No, you certainly can't speak for me. I have no empathy or relevant experience regarding betrayal, I simply wanted to point out how your response was more irrational than rational.
You are right the majority consensus is betraying your buddy is bad. But do you see how without details, it's not possible to give actionable and helpful advice? You are parroting an abstraction that isn't necessarily impactful advice. Certainly most people already know this, and yet this sort of situation is not uncommon. Maybe this advice isn't producing meaningful results? The fact is you don't know, because you don't have the relevant experience.
That's the first part of your advice. The second part is about deciding company ownership, and that's even more irrational, it doesn't really follow or is related to this relationship.
>But do you see how without details, it's not possible to give actionable and helpful advice?
You realize this entire thread is giving advice based off of the SAME details? How can it "not be possible" to give advice? Also I hope you realize that the OP is ASKING for advice?
>You are parroting an abstraction that isn't necessarily impactful advice. Certainly most people already know this, and yet this sort of situation is not uncommon.
Take a look at the post rank. Hackernews lifts up posts based on how recent it is, then it orders by karma. I'm number 5 on this entire thread. Here you make an assumption based on lack of facts. The fact that I am number 5 is literally quantitative proof I have a huge consensus. If I have a consensus it means people do NOT agree that I am "parroting an abstraction that isn't necessarily impactful advice"
>The fact is you don't know, because you don't have the relevant experience.
You instruct me not to speak for you, which I CLEARLY did not. Yet you do the exact same thing here? This is a hypocritical statement. How DO YOU KNOW I don't have the relevant experience? You just pulled that fact out of thin air; and in doing so you are parroting an abstraction that isn't necessarily impactful advice. Certainly most people already know this, and yet this sort of situation is not uncommon.
>That's the first part of your advice. The second part is about deciding company ownership, and that's even more irrational, it doesn't really follow or is related to this relationship.
The emotional aspects of the affair will bleed into the business situation, that's a given; it would be irrational to suggest it "doesn't really follow or is related to this relationship"
What your saying is like saying we can't put rapists in prison because the prison cell has nothing to do the with rape. If betraying your friend is a immoral, I am suggesting a moral punishment that will prevent further harm to the victim both from an emotional standpoint and financial. If the OP doesn't take my advice he would be harming his friend EVEN further by causing the team-up to become toxic or muscling his friend out. I am suggesting the most moral, least damaging option, which is utterly and completely rational.
Anyone can post any "advice' here. I explicitly stated that the class of advice you gave is not actionable or helpful. Not only is #5 not a particularly strong position, but the point I'm making is that statements that people have consensus about don't necessarily make advice that creates effective results.
You are so tunneled into the idea that betrayal is bad, that you are missing how the business is an entirely different entity. There are employees, customers, and investors all potentially affected by this outcome. In the case of a breakup, there is potentially a greater moral obligation to create the best result for the other parties, than just fixate on the betrayal of the victim.
Not to mention your idea of this requiring moral punishment is not something that would draw consensus on HN, or in general. That is your fantasy, not reality.
>Anyone can post any "advice' here. I explicitly stated that the class of advice you gave is not actionable or helpful. Not only is #5 not a particularly strong position, but the point I'm making is that statements that people have consensus about don't necessarily make advice that creates effective results.
Number 5/30 is around the top 15%. Consensus is not required for effective results. I never claimed such a thing, so why is this your point? Consensus is required for morality. Because morality is subjective it is impossible to conclude whether something is truly moral or immoral. Two people with different morals will have incongruent notions on good and evil. Thus for a concrete answer we turn to majority consensus. This is the entire reason why I brought it up. In short, consensus verifies that my advice is effectively moral.
>You are so tunneled into the idea that betrayal is bad, that you are missing how the business is an entirely different entity. There are employees, customers, and investors all potentially affected by this outcome. In the case of a breakup, there is potentially a greater moral obligation to create the best result for the other parties, than just fixate on the betrayal of the victim.
I am tunneled into the idea that betrayal is bad. It usually is, and this case does not deviate from the usual scenario. The business IS a different entity with separate moral obligations. These obligations are may intersect and be in conflict but that's not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the betrayal not the complexities of life. These things are a given and it will be the OPs choice whether he wants to be moral to his friends, business partners or both. I apologize for not having the time to write a 200 page essay about the details on how he should handle every single separate moral obligation that could potentially be compromised by such a large decision.
>Not to mention your idea of this requiring moral punishment is not something that would draw consensus on HN, or in general. That is your fantasy, not reality.
When did I say he requires moral punishment. I'm suggesting a moral action. The consensus and I repeat again is not on some stupid requirement. People voted me up because they agree with the morality of the suggestion. If he takes my suggestion, the action will be moral in the eyes of majority consensus. I have no scientific evidence backing that claim up, but my intuition aka common sense tells me it is true.
Seems like there's a few things going on here. It is possible to make a moral statement on minimal information, as you did. It's not very a helpful or useful statement, but there isn't much helpful or useful input either. With more information, what the most moral thing to do, especially regarding the business, would change.
The question is really what constitutes good advice. I suppose it turns out good advice also varies to what is being sought, and why. Maybe someone wants a better answer, maybe reassurance, maybe validation. With more data, we can provide a more objective assessment of the consequences of different actions. Of course, unfortunately, we are not provided any of that here. You can certainly offer your subjective preference to take the moral/consensus action as advice. This advice, as we discussed, is not necessarily effective, and perhaps already known. If what is being sought is objective advice, in that dimension, with only minimal information, the best thing to offer is relevant experience.
This argument started because you accused me of writing a nonsensical comment. The accusation was negative, highly offensive and not inline with policies of hacker news. Now it's descended, thanks entirely to you, into argument about bullshit.
So to prevent people from wasting their time; Maybe you should be less offensive. That's my advice to you. You can take that advice or you can go to hell. That's all I have to say about this topic. I refuse to continue it any further.
Your original outburst began with negativity and calling names. I pointed that out, and it turned into a conversation of whether comments that have consensus are good advice. And certainly, even comments that have consensus can violate the HN guidelines.
People are free to choose how to use their own time.
You are right the majority consensus is betraying your buddy is bad. But do you see how without details, it's not possible to give actionable and helpful advice? You are parroting an abstraction that isn't necessarily impactful advice. Certainly most people already know this, and yet this sort of situation is not uncommon. Maybe this advice isn't producing meaningful results? The fact is you don't know, because you don't have the relevant experience.
That's the first part of your advice. The second part is about deciding company ownership, and that's even more irrational, it doesn't really follow or is related to this relationship.