quirkafleeg

And as per usual, downvoter/s (assuming they are genuine downvotes) are totally incapable of addressing any of the points made. Just more mindless dislikes.

> Isn't it curious that folks like kim dotcom who do not hold hospitals or anyone to ransom earn global notoriety, are raided by swat teams and face the full face of the law while those that hold hospitals to ransom can operate with impunity with people reduced to tracking their bitcoin earnings on twitter.

Isn't it curious that people who are known to the authorities are arrested, whereas persons unknown are not? That's your question?

> Comments on HN do nothing for the victim

What was the point of the original comment then, in your opinion? Just to upset people here?

> and it's self-righteous posturing to pretend they do.

This is nothing more than your opinion, based on nothing more than your imagination.

> We don't do this kind of thing because we care about someone we'd never heard of until a minute ago. It's an opportune way to get some of our own anger out and see ourselves as moral at the same time.

So if someone you didn't know a minute ago was hit by a bus, or tripped on the pavement, or dropped their shopping, the only reason you'd stop to help is because you want to show how moral you are?

Most people are not that sociopathic, and I doubt you're unaware of that fact, so I'm not sure why you're pretending other people's motives can only be selfish or insincere.

> Lashing out at the person you're talking to, on the other hand, actually can do harm—and that only means hurting the victim further as well.

Can you quote where the poster "lashed out" at the OP, because all I remember is they called him complicit in the exploitation (which the OP said himself is what he feels) and then said "free her".

You may be downvoted to oblivion for asking how it gets on the front page (some people think it is of interest is the usual answer, IIRC), but honestly, however this ended up here, I am struggling to work out the point of it is.

It's four short paragraphs, short enough for a forum comment, of someone vaguely talking about UI, with zero examples. It's also the only post on the site. Fishy.

I feel bad saying this as the author may just have English as a second language but due to some wacky, essentially meaningless sentences, I did wonder if the point was it's an example of text generated by "AI".

Edit: And this gets downvoted within seconds. Ridiculous.

Indeed. Rather than worrying about hurting the feelings of someone sharing a "difficult situation" (the horrible exploitation and abuse of someone else, that they admit themselves they "feel complicit" in), perhaps some people here should spare more concern for the actual victim.

This is bizarre. Informative, factual posts that are not rude or insulting are "off topic" now?

It wasn't a grammar Nazi post or about a typo, advice/advise is a common and easily corrected error that should be corrected, and I did so as politely as possible. Most people would appreciate it (I know I would).

All you've done by removing a single post (with multiple upvotes) from the thread is increase the chances that other people will copy/make the same mistake.

Edit: in fact it's even more baffling than I first thought, you didn't even remove it, you simply moved it to a position where some people, if they get that far, will not understand what it's about.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. He wasn't calling the OP a sinner, or even questioning his posting on HN, he was telling him to do something to stop the abuse of his sister.

(Hate doing this, but as it's not a typo but a common mistake that may spread)

The noun is advice. Advise is a verb.

(AFAIK this isn't a British/American difference.)

> Just for the record: you're defending an imperial colony in the 21st century

It's almost as if you didn't post this (in the 21st century) as an argument for an Argentine take over of the Falklands:

"Again: Spain asserted sovereignity over those islands as part of the colony way before that."

This is going to go absolutely nowhere other than me repeating the same hard facts and you refusing to hear and accept them, but I'll just address this:

> The "line drawn by Argentina" is the territory accepted by the UN.

Do you not even understand what's written in the link you posted as "evidence" or something?

The very first sentences state (emphasis/capitalization mine):

    "The Argentine Foreign Ministry announced on 28 March 2016 that it
     had gained international recognition of a claim to an exceptionally
     large continental shelf. 
  
     BUT THEY WERE MISTAKEN.

     [...]

     On 23 May 2016, the [UN] Commission made public its recommendations
     and ONLY A SMALL PROPORTION OF THE ARGENTINE CLAIM WAS ENDORSED.

     This paper explains the legal regime and the political process 
     that led the Commission to REFUSE TO CONSIDER THE ARGENTINE CLAIM
     TO THE SHELF AROUND THE ISLANDS CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM,
     AND TO A PART OF ANTARCTICA. 

And, after citing Argentine government lies on the matter, and fake news reports from Argentina and the UK, it concludes with the following:

     the Argentine Foreign Ministry knew NO PART OF THE CONTINENTAL 
     SHELF AROUND THE ISLANDS UNDER BRITISH CONTROL WOULD BE CONSIDERED
     by the sub-commission.

     [...] 

     Indeed, the legal situation was so unambiguous that THE ARGENTINE 
     DELEGATION DID NOT EVEN ASK FOR THE FULL SUBMISSION TO BE CONSIDERED.

You literally, objectively, as a matter of fact don't know what you are talking about here.

> 1825, Great Britain admitted Argentina's independence from Spain, but didn't claim the islands.

They claimed the Falkland Islands before Argentina even existed as an independent country, as I said in my post. They didn't have to make a new claim every time they recognized a new country.

I think I've whined about downvotes (specific ones and in general terms) in the distant past (it gets you nowhere, and is boring) and I think they often cause the kind of negativity this site otherwise attempts to avoid, but in this case maybe some people just disagree with you on the tangential subject you brought up, but didn't want to get into a discussion about it with you, or didn't want to see a discussion on that subject float to the top.

I don't believe the other poster was decent or civil in the way he posted, but purely with regard to what I wrote, I agree, I made mistakes in the way I replied and apologize.

> since they believe that this has huge ramifications for their child's life as a Jew, and if you read the Bible you can definitely see why

Is the argument here that if someone happens to believe in a particular practice (that impacts on somebody else's life), it should be completely off-limits and tolerated without question just because it appears in a religious text?

> why right away submit them to permanently changing into a transsexual? Yet the same progressives who argue against circumcision would argue for gender reassignment surgery.

Which "progressives" are arguing for babies to have gender reassignment surgery?