The only "charged language" (by which I assume you mean the cursing) was a direct quote from the person who's comment I was paraphrasing.
Can you quote the piece of my comment that you believe is "mocking"?
I think you are engaging in the exact bias pavlov described. And again, you never answered my original question: do you believe that if I wrote "slavery is economically beneficial, ...a bunch of evidence goes here...", an intellectual discussion would result?
I mean don't get me wrong, the data is valuable. But this is a company that constantly says "fuck you" to the law and fair work practices. Let's keep that in mind.
Your comment:
I mean, don't get me wrong, this civil rights movement is valuable. But this is a movement that constantly says "fuck you" to the law (c.f. Rosa Parks) and fair work practices (the civil rights movement favored a "race to the bottom" between white and negro workers).
"Mocking" was too harsh, so I apologize for saying that's what you were doing. But people generally don't like it when you quote them, then alter the quote.
In other words, there seems to be little reason to echo the parent by saying "I mean, don't get me wrong, ..." except to put everyone on the defensive. Why intentionally make it a "the world vs you" exchange? When it's a delicate topic, of course you have to bring it up tactfully.
If you're asking whether intellectual discussion will result if you don't bring it up tactfully, then I'd have to say no, it won't. But it's all about how you frame it.
Here's an alternate way to phrase the point:
"Flouting the law is also known as civil disobedience. What's the difference between, say, Rosa Parks doing it and Uber? Certainly the magnitude is different: the civil rights movement was much more important than breaking up a taxi monopoly. But was it a difference in degree, or in kind?"
I think an intellectual discussion would result from that. You'd get one or two replies along the lines of "If you can't see the difference between Rosa Parks and Uber, then I don't know what to say," but those can be ignored. People would be much more likely to engage with the point.
I was mainly hoping to see more examples of contrarian viewpoints, though.
I think it was clear that I was paraphrasing to show a fallacy, not attempting to suggest the parent actually believed this.
Out of curiosity, if paraphrasing someone else's argument is so untactful, how come the paraphrased comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13954036 is not the one downmodded?
People expressing mainstream views don't seem to be held to the same requirements of tactfullness.
Can you quote the piece of my comment that you believe is "mocking"?
I think you are engaging in the exact bias pavlov described. And again, you never answered my original question: do you believe that if I wrote "slavery is economically beneficial, ...a bunch of evidence goes here...", an intellectual discussion would result?