"21st century education is currently teaching economics through environmental and social lenses in multi-disciplinary classes such as engineering, environmental science, as well as social studies. "
Oh shit this random sentence in quote really convinced everyone I'm sure! And I guess it's bad to learn economics through engineering and social science because... Sciences are bad I guess? And I have no idea what environmental science is. I've never seen this class anywhere. Didn't you want to also add something like "gender studies" as you seem to chose things completely randomly? You said "through environmental and social lenses" you didn't say to learn through. Sure integration is great, but substituting it for the classic educational model is just more deconstructivist Postmodernist Critical Theorist garbage specifically designed to erode the institutional foundations of... well everything. This is why no one seems to be educated in school any more. They don't teach skills we need, they teach the world through the lens of social "sciences", and we have been over how scientific social sciences are. On a scale of 1-10 of maximum scientific method applied, social sciences rank in at about a 0.2. Of course if your goal is endless deconstructivist subjectivity now that ambiguity is desirable now isn't it? I don't need to add "gender studies" because academia is one giant hybrid with Critical Theory already, which is what gender studies programs are based upon. AKA Marxism with a vinyl wrap of Bill Nye looking at some beakers over it so it looks extra sciencey. |
|
|
|
This thread is always a fun one.
51 pages summed up in one sentence:
If your study supports vaccins, it's only because the corrupted institution that made it is part of the global conspiracy.
How can you take such persons seriously? xD
Shhh little boy the adults are talking. |
|
|
|
Speaking of leaving merit for a political basis, everyone take a good look at the post and merit history for ScumBuster. Well since it is them collusion with socks, meriting themselves, and making attempts at getting their opponents banned without revealing themselves is A OK right? How overt do they have to get before people start speaking up? Of course silence. Things like this are only enforced if you are in the club. Yet another example in the growing pile of examples of "rules for thee and not for me" around here. Its because nobody gives a shit except for you. Stop crying. Even if that were true, which is pretty evidently not, but lets say for the sake of argument it is. Exactly why do I not personally deserve as much redress as anyone else here? Why is it meriting socks to argue with your opponents and trying to get them banned anonymously ok for some people, but other people don't get to leave merits because they were "political". Give that hamster you got running that wheel that powers your brain a snack and buckle down and make a logical reply instead of this pathetic attempt at marginalization via badgering. Or maybe suddenly you will hurt my feefees and I will go home. You never know. |
|
|
|
Your first paragraph claims I said something I didn't, when in fact I said the exact opposite, as I demonstrated in my last post.
Your second paragraph simply fails to provide evidence I asked for, and then again states I made an assumption I previously pointed out I didn't - there is nothing to respond to here.
Your third paragraph I demonstrated either doesn't work or doesn't change the system.
Your fourth paragraph doesn't require a response - I am not offering a solution because I'm not the one trying to change the system, and the assumptions you keep claiming I have made I have shown to be false.
A+ responding. Now trying addressing the points. Or don't. I'm kinda bored of going in circles as you attack me/fake assumptions/things I never said, instead of actually clarifying how you want your system to work.
