunes we have (since it would fuel the argument). Also, you could argue that none of us really do have a reason to be unhappy, but that ventures into an even bigger philosophical quagmire.