[maxbond]

If you'd like a higher quality response, sophistry and performative disappointment isn't the way to get it. I'm not going to give a serious detailed response to an unserious comment, I'm going to find a better use for my time.

[defrost]

I don't follow you at all I'm afraid.

I'm completely serious about the facts here:

* You don't have to kill people in order to eat them,

* I've had cannibals as babysitters in PNG as a child,

* I'm much the same age as Mike Alpers own children who I know from my days in university.

etc.

You claim to not be engaged with such topics because <<violence>> and I've quite accurately pointed out that violence isn't a neccesity here.

Why, exactly, are you having a little tantrum here?

[maxbond]

If you need further clarification about why I don't take it seriously when I talk about a meme about a violent uprising and you pivot the conversation to ritual cannibalism, I encourage you to consult your preferred dictionary regarding "sophistry".

If you want to convince me that you're earnestly trying to have a real conversation, being insulting isn't going to help.

[defrost]

I didn't pivot at all, if you scroll back you'll see for a fact that it was yourself that introduced the topic of eating the rich.

You advocated for raising that as a thread topic.

I'm familar with several dictionares, nothing I have said has been false.

Be explicit - what exactly do you consider to be sophistry here?

We can talk about prion disease and its relation to eating brain matter (the Fore and mad cow disease), the history of funerary practices, the European fad for eating ground up mummies, the UK practice of eating parts of executed criminals, etc.

All of these relate to the topic that you suggested .. and the topic you apparently wish to tap out on when faced with someone happy to take it on.

[maxbond]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not interested in taking the bait today. Good luck finding the kind of discussion you're looking for. Have a pleasant day.

[defrost]

> taking the bait today.

What bait?

> I wasn't born yesterday.

It appears to my eye that you bought the attitude to what was a good faith discussion from my side.

It was a missed opportunity to discuss an unpopular subject.

I suggest you return to this sometime later and reread this entire exchange.

[maxbond]

On the off chance this is a genuine misunderstanding (which, given you indicated that you understood I was referencing slogans, that cannibalism is a nonsequiter to a discussion of HN's political bias, that my initial response to you contained further clarification I was referencing a political slogan, and that you then peppered me with insults and attempted to bait me into an argument, I don't believe to be the case, but I've been wrong before), here is the misunderstanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eat_the_rich

> "Eat the rich" is a political slogan associated with anti-capitalism and left-wing politics. It may variously be used as a metaphor for class conflict, a demand for wealth redistribution, or a literal call to violence. The phrase is commonly attributed to political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, from a quote first popularized during the French Revolution: "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich".