3 ms·

4 is just 1. Compromise inherently involves both parties giving something up. That only works for up to N parties. You can't achieve stable compromise with ever

4 is just 1. Compromise inherently involves both parties giving something up. That only works for up to N parties. You can't achieve stable compromise with everyone ever because you have parties that are not rectifiable. You could also read 4 as an example of 3. If you are going to force someone to say yes by social pressure or threatening to burn down their house, that's still authoritarian.

mistermann 5y ago
> 4 is just 1. Compromise inherently involves both parties giving something up. Submission and compromise may be similar in many cases, but they are not the same. > That only works for up to N parties. In the cases where it only works for N parties (which can vary wildly depending on the situation), agreed. > You can't achieve stable compromise with everyone ever because you have parties that are not rectifiable. That which is impossible is indeed impossible. However, that which is predicted does not always turn out so. > You could also read 4 as an example of 3. If you aren't concerned about accuracy, I suppose. > If you are going to force someone to say yes by social pressure or threatening to burn down their house, that's still authoritarian. Depends which meaning of the word you're using, this is the first hit on Google: authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  That which is may be that which is not, unless it is and your senses don't deceive you, and no evil genie is in play, and then it probably is unless you're trapped in a simulation. But you can't solve everything with consensus, and you're welcome to play word games but forcing people is not "consent".
  - mistermann 5y ago
    > That which is may be that which is not, unless it is and your senses don't deceive you, and no evil genie is in play, and then it probably is unless you're trapped in a simulation. Very nice! Can you give an example where "That which is may be that which is not" (with or without the "unless it is" part)? And considering this idea: do any conclusions or interesting ideas logically follow from it with respect to our preceding conversation? I'm not seeing any, but the odds of my senses deceiving me seems high. > But you can't solve everything with consensus... Right you are, hence my lack of making that assertion. > ...and you're welcome to play word games... As you are welcome to engage in evasion and rhetoric. > ...but forcing people is not "consent". Right again, and I've made no assertion that it is. This is a fun conversation, I hope we can continue it - perhaps we can drill down and determine where it is that you and I disagree (assuming we actually do).

mistermann 5y ago

> 4 is just 1. Compromise inherently involves both parties giving something up. Submission and compromise may be similar in many cases, but they are not the same. > That only works for up to N parties. In the cases where it only works for N parties (which can vary wildly depending on the situation), agreed. > You can't achieve stable compromise with everyone ever because you have parties that are not rectifiable. That which is impossible is indeed impossible. However, that which is predicted does not always turn out so. > You could also read 4 as an example of 3. If you aren't concerned about accuracy, I suppose. > If you are going to force someone to say yes by social pressure or threatening to burn down their house, that's still authoritarian. Depends which meaning of the word you're using, this is the first hit on Google: authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

vorpalhex 5y ago
That which is may be that which is not, unless it is and your senses don't deceive you, and no evil genie is in play, and then it probably is unless you're trapped in a simulation. But you can't solve everything with consensus, and you're welcome to play word games but forcing people is not "consent".
- mistermann 5y ago
  > That which is may be that which is not, unless it is and your senses don't deceive you, and no evil genie is in play, and then it probably is unless you're trapped in a simulation. Very nice! Can you give an example where "That which is may be that which is not" (with or without the "unless it is" part)? And considering this idea: do any conclusions or interesting ideas logically follow from it with respect to our preceding conversation? I'm not seeing any, but the odds of my senses deceiving me seems high. > But you can't solve everything with consensus... Right you are, hence my lack of making that assertion. > ...and you're welcome to play word games... As you are welcome to engage in evasion and rhetoric. > ...but forcing people is not "consent". Right again, and I've made no assertion that it is. This is a fun conversation, I hope we can continue it - perhaps we can drill down and determine where it is that you and I disagree (assuming we actually do).