>> I'm at a loss as to how to respond to a comment that basically says "It's better to let someone die than do something for them that might have a less than optimal outcome."
My comment doesn't "basically say" anything remotely like that.
Generally, I'd suggest that it's a very bad idea to respond to comments by spelling out some thing that they "basically" or "essentially", "really" etc "say" when that thing is nowhere in the comment's original text. Perhaps you _imagine_ that I said something like that, or you _think_ I did- but I didn't. Why not respond to exactly what the comment said?
Here, I'll repeat it: just because someone, for example, _you_, is willing to be a guinea pig, doesn't mean that other people should turn them into a guinea pig.
Nothing there about "better" or "letting someone die" or anything of the sort.
EDIT:
>> For the record, I have a diagnosis of atypical cystic fibrosis.
It's your business if you want to discuss matters of your health in a public forum, but have you considered the possibility that you are not the only commenter who has a personal interest in this subject?
> Do you think there are some strange posts on these threads, written with an underlying tinge of propaganda (not everyone).
You mean like yourself here [1] where you are touting government propaganda?
The thing about propaganda is, the more one-sided a conversation becomes, the less interesting it is. There's no single viewpoint that can pretend to take two opposing sides of an argument. Good internet comments are succinct, point out flaws in other comments' arguments, and are on the minds of other readers. If a comment thread doesn't make me think, I lose interest.
Commenters: if you won't resist the temptation to rehash stale political controversy out of respect for a human person, then please resist because it's dreadfully tedious and obviously against the guidelines.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
> Your work may actually kill people when used as intended.
Are you intentionally being completely oblivious to the fact that many people believe this consequence to be a good thing for them and humanity as a whole? I don't want to get into the debate about whether this belief is true or not; I'm just curious as to why HN commenters so often pretend that people with different political beliefs don't exist at all, or are only pretending to have these beliefs out of some other, hidden, true reasons.
Even if you don't agree with some political stance, it's just strange to convince yourself that nobody sincerely believes it.
>Generalizing through an extreme example is the problem.
Why? It made my point that he was dangerous, though to an unlikely extreme conclusion, which I admitted was unlikely before I even said it. I would hope everyone reading comments here would be perceptive enough to recognize hyperbole when they read it, especially since I called it out as an exaggeration. Given that no one is likely to take it literally, what is the problem? What is the real danger you're warning against?
Not sure what your goal with these comments is, honestly. Seems like I hit a sore spot, given the temperature of your replies. Apologies if I somehow hit close to home.
> Silencing and/or hiding people with different opinions is never the way to go.
I completely agree with this. But looking at the (now dead) comment (not having flagged it myself)...it's not really an example of a differing opinion. It's a cheap rhetorical shot that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. If the commentor had actually expanded on their disagreement, the remark could certainly stand as part of that. There are examples of substantive comments in this thread that disagree with yours.
On its own, that one has no merit except to lower the level of discourse here.
Could we please not try to prohibit critique and discussion just because someone doesn't agree with it? Open discussion and well founded criticism is what makes me read the comments.
I actually was searching for a response to GP claims about prison not being a deterrent and if nobody had mentioned it would commented it myself.
To add to the arguments: GP even contradicts himself by stating how bad prison is and that you really don't want to be there while claiming it's not a deterrent.
Criticizing that point was absolutely fair and doesn't mean the rest of GP's comment is bad or untrue.
> That's a rather controversial comment you're making here.
Yes, indeed it is. My comment is so politically incorrect that I dare not make it in real life. Yet I suspect that plenty of people (though probably not the majority) would agree, but can't speak out about it.
> There will likely be people that reply to this comment with various comments saying I am wrong. You can judge those comments for yourself.
This is the comment equivalent of a loaded question. Or it's like those people who dismiss those arguing against them because of who they are rather than what their argument is.
Do you think fictional depictions of obviously-mistaken suicides will increase suicide?
>What about the Bible ( Jesus )? What about Socrates?
Do you think examples of convicts who did not resist their death sentences will increase suicide?
>nanny state crowd supporting censorship
If criticism is censorship, then your comment is censorship of other comments.
reply