You seem to have a super inconsistent burden of proof.
-Poster above who says hacker news posters are typically sexist. No problem whatsoever, no burden of proof needed.
-Person responds and says they disagree that this represents HN posts. You respond and demand that they produce quantifiable proof.
-You then go on to assert that hacker news posters are like this, based on 0 quantifiable evidence, but just your hunch.
How do you make a point like that and not realize how unfair/unrealistic you're being?
No? I said if he wanted to quantify his claim, he could do so, and recommended a course of action. He said he didn't have the time/effort to do so.
All i was asserting was that my hunch was contrary to his. That's the perfect place for an experiment. Given that we don't have any evidence in front of us, we just have his hunch and my hunch. I'm not asserting anything beyond that.
"You are making a quantifiable assertion. If you'd really like to back up the claim, go grab some of the threads on this subject, and spider the account pages of the people posting to the threads."
My problem is simply that you demanded this of guy who disagreed with you, but you did not demand it from anyone who agreed with you. Its about the most biased/unfair way of making an argument possible.
-Poster above who says hacker news posters are typically sexist. No problem whatsoever, no burden of proof needed. -Person responds and says they disagree that this represents HN posts. You respond and demand that they produce quantifiable proof. -You then go on to assert that hacker news posters are like this, based on 0 quantifiable evidence, but just your hunch.
How do you make a point like that and not realize how unfair/unrealistic you're being?