Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> No, you literally wrote "it’s generally a bad idea to legislate for over a third of a billion of humans on the basis of rare freak accidents".

I genuinely have no idea what your point is. The most generous reading I can give this is that you took my words to be an assertion that we should abolish all laws relating to workplace accidents, but that is a farcical misinterpretation. Both on its face, but especially in the context of the wider discussion.

> I agree. Yet, laws against child labor already exist and they work as a "blanket" safety mechanism against all threats to children, regardless of what incident might happen.

Of course they do. I'm unsure why this requires explanation. What's the alternative? Non-blanket child labour laws? What would that even look like? Again, I have no idea what your point is.

> Please do not accuse other people of acting in bad faith.

This exchange began when you accused me, in a one line comment, of finding the death of children acceptable. If that was intended to be a good faith, constructive comment, I'm happy to hear how exactly.

More broadly, I reject your view that bad faith comments ought not be called out. Why not? In the best case, it helps a person become aware that they're not engaging constructively; alternatively, it's informative for others, and can help them from entering into a pointless discussion.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: