4 ms·

Typically the fact that someone has more money would not be relevant, except in this case it's a discussion of capital allocation and a person (Andreessen) who

by paul 14y ago

Typically the fact that someone has more money would not be relevant, except in this case it's a discussion of capital allocation and a person (Andreessen) who is making a lot of money by being very good at capital allocation. It's like claiming that Michael Phelps's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not he's a good swimmer.

daenz 14y ago
> It's like claiming that Michael Phelps's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not he's a good swimmer. Not really. It's like Michael Phelp's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not his butterfly stroke has room for improvement. No one is arguing that Andreessan is not good at making money. If people were, then your analogy would be correct. People are arguing whether or not his money was put to efficient use in this specific instance (by donating to charity). Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a lot of money through good investments does not make using $100 for toilet paper suddenly unassailable to criticism. Does this make sense?
- irahul 14y ago
  > Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Having 14 gold medals means that though his butterfly stroke might or might not need improvement, a random punk on the internet doesn't have the authority to make a judgement call. > Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a lot of money through good investments does not make using $100 for toilet paper suddenly unassailable to criticism. Does this make sense? No it doesn't make sense. Your $100 for toilet paper example is pushing the boundaries of ridiculous which doesn't have anything to with the topic under discussion. People who haven't earned through investment preaching people who have made a fortune about efficient use of money, money which happens to be their personal money, is just sad.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - daenz 14y ago
    Way to miss the point :)
  - jimmyvanhalen 14y ago
    the "random punk" is probably a swimming coach ;)
    - daenz 14y ago
      That's the point. The defense should be valid whether or not the identity of the critic is known.
      - irahul 14y ago
        "Michael Phelps sucks. He doesn't know shit about swimming." This criticism should be valid regardless of my identity and credentials?
        daenz 14y ago
        That's not what I said. I said that the defense should be valid regardless of the identity of the critic.
        irahul 14y ago
        > Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. >> Having 14 gold medals means that though his butterfly stroke might or might not need improvement, a random punk on the internet doesn't have the authority to make a judgement call. >>> the "random punk" is probably a swimming coach ;) That's the point. The defense should be valid whether or not the identity of the critic is known. >>>>> "Michael Phelps sucks. He doesn't know shit about swimming." This criticism should be valid regardless of my identity and credentials? >>>>>> That's not what I said. I said that the defense should be valid regardless of the identity of the critic. I don't know what defense you are talking about, and who are these critics defending themselves from, and why are they talking about things they have no fucking idea about, and why do they think "I sometimes drown in my bathtub but my opinions on swimming are as valid as Phelps' because fuck, you can't appeal to authority Even PG agrees with me about appeal to authority being invalid." All I am saying is: Does winning 14 gold medals mean Phelps technique is perfect? NO Does it mean a random punk on the internet can critic him? YES. Freedom of speech and stuff. Will the opinion mean anything? FUCK NO. Will it mean anything if the random punk happens to be a swimming coach? FUCK NO. Will it mean anything if the random punk happens to be a former olympic champion or an olympic coach? IT MIGHT. There are no rules of thumb. Different things work for different people.

by paul 14y ago

daenz 14y ago

> It's like claiming that Michael Phelps's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not he's a good swimmer. Not really. It's like Michael Phelp's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not his butterfly stroke has room for improvement. No one is arguing that Andreessan is not good at making money. If people were, then your analogy would be correct. People are arguing whether or not his money was put to efficient use in this specific instance (by donating to charity). Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a lot of money through good investments does not make using $100 for toilet paper suddenly unassailable to criticism. Does this make sense?

irahul 14y ago
> Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Having 14 gold medals means that though his butterfly stroke might or might not need improvement, a random punk on the internet doesn't have the authority to make a judgement call. > Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a lot of money through good investments does not make using $100 for toilet paper suddenly unassailable to criticism. Does this make sense? No it doesn't make sense. Your $100 for toilet paper example is pushing the boundaries of ridiculous which doesn't have anything to with the topic under discussion. People who haven't earned through investment preaching people who have made a fortune about efficient use of money, money which happens to be their personal money, is just sad.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- daenz 14y ago
  Way to miss the point :)
- jimmyvanhalen 14y ago
  the "random punk" is probably a swimming coach ;)
  - daenz 14y ago
    That's the point. The defense should be valid whether or not the identity of the critic is known.
    - irahul 14y ago
      "Michael Phelps sucks. He doesn't know shit about swimming." This criticism should be valid regardless of my identity and credentials?
      - daenz 14y ago
        That's not what I said. I said that the defense should be valid regardless of the identity of the critic.
        irahul 14y ago
        > Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. >> Having 14 gold medals means that though his butterfly stroke might or might not need improvement, a random punk on the internet doesn't have the authority to make a judgement call. >>> the "random punk" is probably a swimming coach ;) That's the point. The defense should be valid whether or not the identity of the critic is known. >>>>> "Michael Phelps sucks. He doesn't know shit about swimming." This criticism should be valid regardless of my identity and credentials? >>>>>> That's not what I said. I said that the defense should be valid regardless of the identity of the critic. I don't know what defense you are talking about, and who are these critics defending themselves from, and why are they talking about things they have no fucking idea about, and why do they think "I sometimes drown in my bathtub but my opinions on swimming are as valid as Phelps' because fuck, you can't appeal to authority Even PG agrees with me about appeal to authority being invalid." All I am saying is: Does winning 14 gold medals mean Phelps technique is perfect? NO Does it mean a random punk on the internet can critic him? YES. Freedom of speech and stuff. Will the opinion mean anything? FUCK NO. Will it mean anything if the random punk happens to be a swimming coach? FUCK NO. Will it mean anything if the random punk happens to be a former olympic champion or an olympic coach? IT MIGHT. There are no rules of thumb. Different things work for different people.