Probably not, though, given that you couldn't find an example of envy and decided to randomly reach for hatred instead for some reason. Again, I suppose it has probably happened once, but is clearly not common enough to speak of (you literally were unable to speak of it).
Here, a House Representative questioning student loan relief announced in August 2022. Not framed as an issue of others paying for the debtors, but rather "what relief do those who already paid off their debt receive?"
Valid question. Given that they are assuming the debt, what relief are they getting to pass it off onto the next bag holder? Anyone assuming the debt would ask the same question.
No, you keep finding diversions to avoid answer the question.
Let's face it: The question is unanswerable as there is no parallel and there never was.
Your never ending quest to try and find that which does not exist is commendable, and hilarious, but to think that it is answering some kind of question is nonsensical.
Here's an example of someone who's paid off their debt, is unhappy at the prospect of others getting relief, but not complaining about being the one to have to pick up the tax bill in order to deliver that relief:
> Student loan forgiveness rewards bad decision making
I took out a $160,000 student load a decade ago
I saved every penny I made to pay it back in full. I ended up paying over $300,000 on the loan
Now I'm getting punished because I was too responsible and paid back my loan too quickly?
I lived in a $500 a month rat and cockroach infested sun room in Boston for years to pay back this debt
If I would have instead ignored my debt and bought cars and useless luxury items I'd get a free $300,000 check?
I'm as a-political as it gets. I hate all politicians. But this is insanity and rewards the WORST behavior
It has been said over and over that it no doubt has happened, but is not common enough that anyone here would speak to it. Digging deep into the depths of what HN largely considers a trolling website to find some random nobody has ever heard of once saying what you want to hear is not indicative of anything.
I'm surprised you don't take your comedy show on the road. People would pay good money for the laughs you've brought us.
> but is not common enough that anyone here would talk about it
But I don't care about whether or not people on HN would talk about it. I'm saying that it exists. Ultimately it is a moral judgment about personal responsibility. You find it in attacks on "welfare queens" similarly. Yes, of course there is always the element of being an aggrieved taxpayer. But there is also the vague cosmic - puritanism? - critique of "why should they have it easy when I had it hard?" I'm glad that you uphold HN as a place that is above such sentiment. But here I agree with you! I do not take such critiques seriously. Yet they abound, and they are a clear parallel to people attacking Ozempic because they find it "too easy" for becoming or staying thin. And so, we come full circle.
> not indicative of anything.
This entire sub-discussion is about fallacious arguments, and it is a fallacious argument that I am saying it exists. Therefore it is entirely germane for me to bring up a trolling website to find an argument used by a random nobody, as it proves the existence of a narrative. Perhaps you may quibble that it is not a narrative that exists in abundance. Then we are simply arguing preponderance, because I have already established existence.
> But I don't care about whether or not people on HN would talk about it.
You certainly don't have to care, but that is the discussion taking place. It is a necessary precondition for this supposed parallel to exist.
If you're trying to tell us that you can't focus and are flailing around like one of those whacky blow up thingys down at the used car lot, have fun with that. It no doubt goes well with your comedy show.
> This entire sub-discussion is about fallacious arguments
Oh, I see, so you really are unable to focus. I get why you appear to be so confused now. It is not so much that you're confused in what you write, but that you're off in your own world. Well, that's pretty funny, at least.
Are those tears really from laughter, or are you laughing through the tears?
The original post I was responding to was about people who get upset about Ozempic who "show up over and over again on any discussion of these drugs." Maybe the poster did include HN as a place of those discussions, but I interpreted it as in general, in other internet spaces and in meatspace.
I then posted a similar fallacious argument that I felt paralleled it because ultimately they're both arguments out of a perceived lack of personal responsibility being "rewarded" by a quick fix.
You chose to introduce logic and reason by arguing that opposition to student loan debt forgiveness is motivated by the complainers becoming bag-holders. I agree that might be a (strong) motivation, but it is not the only one, because many people become busybodies when it comes to attacking others' personal (ir)responsibility when those others receive a windfall. "Taking the easy way out."
This subthread might have been a meandering road, but we have arrived right at where we started, with you bizarrely attacking a critique that I do not believe in, out of sheer pedantry perhaps.
Now, are you going to attempt a defense, a refutation, or whatever, or continue to hurl insults that both flout the guidelines of this forum and only serve to demean yourself?