Excuse me if your little selective editing game does not engender confidence in your unbiased examination of the topic. This is the same game Suchmoon likes to play. I answer the same question 8 times and each time they pretend as if I never even attempted to address it. You can continue along with this strategy if you like but I will just start using quotes if so. Your first paragraph claims I said something I didn't, when in fact I said the exact opposite, as I demonstrated in my last post. Yes, actually you did make the assumption, and you did it again by stating it as a given that there would again be the same number of ratings needing review. Not at all true. If you aren't suggesting they help prevent scams what are you suggesting is the benefit of having more negative ratings? ...right... you assumed it. More exclusives standard for rating = less negative ratings = less dispute = no need for EVERY one to be disputed. If you feel you have case closing evidence against some one nothing is stopping you from rating, just know it will then be you under the microscope if you are wrong. You are operating from the assumption first of all that these ratings stop scams from happening. That is arguable at best. I never made that assumption. I simply pointed out the number of negative feedbacks being left which, under your system, would each require discussion. Here you are again insisting that the number of ratings disputes will HAVE to be the same for some undefined reason, I explained above why it will not be the case. Your insistence that there must be more ratings directly implies that more ratings are desirable for some reason. If not, then why exactly must we have the excessive amount we currently have? This is another case of trying to say something without saying it. This question has been answered, several times. Your second paragraph simply fails to provide evidence I asked for, and then again states I made an assumption I previously pointed out I didn't - there is nothing to respond to here. No evidence? How about simple logic. more signal noise = less reliable signal = more people ignoring signal. It is not a complicated concept. Again, you are assuming these ratings are some how helpful, but in a way you refuse to define or demonstrate. Ratings for petty subjective issues are not helpful. That is why we need an objective standard for leaving ratings. Rather convenient you need not reply to a simple logical formula. After all it does not fit the definition YOU wanted, therefore it MUST be invalid right? I am sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that you have no argument against the logic itself. No it is just nonsense and beneath you to reply is it? How about this. How about you define an attainable metric under which "evidence that too many red ratings provide cover." is potentially obtained. Then we will operate from there. Of course you didn't purposely word this in such a way that you could later add qualifiers making answering this question to your satisfaction impossible now did you? Of course you could provide a metric under which this is possible to prove right? Oh no? Then lets use simple logic, like the kind you just summarily dismissed and declared you need not respond to. Your third paragraph I demonstrated either doesn't work or doesn't change the system. Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed. How is the community supposed to decide if they meet your "standards" without first having a discussion? Either there is a discussion for every case before any action is taken, in which case the workload is insurmountable and your system fails, or DT1 members are free to tag people without presenting their case first, in which case your system is no different to what we have now. Again this is just a rephrasing of the same argument you made above in a different way. Every rating will not result in a dispute or a discussion. It is not a hearing, it is a presentation of evidence upon which a proposed rating will be given. Nothing is stopping anyone from rating at any time as long as they are willing to endorse the evidence. In short this is what happens in scam accusations every single day, only now you would be expected to have evidence before damaging some ones trust ratings. Your third paragraph I demonstrated either doesn't work or doesn't change the system. The objective standard also conveniently gets rid of the majority of cases of disputes over what is an acceptable rating so, no they will not all require discussion. Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed. How many ways are you going to rephrase the same argument? You didn't demonstrate anything. You made assumptions then operate from those assumptions while completely ignoring the explanations why your assumptions are wrong. You are assuming. You are assuming it "doesn't work" because "overload" which I explained in detail will not happen above because every rating will not be disputed. It does in fact change the system because the standard will be evidence instead of "I feel like [insert crime here] prove me wrong." That means we start from an objective point, not a guaranteed dispute point as is standard now. In summary you haven't shown anything to be false. Essentially you have one argument you repeated in three different ways then proceeded to pretend I had not already answered all of these arguments. Here they are. Refute them, or keep repeating yourself then blame me for talking in circles as you rephrase the same argument 8 different ways. |
|
|
|
Speaking of leaving merit for a political basis, everyone take a good look at the post and merit history for ScumBuster. Well since it is them collusion with socks, meriting themselves, and making attempts at getting their opponents banned without revealing themselves is A OK right? How overt do they have to get before people start speaking up? Of course silence. Things like this are only enforced if you are in the club. Yet another example in the growing pile of examples of "rules for thee and not for me" around here. |
|
|
|
|
"21st century education is currently teaching economics through environmental and social lenses in multi-disciplinary classes such as engineering, environmental science, as well as social studies. "
And that is the crux of the issue. They are working Marxist Postmodernist theory into EVERY FUCKING SUBJECT destroying the very foundation of education itself. You are a walking example of the destructive effects of this leftist infiltration of the educational system from K-post graduate school.
Everything is through the lens of Postmodernism & Critical Theory, which of course is very conveniently designed to deconstruct every thought to the point that everything becomes meaningless, and our society no longer has any common reality to operate from. You are the walking cancer of the intellectual world and our society as a whole. You don't have to be... but you are as long as you keep spreading your stupidity.
|
|
|
|
A beureacrat deciding what workers can do is a hallmark of capitalism. Under soialism, the entire community would decide together what they will produce based on needs of the community. You keep talking about what "socialists want" but show me socialists who want that. As a socialist, I've never met them. Of course someone who only learns about socialism from capitalists will grow to hate socialism. Instead of letting capitalists tell you what socialists want and what socilaism is, maybe you should start with primary sources. https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/principles-points-of-agreementSocialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth. You have serious problems registering the difference between reality and theory, or in your case fantasy. Your little hippie commune system does not scale up to a national level. There will always be representatives. Even if technology allowed it pure Democracy is shit and is not desirable, it is nothing more than mob rule where individuals have no rights. Nothing good comes of it. |
|
|
|
I know that building that wall is expensive but what I don't understand is why Americans and Westerners are making a big fuss about it. It seem to be just common sense if you have a neighbor who don't like you or is a source of immigrants. No one complained about that India-Pakistan border wall that can even be seen at night from space. Thailand and Malaysia are building walls too. It seems building border walls is only bad if you're a Western country, as if everyone else have the right to just walk in.
