3 ms·

I can't move past your inability to accept the definition of merit I've given as nothing but tautological. It isn't. It was good to talk to you about this, bu

I can't move past your inability to accept the definition of merit I've given as nothing but tautological. It isn't. It was good to talk to you about this, but I don't think we can move past this disagreement. Cheers!

sudosysgen 5y ago
Reading the argument he does seem right. Simply being the owner of something successful does not prove that you caused the success, and if your definition of merit is "owning a profitable stake" and nothing else then you haven't actually shown them to be meritorious, just asserted it.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  He isn't right; owning something successful doesn't prove you caused the success (and I never said it did), but it is a strong indicator you caused the success, and more importantly past successes are leading indicators (not absolute assurance, however) of future performance. Acting like I claimed some "proof" or "absolute certainty" around this topic is disingenuous and manipulative, which is why I stopped engaging with him, and honestly am suspicious of you as well. Telling me that I believe something I do not is not a good way to interact with others, and it's not likely to breed positive discourse. This topic is a lot fuzzier than the language being used by you and the other commenter, and it's not possible to have a civil conversation with people who don't get that.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    I was willing to leave it where it was since you said "cheers", but this comment is a direct about-face from what you said earlier. Now apparently I'm not having a civil conversation? I didn't attack you or your character personally at all. I engaged with your comment fully and addressed your points. I haven't used any inappropriate language. So I take issue with your characterization of my engagement here. > This topic is a lot fuzzier than the language being used by you and the other commenter You started this whole discussion with unsupported, absolutist assertions as to the model for the economy you would prefer (in this whole discussion you haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that democracy is a terrible way to run an economy). This is the tone you set initially. The topic became "fuzzy" when you were pressed and your bold assertions turned into "beliefs".
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      I reply only to say you're not accurately portraying our conversation (or even what I said in the prior comment), and it's a little sad you think you can lie here now, when what you and I wrote is directly above.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    The issue is that we have a spiral - past successes may only be a predictor of future performance because of the privileges we endow to successful people. No one is asking for absolute certainty, people are asking for a solid argument, so far they seem very soft. If using specific language causes an argument to be impossible then the argument itself is weak - I assure you that fuzzier topics can be discussed with more specific language, it just has to be thought out carefully.
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      An argument isn't weak because it relies on specific language, it's specific. If we can't agree on what the word "merit" means (or indeed "weakness"), it's useless to continue to discuss what is and isn't meritorious (or weak). That is what has happened here, along with a fairly significant number of willful misrepresentations, to the point of assumed malice, of what I've written.

sudosysgen 5y ago

Reading the argument he does seem right. Simply being the owner of something successful does not prove that you caused the success, and if your definition of merit is "owning a profitable stake" and nothing else then you haven't actually shown them to be meritorious, just asserted it.

TameAntelope 5y ago
He isn't right; owning something successful doesn't prove you caused the success (and I never said it did), but it is a strong indicator you caused the success, and more importantly past successes are leading indicators (not absolute assurance, however) of future performance. Acting like I claimed some "proof" or "absolute certainty" around this topic is disingenuous and manipulative, which is why I stopped engaging with him, and honestly am suspicious of you as well. Telling me that I believe something I do not is not a good way to interact with others, and it's not likely to breed positive discourse. This topic is a lot fuzzier than the language being used by you and the other commenter, and it's not possible to have a civil conversation with people who don't get that.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  I was willing to leave it where it was since you said "cheers", but this comment is a direct about-face from what you said earlier. Now apparently I'm not having a civil conversation? I didn't attack you or your character personally at all. I engaged with your comment fully and addressed your points. I haven't used any inappropriate language. So I take issue with your characterization of my engagement here. > This topic is a lot fuzzier than the language being used by you and the other commenter You started this whole discussion with unsupported, absolutist assertions as to the model for the economy you would prefer (in this whole discussion you haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that democracy is a terrible way to run an economy). This is the tone you set initially. The topic became "fuzzy" when you were pressed and your bold assertions turned into "beliefs".
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    I reply only to say you're not accurately portraying our conversation (or even what I said in the prior comment), and it's a little sad you think you can lie here now, when what you and I wrote is directly above.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The issue is that we have a spiral - past successes may only be a predictor of future performance because of the privileges we endow to successful people. No one is asking for absolute certainty, people are asking for a solid argument, so far they seem very soft. If using specific language causes an argument to be impossible then the argument itself is weak - I assure you that fuzzier topics can be discussed with more specific language, it just has to be thought out carefully.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    An argument isn't weak because it relies on specific language, it's specific. If we can't agree on what the word "merit" means (or indeed "weakness"), it's useless to continue to discuss what is and isn't meritorious (or weak). That is what has happened here, along with a fairly significant number of willful misrepresentations, to the point of assumed malice, of what I've written.