4 ms·
There are two classes of implications that come to me easily. 1) There is a possibility that the empowered person did not make the decision(s) that would have
by davemp 8y ago
There are two classes of implications that come to me easily.
1) There is a possibility that the empowered person did not make the decision(s) that would have resulted in success. Maybe there was no decision chain leading to success. Good luck deciding.
2) The environment that caused failure, could be poorly optimized to minimize failure over a set of empowered persons. Maybe it is optimized and the individuals paths to success couldn't be increased. Good luck determining this, optimization of complex functions is not easy.
The classes are not mutually exclusive. Ignoring the individual's actions (the first class) seems like a poor approach to reducing net failures.
These lines of reasoning always remind me of a quote (from an admittedly cheesy source) that I think holds a useful sentiment.
"There's always someone who'll try to convince you that they know the answer no matter the question. Be wary of those who believe in a neat little world because it's just fucking crazy, you know that it is." --DMB
(I am not accusing the parent of being a person of which to be wary, their comments seem very reasonable).
- crawfordcomeaux 8y agoI had another quote lined up. "You can't always get what you want. But if you try some time, you just might find you get what you need." But again, not always.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agoSo empowerment doesn't mean they have the ability to change anything, it's just a state of being where they are under the belief they can possibly change something? What exactly is empowerment?
- davemp 8y agoPredetermination is not a theological rabbit hole that is necessary to go down for this conversation. Reducing things to the point where the original ideas have little tangible meaning ineffective way to discuss ideas. See why mathematicians reduce complex ideas into a concise syntax. --- Empower: * To invest with power, especially legal power or official authority. * To equip or supply with an ability. Give to individuals: Legal power over their persons (liberty), as much as is possible without infringing on the legal power of other persons. The ability and knowledge to wield this power to maximize their individual outcomes. --- These concepts are well defined by the founders of the USA in a really beautiful and rigorous fashion. Read them thoroughly and you will learn more than I can convey. I'm not sure why you would trust me, a stranger on the internet to define these concepts to you. Would you write off the foundational ideas of liberty if I were not able to convey these concepts with the fluency they deserve? I'm picking up a really ineffective and/or deceptive argument strategy from you. The guidelines of this cite states: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. If your plan is to ask de-constructive questions until I slip up, know that you are abusing the Socratic method. [1] It is a cooperative argument exercise used to promote critical thinking. I did not consent, nor have the time for a critical thinking exercise. Refuting a sub-hypothesis says little about the school of thought that may have spawned it. I am only writing this reply because I have seen similar threads spread throughout internet boards since I started browsing. The strategy (not you) is an evil cancer that degrades effective discussions, brow beats posters into submission, and kill communities. If I were to host a discussion platform I would do my best to cull this practice (without consent). I believe that is the spirit of that point in Paul's guideline. Please do better. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method