simiones says: "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant", and also makes some suggestion that I believed could indicate that genetic heritage was what determines which people should live where.
However, he subsequently clarified in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318095 that he was not making that claim. Yet in doing so claimed that "This doesn't imply genetic heritage necessarily - cultural heritage and the notions of parents are not necessarily genetic", drawing on the notion of "culture". Now, cultural heritage very specifically implies that history is relevant, because it's something passed down over centuries.
I then challenged him that his invocation of cultural heritage was in opposition to his earlier claim that "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318122) to which he responded that "That was in response to the argument that I believe the GP was making" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318317), but that's a complete presumption. The GP hadn't presented any specific argument, merely factually pointed out that some long stretch of history was missing from the analysis of pbiggar, so I asked simiones if he was responding to an argument not actually made by zaphar. Furthermore, I reiterated that simiones seemed to have defeated his own claim that "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant".
This is where the original discussion ends, and you entered the thread. I see you making a number of unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith and trolling, but not actually engaging in the discussion of the topic at hand.
So, I have presented here a summary of a thread that highlights my process of rational enquiry. I don't see here what could be taken as bad faith or trolling. Maybe you can explain further? Or perhaps maybe you can you engage with the topic at hand? I would be willing to (though it goes rather far off the original topic).
Thank you, in one sense you failed the challenge because I'm not interested in engaging in your deeper trolling, however you have reminded me how much of a waste of time posting on the internet is in general. I needed the reminder.
May your endless paragraphs continue to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians experiencing genocide, or the poor Israelis who are sad because they have to do a genocide because whatever ethnostatist reason, or whatever it is you believe - from your post history, I'd guess Israel Enjoyer, but from the threads here it's anyone's guess. The benefit of being a smug Socratic type engaged in pedantry is you can never be accused of having the wrong values, since from initial appearances, you have none.
> Thank you, in one sense you failed the challenge because I'm not interested in engaging in your deeper trolling
And yet you replied, curious. In any case, that's OK, since I wasn't responding in order to meet your challenge.
It's curious that you accuse me of having "no values" and of being a "Socratic type". I assumed that, on Hacker News, a forum reputed for its willingness to engage intellectually, a simple challenge to someone's argument would receive a simple response. I assumed that rational debate, free of emotive diversions, was welcomed here. Why would "my values" be relevant? Surely establishing a rational dialogue is what's important on Hacker News. This isn't Reddit, where the standard of dialogue is typically much lower.
simiones could have said "oh yes, you're right, the last 2-3,000 years of history are relevant". Or he could have continued by providing more rationale that they're not. Yet neither he nor anyone else has responded to my observation, instead I just received comments targeted personally at me.
It makes me wonder whether one side of this debate actually has substance to back up its beliefs and actions.
Of course, you have no obligation to respond. If you do respond, I would appreciate it if you would make it about substantive, rational arguments, not personal comments.
pbiggar made a claim, now deleted (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44317597)
zaphar says: "it ignores nearly 2-3000 years of history" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44317639)
simiones says: "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant", and also makes some suggestion that I believed could indicate that genetic heritage was what determines which people should live where.
However, he subsequently clarified in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318095 that he was not making that claim. Yet in doing so claimed that "This doesn't imply genetic heritage necessarily - cultural heritage and the notions of parents are not necessarily genetic", drawing on the notion of "culture". Now, cultural heritage very specifically implies that history is relevant, because it's something passed down over centuries.
I then challenged him that his invocation of cultural heritage was in opposition to his earlier claim that "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318122) to which he responded that "That was in response to the argument that I believe the GP was making" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318317), but that's a complete presumption. The GP hadn't presented any specific argument, merely factually pointed out that some long stretch of history was missing from the analysis of pbiggar, so I asked simiones if he was responding to an argument not actually made by zaphar. Furthermore, I reiterated that simiones seemed to have defeated his own claim that "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant".
This is where the original discussion ends, and you entered the thread. I see you making a number of unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith and trolling, but not actually engaging in the discussion of the topic at hand.
So, I have presented here a summary of a thread that highlights my process of rational enquiry. I don't see here what could be taken as bad faith or trolling. Maybe you can explain further? Or perhaps maybe you can you engage with the topic at hand? I would be willing to (though it goes rather far off the original topic).