Hacker News Reader

Comment by CryoLogic | Hacker News Reader

Please refrain from such emotionally charged posts where you don't fully read the content of the parent, and you stoop low enough to start claiming you can read my mind and calling me a lier regarding an amendment for which you didn't even read beyond the Wikipedia summary.

http://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Bills/421/Government/C-16/C... it is literally an amendment that describes gender expression as literally anything you want to label yourself, than suggests misusing these labels is a crime and finally suggests increasing imprisonment and punishments as a result of not using these labels correct. Clause #4.

You are welcome to debate with me if you believe one of my interpretations are incorrect, but the way in which you chose to engage with me is very immature and makes it difficult to hold a discussion with you.

Please read the HN rules first before making future replies.

View on HN

>Thanks for being an example of the type of behavior I was talking about.

Would you care to specifically point out what about my post is relatable to the behavior you were talking about? You yourself actually attacked an entire group of people with opposing view points and used straw man's to do so. I merely bluntly called this out.

>Please refrain from such emotionally charged posts where you don't fully read the content of the parent,

I read it. Please don't violate HN guidelines by insinuating I haven't read what was necessary. You provided no proof that this is even the case.

>than suggests misusing these labels is a crime and finally suggests increasing imprisonment and punishments as a result of not using these labels correct.

It says nothing of the sort.

>You are welcome to debate with me if you believe one of my interpretations are incorrect

This isn't a debate. You have not presented anything that is arguable. You lied about a very basic event that was recorded and has public records contrary to your "interpretation." You also lied about what the law says. It cannot be read even remotely close to the way you are "interpreting" it and indeed it is impossible to enforce it in any manner you are attempting to describe.

Notice your post got flagged by the community. Please take a moment to consider why.

1. I didn't attack an entire group. I never said "everyone" or "no one". I said "a lot of".

2. I did make an assumption about you being emotionally charged due to:

- "your dutiful patrons of Reason and Logic (TM) "

- "You try to illicit a veneer of servitude towards reason and logic"

- "you can't help but be disingenuous about the subject you're discussing"

You also brought in a number of points lacking citation that I could not find any evidence of occurring at the protest I was saying I saw footage of. I googled and found the source footage, the whole talk is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwdYpMS8s28

I did not see any dogs, or anyone screaming about Micheal Brown or any of the other key points you mentioned. The whole talk is recorded including the kids trying to break the windows.

Maybe I was wrong in assuming you where emotionally charged, and maybe you just have a naturally hostile-seeming way of expressing yourself including calling names and quoting and claiming without citation. If so I apologize for suggesting it was emotionally charged.

3. It literally spells out those three things in the amendment. Could you read through the amendment and explain how it does not describe what I said above?

4. I don't care if my post is flagged. I went through the due process of actually watching the clip to see if anything you claimed happened occurred which I did not. I believe you should be capable of doing the same. Don't try to witch hunt or bring on a tribal mob just to win an argument. Win it with your facts and logical process you claim to have but haven't yet expressed.

1. That's just being pedantic. Just stick with what you said instead of trying worm out of it.

2. There's nothing emotionally charged about any of that. It's a pretty satirical take on the reality you attempted to present in your first post. IF that makes you uncomfortable then fix your statements being easily satirized.

3. That's not how arguments work, or even how law gets interpreted.

4. You can't really attempt to weaponize HN guidelines when the evidence that you in fact were not following them is visible for everyone to see. You were not respectful to me, to the community (by lying), and certainly not to anyone else who you don't agree with.

>Win it with your facts and logical process you claim to have but haven't yet expressed.

I did. This is the veneer I was referencing. You were in fact the person to reference having superior reasoning skills, but did nothing to demonstrate their presence or even mastery.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com