[asveikau]

I'm saying it may as well not exist for people who can't afford it. You might say it's worse than not existing when it does exist but they can't have it because you would rather people die than receive treatment, due to your weird ideas about people making money and how justified that is.

Your bend over backwards justification of greed over human life is rather insane.

[tptacek]

It clearly seems not to be the case that this treatment "might as well not exist" for people who can't afford it, in that it has been administered to many people in Sub-Saharan Africa, and likely will continue to be.

Further: omit things like your last sentence from your comments; they hurt your case.

[asveikau]

> Further: omit things like your last sentence from your comments; they hurt your case.

It hurts people more to deny them medical care, and that is what makes it so enraging, I would say reasonably so. Becoming angry at such absurdity is a reasonable response. I toned it down from something much harsher. It is a truly deranged position to advocate for denying access to health care breakthroughs, and then act like that's doing people favors, calling it expanding access when you want to deny it.

It makes little sense to me to advocate an explicitly inhumane action, then say I'm doing an ad hominem when I call it what it is. What do you call an opposing view which happens to be ad hominem to humanity in general? Misanthropic, I guess. Your sibling comment says hey now, I didn't say any of that, after having said all of that.

[tptacek]

You're required to argue civilly here, regardless of how clearly correct your position might be.

[asveikau]

That's why people here argue in a passive aggressive fashion and advocate violence indirectly, like violence through economics or violence by withholding medical care or necessary services to undesirables. It doesn't read on the surface as uncivil, while still wanting others to suffer.

[tptacek]

I agree about that phenomenon and it doesn't change anything about you shooting yourself in the foot by personally attacking people when making your case. Please stop.

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

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[ToValueFunfetti]

I don't understand the point of lying about me when all of the evidence is directly above, six sentences in total length, and abundantly clear. That leaves me with the conclusion that, no, indeed, three times was not enough.

>You can reasonably argue they they should get more

>Like I said, it is reasonable to argue that the public deserves more return

>it is reasonable to argue that people should receive more benefit for their tax money

That brings us to six. Can I just add that I think a reasonable argument might be made that the public is entitled to a greater benefit from their contribution to drug research? Or is it supposed to be 77 times 7 times?

[tptacek]

If you're using the word "lying" about a comment on an HN thread, it has gone off the rails, and you should stop.

[ToValueFunfetti]

The word was used in the construction 'I don't think it makes sense that you would be lying, therefore I must conclude that I haven't gotten through to you', to justify my repetition.

It certainly has gone off the rails, but I am entitled to defend myself at least as much as you are entitled to tell me to stop. I haven't done anything wrong. I am finished now though

[ToValueFunfetti]

I'm not sure how many times I'm expected to say that it is reasonable to argue that people should receive more benefit for their tax money before you stop accusing me of disagreeing with that. Is it three?

Pardon the snark, but come on. Before you get to the point of throwing insults, take a moment and determine whether I've actually argued for the positions that you believe would make me weird and/or insane. And then don't do it regardless, but definitely don't do it if I've only ever said a very specific thing very precisely and very explicitly.