[grzm]

> But... it was a question...

Which is why I addressed this in the next sentence:

> If you have an honest question that will move the discussion productively forward, please, by all means ask it.

Does it move the discussion productively forward? What is the motivation for your question? Where do you expect the discussion to go from here? This isn't a question like "Where's the post office?" where the expected response is likely the effective end of the conversation. You're asking about morality. Do you think your parent has the same values as you? Are you looking to tease out some difference so you can argue about them? Show them that they're wrong? Find some points of agreement? Solve some underlying common issue? HN really isn't the place for general ideological debates. They're by definition off-topic. And regardless of what another has commented, we can show restraint and not continue a thread that is wandering off into incendiary weeds.

Edit (in reply to your addendum above): It does seem clear that you're looking for some kind of argument. Please don't. Let the thread die on the vine.

I don't intend to continue this any further. I do encourage you to review the link I provided, and perhaps review the recently updated HN guidelines, which includes similar points.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[noncoml]

> Does it move the discussion productively forward?

Yes.

> What is the motivation for your question?

To know if we are discussing about public health issues or moral believes. If it is the later, then there is no point continuing the discussion.

> Where do you expect the discussion to go from here?

If the motivation behind his comment was morals, then I don't expect the discussion to go anywhere. It is a dead end.

If it is about public health, we can continue the discussion.

You are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of. It would be a good time to follow your advice: "Please default to the strongest possible interpretation of another's comment. Give them the benefit of the doubt."

As I mentioned all I wanted to know is if he is trying to have a discussion about morals or public health. Because if it is the first then I don't want to be part of the discussion.

(Edit in response to your edit) You are starting an argument on my post, and when I reply to your argument you make a passive aggressive edit to your post accusing me of not dropping the argument. And you drop it, by making a non-reply reply?

[grzm]

In a good-faith effort to clarify: my edit was in response to the additions that you made to your comment above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15315553), not to this reply. When I first composed my reply it consisted only of the line I quoted.

When I see that a discussion is not progressing constructively (as I observed from your first response to me), I try to make clear in a response that am indeed dropping the thread: I'm not interested in tit-for-tat back and forth, and know that it takes both parties to work toward a common goal for such discussions to be productive: I'm as much responsible as any other party. I do hope you find the constructive discussion you're looking for, and apologize for taking this off-topic as far as it has.

[noncoml]

> When I see that a discussion is not progressing constructively (as I observed from your first response to me)

You offered unsolicited advice. I didn't take it personally, I tried to reply with arguments.

> I'm not interested in tit-for-tat back and forth

Just because I don't agree with the arguments you make it doesn't mean I have anything personal with you or that it is tit-for-tat or don't like conversing with you. Quite the opposite, the more difficult and challenging your arguments are, the more I enjoy the conversation.

Edit: Removed the "I am having doubts if you were interested in an open discussion in the first place." Please disregard it.