91–96 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in the flamewar style, as you're doing here I'm surprised but I'm open to being corrected. Please help me identify which statement I made which is considered "flamewar style".
Invoking Hitler, aka Godwin's Law [1], is a strong indicator that you're no longer listening to counterarguments. Also, your quotes are talking about China, not India, and don't seem to mention genocide? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in the flamewar style, as you're doing here I'm surprised but I'm open to being corrected. Please help me identify which statement I made which is considered "flamewar style".
Invoking Hitler, aka Godwin's Law [1], is a strong indicator that you're no longer listening to counterarguments. Also, your quotes are talking about China, not India, and don't seem to mention genocide? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of melanin, and habits that didn't involve being out in the direct sun at its hottest probably helped. As for the British officers of the time, I assume a key factor was having people (slaves and/or other subordinates) to order to do work while they stayed out of the direct sun as much as possible, in their relatively luxuriant accommodations.
Does melanin help with the heat, though? I thought it just protected from skin cancer.
I don't think skin color has much of an impact when withstand heat, as sweat is a much stronger temperature regulator. If it's humid heat, it becomes a matter of circulatory efficiency, body mass and plain endurance, as sweat can't evaporate and actually makes it worse.
Source: grew up in tropical coastal region.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of the information you're expressing is important, but it breaks the HN guidelines to push truth in the flamewar style, as you're doing here. Facts don't speak for themselves; there are infinitely many facts, it's up to a human to select them, and the human voice shows up nowhere more loudly than in the facts one selects. If you're going to post about a divisive topic that's prone to flamewar like this one, you…
> in the flamewar style, as you're doing here I'm surprised but I'm open to being corrected. Please help me identify which statement I made which is considered "flamewar style".
> We? Inflammatory? The facts speak for themselves. If the truth hurts, then perhaps the problem is the reader's attachment to invalid notions.
These are the sorts of things people post when they've left the path of curious conversation and are just lashing back against what someone else said.
Also, you Godwinized the thread (invariably a flamewar marker) by taking some horrific quotes from Churchill and escalating that into full Hitlerhood. Again, that's not the path of curious conversation—that's fighting a demon. You can't do both at the same time; none of us can.
If you post in this way, you end up producing the opposite of what you presumably want. Instead of getting people to expand their view of Churchill to include more of his shadow, you push them into locking their current picture down even more, because that is how people react to battle moves. All you'll get in that case is equally inflamed reactive posts back. No one's mind will be changed, only intensified. That is the flamewar style.
Also, you've created accounts to do this sort of flamewar on HN before, and we've asked you not to before, and now you've done it again. That's a seriously bad pattern. Please don't do that. I understand that you have good reason to feel the way you do, and that it's based on valid information that ought not to be so quickly rejected by Western readers. But coming at them with a flaming sword only recreates the problem—and meanwhile it contributes to destroying HN, which helps no one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My uneducated guess is that the Europeans lived in much larger communities (in Europe), which is a much better breeding ground for disease. This meant they were much more full of disease than the native Americans. Another uneducated guess is that this is why your pet doesn't often get sick - they have much less contact with other s than you do with other humans, contributing to less and slower spread of disease. Plea…
> My uneducated guess is that the Europeans lived in much larger communities (in Europe), which is a much better breeding ground for disease Not a bad guess, but completely wrong. The cities of Mesoamerica or the Andes or the Mississippian culture of North America would have dwarfed most European cities, before they were ravaged by disease. The best explanation I have seen is that almost all domesticable animals in t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why you sound so snarky regarding this article. It's not that the author defended them or said anything positive about them (except maybe "I've been there and can relate"). Nothing I read here surprised me, really. And it's not that he didn't mention that the burden was basically shouldered by the people there.
A lot of folks from countries ravaged by the Britishers really detest the Raj. Its understandable. I myself am from India and i too get a twinge of anger whenever the Raj is mentioned in a non negative way. I guess 70 years aren't enough to forget all that the colonials did.