4 ms·

Yes, in case you didn't notice, everything we are stating is opinions. I absolutely reject the notion that the senator from Wyoming should have equal political

Yes, in case you didn't notice, everything we are stating is opinions. I absolutely reject the notion that the senator from Wyoming should have equal political power to the senator from Texas or California, I think it is absurd, I don't doubt that some people in Wyoming disagree. I think Wyoming joining the US as a state without equal representation as the most populous state would still be a massive win for them and they would have almost certainly taken the deal at the time.

giantg2 1y ago
But would they continue to take the deal is the real question.
MichaelZuo 1y ago
If you understand your just opining to other user’s opining… why do you think your opinions can outweigh other’s? Do you have a fleshed out logically sound argument?
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  >why do you think your opinions can outweigh other’s? I don't see where this is implied. I took the implication of "your opinion did not sway my own" >Do you have a fleshed out logically sound argument? The "logic" is "larger states in a democracy should have more power because they represent more people". Which naively makes sense. I'm sure game theory would show some consequence of this formation though as a bunch of smaller states coalition around each other and make a two party system based on land, as opposed to ideology.
  - MichaelZuo 1y ago
    If you don’t think your opinion can outweigh other’s here… how does replying even once, without an attached or linked argument, make sense?
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      It wouldn't male sense, but an opinion in this case is the argument, no? You can disagree with an opinion and also think your own isn't necessarily superior. In much of internet discourse, your goal isn't even to convince the person to reply to, it's to give more viewpoints to the silent majority who lurk and never comment. Whether they think an opinion is better or worse is up to them.
      - MichaelZuo 1y ago
        This really doesn’t make sense. I can also just say:”All the opinions presented so far are deficient, here is my new, better, opinion X” By your logic if I replied with that to every comment chain in every HN post adjusting X to each topic… then I would become the most productive HN user of all time.
        johnnyanmac 1y ago
        >I can also just say:”All the opinions presented so far are deficient, here is my new, better, opinion X” Yes, I browse reddit every now and then. It's a shame the Alt-Right pipeline hijacked this. They realized that being loud is better than being correct. I'm a bit confused on how we got onto a tangent about productivity, though. All I was talking about came down to "opinions are arguments, and restating an opinion (in good faith) often means you aren't convinced of another opinion". They're opinions, they aren't inherently right or wrong.
        MichaelZuo 1y ago
        If opinions were worth, or equivalent to, any kind of argument whatsoever… then my example holds true. I would become the most productive HN user ever… anyone could do so by following that… so clearly opinions cannot be worth anything. All the opinions you’ve ever written, and will ever write, must literally all add up to less than one solid argument.
bigstrat2003 1y ago
> I think Wyoming joining the US as a state without equal representation as the most populous state would still be a massive win for them and they would have almost certainly taken the deal at the time. I doubt that very much. But more pertinent is this: we know for a fact that the smaller founding states would not have joined without the compromise in how Congress is structured. They were, after all, the whole reason it exists. So without that compromise, the country would not exist at all (or would at minimum exist very differently to today). You can't just renege on that deal 250 years later and figure people should be ok with it.
- teraflop 1y ago
  I think it's completely fine to renege on deals that were made with people who have been dead for centuries, actually, if there's a good reason to. Courts and political institutions routinely nullify all kinds of "deals" that are considered to be against public policy. For instance, lots of people in the US made legally binding deals to purchase other human beings as slaves, and those deals were undone by the 13th amendment. Maybe those people would have made different life choices if they knew that their slaves would be freed in the future. Tough luck. In other legal contexts, we recognize that allowing people to exert control over things long after their deaths is a bad idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
  A bunch of states wouldn't have entered the union without the compromise on slavery. But we ended that "compromise" some time ago. No reason that equal Senate representation, or even general state "sovereignty" couldn't be revisited either.
  - NoGravitas 1y ago
    Yep. In fact, those probably needed to be addressed at the same time.

giantg2 1y ago

But would they continue to take the deal is the real question.

MichaelZuo 1y ago

If you understand your just opining to other user’s opining… why do you think your opinions can outweigh other’s? Do you have a fleshed out logically sound argument?

johnnyanmac 1y ago
>why do you think your opinions can outweigh other’s? I don't see where this is implied. I took the implication of "your opinion did not sway my own" >Do you have a fleshed out logically sound argument? The "logic" is "larger states in a democracy should have more power because they represent more people". Which naively makes sense. I'm sure game theory would show some consequence of this formation though as a bunch of smaller states coalition around each other and make a two party system based on land, as opposed to ideology.
- MichaelZuo 1y ago
  If you don’t think your opinion can outweigh other’s here… how does replying even once, without an attached or linked argument, make sense?
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    It wouldn't male sense, but an opinion in this case is the argument, no? You can disagree with an opinion and also think your own isn't necessarily superior. In much of internet discourse, your goal isn't even to convince the person to reply to, it's to give more viewpoints to the silent majority who lurk and never comment. Whether they think an opinion is better or worse is up to them.
    - MichaelZuo 1y ago
      This really doesn’t make sense. I can also just say:”All the opinions presented so far are deficient, here is my new, better, opinion X” By your logic if I replied with that to every comment chain in every HN post adjusting X to each topic… then I would become the most productive HN user of all time.
      - johnnyanmac 1y ago
        >I can also just say:”All the opinions presented so far are deficient, here is my new, better, opinion X” Yes, I browse reddit every now and then. It's a shame the Alt-Right pipeline hijacked this. They realized that being loud is better than being correct. I'm a bit confused on how we got onto a tangent about productivity, though. All I was talking about came down to "opinions are arguments, and restating an opinion (in good faith) often means you aren't convinced of another opinion". They're opinions, they aren't inherently right or wrong.
        MichaelZuo 1y ago
        If opinions were worth, or equivalent to, any kind of argument whatsoever… then my example holds true. I would become the most productive HN user ever… anyone could do so by following that… so clearly opinions cannot be worth anything. All the opinions you’ve ever written, and will ever write, must literally all add up to less than one solid argument.

bigstrat2003 1y ago

> I think Wyoming joining the US as a state without equal representation as the most populous state would still be a massive win for them and they would have almost certainly taken the deal at the time. I doubt that very much. But more pertinent is this: we know for a fact that the smaller founding states would not have joined without the compromise in how Congress is structured. They were, after all, the whole reason it exists. So without that compromise, the country would not exist at all (or would at minimum exist very differently to today). You can't just renege on that deal 250 years later and figure people should be ok with it.

teraflop 1y ago
I think it's completely fine to renege on deals that were made with people who have been dead for centuries, actually, if there's a good reason to. Courts and political institutions routinely nullify all kinds of "deals" that are considered to be against public policy. For instance, lots of people in the US made legally binding deals to purchase other human beings as slaves, and those deals were undone by the 13th amendment. Maybe those people would have made different life choices if they knew that their slaves would be freed in the future. Tough luck. In other legal contexts, we recognize that allowing people to exert control over things long after their deaths is a bad idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
A bunch of states wouldn't have entered the union without the compromise on slavery. But we ended that "compromise" some time ago. No reason that equal Senate representation, or even general state "sovereignty" couldn't be revisited either.
- NoGravitas 1y ago
  Yep. In fact, those probably needed to be addressed at the same time.