Didn't we just have to tell you not to perpetuate a completely different flamewar on HN? If you keep posting like this we are going to have to ban you.
I honestly didn't think that anyone here would have a problem with me relating large-scale whaling to genocide. I thought we were all against poaching?
Again, I had no intention of flaming anyone and if you noticed, I did not engage in any argument.
2. Being a "public servant" and thinking that you know better than people and should teach them better contradict each other.
3. Big brother is supposed to be a bad thing.
4. More generally, actual genocide tends to start with the Government believing that it knows better than the people, and that it's their job to teach them how to think "correctly" against their wishes.
On reflection, you're right that I should try harder not to respond in short/snarky ways with those who are short and snarky with me. I do have a tendency to do that...
Regarding point 2, I don't know... the whole "I'm not better than anyone else" should be only part of your sentiment. If you think "I'm not better than anybody, including the least educated parcel of the populace, I don't have better ideas, better judgement, better views... well I guess then I sould go run for office", I doubt you'll be much good for the rest of society. You should be humble, and be able to truly check yourself when in a position of power. But the history of human societies is plagued with terrible beliefs and ideas about the world, and yes, better beliefs and ideas came about. We should hope that they continue to win over the bad ones.
I mostly agree actually. That's a quick reaction to something poorly phrased in a way that sounds pretty disturbing. In more detail, it's fine for somebody running for office to say that they believe in some particular set of ideas and explain why they think they're better than opposing ideas, and why people should vote for them and support them. It's much more troublesome for someone already in power to take up a position they did not run on and that people generally oppose, try to implement it anyways, and jam propaganda at those who oppose you.
Or basically, like I said in my first comment in the chain, politicians in a healthy democracy should be responsive to their own citizens first, not to foreign activist groups that don't represent that culture and never had to stand for election among those people.
I would love to explain to you how you're wrong but I can already see where this is headed and I already got rate-limited last night from a stupid discussion. For the record though I am not in agreement with mass surveillance.
