further_tech

6 ms·

1.
by further_tech 10y ago
Honestly, you are either not intelligent or actively trying to distort my answers. 1) The 1st simply gives you freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if it is a gossip about someone. 2) I clearly was referring to the article exposing Thi
2.
by further_tech 10y ago
I'm not deciding for him. I'm being commonsensical by saying his "punishment" was not justifiable because of this article. For 99.9% of human beings, such article would never make someone spend enough money to put this n
3.
by further_tech 10y ago
1) First Amendment. Have you ever heard about celebrity gossips and VH1? 2) If it was offensive to Thiel, he clearly has an ego problem. Regardless, the article did not ATTACK him or MOCKED his sexuality. Any normal gay person would find ot
4.
by further_tech 10y ago
The same could be said about any media company. He did not "righted a wrong". This was a vicious "eye for an eye".
5.
by further_tech 10y ago
The article is making an argument (Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons) and, regardless of the author's motives or background, I analyze his arguments. Claiming "isn't saying he's wrong because of
6.
by further_tech 10y ago
Have you seen Gawker's piece on Thiel? ( http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people ) Surely broke his privacy, but by no means was it offensive. I get how HOGAN would be mad, but this seems like a w
7.
by further_tech 10y ago
Even if so, I'd rather move beyond the Ad hominem.
8.
by further_tech 10y ago
> WTF I don't understand your indignation. Is it that obvious to you the Valley can solve ALL human problems?
9.
by further_tech 10y ago
>replicate that formula at scale This doesn't help anyone; it only makes them feel worse. You will only make people have even more superficial relationships - the last thing a depressed alienated individual needs. Empathetic bonds
10.
by further_tech 10y ago
Maybe people can FUNDAMENTALLY change that with multiple collective actions, throughout hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years. Overfunded startups cannot change that. Overfunded startups can only provide another pill to ignore the problem (
11.
by further_tech 10y ago
There is no force to join a religious community. In this case, people have been doing this to deal with the alienation they face. Also, your second argument is ridiculous. Say you and me go to a party. We both decided this on our own. That
12.
by further_tech 10y ago
No. Please read more intelligently. I didn't use it to refer to "true Christians", but as an ontological description of Christianity.
13.
by further_tech 10y ago
Well... that's an extremely arrogant question. Can a startup change the core of human nature? Can it change thousands of years of Philosophy? Can it change our socio-economic background? Can it change history? If you can, then... dear
14.
by further_tech 10y ago
At its core, Christians are defined by fraternity, equality, goodness, etc. Maybe some atheists also have these, but there's not a guarantee all act this way. IMO, before founding an "atheist church", I'd at least establ
15.
by further_tech 10y ago
Startups cannot do a thing. Startups cannot change the fact people abandon their elderly parents. They'll just make it worse. Startups cannot make people less egotistical or make them think about the other. They'll just make it w
16.
by further_tech 10y ago
Your argument is dominated by pragmatism, which often obfuscates what religion is all about. Great communities are a consequence of the chosen lifestyle and morality of religious people. You could gather just as many atheists and the respon