Hacker News Reader

Comment by wtallis | Hacker News Reader

I see that your account is barely two weeks old, so in case you're new here, please take notice: this forum has standards [0]. You're posting in a manner that violates quite a few of the rules. Using snark and playing dumb to evade any risk of serious discussion will earn you a ban in any thread, with or without the context of your obvious undercurrent of bigotry.

As for this specific comment: you're still only pointing to hypotheses rather than evidence. And there are enough really obvious counterarguments that there's no way to pretend you're trying to engage in serious conversation.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

View on HN

It sounds like you're upset that I am pointing out the obviousness of thing you're requiring evidence for, and you're jumping to my use of sarcasm as a technical rule break to threaten reporting me.

I'll make my point without sarcasm then: Asking for proof that "men need fathers" is so common sense and obvious that denying it suggests to me that there is no evidence that you would accept. If you're serious and actually want me to find you studies, please describe, in detail, what evidence would change your mind. I want to have a clear understanding of the requirements and goal posts before I make effort towards that. If you don't want to do that, then unfortunately I can only conclude the question was in bad faith.

> Asking for proof that "men need fathers" is so common sense and obvious that denying it suggests to me that there is no evidence that you would accept.

You think I'm denying your claim that "men need fathers". That's because you're spoiling for a fight instead of trying to have a reasonable conversation.

Before I can take you seriously, you need to start showing some awareness that there are potential alternative explanations for what you claim is too obvious to require evidence. The questions and criticisms your comments raise and the fallacies your comments perpetrate are obvious and plentiful enough that you should be able to anticipate at least some of them yourself, and preemptively respond to them as a way of strengthening your case and making your comments substantive. Instead, you're continuing to make low-effort comments and treating this forum like a playground for your trollish behavior.

So it seems you're not interested in evidence of the thing you claim to seek, because you're not willing to define what would convince you, so that I can use that to find materials that fit your criteria. Ok, have a nice day :)

It's not just wtallis, I also second the opinion that you're failing to provide any comments of substance here.

You could be making a case, instead you're just demanding others carry your water for you.

A case for why men need fathers? These Kafkaesque lines of questioning don't make it clear what people are actually upset about or want to learn more about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com