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

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.