lldbg

I won't let the reaction of a sample of people dictate how I express myself, and I will not hold other people to that standard either.

When did the pursuit of rationality get replaced by the onslaught of feelings? A person can feel insulted, without someone else insulting them. It happens all the time - it's called a misunderstanding. Along the same lines, we may brisk at language not offensive at all, made by people whom through no fault of their own were misunderstood.

And lets not pretend offensive language is not a natural part of how humans (that's us) express ourselves. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so many swears.

And so we come back to the bigger issue. It is my belief that the society in which I live should be a rational one, and each person in it a rational actor who can distinguish between subtle nuances of meaning, both implied and expressed, and not rely on the stark contrast between allowed and disallowed, accepted or unaccepted. And I fear that if we pursue a mindless list of rules for behaviour, we will be less free for doing so.

We must show humility, knowing that we are not the just judge of each other, and give the benefit of doubt. It is not morally right to participate in a witch hunt on someone for _a word_ said years ago - so I will condemn doing so.

I don't think that "sort of feel" is a bar high enough, when the consequences for an individual can and have been so severe.

Surely meaning is foremost dictated by context? English does not have a context free grammar.

I can say the actual n-word without meaning to enflame or diminish - it is very easy in fact: take a sentence where I would have used the literal n-word, and replace it with the actual n-word.

What's the difference between saying n-word and the actual word? The concept that symbolises in my head is the same - and so any difference necessarily is to the benefit of the speaker, not the listener.

When the data no longer fits inside a compute resource (a node, or even a rack), you are by necessity going to be distributed. Communication is a fact of life when the problem-size grows. This is true also for GPU-based computing.

But wouldn't a deep investigation of reality and the world, of which we and our feelings are a part, more conclusively check and balance our thinking?

And the state of lower saxony owns ~12% of Volkswagen!

But I never said that, you're building a strawman.

I said that punishment is a necessary part of prison, it is the main thing of justice. You may or may not agree with that position, but unless you are willing to reply to me on a good faith basis maybe you just shouldn't. The HN guidelines say >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

It is not sort of reasonable that you think "some part of me"(what do you mean by that?) argues for it, because I never wrote it. If you or other people did not understand some part of my original comment, ask for a clarification instead of what has happened in these comment chains.

Okay, thats nice. Do you think anyone here on HN is in favour of people going hungry?

And by a free lunch, I meant the idiomatic expression.

Of course my opinions seem uninformed to you, when you intentionally misconstrue them as you have done.

I was not complaining about anything. They aren't ex-felons, after they are released, they are felons.

I do not think you understood my original comment, since you keep quoting that sentence only. Where is the restitution to the aggrieved party? The assaulted, the robbed, the beaten, the raped? You pay for what you do, and if your enterprise is criminal, you pay in time behind bars. Personal responsibility. Why would anyone want to hire a wife-beater? There are millions of upstanding citizens out of work ...

You never _have_ to victimize someone, no matter your circumstances.