Hacker News Reader

Comment by righthand | Hacker News Reader

Wait what? I’m asking about how you have a conversation with people who refuse to discuss their point of view. It’s me? I don’t know what you mean by that.

Are you saying I’m in denial about my perspectives? I never advocated that an election was stolen or that Biden or Trump did nothing during their terms like my parents have. I am the one in denial?

Can you point out this different perspective. A lot of commentary after the election was that “there’s a lesson to be learned here” and I hear that a lot from Trumpers. What is this lesson I need to learn about lying and hating? Why am I expected to take the lying side seriously? Won’t the answers be more lies?

View on HN

Just know that millions have his same opinions. You don't think there's any truth in the middle between your perspective and theirs?

I probably share many of your father's opinions. Even though he cannot articulate his political feelings doesn't mean he's wrong.

If you would like to discuss and learn more from the other side, pick a single topic I'll oblige.

See this what I don’t get, these opinions my father has are based on lies and bad data. So I’m just supposed to look the other way and shrug my shoulders?

You’re allowed to have opinions and there is actual reality and history. You don’t get to just throw out ideas because you think the idea is wrong. Back up the wrongness with data so I can see what you are talking about.

Again, please pick a topic to proceed so we can find out whose opinion reflects reality more.

You'd be surprised how many lies and how much bad data you've fallen for.

No I’m not here to debate specific political topics, I’m here to question the unreasonable silence. The conversations that end in silence are not hostile or angry. I don’t think that reaction is healthy or reasonable to reaching consensus.

You seem itching, however, please feel free to provide your own example of arguments where you think my father agrees and I am wrong if that is your perogative. This is the moving the goal post, I was referencing in my original comment.

I replied to answer the "unreasonable silence".

Not debating topics you throw out (like illegal immigration) is how you get that silence.

You marked it down as lies and now you refuse to dive into it.

I am not diving into it because this thread is not about immigration laws. Again you’re moving the goal posts. My silence is not unreasonable but a refusal to digress from the conversation. You have a larger point that I’m just ignorant but we need to debate immigration to prove that? If I am so obviously ignorant please reply with these possible qualities or realizations I may need to have.

Is it that I’m not afraid or panicked when numbers shift higher or lower in regards immigration, crime, etc? Often I find citing a number is used to instill shock and fear in the topic, even if the under lying systems are still effective regardless of the number.

> I am not diving into it because this thread is not about immigration laws.

You brought up immigration first. I only chose it as an example of your ignorance because you brought it up.

I don't see how anyone would think allowing children to be dragged and raped across the desert would be okay.

That’s hysteria to imply that is a common every day occurrence. There are going to be awful people trafficking humans whether you lock down the border even more or not. You’re also baiting. You already show signs of disinterest in a discussion about it.

1/3 girls are sexually assaulted when traversing the illegal trip into the US across the mexican border according to doctors without borders study.

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/sites/default/files/20...

I also want to say “millions have his same opinions” doesn’t mean you speak for the entire country and those opinions are reasonable. It is not silent agreement. It doesn’t even mean you speak for your entire party because you’ve corralled together. A good portion of the voters flipped and a lot of people didn’t vote.

Opinions like illegal immigration are well polled.

It was a main platform of Donald Trump's.

Millions voted for him for that reason.

Those opinions on the border closure are reasonable, ranging from wanting to stop fentanyl deaths, ending human trafficking, reducing gang violence, property security, ending labor exploitation, reduce economic costs and more.

No they aren’t reasonable, because most of those things won’t change because you close the border. We know this because we have plenty of rigorous studies to show us that.

Please link the rigorous study that says human/drug trafficking won't change if you close the border.

Locking it down to legal point of entries only can do nothing but help.

It's easier to secure a few locations than many miles, you don't need a study for that.

The War on Drugs is a pretty good study. Also drugs and trafficking don’t only come from Mexico. US-Mexico isn’t the only border.

So trafficking comes from other places so no point in reducing it in places we can control?

We monitor ports of entry. It's easier if you don't have to monitor the entire border, you can focus more on ports of entry for other trafficking sources.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com