Its a testament to the state of our national discourse that the statement of some simple, but obvious, truths could be considered "inflammatory". Also I didnt bring gender into the discussion; the burden of poverty falls disproportionately on women.
You might want to check your assumptions about which country I'm from.
> I didnt bring gender into the discussion; the burden of poverty falls disproportionately on women.
This is a rhetorical tactic, not a good-faith mode of discussion.
From the age of your account it looks like you're a new participant on HN.
Fair enough that you're not yet up to speed with how things are done here.
This site is intended for people who want to engage in good-faith discussions, not rhetorical trickery and point-scoring.
I really don't see how lorcan brought gender into the discussion. cmurf did. To me, it looks like you're chewing out the wrong person. (And therefore, I don't think it's a rhetorical tactic for lorcan to say so.)
To lorcan:
The problem with your original comment was that it is technically true, but handwaves away a whole lot of really important detail about how someone's circumstances (e.g., family/community environment and inherited attributes like genetics and innate behaviours) influence one's ability to do that. To your credit, you acknowledged this in a later comment, but the crappy discussion was well on its way by then.
Related to that is it conflates correlation with causation.
Comments like this inevitably set off bad discussions, because that missing detail is what really matters about the topic, so you'll get arguments at cross-purposes, with some people supporting the truthiness of your point, and others trying to point out the gaps, and so it's hard to reach common ground because people are focused on different aspects of the issue.
Anyway, as AnimalMuppet said, this is well past generating more heat than light, so I'm out and I hope others are content to move on too.