Hacker News Reader

Comment by trutannus | Hacker News Reader

Did I say that? I explicitly say in multiple places that I'm not advocating for crypto, just asking people to not put the blind trust into their government "just passing a law".

It always baffles me why someone can't say "I'm opposed to X" without another person coming along and saying "that means you're in favor of Y". Don't respond to what you think I said, respond to what I actually said.

View on HN

You seem pretty focused on this idea of "blind trust" of the government which nobody is advocating. So perhaps you should take your own advice?

I didn't assume you supported crypto. I was pointing out that crypto has all the problems you specified as bad or worse.

I'm not sure how the advice of "just pass a law" is anything other than blind trust. If you didn't think I was advocating crypto, then what purpose does:

> And crypto isn't dominated by the wealthy and being used to serve their ends? Open your eyes my friend

serve? Why would you mention something completely unrelated to their point, then tell them to open their eyes? To me it sounds like you're retroactively recasting your argument.

> "just pass a law"

If I search for that phrase you are quoting/referencing in this thread, you are the only one using it.

I explained what point I was making. Do you have anything to contribute beyond attacking your strawman over and over?

> You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy.

Here is the "just pass a law" line. I've summarized a line that makes this exact point. I see no straw-men here. Can you point out where I make a straw-man? Genuinely interested in why you see this as creating a straw-man in my summary. I fail to see how else you can interpret other than 'just pass a law'.

I suspect because "make a law" conveys some sense of the actual process of legislating, whereas "just pass a law" sounds as if it deliberately minimizes the process and makes it sound as if it is something trivial to do.

I thought it was a fair summary, but I can also see how someone would arrive at your conclusion. I read it as minimizing, but you make a fair point.

"just pass a law" is longer than "make a law" and is thus not a summarization...

Quotations marks imply a quote or a refernce to a term / phrase. When you deliberate misquote someone and then repeat that all over the thread as the basis for your argument, that is a strawman at best and pure bad faith at worst.

I see nothing in the line you are referencing that indicates any sort of blind trust is suggested. Even simple, easy legistlation works best when the trust it is based on is not blind.

> When you deliberate misquote someone

Yeah, I'm done with this. I told you my objective was to summarize, you have decided I'm maliciously twisting someone's words. I'm not. I've told you as much. My misuse of quotation marks isn't proof in the pudding. I've explained multiple times, to you no less, my point but you've ignored it and have actually strawmanned it yourself. This is what you're doing right now actually by accusing me of random things.

I suggest you look into the "principal of charity". Its fine to disagree, but being hostile and accusatory isn't.

Read these while you're at it: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The principal of charity is why I suggested you are stawmanning rather than actively trolling. You asked for am explanation and I provided it.

You've never explained how you got to the assumption that anyone here is suggesting "blind faith" in the government. Please go ahead and do that or don't claim you've "explained multiple times."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com