News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re: by multiplegeorges on Friday January 13, 2023 @11:39AM (#34370203)
It reduces women to instruments to serve men's happiness.
Re: by Gud on Friday January 13, 2023 @11:50AM (#34370374)
No it doesn’t.
Re: by weakfish on Friday January 13, 2023 @03:04PM (#34373155)
Great argument! Let me try.

Yes it does.

Did it do it right?

Re: by Gud on Saturday January 14, 2023 @05:21AM (#34379042)
Parent didn’t provide an argument and the burden of proof is on them.
Re: by concordDance on Saturday January 14, 2023 @05:57AM (#34379215)
You can and should do better than them, not descend to their level. It's obvious to any reader that the parent was just making a bold assertion.
Re: by xigoi on Sunday January 15, 2023 @03:39AM (#34387843)
How do you prove that something is false if you weren't given a reason why it should be true in the first place?
Re: by krageon on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:01AM (#34399368)
By saying what you just said. It's already better than saying "No u".
Re: by tmn on Friday January 13, 2023 @12:05PM (#34370589)
This is the logical fallacy prevalent in these types of 'this offends me' reactions. You have completely fabricated this takeaway.
Re: by dgfitz on Friday January 13, 2023 @12:06PM (#34370609)
A.) No it doesn't, not even a little bit. B.) He said he was happily married, he didn't say his happiness it tied to a woman, you're twisting words.
Re: by slt2021 on Friday January 13, 2023 @12:09PM (#34370640)
replace woman with kids. Happy parents are happy parents, unhappy parent is a philosopher parent.

doesnt sound like any -ism to me