However, germane to the discussion in this thread, I don't think the definition of "happiness" is one of those immutable principles.
> A lot of those on here, I don’t listen to their input on what successs is.
> I will never be happy until I am climbing to the highest potential I can get to. No one is going to talk me into being otherwise.
What's being discussed is the definition of _success_, not happiness. And in fact, what the poster said is, this is what makes me happy and I'm not interested in anyone convincing me that shouldn't be what makes me happy.
Further, some of the issue is with the imprecise definition of “happy”. The modern use of the term can be used interchangeably. What causes someone to be hedonically happy may make them eudaimonically unhappy. So IMO it’s completely warranted to have further discussion to either define the definition or bring into question if someone is chasing the right goal for them. Saying what is tantamount to “I’m not willing to discuss this” facilitates none of that.
Furthermore,
on a purely mechanical level, what you're doing here is trying to escalate scope specifically so you don't have to give the point. Just give the point.
What I'm not saying: The OP is wrong about how they go about defining happiness or what they do to achieve that goal.
What I am saying: They are misusing HN if they are so close-minded as to be unwilling to be swayed by discussion.
Obviously, a subjective measure like happiness is up to the individual to define. I'm not disagreeing with that and I don't think any of my posts give that impression unless someone is already using a hard-focused lens to read too much into them. My point was pretty clearly stated multiple times but it seems people are primed to argue. The HN guidelines clearly state one of the intents of the forum is to foster curious conversation. If somebody makes a post that "they can't be convinced" they are no longer interested in a discussion and they are therefore misusing HN. It would be akin to someone saying "This classroom was built for learning" and I show up with my arms crossed and say I refuse to learn. Well, ok, nobody is saying you can't take that stance. But they can say you're misusing the forum provided.
People talk about having a feeling of uncanny valley when reading some of the things ChatGPT says and I must say, this must be what it feels like.
And if you're not open to the possibility that I'm speaking with ChatGPT it's because you're misusing HN.
I guess the follow up question is: what guideline do you think I'm violating?
That you rely so heavily on the guidelines is telling, it's what often happens when persons don't understand the underlying principles.
Your initial post came from a place of not understanding. As we've interacted that's become more and more clear to me. I see no need to belabor this any longer.
Do you want to call me to task for not being as open about that as you'd like, or shall we acknowledge that if it's important enough not being open about is a completely valid stance?