3 ms·

Basically you've made an unsubstantiated claim to write it off What, exactly, is "unsubstantiated"? Do you doubt how Canadian Parliament works? Do you doubt th

Basically you've made an unsubstantiated claim to write it off What, exactly, is "unsubstantiated"? Do you doubt how Canadian Parliament works? Do you doubt that he's a member of the opposition? Do you doubt that all of his claims are vague to the point of meaninglessness? It is throwing some fetid meat on the table and saying "make a meal". There is zero possibility of it leading to valid conversation. It is just another partisan post that would invariably lead to those tiring comments by people saying the trite "Sorry for Stephen Harper" nonsense.

hnnewguy 12y ago
>It is just another partisan post that would invariably lead to those tiring comments by people saying the trite "Sorry for Stephen Harper" nonsense. Not a single person here has brought up Stephen Harper, except you. It sounds like you're itching for a fight. The point of the "op-ed" (which is, by definition, an opinion piece) is to raise awareness that our public representatives have issues with the legislation, and hopefully move the debate into the public sphere. I don't see anything wrong with that. Now, whether this deserves to have made it onto the front page of HN, that's debatable.
- pyre 12y ago
  Apparently the idea that anyone might want to debate this piece of legislation is appalling to some.
ska 12y ago
What I doubt is not relevant. You claimed that the speech had " ... very little in solid critiques, but instead weighs to emotions", but provided no support for this statement at all. That is, after all, precisely what unsubstantiated means. Which is why I commented at all, being tired of commentary that simultaneously complains about either the low quality of current comments, or the impossibility of high quality comments --- while at the same time providing negative value itself. Your approach is a variant of the tired formula "The post is [stupid/terrible/useless/...]. I am obviously [more knowledgeable/smarter than you/right/...]. Anyone who would disagree is clearly [an idiot/partisan/lazy/...], and I fully expect to see them come out in droves now". This risible style does far more to lower the tone than any linked article I've ever seen here.
- engendered 12y ago
  Your claim is utter absurdity. I stated the absence of something, and you demand that I prove the absence of it? Grow up. My "approach" is to call out a bullshit, partisan, zero content article. If you don't like it, well bully for you. And FWIW, I succeeded in short circuiting some bullshit, taking many well worth it downvotes in the process (from imbeciles who are growing in ranks), angry idiots desperate that they can't ply their partisan bickery.
  - ska 12y ago
    No. You stated that the article lacked solid critiques, but failed to address even one of the critiques presented and show it's lack of solidity. You further claimed that "instead weighs to emotion" but provided no evidence of it. Stating such things as if they are self evident from the text is posturing, not argument. This sort of blather serves no useful purpose in discourse, and is rightly despised as a favored tool of the demagogue. I'm well beyond diminishing returns here, so I'm done with this.
  - dang 12y ago
    Several of your comments have been breaking the Hacker News guidelines. Please follow them when commenting on this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
    - engendered 12y ago
      No, they haven't. That this site is increasingly veering into Reddit land (with the same sort of absurd dogpile moderation -- countless of my completely benign comments have been downvoted by imbeciles who need to "punish" me), and this is on you, dear Dang. Yuk, within minutes on some long forgotten post -- downvoted. Either you have some pathetic, psychotic users who literally follow me around, or you yourself put some comical downvote bot on me. Sad stuff. HN continues its descent to complete irrelevance. Oh no, it's the clever slowban. So tricky.

hnnewguy 12y ago

>It is just another partisan post that would invariably lead to those tiring comments by people saying the trite "Sorry for Stephen Harper" nonsense. Not a single person here has brought up Stephen Harper, except you. It sounds like you're itching for a fight. The point of the "op-ed" (which is, by definition, an opinion piece) is to raise awareness that our public representatives have issues with the legislation, and hopefully move the debate into the public sphere. I don't see anything wrong with that. Now, whether this deserves to have made it onto the front page of HN, that's debatable.

pyre 12y ago
Apparently the idea that anyone might want to debate this piece of legislation is appalling to some.

ska 12y ago

What I doubt is not relevant. You claimed that the speech had " ... very little in solid critiques, but instead weighs to emotions", but provided no support for this statement at all. That is, after all, precisely what unsubstantiated means. Which is why I commented at all, being tired of commentary that simultaneously complains about either the low quality of current comments, or the impossibility of high quality comments --- while at the same time providing negative value itself. Your approach is a variant of the tired formula "The post is [stupid/terrible/useless/...]. I am obviously [more knowledgeable/smarter than you/right/...]. Anyone who would disagree is clearly [an idiot/partisan/lazy/...], and I fully expect to see them come out in droves now". This risible style does far more to lower the tone than any linked article I've ever seen here.

engendered 12y ago
Your claim is utter absurdity. I stated the absence of something, and you demand that I prove the absence of it? Grow up. My "approach" is to call out a bullshit, partisan, zero content article. If you don't like it, well bully for you. And FWIW, I succeeded in short circuiting some bullshit, taking many well worth it downvotes in the process (from imbeciles who are growing in ranks), angry idiots desperate that they can't ply their partisan bickery.
- ska 12y ago
  No. You stated that the article lacked solid critiques, but failed to address even one of the critiques presented and show it's lack of solidity. You further claimed that "instead weighs to emotion" but provided no evidence of it. Stating such things as if they are self evident from the text is posturing, not argument. This sort of blather serves no useful purpose in discourse, and is rightly despised as a favored tool of the demagogue. I'm well beyond diminishing returns here, so I'm done with this.
- dang 12y ago
  Several of your comments have been breaking the Hacker News guidelines. Please follow them when commenting on this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
  - engendered 12y ago
    No, they haven't. That this site is increasingly veering into Reddit land (with the same sort of absurd dogpile moderation -- countless of my completely benign comments have been downvoted by imbeciles who need to "punish" me), and this is on you, dear Dang. Yuk, within minutes on some long forgotten post -- downvoted. Either you have some pathetic, psychotic users who literally follow me around, or you yourself put some comical downvote bot on me. Sad stuff. HN continues its descent to complete irrelevance. Oh no, it's the clever slowban. So tricky.