In the US at least they are making a big fuss about it because the Democrats just lost control and refuse to acknowledge it and have resorted to kicking and stomping their feet for the last 2 years in order to prevent any appearance of success manifesting from Trump. Also the only way they have a chance in 2020 is if they can get a bunch of illegal aliens to vote for them. |
|
|
|
what are you suggesting is the benefit of having more negative ratings? ...right... you assumed it. I mean, I didn't say that in the slightest. In fact, I said the exact opposite: I think there are too many negative ratings left No evidence? How about simple logic. If you have no proof of your statement, then you are making an assumption that it is ture. Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed. How is the community supposed to decide if they meet your "standards" without first having a discussion? Either there is a discussion for every case before any action is taken, in which case the workload is insurmountable and your system fails, or DT1 members are free to tag people without presenting their case first, in which case your system is no different to what we have now. You can get caught up on whatever assumptions you think I have made but it doesn't change my points. The system you have outlined either doesn't change anything or doesn't work. This conversation is probably now moot, however, given this recent post from theymos: But I don't believe in having a set of hard rules which is to be applied to all cases. A+ selective editing. Now try logic. |
|
|
|
Oh finally ran out of arguments? Time to shift those goal posts eh? Back to pretending I have not answered this question for like what the 8th time now?
Your answer still doesn't provide details on enforcement, not matter how many times you repeat your slogan. As far as I could tell it depends on theymos changing the guidelines ( not happening) and on the majority of DT1 agreeing to apply exclusions according to your standards, which is also quite unlikely. You just denying it provides details on enforcement does not magically make it true. I am confident anyone reading my response who is not as willfully ignorant as you will comprehend my reply. Yeah, I don't see Theymos saying that is "not happening", but hey maybe your marginalization tactics will suddenly start working on me all of a sudden eh? |
|
|
|
It sure does doesn't it. That is why I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws so this ability to abuse this potential conflict is severely limited.
Is this where you finally tell us how you'll enforce that standard? Considering however there is financial interest in the act of being a "scam buster" itself
Good to know that's how you see it. How I see it is scam busters get a reputation off the backs of others risking nothing. Then once they have power then the financial interest comes in to play. This is a big difference from the risk a trader takes getting involved. Oh finally ran out of arguments? Time to shift those goal posts eh? Back to pretending I have not answered this question for like what the 8th time now? Exactly. Common ground. Instead of suspicion and guesses, you don't act to harm some ones ratings without a review of evidence. I would say the best way to do it frankly would be to present any evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws to the community in the scam accusation area, then allow others to review it. If the evidence presented is sufficient naturally people will want to negative rate them. The standard should be evidence, review, then penalty of negative rating. It is not just a warning system it is also a penalty and this can not be glossed over. I genuinely effects people's ability to trade here and that should be accounted for. You know, the due process everyone in free countries enjoy so much?
Your assertion that Theymos will be required to officiate over every dispute is false, and provably so. Does Theymos currently run around enforcing the "guideline" that it is not acceptable to leave ratings for disagreeing with people's opinions every time some one does this? No, of course not. People point out to them that it is not acceptable and either they change it or they lose their own reputation and or are excluded. You can have both, because we already have both. The only difference is the standard becomes more exclusive, and less open to interpretation leading to less disputes and selective enforcement.
We need a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating. |
|
|
|
Well first of all you totally ignored the part about the DT being diverse. Second you did not at all address the point that it is easy to rate frivolously when you have nothing at risk yourself. Like I said you didn't actually address what I said, you just essentially said "no this not that". There was no refutation, just you repeating your narrative and saying I am wrong because lets focus on these things instead. A big part of good judgement is having accountability. Currently there is zero accountability. Having trade interest inherently creates accountability.
