• unfreeradical@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’ve done no such thing. Which small group are you imagining I’m advocating for being in charge of everything?

    You clarified the various kinds of processes you consider as more versus less favorable for how individuals would enter into positions of power.

    If processes exist for how individuals may enter into positions of power, then the individuals who have entered into positions of power, by such processes, constitute a group who holds power over society, and that, compared to the whole mass of society, is small.

    Therefore, you have tacitly defended a system in which one small group holds power over the rest of society.

    It’s extremely reductive to pretend that how many…

    You are distorting my language, simply to make it assert what you feel inclined to negate.

    The challenge, which you have avoided, is to consider critically the benefit, if any, that one group having power over another confers to the group that is disempowered.


    There may be a more direct path toward identifying the essence of disagreement.

    Let’s make it simple.

    Considered abstractly, a system may take any one of three forms…

    1. One group holds power, and the group holding power exacerbates problems for those who are disempowered.
    2. One group holds power, and the group holding power does not exacerbate problems for those who are disempowered.
    3. Power is not held by a particular group.

    You seem to have implied two assertions…

    1. The preferred system is (2).
    2. Among those systems that are in fact possible is (2).

    Would you please justify one or both of the assertions that you seem to have insinuated?

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let’s make it simple.

      No, let’s not. Oversimplification was your mistake from the start.

      A system may take one of three forms

      Ridiculous.

      Would you please justify one or both assertions?

      Nope, because I never claimed either thing. I’m not going to validate your strawman argument by acting as if it’s logically sound.

      • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re a more patient man than me. I would have stopped acknowledging that guy like two replies ago.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You say patient, I say impulse control issues making me bad at not replying when it’s clearly not worth the time and effort any more 😄

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A system may take one of three forms

        Ridiculous.

        If so, then it should be trivial for you to show an alternative.

        Please do so.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. You’re either not arguing in good faith or showing yourself incapable of appreciating vital complexities. Either way, it’s not worth my time and effort to continue down this road. Have the day you deserve.

          • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Is a good faith argument dismissing any idea with which you disagree, by invoking a single word, and then declining to provide the counterargument you have implied is trivial?

            Which vital complexity am I incapable of appreciating?

            Is a good faith argument a response based on an ad hominem?

            You are being immensely hypocritical.

              • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Sure. Enjoy making yourself seem extremely clever simply by asserting yourself as the only one capable of “appreciating vital complexities”.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Expecting me to keep engaging after saying I don’t want to just because you’re demanding it? Yes, that IS ridiculous.

                  The only reason I’m still answering at all is because I have poor impulse control. Please stop.

                  • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    The only reason I’m still answering at all is because I have poor impulse control.

                    Well, it would seem best to think about others’ ideas more deeply, before simply returning summary dismissals.

                    It is bad faith for you to assert pejorative dismissals of someone else’s behavior or position that you are unwilling to engage or to defend meaningfully.