3 ms·

It was in earnest. What seems to be going on here is that we have a very different understanding of what "responsible for a flow of money" means. In my mental

It was in earnest. What seems to be going on here is that we have a very different understanding of what "responsible for a flow of money" means. In my mental model, someone who handles, protects, counts, transfers, etc. money to and from customers is fairly literally "responsible for a flow of money". I suspect you believe your definition requires a higher threshold and/or type of responsibility that these roles do not entail, but I don't see where that is in your definition. I think maybe you what you mean is that our hypothetical banker is independently making some decisions around how / where / etc this money flows with some degree of autonomy ? My point here was primarily just to say that it is maybe a bit thornier of a thing to define than you realize given that your definition in my honest opinion and in what I consider a reasonable reading did not clearly leave out one of the primary categories of employee that you intended it to exclude. Sidenote - stating that "you will find most people will agree with me" is an, um, interesting method of argument.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> Sidenote - stating that "you will find most people will agree with me" is an, um, interesting method of argument. Not at all. That is the standard for determining what something means. What you're saying here is that I expressed an idea, you agree with me as to both what I meant by it and what other people would understand by it, but, for unstated reasons, you think my expression was metaphysically incorrect. Why? The project of communication is for the listener to understand the same thing the speaker intended. If that happens, the communication was correct. As applied here, if I think "responsible for a flow of money", elucidated by a negative example, means something, and everyone else agrees with me that it means that thing... then that is in fact what it means. Words hold their meaning by common agreement, and solely by common agreement.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> Sidenote - stating that "you will find most people will agree with me" is an, um, interesting method of argument. Not at all. That is the standard for determining what something means. What you're saying here is that I expressed an idea, you agree with me as to both what I meant by it and what other people would understand by it, but, for unstated reasons, you think my expression was metaphysically incorrect. Why? The project of communication is for the listener to understand the same thing the speaker intended. If that happens, the communication was correct. As applied here, if I think "responsible for a flow of money", elucidated by a negative example, means something, and everyone else agrees with me that it means that thing... then that is in fact what it means. Words hold their meaning by common agreement, and solely by common agreement.