Please more explicitly state the steps that would get me downvoted on LW so I can verify that they are failures of method and not disagreements. We are also not committed to follow some third partys standards or submit to some third party as a judge.
The reasoning behind LW votes can be nebolous. Sometimes people vote just because it is not an appropriate forum for those kinds of thing, not particulalry that there would be wrong with the content per se. I would like to remind you that I believe this kind of politcal talk should be cooperative and you should not feel any special need to answer my posts just because I post. The idea is that by going throught the trouble of writing and reading posts understandings that might be useful for all parties could be produced. If you think you have low chances of benefitting to replying to me I fully understand if you don't want to one sidedly serve me. But if I would be downvoted to silence or you start ignoring me that doesn't make me be wrong.
I state reasons why I hold the beliefs that I do in fact belief. Since I in general try to apply epistemologically defensible standards this allows others to point out things that are suspect. I would find it valuable if the non-sequitors would be pointed out. Saying that someone is stupid and not explaining to them how they are stupid isn't particularly helpful.
I am sorry but I am not omniscient enough to know in advance to communication which of my beliefs you share. The method of saying what my beliefs are and learning what you agree and disagree with has been the method of choice for me to dealing with this shortcoming.
If you place strict restrictions on with what kind of mind you can successfully argue your position it makes your logic less universal and more partisan. Given a sufficiently interestingly working mind almost anyone would not bother to go throught a full length argument (dominantly because of the lenght of the argument and not neccesarily on whether it could in principle be done or not). But the question is will you bother to argue with a mind like me and is it coherent with your beliefs?
If you ask Duolingo to pay minimum wage you not only argue for more than just paying the people.
Corporations should not found their business model on work they cannot pay for. On one hand it means if you are founded on charity work you should be a non-profit instead of a for-profit. On the other hand it means if you make a profit people need to be able to work for you for money. That is work must be paid atleast in part enough for basic survival in the form of money and not services like language education. |