Hacker News Reader

Comment by wfo | Hacker News Reader

If they had to negotiate in public, they would no longer be able to argue this way, you are correct. They would also be unable to make concessions and compromises which are bad for the voting citizens of the country. And they would have to be clear about what their policy objectives are.

You keep saying "but... but... it would be different from how it is now!" all over this thread (and are frequently rude and condescending). And everyone else is saying "yes, exactly, that's the point". Different is not bad. You need to go a step further and explain why transparency would /not be better/, pointing out that having our laws drafted by corporate interests with near zero citizen input in secret is the way we currently choose to do things is not good enough.

View on HN

No, this is not what I am saying. I'm saying that you have unrealistic expectations. You expect the general populous, the media and the opportunistic politicians to act in a perfectly rational way. In this world of yours, taking things out of context, twisting them, playing on people's emotions, narcissism and fear cannot block the ALMIGHTY logic.

Taking the condescending approach is much saner than the alternative when everybody is very naive.

> taking things out of context

Who gets to establish the context in the first place?

I would rather have naive Carter than condescending Kissinger represent me.

Perhaps your opinion will change when you try to negotiate something of significance, on a large scale.

Perhaps you would like to answer my question rather than make a snide remark about President Carver?

If you don't treat people with respect in a discussion they won't respect you. If you act childish as you have people will treat you like a child, as we have.

The community's general response to you has been very kind considering how you are acting, I think to its credit.

I have of course said nothing of the sort about rational actions and neither has anyone here. I expect nothing of the sort from any of those groups, of course, and neither does anyone. It must be convenient to be able to tell everyone you disagree with what they are thinking and then argue against the position you've invented. What you've done is typically called a "straw man" and is generally associated with arguing in bad faith.

It seems you've decided you have the answer (and surprise, it's the status quo) and anyone who disagrees with you is naive and stupid, so there isn't much point in continuing this discussion for either of us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com