4 ms·

Typical. Free Speech! (has nothing to do with government censorship or banning of speech of any kind) Equal rights! (has nothing to do with people being grant

Typical. Free Speech! (has nothing to do with government censorship or banning of speech of any kind) Equal rights! (has nothing to do with people being granted rights equally by the government, or those rights being applied unevenly) Is someone here promoting censorship or banning of a type of speech? Is someone of Class B being persecuted for a crime Class A would not be persecuted for? If the answer to both questions is no, then we are not discussing free speech or equal rights. Having a lack of sympathy for someone who committed a crime (in this case a contract violation) is neither anti-free speech nor anti-equal rights. Do you think it would be better for us to feel more empathy for contract breakers than for those whose marriages have been adversely affected?

jasonlotito 11y ago
Oh, I can play "snarky HN comment" too! Ahem... Typical. Privacy! (until people I disagree with have their privacy taken). The Free Speech/Equal Rights remarks weren't about this case. The GP's comment was alluding to them and comparing them to Privacy, which was what was being discussed. Your remarks about Free Speech and Equal Rights are pointless and immaterial. > Having a lack of sympathy for someone who committed a crime (in this case a contract violation) Just curious, what crime did they commit in signing up for AM? What proof do you have that they did sign up? What proof do you have that the released data will be accurate? What contract did they violate by signing up for AM? I'm curious to know what proof you have besides assumptions to make a bold statement that anyone mentioned in the released data is immediately guilty of something. > Do you think it would be better for us to feel more empathy for contract breakers than for those whose marriages have been adversely affected? Do you think it would be better for us to find people guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty?

jasonlotito 11y ago

Oh, I can play "snarky HN comment" too! Ahem... Typical. Privacy! (until people I disagree with have their privacy taken). The Free Speech/Equal Rights remarks weren't about this case. The GP's comment was alluding to them and comparing them to Privacy, which was what was being discussed. Your remarks about Free Speech and Equal Rights are pointless and immaterial. > Having a lack of sympathy for someone who committed a crime (in this case a contract violation) Just curious, what crime did they commit in signing up for AM? What proof do you have that they did sign up? What proof do you have that the released data will be accurate? What contract did they violate by signing up for AM? I'm curious to know what proof you have besides assumptions to make a bold statement that anyone mentioned in the released data is immediately guilty of something. > Do you think it would be better for us to feel more empathy for contract breakers than for those whose marriages have been adversely affected? Do you think it would be better for us to find people guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty?