Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You Can Run

magazine.atavist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: You Can Run

#51

Post by defrost »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #36
trelane wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not so sure you're interpreting the data correctly: 1 in 4 such children become "silly, conceited" adults, forgetting all the lessons they learned on their adventure; and 3 in 4 develop vivid visions that result in them getting killed by a train.

And far far worse outcomes for those children orphaned:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-27/child-abuse-royal-com...

Re: You Can Run

#52

Post by spaqin »

jmye wrote: post #22
bee_rider wrote: post #6

Wow, 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.

Usually a book title is a little more descriptive. And there's a synopsis or some other blurb on the back of the cover, to try to make you care a bit more than three words on a link on the front page of Hacker News.

Re: You Can Run

#53

Post by password4321 »

Kaliboy wrote: post #27
nkrisc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's weird. I don't have this with the Bible. But maybe I haven't read those passages. Do you have some examples?

Assuming you are asking in good faith, I'm still going to Google that for you and paste the first link:

https://thoughtcatalog.com/jim-goad/2014/05/30-pairs-of-bibl...

Re: You Can Run

#54

Post by buildsjets »

spaqin wrote: post #52
jmye wrote: post #22

Earlier 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.

Usually a book title is a little more descriptive. And there's a synopsis or some other blurb on the back of the cover, to try to make you care a bit more than three words on a link on the front page of Hacker News.

If you expect a book title to be descriptive, you will be very surprised to learn that Moby Dick is a story about a whale. Or the insatiable ego. Or something else.

Re: You Can Run

#55

Post by password4321 »

jibal wrote: post #30
password4321 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoting one statement from a source in support of one's perspective can be interpreted as an attempt to demonstrate that the source aligns with that perspective.

Re: You Can Run

#57

Post by password4321 »

Exoristos wrote: post #23
password4321 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Thank you for sharing your explanation. One point I was trying to make was that just as the concept of children not being responsible for their parent's choices is mentioned in the Bible, so is the concept of children being affected by their parent's choices.

Whether or not I should take a random person on the internet's (OP's) word that a Bible verse should be interpreted as aspirational or your word that a concept does not apply to the group being spoken to is separate from the fact that both concepts are mentioned. To me it makes sense to acknowledge the existence of both if using the Bible as a supporting reference.

Re: You Can Run

#58

Post by photochemsyn »

The moral of the story is that they should have followed in the footsteps of the Sackler Family and Purdue Pharma, who found a legal way to push opiates on people using shopping mall pain clinics and shady doctors as the sales and marketing team.

Just as sociopathic, but they got to keep their billions, serve no prison time, all while doing far more social harm than a pair of low-life cocaine importers could have dreamed of.

Re: You Can Run

#59

Post by decimalenough »

thomassmith65 wrote: post #49
dyauspitr wrote: post #38

Ah to live in the 70s and 80s where nothing was verifiable. I probably would still have been a model employee but the possibilities were endless.

The 90s weren't so different, nor earlier decades, centuries. In fact, the positioning here irritates me: The McCanns vanished, as did Sally and Steve. It wasn’t that hard; they were living in the golden age of fugitives. It makes it sound as though the anomaly were not the past two decades, but all of recorded history which preceded them.

No, it really was a golden age. Before the 747 kicked off the age of cheap air travel in the 1970s, it was impractical to hop around the world like the family here did. Even domestic travel in the US was slow, difficult and expensive until the train and automobiles came along.

And if you wind the clock even further back, you could hardly go further than a few villages away on foot or horseback before people would get very suspicious about an outsider venturing to their domain.

Re: You Can Run

#60

Post by jhbadger »

trelane wrote: post #25
Etheryte wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One of them (Susan) gets really into nylons and lipstick and is basically damned to hell for it, though.
Post reply on HN