19 ms·

You don't have to accuse me of lying or being dishonest. I admit the majority is on your side, but I'm more interested in accuracy than how useful something is

You don't have to accuse me of lying or being dishonest. I admit the majority is on your side, but I'm more interested in accuracy than how useful something is for you. I'm not the first person to use such a definition. Here is one from over a century ago, from an opinion in a court case from Alabama: "To "confer a title of nobility" is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 129, 142." Again, if you have a different definition, fine. But don't accuse me of being dishonest when it's quite clear mine is at least as valid.

philwelch 17y ago
The words may be the same, but the meaning is significantly different, and I have little interest in whatever sophistry you intend to pursue in order to support your crankish opinion that university degrees are unconstitutional. Incidentally, "nominate to an order of persons" is probably the operative text there, and is something that you probably neglected to include in your earlier definition. I do not think that Alabama court of a century ago, or indeed the drafters of the Constitution, intended university degrees to count as a title of nobility. Especially since many of them founded universities themselves.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  I never even mentioned the Constitution, so that's not my argument. You probably assumed I was talking about the Constitution when I said titles of nobility were supposed to have been abolished. In fact, I was referring to the idea that our society is supposed to be an egalitarian one (in a legal sense). As for the rest of your post, it no longer seems relevant.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    http://xkcd.com/169/ http://xkcd.com/169/ Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness. Or, in other words (since you are no doubt preparing to quibble that you weren't acting particularly smug), the onus is on you to clearly communicate your argument, and using phrases like "titles of nobility were supposed to be abolished" and then not answering my objections about the Constitutional text that did, in fact, abolish titles of nobility impeded getting your point across, rather than helping. You give the distinct impression that you're blaming me for misunderstanding what you so poorly communicated in the first place. If your argument is simply that college degrees are anti-egalitarian, I will happily agree with you. But our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian in the first place. It had slavery. I'm also happy to point out that it's not possible to even have pure egalitarianism, which is one reason why meritocracy is so much better. (You will undoubtedly counter that reliance upon college degrees is not efficiently meritocratic, but see? Now we've got ourselves a truly interesting and worthwhile discussion.) There is also the alternate hypothesis that whenever I debunk your argument, you start pretending you meant something entirely different from the outset. But I am choosing to be charitable and assuming you simply miscommunicated what you meant in the first place.
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      philwelch, I tried to talk with you here but it seems like you insult me at every turn, and now you're trying to blame me for your invalid, US-centric assumptions. This seems to be a habit of yours, because even in this post, twice you claim that I'm "undoubtedly" about to respond in a certain way. Perhaps if you read what I write without jumping to conclusions about what must be in my head, this would be more productive. "our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian in the first place. It had slavery." You appear to continue with your US-centric perspective here. And even with that perspective, so what? The fact that it had slavery sounds like a good reason not to take what was "meant" as gospel. As for legal egalitarianism being impossible, that's certainly not true. I'm not sure why you believe that.
      - philwelch 17y ago
        I tried to talk to you, but it turns out you consistently mean something different from what you say. For once, I'd like you to clearly and literally state, just once, what you're on about instead of going in circles. In particular, the onus is on you to clearly define what "legal egalitarianism" means, why college degrees violate that principle, and why we should care. That's an honest discussion. Trying to cleverly redefine terms like "nobility" isn't.

philwelch 17y ago

The words may be the same, but the meaning is significantly different, and I have little interest in whatever sophistry you intend to pursue in order to support your crankish opinion that university degrees are unconstitutional. Incidentally, "nominate to an order of persons" is probably the operative text there, and is something that you probably neglected to include in your earlier definition. I do not think that Alabama court of a century ago, or indeed the drafters of the Constitution, intended university degrees to count as a title of nobility. Especially since many of them founded universities themselves.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
I never even mentioned the Constitution, so that's not my argument. You probably assumed I was talking about the Constitution when I said titles of nobility were supposed to have been abolished. In fact, I was referring to the idea that our society is supposed to be an egalitarian one (in a legal sense). As for the rest of your post, it no longer seems relevant.
- philwelch 17y ago
  http://xkcd.com/169/ http://xkcd.com/169/ Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness. Or, in other words (since you are no doubt preparing to quibble that you weren't acting particularly smug), the onus is on you to clearly communicate your argument, and using phrases like "titles of nobility were supposed to be abolished" and then not answering my objections about the Constitutional text that did, in fact, abolish titles of nobility impeded getting your point across, rather than helping. You give the distinct impression that you're blaming me for misunderstanding what you so poorly communicated in the first place. If your argument is simply that college degrees are anti-egalitarian, I will happily agree with you. But our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian in the first place. It had slavery. I'm also happy to point out that it's not possible to even have pure egalitarianism, which is one reason why meritocracy is so much better. (You will undoubtedly counter that reliance upon college degrees is not efficiently meritocratic, but see? Now we've got ourselves a truly interesting and worthwhile discussion.) There is also the alternate hypothesis that whenever I debunk your argument, you start pretending you meant something entirely different from the outset. But I am choosing to be charitable and assuming you simply miscommunicated what you meant in the first place.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    philwelch, I tried to talk with you here but it seems like you insult me at every turn, and now you're trying to blame me for your invalid, US-centric assumptions. This seems to be a habit of yours, because even in this post, twice you claim that I'm "undoubtedly" about to respond in a certain way. Perhaps if you read what I write without jumping to conclusions about what must be in my head, this would be more productive. "our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian in the first place. It had slavery." You appear to continue with your US-centric perspective here. And even with that perspective, so what? The fact that it had slavery sounds like a good reason not to take what was "meant" as gospel. As for legal egalitarianism being impossible, that's certainly not true. I'm not sure why you believe that.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      I tried to talk to you, but it turns out you consistently mean something different from what you say. For once, I'd like you to clearly and literally state, just once, what you're on about instead of going in circles. In particular, the onus is on you to clearly define what "legal egalitarianism" means, why college degrees violate that principle, and why we should care. That's an honest discussion. Trying to cleverly redefine terms like "nobility" isn't.