5 ms·
In point of fact, it didn't. I read all the way through the original article. I gave up on Mr. pseudo-Nice Guy. I ignored the guy who didn't call me a prick. T
by thras 17y ago
In point of fact, it didn't. I read all the way through the original article. I gave up on Mr. pseudo-Nice Guy. I ignored the guy who didn't call me a prick.
Therefore, in contradiction of your argument, meanness and name-calling enabled communication with me. And therefore your premise blows its own brains out in disgust at its own self-contradiction.
Now, it helps when it's actually well done in contrast to your last line about me being "a prick" -- and I am, by the way. Always remember to make that beautied muse Creativity your ho when insulting a man.
- philwelch 17y agoIf you're really interested in conflict and drama above all else, I suggest you navigate to one of the many web discussion forums that are suited to that kind of thing--there are many of them and any one will do. As for this issue, it appears that when calling people cunts is the most interesting thing one can say, the issue probably falls far below any level of genuine intellectual curiosity and has no place here. Your citing of Plato and Martin Luther as examples only strengthens my point--Plato was a bullshit artist to the highest degree and Luther was above all things the instigator of some of the most dramatic religious wars in history. Neither of them had anything to say about reality, and those of us who do discuss reality would do best to ignore their examples.
- thras 17y agoYou go off and be intellectually curious in the kiddy pool then. I'll stick around the deep end, even if there might be sharks sometimes. And contrary to your pronouncements about its nature, Hacker News is not any sort of kiddy pool.
- mcantor 17y agoI feel like you're using child similes to the exclusion of actually reading other people's posts. You keep saying that everyone else are "Kindergarten teachers" playing in the "kiddy pool," but I believe that real men--real adults--are capable of disagreeing with each other without ascribing their differences to a deep inner flaw in the other man's personality. You have provided no evidence or argument to the contrary.
- thras 17y agoNice. You insinuate that I'm childlike and not a "real man" for insinuating things about other people. Love your style, brother Pot. -- Kettle
- mcantor 17y agoIt seems pretty clear that you are going to find a way to make this debate personal no matter which direction it's going in. However I still feel compelled to note: I had no intention of insinuating even the slightest thing about you. I know absolutely nothing about you. I simply disagree with your contention that I am being childish and naive. If my opinions come off as an ad hominem attack, it is only because the subject we are discussing involves very personal choices.
- thras 17y agoAh, it was all my fault that you said what you did. All of the personal nastiness, the name-calling, on this thread is coming from you and Phil. He introduced it, calling me a "stupid prick." Your claim that I wasn't an adult or even a "real man" was similarly low. The nastiness that you anti-nastiness warriors dish out here says something, I think.