5 ms·

Careful, they're out in droves downvoting anyone that disagrees with the premise of this story.

by downandout 13y ago

vacri 13y ago
We don't need Betteridge's Law quoted every single time there's a question mark in the article title.
- downandout 13y ago
  We also don't need environmentalist drivel that has no hope of being scientifically proven on the front page of HN, along with a vocal minority waiting to pounce on anyone that questions the validity of such nonsense. Yet, somehow it winds up there.
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    I'm sure you have at least as much research and data backing your hypothesis as this article does. Please do link it so we can take a look for ourselves. I'm sure you don't just have an unreasoning, politically-motivated, knee-jerk hatred of anything that strikes you as "environmentalist." That would be silly, after all.
    - downandout 13y ago
      That's just it: this article presents no data showing a definitive link between the two. Show me some evidence of that, and I'll be happy to agree with it. I agree with facts; not politically motivated opinions. It shows that one thing happened, and another thing happened. The tie (or, the much hated term "correlation") between the two is a stretch at best.
      - CamperBob2 13y ago
        See comments elsewhere about the effects observed when lead was removed from gasoline in different geographical areas at different times. The correlation is strong enough to be suggestive of a causal link -- so strong, in fact, that the burden of proof lies on those (e.g., yourself) who claim that there is no causal link.
corprew 13y ago
'they'?
DanBC 13y ago
I downvoted you. I didn't downvote you because you disagree with the article, but because your comments are empty dismissals of the headline without addressing the points in the article. I also downvote anyone who mentions betteridge if they don't make any other point. Comments like those are toxic and pointless. They add nothing to any discussion. We know that headlines are usually stupid and misleading and link baity. Ignore headlines. Read the article and talk about that instead.
- downandout 13y ago
  > I downvoted you. Join the club. I have lost 54 points so far in this single thread. The radical environmentalists seem to be upset with me. I actually don't care though, because whenever I see politically-motivated opinions masquerading as (junk) science, and otherwise intelligent people lending credence to it, I am going to say it. The article's main thrust is not remotely provable, but is easily disprovable. That is all I have said. There you go, now downvote me. Let's make it an even -55 points.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    You keep using terms like "radical environmentalists". Most of HN are not in any way "radical" in terms of environmentalism. That alone is going to attract downvotes. You say that the article is easy to disprove, yet you have made no attempt to do so. Attmepting to have a discussion might have got you less downvotes than merely saying "this article is wrong".
    - downandout 13y ago
      I don't care about the downvotes. The article did not prove its basic premise. It's that simple. I will keep saying it and keep getting downvotes. There aren't a lot of radical environmentalists on here, but I have several comments in this thread. Each one that is here can go through and take several points away, they've been doing it all night, and are apparently telling their tree hugging friends to do it as well. It's rather telling that all of my comments have -4 points; 5 crazies have taken 60 or so points. All it shows is that HN isn't the place it used to be.

Careful, they're out in droves downvoting anyone that disagrees with the premise of this story.

vacri 13y ago

We don't need Betteridge's Law quoted every single time there's a question mark in the article title.

downandout 13y ago
We also don't need environmentalist drivel that has no hope of being scientifically proven on the front page of HN, along with a vocal minority waiting to pounce on anyone that questions the validity of such nonsense. Yet, somehow it winds up there.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  I'm sure you have at least as much research and data backing your hypothesis as this article does. Please do link it so we can take a look for ourselves. I'm sure you don't just have an unreasoning, politically-motivated, knee-jerk hatred of anything that strikes you as "environmentalist." That would be silly, after all.
  - downandout 13y ago
    That's just it: this article presents no data showing a definitive link between the two. Show me some evidence of that, and I'll be happy to agree with it. I agree with facts; not politically motivated opinions. It shows that one thing happened, and another thing happened. The tie (or, the much hated term "correlation") between the two is a stretch at best.
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      See comments elsewhere about the effects observed when lead was removed from gasoline in different geographical areas at different times. The correlation is strong enough to be suggestive of a causal link -- so strong, in fact, that the burden of proof lies on those (e.g., yourself) who claim that there is no causal link.

corprew 13y ago

'they'?

DanBC 13y ago

I downvoted you. I didn't downvote you because you disagree with the article, but because your comments are empty dismissals of the headline without addressing the points in the article. I also downvote anyone who mentions betteridge if they don't make any other point. Comments like those are toxic and pointless. They add nothing to any discussion. We know that headlines are usually stupid and misleading and link baity. Ignore headlines. Read the article and talk about that instead.

downandout 13y ago
> I downvoted you. Join the club. I have lost 54 points so far in this single thread. The radical environmentalists seem to be upset with me. I actually don't care though, because whenever I see politically-motivated opinions masquerading as (junk) science, and otherwise intelligent people lending credence to it, I am going to say it. The article's main thrust is not remotely provable, but is easily disprovable. That is all I have said. There you go, now downvote me. Let's make it an even -55 points.
- DanBC 13y ago
  You keep using terms like "radical environmentalists". Most of HN are not in any way "radical" in terms of environmentalism. That alone is going to attract downvotes. You say that the article is easy to disprove, yet you have made no attempt to do so. Attmepting to have a discussion might have got you less downvotes than merely saying "this article is wrong".
  - downandout 13y ago
    I don't care about the downvotes. The article did not prove its basic premise. It's that simple. I will keep saying it and keep getting downvotes. There aren't a lot of radical environmentalists on here, but I have several comments in this thread. Each one that is here can go through and take several points away, they've been doing it all night, and are apparently telling their tree hugging friends to do it as well. It's rather telling that all of my comments have -4 points; 5 crazies have taken 60 or so points. All it shows is that HN isn't the place it used to be.