4 ms·
The implication is that because this rule is from 1992 (which I guess is considered ancient history), arguing that it should be implied here is essentially sayi
by jdoliner 4y ago
The implication is that because this rule is from 1992 (which I guess is considered ancient history), arguing that it should be implied here is essentially saying that central banking was solved in 1992. It's a bad argument.
- SilasX 4y agoBut it’s a bad reply too. It just means the rule is from 1992. That gives us no way to gauge whether the rule was invalidated in the intervening times. As I like to say, we launch spacecraft based on models of celestial mechanics from the 1680s. Doesn’t make them wrong or disaster-prone. If you replied to someone that “oh you think celestial mechanics was perfected in the 1680s?”, then a lay reader should be equally confused as to why they should doubt the person you replied to. If you have a reason some rule is invalid, post it, FFS. Don’t just say it’s from $YEAR. And definitely don’t rely on ambiguity as a way to look smart and unquestionable. But of course, he’s a longtime poster, so I guess he gets a free pass.