4 ms·
I disagree with this: when an actor is known for repeated bad faith, it's often a net gain of time to dismiss what they say by default. Only if someone else pre
by aubanel 2y ago
I disagree with this: when an actor is known for repeated bad faith, it's often a net gain of time to dismiss what they say by default. Only if someone else presents the same argument should you take the time to analyze it.
- GeoAtreides 2y agoSaying you disagree with my original comment might be inaccurate, seeing how it didn't touch on repeated bad faith; not that habitual lying would make any difference to the validity of any argument (which depends only on being logical sound). I do agree ignoring known and mercenary liars does save time.
- SuperNinKenDo 2y agoGiven the history of PwC and the Big 4, whether you specifically mention repeated bad faith or not, it's relevant to whether your analogy holds.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]