[firefax]

>It's morally repugnant to blame someone for their own death from cancer like this.

No, it's rude and weird to chastise someone for rightfully advocating treatment. He didn't state that he didn't want to risk the horrors of treatment with the end result being the same -- he spread disinformation. It is good he died, because when others repeat his disinformation, we can point back at his death as evidence against his beliefs.

You weigh the feelings of a dead billionaire higher than the lives of young people with hopes and dreams.

[philosophty]

It's very obvious that people, seeming you as well, take some delight in the idea that Steve Jobs killed himself with arrogance.

That is morally repugnant. He was a pancreatic cancer patient coping with his diagnoses the best he could manage. The fact that he was a "billionaire" has nothing to do with it. He was a human and all sentient life is sacred in my view.

You also do not actually know the facts of the case. He did not spread disinformation to anyone. He was intensely private during this entire period and very little information is known for a fact.

But by all means enjoy your mocking, judging, and condemnation of cancer patients. I'll continue to find it morally repugnant.

[viridian]

In the spirit of assuming good faith on HN, I'd like to critique a particular line of thought you keep repeating, that is continually met with hostility.

You continue to generalize criticism of Jobs as an attack on cancer patients as a whole, despite people citing specific behaviors and actions unique to jobs.

I can't interpret this as anything but emotionally manipulative sophistry that reads to the viewer as you shielding Jobs behind a vulnerable group, and that isn't ever going to be received well.

If there's another way to read this in light of the facts, I'd appreciate an explanation.

[anonymars]

For what it's worth, my interpretation of their line of reasoning is a touch different: that judging any cancer patient for their response and reaction (even Jobs) isn't right.

That could have been an interesting position to discuss were it not infused with so much judgment (ironic) for the commenters--making it personal and putting everyone on the defensive.

Because I think the fundamental disagreement is whether anyone considers themselves to be "judging someone [Jobs] for their reaction/choices in the face of cancer." I can see that point, but as you say, I disagree that's what is happening.

I might counter with, "does having cancer make a person immune to criticism? If not, then where is that line?" Indeed I think the other issue is treating criticism as equivalent to judgment (something maladaptive but all too common).

But I think you have the general idea: the tricky part (as you allude to) is that people are making criticisms/observations about Jobs (as a whole) and the story of his cancer is, well, part of his story too.

This thread was borne of the story of Steves Woz and Jobs. One takeaway was Woz was "naive", Jobs was shrewd, Jobs took advantage of Woz: don't be like Woz and get taken advantage of. What I was pointing out was, well that may be so, but who was better off in the end? Often one's strengths and one's weaknesses are two sides of the same coin (like with Musk).

Steve's friends pleaded with him and said what he was doing was bullshit. Were they morally repugnant too?

[anonymars]

Anyway I've now apparently sunk low enough to argue against myself on the internet so I think that's my cue to bow out of this particular time sink

[anonymars]

Let's not forget he grabbed a liver on his way out too

[philosophty]

There's a lot more to fairly criticize about this. Mostly the system that allows it but also him for taking advantage of it.

And yet it's basic human instinct to do what's possible to survive. I admit that I would have done the same and I wouldn't believe most people who would claim otherwise.