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

Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#31

Post by kennywinker »

jpxw wrote: post #19
kennywinker wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: if my reply hadn’t been there when you arrived would you have been entertained? If so - what was entertaining about the comment

It was a glib little quip, as you mentioned. That was the entertaining part. Edit: I’ve just noticed a particularly vile and undeserved comment in reply to you, and to some extent feel responsibility, as it’s part of a comment chain I created. I hope the mods will take action and ban whoever made this comment, although by the looks it’s a burner account. It’s quite jarring to see something like that on HN.

All good. It seems to be gone now, since I can’t see it.

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#32

Post by black_niggers »

kennywinker wrote: post #31
jpxw wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a glib little quip, as you mentioned. That was the entertaining part. Edit: I’ve just noticed a particularly vile and undeserved comment in reply to you, and to some extent feel responsibility, as it’s part of a comment chain I created. I hope the mods will take action and ban whoever made this comment, although by the looks it’s a burner account. It’s quite jarring to see something like that on HN.

All good. It seems to be gone now, since I can’t see it.

kill urself f@ggot

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#33

Post by 11235813213455 »

petre wrote: post #30
kodah wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The joke to me seemed to be poking fun at correlation and causation. In a literal sense, people get pets for different reasons. A lot of people get cats because they're more independent where dog owners cite "having a companion" because dogs have a closer relationship to humans through domestication. Animals are still animals, domesticated or not. They'll get fearful or angry based on correlation of past experience j…

People who want an independent dog should get a Husky or a Fox Terrier.

and people living in apartments could consider plants as pets

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#34

Post by Freestyler_3 »

kennywinker wrote: post #11
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s common now for people actively seeking any opportunity to be offended on behalf of someone else. There must be some odd entertainment factor to it that you and I don’t understand. I don’t know what it’s like to be so self-certain and absolute that I would take on responsibility of social internet police.

Not really “offended”. I was actually more hoping I could make the original author notice some internalized misogyny. I appreciate when people point out when my thinking is based in bad stereotypes and assumptions. I was going for more of a bros-helping-bros kinda thing.

Kind of stereotyping/assumptious to think that because someone posts something about cat people that the person is a man who actually means to say women cant drive.

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#35

Post by atatatat »

kennywinker wrote: post #4
bmeski wrote: post #3

So cat people can’t drive well? We’ve always known this.

I think you're going for a glib lil' fun quip, but that really just sounds like sexism one-step-removed to me. The stereotype of the cat lady, mixed in with the stereotype of women being bad drivers. Unless there's some stereotype about men who like cats I'm not aware of?

Who was stereotyping?

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#36

Post by rkk3 »

kennywinker wrote: post #4
bmeski wrote: post #3

So cat people can’t drive well? We’ve always known this.

I think you're going for a glib lil' fun quip, but that really just sounds like sexism one-step-removed to me. The stereotype of the cat lady, mixed in with the stereotype of women being bad drivers. Unless there's some stereotype about men who like cats I'm not aware of?

World class mental gymnastics to insert gender identity politics into a conservation about pet ownership.

> Unless there's some stereotype about men who like cats I'm not aware of?

Yes, there are plenty of stereotypes about "People who like cats".

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#38

Post by eurasiantiger »

whateveracct wrote: post #20
bmeski wrote: post #3

So cat people can’t drive well? We’ve always known this.

what exactly constitutes a "cat person" exactly? the dichotomy between "dog people" and "cat people" had always been interesting and telling to me. dog people will go as far as blame you for their "reactive" dog who can "tell when your nervous around him." not-cat people mostly don't like cats because..the cats are "rude" to them? In a way, these are similar experiences. You are behaving in a way the animal doesn't l…

> the dichotomy between "dog people" and "cat people"

In my experience, there are many kinds of both.

- cat/dog people who are primarily just animal lovers and take in rescue cats/dogs

- cat/dog people who primarily want to have a non-human companion in their daily life

- dog people who primarily want to use a dog to aid them in some activity, e.g. hunting

- cat/dog people who primarily want to show off their dog with pride

- cat/dog people who primarily want to breed cats/dogs for sale to other enthusiasts

- dog people who primarily enjoy dominating another species and having them at their mercy

- cat/dog people who are running a kitten/puppy mill for profit

- cat people who are themselves independent and value that quality in cats

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#39

Post by [deleted] »

Freestyler_3 wrote: post #34
kennywinker wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really “offended”. I was actually more hoping I could make the original author notice some internalized misogyny. I appreciate when people point out when my thinking is based in bad stereotypes and assumptions. I was going for more of a bros-helping-bros kinda thing.

Kind of stereotyping/assumptious to think that because someone posts something about cat people that the person is a man who actually means to say women cant drive.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN