My respect for your opinion is such that your lack of belief in me is a wound that will take much time to heal.
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 755
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 755
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Indeed, this thorough trouncing has really put things into perspective for me.
From your post history there are so many wins I’m surprised i lasted as long as i did.
I should really research before i try and take on the champ.
indeed, your witty repartee and peerless argumentative structure have left me nowhere to hide, conversationally speaking.
Even the animated equivalent of a "no u" was a masterstroke, perfectly timed to wound me.
I am bested.
And again, as I said ,all of that was In response to specific context.
Amongst all of the other replies that you've conveniently ignored.
Taking quotes from a specific context and pretending they apply overall is poor reasoning. Again congrats on the consistency.
I suspect you aren't going to understand what I mean though (intentionally probably, but possibly just struggling).
Tell you what, you win, congrats on your intellectual triumph, a victory truly earned.
A masterful retort.
Still not what I said, but at least you're consistent, if not interesting.
You can put new people on the ISS, fucking duh, and it’s still much lower risk than a moon mission. Not zero risk, just significantly lower risk for the same results, as I already said.
If you'll go back and read what i said i was responding directly to the quote :
You could get 40% more of the same data by increasing output on the ISS with no increased risk of death.
The difference between zero and low gravity is not subjective.
Agreed, It's a good job that isn't what i was claiming then, "The difference in environment between the ISS and the moon is worthless" is subjective.
“Justifications exist for this course of action even if they’re stupid” is a bad argument to make and you should stop making it,
Not what i said originally , it's in the chat history, please try harder.
I'll put down the sentence you wrote, and my response to it.
There is literally zero reason for us to put people in space when we can send drones to do it.
response
There are several reasons to put actual people in to space.
They might be reasons you think worth it, but they do exist.
The follow up :
Whether or not the reasons are good is irrelevant to my original argument.
Doesn't imply the reasons are bad, just that they are irrelevant.
if you know you’re not qualified to evaluate the validity of those justifications then quit trying
If you think qualifications are required for statements clearly stated as opinions then feel free to provide yours.
Also, not what i said, you should really read the comments properly before responding to them, if you incorrectly paraphrase text that is easily accessible if makes you look incompetent.
Not directly referencing the text you are paraphrasing because it wouldn't help your pseudo argument if you did, is also a weak move.
If you’re asking me whether or not i think the reasons are good, my answer is i don’t know and I’m not invested enough in the answer to go looking.
a bit further down is :
I don’t know enough to be certain about any of that though.
and that has a specific context attached to it, arguing against a point while pretending the clearly established context doesn't exist is also not a good look.
This is somewhat disappointing, at least come up with something that will hold up to more than 10 seconds of scrutiny.
All of what you said is reasonable at a glance, still it's not relevant to my argument.
Reasons exist.
Whether or not the reasons are good is irrelevant to my original argument.
If you're asking me whether or not i think the reasons are good, my answer is i don't know and I’m not invested enough in the answer to go looking.
What i will do is put down my uneducated answers to your response.
You could get 40% more of the same data by increasing output on the ISS with no increased risk of death.
Increasing output of existing members is unlikely to be equivalent to data from entirely new test subjects.
40% more data on existing subjects isn't the same as 40% additional data from new subjects.
For a more equal comparison you'd need to ship new people to the ISS and then your argument would only be true if there was zero risk of death in getting new people to the ISS.
The difference in environment between the ISS and the moon is worthless, instead of zero gravity they’re just in low gravity, which we can achieve without even going to the ISS, low orbit would do the trick with even lower risk.
That's subjective but you could be right, i'd possibly argue that the combination of factors in space in addition to the low gravity would be different than a terrestrial equivalent, so a low gravity experiment in the ISS might be a better comparison.
I don't know enough to be certain about any of that though.
This is a publicity stunt to compensate for the US looking like a fucking joke, extra risk for no extra benefit beyond showing off.
Possibly, i'd guess likely, but again i don't know enough to have a reasonable opinion on this.
From the rest of this thread i get the impression you'll appreciate this...so..
Whom is lying now?
Pretty sure that would be a who rather than a whom.
Carry on though...
Perhaps the argument that it isn't possible to assess merit for a job position is so far outside the realms of reason that asking for clarification is the only way to formulate an answer.
But if you want a simple, quotable answer for the obvious question as it is written, here you go:
- Asses the criteria for which a job would be considered to be successfully performed.
- Check if historical evidence/experience/current skill/expected future growth gives indication that the candidate could meet or exceed those criteria.
- Rank the candidates, based on how well they match to the success criteria.
- ???
- Profit?
It's tremendously disappointing to see people act like assessing fitness for a role isn't a thing that has been going on since the dawn of civilisation.
Get a grip.
Now, if you want argue that this isn't how things are currently done ? I’m right there with you.
The system is a shambolic remnant of what it should be ? couldn't agree more.
A lot of it is probably by design ? sure, i'm down for that perspective.
But "It isn't possible to assess merit for a job role", is a troll at best or extreme ignorance at worst.
If people weren't asking "are you sure that this is what you meant?" i'd be worried for the state of basic reasoning.
Indeed, no scientific studies could ever benefit from a 40% increase in data from test subjects.
Not to mention they aren't even in the same environmental conditions, or doing the same activities, the data would be completely different (aside from the common baseline of space stuff) and therefore useless for comparison purposes.
I'm not sure why anyone would bother.
Look, i get why you might think it's unnecessary, i don't care enough to have an my own opinion on it's cost/benefit analysis.
All i was saying is that reasons do exist.
Well shit, my bad, i somehow got the Guardian and the daily mail mixed up.
I still don't think it's editorial quality is great, but it's not a tabloid by any stretch.
The guardian is a tabloid rag with bigger words.There are several reasons to put actual people in to space.
They might be reasons you think worth it, but they do exist.
I think to a degree you can see our different styles in just our replies itself, I do care about conversation. I like it and think it’s best when it shares information or opinion about people who care to do so. I also dont think to think I can control it but add my opinion so it is seen and move on when it is obviously not productive.
I can see the difference in style but i think it's also a difference in perspective. For me, most interactions have useful information in them, even the ones like we've been talking about. There is a range of information that you can only get (or is more prevalent in) interactions that aren't a standard sharing of ideas or opinions, for me at least.
As i said, i do understand this is not the same for everyone.
And I dunno I care about others. I think frustrated yipping at each other isn’t fun empatheticly but I could be wrong about it. If you find interest in this conversation I am not meaning to stop you just wanted to know you were not stuck in that recursive loop (that was the word, thank you) against your own better judgement.
I will admit that my empathy seems to be non-standard, it's not like i don't have any but the situations in which it applies seem to differ from what i hear from others.
When i said fun in that initial reply, what i really mean was interest, in a sense that new information/perspectives are enjoyable because of the influx of new information.
Having to work through and around the yipping from one side is sometimes a requirement to get to the interesting bits, it's not fun, but it is what it is.
i appreciate the heads up though, i'm not immune to getting sucked past the point of interest sometimes.
So you waste your time for the sake of it? I’d say something about not being able to reason someone out of a position they didnt use reason to get into in the first place but I guess its repetitive.
I stated exactly what my reasons are for engaging,
I think the word you are looking for is recursive, i could be wrong though.
You can spend your time as you want but the trolls do build their world by the responses of others. It makes them more real and let’s useless conversation bog down better ones. They are seeking answers they know they won’t get to make it seem like their world is more figured out for waving away other thoughts.
Genuine question, why would i care how they build their world ?
If they want to build a mental echochamber, who am i to deny them their delusions ?
The argument about bogging up otherwise useful conversations has merit though, I’ll consider that going forward.
Though, my side of the argument is still written as a good faith reply so there might be benefit in seeing actual replies, if only from one side...hmm..i'll think on this.
I dont know. I dont get any joy out of arguing the minutia of nonsense. It feels like it just fills my own head with it and doesnt make me more empathetic to understand that.
It's not really joy and i'm not really arguing the minutia expecting coherent replies, as i said it's interesting to me to try and understand different kinds of people, it helps me better communicate in situations where the other party is conversing in good faith.
I'm not really looking to build empathy for that either, perhaps some pity in some really tragic cases where you can see they are truly struggling, but those aren't usually trolls, just people struggling with people things.
