Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> All of which are anti phone-ban/anti-regulation/pro-liberal/freemarketeering masquerading as a product of independent thought.

I don't see what you're saying. Are you saying people must think the same things as you do for it to be independent thought?





> I don't see what you're saying. Are you saying people must think the same things as you do for it to be independent thought?

Indeed you don't; let me help you out then:

Arguments must be made in good faith; and when you hear anyone saying anything I mentioned above it is immediately obvious that they are not arguing in good faith.

If they think they are, then their decision making centre is compromised by cnbc and fox news and their opinion must be dismissed.

If anyone considers the above arguments valid and worthy of discussion, they need to exempt themselves from this discourse.


You can't just declare any opposition to your point of view as being in bad faith. (which is ironically in bad faith)

> If they think they are, then their decision making centre is compromised by cnbc and fox news and their opinion must be dismissed.

I hope you're trolling, because if not...


Those statements as described earlier were made in bad faith:

> 1) "Since when do we consider it OK for the government to intervene between the parents and their children and telling them whats good and whats not? They know best."

A public school intervenes between the parent and their children to tell the student what is good work and what is not. Parents do not always know best. (Yes, there are policies which let the parent appeal, but the parent does not have final authority.)

Child protective services can take children away from parents who are egregiously poor parents.

I don't see this as a good faith argument.

> 2) "Whoever does not want to use electronics at school grounds are free to do so who are we to constrain them? Also, forbidding things never works let them learn."

If we believe in educating citizens then we set rules to help educate citizens. There is a long history of prohibiting certain electronics at school. At https://archive.org/details/makingvaluejudgm0000elde/page/38... we can read that over 50 years ago some schools prohibited transistor radios.

If the claim is in good faith then it's also saying that laws and rules forbidding smoking in school must be repealed. I certainly want to keep them in place, so I don't see this as a good faith argument.

> 3) "I think you are underestimating children; if they see that what they are doing with electronics affects them in any way, they will stop using them. Lets give them some credit and let them make their mistakes."

Which is an argument that if the child wants to play video games all day and is getting Ds or worse in every class, than teachers should like the child continue to make that mistakes. I don't see this as a good faith argument.


Indeed you don't

It seems that they do indeed see what you’re saying…


Do you really think that people can't come up with such arguments on their own? People aren't very unique, lots of people independently come up with very similar stupid arguments.

There's mass production and consumption of arguments and ideas.

You have to look beneath what people say, and consider what they think. The quoted arguments are quite clearly nonsense and must be rationalisations.



Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: