I've long been mystified by your disdain for "who gets to decide". There is no absolute democracy anywhere, it is typically representative democracy where voting is above all else about who gets to decide.
Packing the court, a new collection of deciders and Roe v Wade gets canceled. Deciders in some places would make you a criminal for yo…
I've long been mystified by your disdain for "who gets to decide". There is no absolute democracy anywhere, it is typically representative democracy where voting is above all else about who gets to decide.
Packing the court, a new collection of deciders and Roe v Wade gets canceled. Deciders in some places would make you a criminal for your disdain of they as a personal pronoun. If I was a decider on Medium you'd still have your account that was bringing you income, but I'm not a decider there.
I respect you as an intelligent man so I'm asking you to explain your view on that. I don't want to argue about it, I've already given my thoughts about it here. I would just like to resolve my puzzlement about your view on it.
Simple. It's a dullard's way of trying to make a point when he disagrees but can't say why: point out some potential for subjectivity and then pretend he's made a point when in fact all he's shown is that he's over his head.
Let me flesh this out with an example. I am against concentrated wealth. I don't think anyone should have the kind of money that Bill Gates or Elon Musk have. So I say, " think the tax code should unapologetically set out to limit wealth concentration."
I don't have a number at hand, off the cuff I would say a billion is more than anyone needs.
So some little smarty who used to wear out "envy" and "class warfare" pipes up and boldly questions:
"but *who gets to decide* how much is too much?"
As if the potential arbitrariness of pegging a number invalidates the whole point that wealth is power, and power is supposed to be elected. As if we could never come up with a reasonable figure and adjust it over time.
"Who gets to decide" is not an argument. It's a minor consideration.
Thanks for the kind words but in some places I could already be fined or fired for refusing to use the nonbinary "they." A judge would be unsympathetic about the grammar.
I've long been mystified by your disdain for "who gets to decide". There is no absolute democracy anywhere, it is typically representative democracy where voting is above all else about who gets to decide.
Packing the court, a new collection of deciders and Roe v Wade gets canceled. Deciders in some places would make you a criminal for your disdain of they as a personal pronoun. If I was a decider on Medium you'd still have your account that was bringing you income, but I'm not a decider there.
I respect you as an intelligent man so I'm asking you to explain your view on that. I don't want to argue about it, I've already given my thoughts about it here. I would just like to resolve my puzzlement about your view on it.
Simple. It's a dullard's way of trying to make a point when he disagrees but can't say why: point out some potential for subjectivity and then pretend he's made a point when in fact all he's shown is that he's over his head.
Let me flesh this out with an example. I am against concentrated wealth. I don't think anyone should have the kind of money that Bill Gates or Elon Musk have. So I say, " think the tax code should unapologetically set out to limit wealth concentration."
I don't have a number at hand, off the cuff I would say a billion is more than anyone needs.
So some little smarty who used to wear out "envy" and "class warfare" pipes up and boldly questions:
"but *who gets to decide* how much is too much?"
As if the potential arbitrariness of pegging a number invalidates the whole point that wealth is power, and power is supposed to be elected. As if we could never come up with a reasonable figure and adjust it over time.
"Who gets to decide" is not an argument. It's a minor consideration.
Thanks for the kind words but in some places I could already be fined or fired for refusing to use the nonbinary "they." A judge would be unsympathetic about the grammar.
Ah! So it is as it pertains to disingenuous argumentum, rather than a generalized concept where it does matter.
Of course there are cases where it matters, though I can't come up with one for some reason. But the idea is used to end debates, not to further them.
As I get older I find this deflection increasingly irritating.