[piva00]

> When you are subprime rated, you would have to be a complete moron to take a variable loan on you life.

And loads of people were that moronic, do they really deserve to have suffered because some other people wanted to profit as much as possible from their stupidity? It's not like these morons had the tools to really assess what the fuck they were doing. Not excluding the fact that many of these loans were basically predatory, using the naivety/stupidity of these people against themselves to cash in.

Does all the world deserve to suffer through a major economic crisis because some morons are totally free to be predated upon by forces much more educated and sophisticated about the financial markets (and by extension doing that knowingly, pretty fucking evil)?

Libertarian ideology doesn't really hold much to reality, full freedom to do whatever is only achievable when the population is educated enough, humanity is not there yet.

What the actual fuck...

[cormacrelf]

This thread is a horror show that is pretty hard to watch, and I knew it would be, but I think it’s worth it. But if you we’re wondering what the rich asshole tree vandals were doing earlier in life, this is it.

[jlcoff]

If you think it's an horror show, you're pretty frail... Toughen up, cupcake.

[piva00]

Ad hominems are frowned upon around here, just so you know...

[jlcoff]

No, only ad-hominem against people carrying the Gospel are frowned upon. There has been plenty of ad-hominem against me and I don't see you condemning those.

[piva00]

I believe that HN is very far from left-wing, not sure why you feel singled out, ad hominems are frowned upon anyone here, call them out and move on.

This defensiveness is really off putting, it seems like the only argument you can carry is "the left has a Gospel and I'm against it" and I still have absolute no idea what exactly you refer to and why you are against whatever you are referring to.

You just feel victimised and attacked for some reason.

[cormacrelf]

Ad hominem is when you say someone’s argument is wrong because they’re a bad person. Ad hominem attacks are frowned upon because they cause good discussion to devolve into a shouting match.

In contrast, this thread has simply been establishing that jlcoff is a bad person. It’s not a fallacy or a derailment of the discussion to do so, rather it was the discussion. I can imagine why they feel attacked, it’s because they are literally being told they’re a bad person for their personal views. It would be implausible to expect a debate about the morality of working at a place you believe to be a scam, with such a person, to go without challenging them for it. And I wouldn’t expect such a person to respond without raising some form of “let ye without sin cast the first stone” defence and eventually just dribble out insults. My point is: you don’t have to worry about using community standards or HN policy to protect me from ad hominem attacks from them; all of this was priced in. It is inseparable from the nature of fraudulent schemes and the people who push them.

[jlcoff]

> ...humanity is not there yet.

Especially with the dogmatic left at the helm.

[piva00]

What does this even mean?

Catchphrases don't foster discussion, don't be on the thought-terminating camp, pretty idiotic reply to be honest.

[jlcoff]

The current mainstream [radical] left Gospel meets the definition of dogma, as in, they are just as bad as the darkest religion they themselves condemn. Not very difficult to understand.

[piva00]

No, it really is difficult to understand given that you are using circular logic to justify something.

I don't know what you refer by the Gospel of the left, and from there I can't figure out what exactly you are attacking.

What is even "radical left" to you? These are such non-specific terms that just got even less defined with this whole culture wars shit.

I don't know what you are talking about and you haven't exposed anything that I can talk about, just empty platitudes and terms that actually mean nothing...