In the long tradition of commenting on HN without reading the source, I was about to write up everything I've learned about running over the years...shoes, routes, stretches, rest days, IT band therapy, ...
You Can Run
21–30 of 80 posts
Re: You Can Run
#22Wow, that was quite a lot of cryptic build-up. It’s basically a story about conman/drug guy interwoven with biographical information and anecdotes about how this impacted his family. “You can run,” I guess maybe in the context of “You can run but you can’t hide” is not really touched upon too much. I mean it doesn’t have a particular connection to this story, any more than any other story about a fugitive.
Have you ever like, read books? Why on earth would you think the title of a piece needs to call to anything but a general emotion from the story?
> Wow, that was quite a lot of cryptic build-up.
Yes, they were building suspense and telling an interesting story. It's a long form article, not a 30-word tweet. Jesus.
Re: You Can Run
#23The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. -- Ezekiel 18:20 That was aspirational around 590 BC when written, and still is. To isolate children from the iniquity of the parent would require the dissolution of the family.
You can't quote that without also quoting: Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. -- Exodus 34:7
Except that the writer in Ezekiel is proposing a new deal (in the voice of God) for his intended audience: basically, if at this point in the negotiations you forsake behavior A, various criminality and oppression; I will promise B, not to hold your relatives responsible, and C, to rescue those you've oppressed. (Also possibly D and E -- it's a long passage.)
Re: You Can Run
#24Wow, that was quite a lot of cryptic build-up. It’s basically a story about conman/drug guy interwoven with biographical information and anecdotes about how this impacted his family. “You can run,” I guess maybe in the context of “You can run but you can’t hide” is not really touched upon too much. I mean it doesn’t have a particular connection to this story, any more than any other story about a fugitive.
Have you ever like, read books? Why on earth would you think the title of a piece needs to call to anything but a general emotion from the story? > Wow, that was quite a lot of cryptic build-up. Yes, they were building suspense and telling an interesting story. It's a long form article, not a 30-word tweet. Jesus.
I've seen this attitude on HN all the time - the concept of "a narrative hook" is apparently a foreign concept here
Re: You Can Run
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
My favorite (dys|u)topian setting; universal child removal to robo-nurseries, gets closer to implementable every day.
They more or less did that during the bombing of London, children were evacuated to foster families in the countryside en masse. Luckily they came to terms with the fact that this was an insanely traumatic experience pretty quickly and reverted. It's literally less traumatic for a child to be in an active war zone than to be separated from their parents.
> It's literally less traumatic for a child to be in an active war zone than to be separated from their parents.
Unless they happen to go to war themselves, vanquishing an evil queen with the help of a lion and becoming kings and queens, and reigning for a long while themselves.
Those kids seem to mostly turn out alright. Small sample size though.
Re: You Can Run
#26The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. -- Ezekiel 18:20 That was aspirational around 590 BC when written, and still is. To isolate children from the iniquity of the parent would require the dissolution of the family.
You can't quote that without also quoting: Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. -- Exodus 34:7
This is literally true now that we understand epigenetics a bit more.
Re: You Can Run
#27Re: You Can Run
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not?
Probably to show you can pick any choose any bible verse to make whatever point you want. There’s a verse for A and NOT A.
There's a verse for "humans only have one rule: don't eat that apple" (Genesis 3:3), but the narrative in which this verse appears makes it obvious that this is no longer the case by the end of the chapter. Much of the Bible is presented as a history, and the rules presented are superseded, amended, qualified or augmented by subsequent rules throughout – although not usually so soon as this.
This poses a problem for cherrypicking, but exactly the same problem is present when cherrypicking from any legal tradition: that doesn't mean that the law is meaningless, only that cherrypicking is not an appropriate way to read it.
Re: You Can Run
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever like, read books? Why on earth would you think the title of a piece needs to call to anything but a general emotion from the story? > Wow, that was quite a lot of cryptic build-up. Yes, they were building suspense and telling an interesting story. It's a long form article, not a 30-word tweet. Jesus.
I've seen this attitude on HN all the time - the concept of "a narrative hook" is apparently a foreign concept here
Clickbaiters abused the concept of a hook until the hook itself was seen as clickbaity.
Re: You Can Run
#30The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. -- Ezekiel 18:20 That was aspirational around 590 BC when written, and still is. To isolate children from the iniquity of the parent would require the dissolution of the family.
You can't quote that without also quoting: Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. -- Exodus 34:7
Of course one can quote the statement that one agrees with and not the statement one doesn't agree with, unless the intent is to review the work that contains them, which it wasn't.