zlacker

> You wrote a crowd of evil persons [rioting] and threatening to kill perfectly innocent children.) so you cannot say you are not playing the 'think of the children' card.

It is easy to attack me when you cut away half my words an all the context.

Look at what I am actually writing, and what it is a reply to:

>>> oicu812 3 hours ago | parent | flag | favorite | on: The business of tear gas

>>> The article states, "It also lives in a legal gray zone, due to international treaties that allow it to be used in domestic law enforcement but not in war."

>> geogra4 3 hours ago [–]

>> Right - that seems horribly wrong. It shouldn't be allowed for law enforcement either. reply

> -4 points by eitland 3 hours ago [–]

> Do you have a suggestion for a better way to achieve the same results?

> (Of course we can discuss if most of the uses of tear gas are wrong, but lets for a moment think that we have a moment were we need to chase away a crowd of evil persons riotong and threatening to kill perfectly innocent children.)

Can you see it now?

I'm trying to ask an honest question, if someone has a better solution instead of using tear gas.

To clearify that I don't want to support the actual use of tear gas in this situation I'm creating a hypothetical situation where (in the hypothetical situation) an angry mob of evil people are attacking innocent children.

At no point am I suggesting that you are an evil mob. At no point am I playing the "think of the children card" but it seems someone managed to post one comment that derailed the question "what should we use instead of teargas" into this mess.

>> So unlike many (most?) HNers I have actual personal experience with it.

> Why are you assuming HNers are not politically active? I've been tear gassed 6 times since last Friday and this is not my first rodeo. I have a bunch of use gas grenades sitting on my desk whose manufacturers I'm tracing right now.

Have my respect. I do really respect people who care enough to go out and face that stuff and I know you are probably angry, but don't be angry with me for something I didn't write!

Also - and this just feels stupid now - but my actual words still stands and it is not just based on a technicality:

Most HNers -unlike you- know nothing about CS except what they see on the news.

>>eitlan+(OP)
I'm not attacking you, I'm citing what you wrote. Nor did I accuse you of suggesting I was part of an evil mob. I think you're reacting to feeling dogpiled on and have got invested in defending a piece of rhetorical ground that is not worth holding. It happens.

I also think you might be underestimating the breadth of experience on HN, even if many people choose not to go into detail about their priors.