[yummyfajitas]

What I'm pointing out is not some moral parallel between Rosa Parks and Travis Kalanick. I'm pointing out that if djsumdog's argument is valid, it applies equally well to the civil rights movement.

This is a strong indication that his argument is invalid, nothing more.

[chiaro]

It's perfectly consistent to believe that the civil rights movement meets one's threshold for justifiable civil disobedience, while Uber's plight does not.

[yummyfajitas]

Perhaps, but that's an argument that needs to be made. It wasn't.

[madgar]

> I'm pointing out that if djsumdog's argument is valid, it applies equally well to the civil rights movement.

The value of an argument is not a pure function of its syntactic structure but also the specific details of the argument. Context matters. Intent even matters.

The details, context and intent so far suggest that you care more about being right on the Internet than about human beings' welfare.

[yummyfajitas]

The first step in helping human welfare is determining what things are actually good for human welfare. If you can't construct a valid argument for X, that's a hint that X might not be good for human welfare.

[Infinitesimus]

It is a bit sad that you're getting heavily downvoted but no one is willing to have an rational conversation about this. For what it's worth, I disagree with your equation of the two but I think I understand what you're saying.

My 2 cents: On the surface, disregard for law in order to pursue something considered as better for the greater good of the population/humans seems the same in your comparisons.

I think you're meeting so much resistance because we're not 100% rational beings. As mentioned elsewhere, intent and context absolutely affect how we view actions/statements ( debating that is beyond the scope of this argument imo).

At the human/emotional level, it _feels_ (and I'd argue that it is wrong) wrong to say someone disobeying the laws of the land to fight for the right to be treated as a human being is the same as someone disobeying the laws because they want to make more money (Travis). As a species, we hold actions with the intent to preserve/improve our collective good - the definition of which is perhaps shaped by our moral compass - as a higher, more worthwhile and noble aim than actions made solely in the interest of profit.

Even in the court of law, intent shapes an action (eg: murder vs manslaugher)

[yummyfajitas]

I understand that it feels wrong. But I'd suggest the parallels are closer than you think.

First, the folks who "fight for the right to be treated as a human being" also stand to gain monetarily (and otherwise) from that treatment.

Secondly, suppose Kalanick's desire to build Uber is ideological in nature rather than merely profit driven - i.e. suppose he views building Uber as a way to shape the world for the better. (I do believe he views the world this way.) Would that redeem his actions in your view?

Incidentally, I really appreciate the intellectual response. It's far more interesting than the general anger consuming this thread.

[inimino]

If everyone tells you that you are wrong but doesn't care to explain in detail why, it's a hint that you might be wrong. You are not owed a valid argument just because you demand one.

[yummyfajitas]

I usually make a good faith assumption that folks who choose to comment on HN are seeking an intellectual discussion. But while that's a "good faith" assumption, it's not a very good prior these days.

I miss the old days, when we discussed ideas even if they sounded stratnge.

[inimino]

Many are seeking an intellectual discussion, but there are limits to what people are willing to explain. Sometimes it's just not worth it, and that's what the downvote button is for.

I prefer an open environment where more strange ideas can be discussed, but you also have to make a good faith effort to see where most people are coming from. The remarks you made on the civil rights movement suggest you either don't take it seriously at all, or you don't care about it at all, or you have no understanding of what things like civil disobedience actually mean. The trouble with making a good faith effort to explain all of that to you is that in the end you probably won't change your mind, because it's not like any of this information is hard to find.

[jacobush]

Maybe you were instrumental to make the old times pass by sooner rather than later.

[wpietri]

So true. Random people don't owe an education to aggressive jerks, especially when they give little indication of being willing to listen.

[yummyfajitas]

What have I done that makes you believe I'm unwilling to listen, or that I'm an aggressive jerk?

I understand that I've expressed disagreement on a topic you consider to be a sacred value. But have I done anything beyond that?

[wpietri]

C'mon. I've seen you posting here for years. Of course I've seen you do more than express mere disagreement on a single topic. Disagreement is the norm here. What you do -- what you consistently do -- goes miles beyond that.

And note that you sought out a comment not addressed to you to perform the exact behavior in question: aggressively demanding that somebody educate you. Not because it looks like you're sincerely interested in learning anything, but because it's an argumentative technique.

If you actually want to understand this issue, find somebody whose job it is to teach you. Get a therapist versed in online culture, bring in a set of your discussions here, and pay her by the hour to help you see the pattern that is obvious to many other people.

I doubt you'll do that, though, because I don't think you're seriously trying to learn anything here.