A lot of the time the useful bits aren't in the bad faith nonsense itself but how it's structured, the way in which the "logical" pivots occur, the word choice or something else that isn't the actual content itself.
I get that it might not be like that for everyone.
Personally I am upset to find that someone doesnt want to talk but use me as a springboard for their own stuff but oh well.
I think we might have fundamentally different perspectives on what a conversation can be, but in this case I wasn't expecting genuine engagement, so I’m not upset or disappointed to find out there wasn't any.
I'm also not worried about them being upset by my approach, because bad-faith trolls deserve no worry.
Yes, but you have to go slowly or it'll overwhelm them.
meh, i was hoping it might be a bit more fun later on but it's been lacklustre so far.
You can't reason someone out of a position they've not reasoned themselves in to but it's sometimes interesting to see if they genuinely believe the positions they tout and hear how they got there.
Do you expect to find a nuanced new way to handle elections of the school board?
There are easily understood ways of measuring fitness for a position, an easy answer to the actual question of how evaluations could be possible is to use the criteria for what would be considered a successful run as a school board member, historically and ideally.
Use those criteria to evaluate who has a track record of achieving these things, or the potential/skills to go on to achieve these things during the allotted time.
Does this happen? rarely. Could it potentially work, absolutely.
Personal likeability/popularity is probably a part of those criteria (as with any position involving any politics) but it's not the only one.
Or perhaps, do you honestly expect this troll to say something that changes the whole context of this conversation or make you feel that they have changed in some dramatic way?
Not at all, there's nothing to indicate any kind of space for an adjustment in their view, if they even have an actual perspective beyond trolling.
I say if you look at it, you are legitimizing a pointless conversation where they weaponize apathy and make it look valuable by comparison to complex issues on a topic you aren’t knowledgeable enough in to argue against, “no u!”
I'm not sure random internet replies legitimise clear bad-faith troll takes.
As i said, my point here wasn't really to change minds it was more interest in the mindset and reasoning skills of someone who'd post something like that, think of it as internet anthropology.
They never expected an authority figure on it and wouldnt accept one either. They just want your rage and your attention. They aren’t fun enough to play with for you to give either.
I don't really have any rage, it's like being angry at a chihuahua for barking.
I'm not expecting good-faith or well reasoned arguments, so I’m not disappointed or angry when they don't appear.
ok, i'll change the emphasis.
Who can run is not the only criteria for who is qualified for a position.
Ok, so leaving out the subjective argument of who should be qualified, let's go with straight up logic, i'll bullet point it for you.
I'll even start with your very correct assertion that anybody who can run, can win.
- Anyone eligible to run, can win.
- To win, a candidate has to be voted in (by whatever voting system is used, it doesn’t matter for this)
- A vote is cast by an individual who has their own set of criteria for qualification.
- Unless every single voter's only criteria is whether or not the candidate is eligible to run then there are other criteria at play.
I'll also requote myself from an earlier reply.
Perhaps "evaluated for" is more accurate.
Eligibility to run is still not the full criteria for how someone is evaluated for a position though.
Perhaps the disconnect is that you think everyone who is eligible is qualified for the job and it's just the winner of all these qualified people that is determined by the vote ?
Corner
Do you mean this ?
The answer is generic ....which means it can be applied to the specific circumstance.
Here is an example, as the answer to your question :
Going by the example evaluation steps i provided, he would have the qualifications to perform the job , if:
If you want to know if he's the most qualified for the job you also need to:
and he would need to be at the top of the rankings.
If you're going to ask who does these evaluations in the specific example being talked about, it would be the voters, perhaps a final approval board as well, if one exists in these scenarios.
Outside of that example, it can vary.
I shouldn't have to but I’m going to point out that i said this is a simple quotable answer, not that it was the only answer, or even the best answer.
My argument has always been that evaluation of fitness for a role isn't impossible. Not that there is a perfect method, nor that these methods are being used competently or at all. Just that they do exist.
As for personal opinion, this guy sounds like an asshole, i personally know lots of incompetent people in positions they neither earned nor are qualified for, I’m not saying the current state of things is good, because i don't think it is.