It creates a conflict of interest too. There is a reason we don't appoint CEOs as judges IRL. DT has accountability in the form of DT1 votes and exclusions. It sure does doesn't it. Considering however there is financial interest in the act of being a "scam buster" itself, this is hardly an argument against my points. That is why I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws so this ability to abuse this potential conflict of interest is severely limited. |
|
|
|
Speaking of leaving merit for a political basis, everyone take a good look at the post and merit history for ScumBuster. Well since it is them collusion with socks, meriting themselves, and making attempts at getting their opponents banned without revealing themselves is A OK right? How overt do they have to get before people start speaking up? |
|
|
|
You mean like I am unwilling to rock the boat? You didn't actually address what I said, you just restated your opinion.
You're special, that's true. My opinion that having something to lose may inhibit one's judgement is directly addressing your opinion that having something to lose leads to more accurate ratings. I don't believe I stated that recently so it's a bit of a stretch to call it "restated". I think you meant to say that you disagree with me. And it is currently diverse is it? Seems to me the same people run it. Having business interest is not pre-requisite, no, but it is a lot easier to judge people frivolously when you have no personal financial stake in any of the outcomes. This does however lead to more accurate ratings because they have something to lose. A lot of people here run around judging everyone with nothing at stake themselves.
Well first of all you totally ignored the part about the DT being diverse. Second you did not at all address the point that it is easy to rate frivolously when you have nothing at risk yourself. Like I said you didn't actually address what I said, you just essentially said "no this not that". There was no refutation, just you repeating your narrative and saying I am wrong because lets focus on these things instead. A big part of good judgement is having accountability. Currently there is zero accountability. Having trade interest inherently creates accountability. |
|
|
|
And it is currently diverse is it? Seems to me the same people run it. Having business interest is not pre-requisite, no, but it is a lot easier to judge people frivolously when you have no personal financial stake in any of the outcomes. This does however lead to more accurate ratings because they have something to lose. A lot of people here run around judging everyone with nothing at stake themselves.
It goes both ways. People who have something to lose may also be unlikely to rock the boat and defy the "cliques" you're so concerned about. I don't think having a business on the forum should have any bearing on one's DT position. We need people with good judgement in marketplace deals, as well as people with good judgement in gambling issues, ICO scams, fake mining hardware, etc. You mean like I am unwilling to rock the boat? You didn't actually address what I said, you just restated your opinion. |
|
|
|
Business and scams happen on other boards too - altcoins, hardware, gambling. DT1 should be more diverse, not less, and having a business interest is not a prerequisite for having good judgement.
And it is currently diverse is it? Seems to me the same people run it. Having business interest is not pre-requisite, no, but it is a lot easier to judge people frivolously when you have no personal financial stake in any of the outcomes. This does however lead to more accurate ratings because they have something to lose. A lot of people here run around judging everyone with nothing at stake themselves. |
|
|
|
Bad faith because you refuse to admit your error? Speaking of errors, perhaps you know a lot less than you think you do considering you still are trying to say the protests in France have been scaling down for weeks. You don't even know what is going on in your own nation, let alone ours.
I hereby declare you king of dummies and bad faith. Unless you manage to explain how 240>360 of course. Funny how as soon as you're proven wrong with very basic facts (like just the declining number of protestors) you immediately go for empty talks. "facts" = the TV told me so |
|
|
|
Yeah except its really not future technology in spite of your relativism and demands he must be speaking of the very specific type of model you were thinking of in your head but only later mentioned when called out on it then and insisted this could be the only way.
So bad faith it is then. It is kind of hard to use the government in the same way... when the government is no where near the same thing so. Cool story bro. Maybe you can tell me more about my own country while you tell me more about how those protests are "scaling down" in yours eh?
Don't misunderstand me, pointing at the cowardice and stupidity of American patriots doesn't exempt my own people from those traits. At least we're trying a bit. And I guess the "scaling down" was ironical even though I've provided numbers for the last 6 weeks coming from a pro-yellow vest union showing that yes it's scaling down. Coming from 360k protesters down to 240k while losing about 20k protesters every week IS scaling down. I can't really be more explicite than saying 240<360 you know? Bad faith because you refuse to admit your error? Speaking of errors, perhaps you know a lot less than you think you do considering you still are trying to say the protests in France have been scaling down for weeks. You don't even know what is going on in your own nation, let alone ours. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
