Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be?
> Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be?
If non-sequiturs are your best argument, then yes, you you have nothing to contribute by participating in good-faith speculation. Iranian child marriages do not reframe the "Tail that Wags the Dog" scenario in Washington. It's textbook whataboutism that you failed to elevate into meaningful commentary, making you look suspiciously disengaged.
Israel too to be fair "They're 15, Married With Children: Inside an Israeli Hasidic Cult's Code of Silence" (the gov and the population knows it, but it's ok) : https://archive.is/v9Amc#selection-699.0-699.83
That said allowing child brides is horrific, I agree. Especially when it seems to be accepted by the highest levels of a religion or even worse when it's practiced by a religions leaders.
Paul Graham is saying you should not call people you are in a discussion with names. If I called OP names your link would fit. Calling out a horrific regime that murders their people and rents out children under the sanction of their religious leaders is not that.
Calling the person you are in a discussion with names = bad. Call the subject of the discussion bad, when they legitimately are horrific, is normal discussion. Trump is awful. The Islamic Republic is awful. Both of those are normal and acceptable things to state in a discussion. You DeadFred are a <xyz negative statement>, not normal or acceptable.
However Hacker New's ACTUAL guidelines state reguarding comments "Converse curiously; don't cross-examine." which your post seems to explicitly violate. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Only if you don't care to read past bullet point 1. If you had cared enough to read at least one paragraph further, you would have found:
> DH1. Ad Hominem.
> An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. [..] It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though
