Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnaritas | Hacker News Reader

Well I'm glad you're granted the insight to speak for everyone, you must be so full of yourself it just hurts.

An edit, what you're so brilliant you can't even figure out how to bypass the post time restriction? Do you just run around being pedantic?

View on HN

Come on, you know this isn't allowed here, regardless of how provocative or annoying someone else is being.

Are the downvotes not clear enough? Stop being so stubborn about wording and consider arguing your actual point. Don't call names.

I'm curious, how would you feel if unlicensed drivers were limited to 20mph?

I did, and I'm not the one being stubborn about wording. He's the one being pedantic.

You said it was unjust because it was a right, he explained why it was just, you started the semantics argument with "Conditions would make them privileges." and then when you were proved wrong you started with personal insults.

You didn't even address the argument that "being convicted of murder triggers conditions on most of the rights we have as citizens"...

Edit: 'it' being the very concept of restrictions on rights, not really this particular variety

No he didn't explain why anything was just, he got pendantic about the meaning of the word right, and no I didn't start the semantics, I clarified my meaning. And I wasn't proven wrong nor did I start with any insults. Read much?

> You didn't even address the argument that "being convicted of murder triggers conditions on most of the rights we have as citizens"...

No, I didn't, because at that point the debate had already turned sour with his pedantics so it wasn't worth addressing as there's no point in continuing such a discussion with someone so anal about every word.

The only argument you have presented is that restrictions on [rights or whatever you call them] are fundamentally wrong. No matter what words you choose to use, he disproved that argument and you have presented no other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com