A portion of those do cause physical harm, or are virtually guaranteed to result in physical harm, if not inherently implying it. I think you meant to say that they might not leave any physical marks. That's quite different, though.
I understand that we are all programmers, and so we love to nitpick things. But the point of that list is not to say that none of them ever cause physical harm, but that in the cases where those things don't cause measurable physical harm, they are still often crimes that would merit punishment.
It's not about being "programmers" but rational human beings. You knew beforehand that you were making a generalization and were subsequently called out on it, so to speak. Your clarification here should have been in the parent comment to begin with.
> It's not about being "programmers" but rational human beings.
I mention programmers because of the forum. And no, programmers tend to nitpick more. We are trained to nitpick more, because that's part of how you get bulletproof code. And that's great when dealing with code. But it can be problematic in discussions because it easily leads to derailing off into little niggling points. Like this one.
> Your clarification here should have been in the parent comment to begin with.
No. No, no, no. One does not have to put every possible caveat into one's initial statement, especially when the context is established. That just makes for very long, boring things that nobody reads. I trust that most readers will approach things with smarts and goodwill. When there are multiple ways to read something, I trust that they will find the most useful one. If all that fails, I hope they will say, "Hey, did you really mean X?" Which in this case happened.
> I mention programmers because of the forum. And no, programmers tend to nitpick more.
There are users here besides programmers. Just because it's called "Hacker News" and run on YCombinator's site doesn't immediately mean it's exclusive.
Programmers may be trained to nit pick, but you could argue that about any technical profession. Engineers? Better make sure we accounted for every possible detail. Doctors? If we don't check each scenario the patient may worsen. Research scientists? Better be sure the study is conducted appropriately to the scientific method and that our data is statistically significant.
> One does not have to put every possible caveat into one's initial statement
Of course not, that would be absurd. However, you contradict yourself from the parent:
"This is an interesting theory of law, but I could go quite a way naming crimes that don't result in physical harm"
To the following child comment of:
"But the point of that list is not to say that none of them ever cause physical harm, but that in the cases where those things don't cause measurable physical harm"
I have no issue with the point you are making, but I do have issue that you say one thing but defend yourself with a position claiming it was the one you originally made. Which evidently was not the case due to the way you worded it. You may argue that you just thought someone would be smart enough to read it the way you liked, but that shouldn't be the case with arguments. To illustrate this, I have quoted another section of your comment below.
> I trust that they will find the most useful one. If all that fails, I hope they will say, "Hey, did you really mean X?" Which in this case happened.
Assumptions are bad! In any case a reader could just have easily not done so.
If you would like to email me to discuss something in particular, feel free. But I will not participate in derailing this discussion with some side point that I consider irrelevant.
