Comment by ghurtado
5 hours ago
No, not dozens of Innocents. About 1500, which is a lot more.
You should read the comment that you replied to again. You're railing against a fact, not an opinion.
5 hours ago
No, not dozens of Innocents. About 1500, which is a lot more.
You should read the comment that you replied to again. You're railing against a fact, not an opinion.
People don't think anymore, they just react... Im pretty sure Im done engaging on this platform for that reason. Nearly every comment is met by some crass remark that clearly demonstrates the person didn't actually understand the comment, just reacted to the trigger words within it.
This is best exemplified by all the comments (on varying posts) saying: 'I misread the title, and interpreted as X, haha!'. HN has unfortunately slid in the direction of Reddit (despite the HN Guidelines' denial of this).
It always has been.
They mean the 5% of 1250 killed by drones
We know what he meant, and he's being obtuse. Thinks thousands of deaths due to rampant crime somehow aren't or shouldn't be part of the discussion when the collateral cost of law enforcement efforts are discussed. Very dumb.
This is apparently a RW projection zone. You won't get anywhere with these people.
Dozens of innocents (5% of 1250 = 63) killed "extrajudicially" (i.e., illegally) by the drones that are the subject of the article, and those deaths were dismissed by the rationalization in the comment they replied to.
If you can't handle additional context being brought to the conversation, maybe its best for you to duck out.
So much projection here from RWers, as usual. I will bow out of this, due to the massive levels of intellectual dishonesty and bad faith.