your whole argument is based on the flaw that you trust people to vote correctly (however correct is defined). Or in other words, you trust that people are nice from your perspective.
The only way to prove conclusively that something could be improved upon is to suggest an improvement.
now we move from objectivism to what is good. The complete opposite.
Levitating would be better and that is the objective truth. Breathing pollutants is bad and that is the objective truth.
A forum with no voting has less to no censorship and that is the objective truth.
“a design which didn’t suck” comes down to a whole lot of subjective factors. As I already said forums with votes are preferred by people because votes are great as they give gratification and reward. This is a subjective topic.
What people like and do not like does not change the fact that votes create censorship.
You can not say that “votes create censorship” is wrong because people would not like a system without voting.
This is just disguised argumentum ad populum. Many people have to like it otherwise it is not true.
The only way to prove conclusively that something could be improved upon is to suggest an improvement.
that is the whole fallacy. A bad aspect can be definitely described without suggesting a solution. The problem and the solution are two entities. A math formula can be proven wrong without giving a solution. Votes create censorship is true even without a solution for it.
How would you even turn this around? What about problems where nobody found a solution yet? By your definition, they are not a problem, because one can not define a solution for them.
your whole argument is based on the flaw that you trust people to vote correctly (however correct is defined).
I trust groups to vote with relative consistency, and believe that if you have enough consistent-ish groups, it’s possible to find a group whose consistency adequately approximates your own idea of correctness.
You can not say that “votes create censorship” is wrong because people would not like a system without voting.
If you’re defining censorship as the phenomenon created by all voting done by humans, then sure, “votes create censorship” is a useful axiom.
Our difference of opinion seems to be that you’re starting with the abstract notions like “truth”, “good”, or “right”, and building toward the concrete from there. I’m starting with the concrete notions of “beneficial” and “useful”, and trying to build toward abstract notions from there. No argument about what’s useful or beneficial will influence someone who prioritizes other values over those, so I’ll stop wasting your time by making them.
Another option of course would be for me to try to start in “truth”/”good”/”right” concept-space and move toward the concrete from there, but every other time I’ve tried to have that sort of conversation online, it’s eventually turned out that each participant in the conversation had differences of opinion about the way that the truth/good/right concept area works which only come to light once the conversation makes it to the specifics. Arguing from truth/good/right down to concrete examples only to have to repeat the whole process when the definitions turn out to have been inadequately specified wouldn’t be true/good/right by my own standards, so I won’t :)
your whole argument is based on the flaw that you trust people to vote correctly (however correct is defined). Or in other words, you trust that people are nice from your perspective.
now we move from objectivism to what is good. The complete opposite.
Levitating would be better and that is the objective truth.
Breathing pollutants is bad and that is the objective truth.
A forum with no voting has less to no censorship and that is the objective truth.
“a design which didn’t suck” comes down to a whole lot of subjective factors. As I already said forums with votes are preferred by people because votes are great as they give gratification and reward. This is a subjective topic.
What people like and do not like does not change the fact that votes create censorship.
You can not say that “votes create censorship” is wrong because people would not like a system without voting.
This is just disguised argumentum ad populum. Many people have to like it otherwise it is not true.
that is the whole fallacy. A bad aspect can be definitely described without suggesting a solution. The problem and the solution are two entities. A math formula can be proven wrong without giving a solution.
Votes create censorship is true even without a solution for it.
How would you even turn this around? What about problems where nobody found a solution yet? By your definition, they are not a problem, because one can not define a solution for them.
Thanks, now I see exactly where we diverge.
I trust groups to vote with relative consistency, and believe that if you have enough consistent-ish groups, it’s possible to find a group whose consistency adequately approximates your own idea of correctness.
If you’re defining censorship as the phenomenon created by all voting done by humans, then sure, “votes create censorship” is a useful axiom.
Our difference of opinion seems to be that you’re starting with the abstract notions like “truth”, “good”, or “right”, and building toward the concrete from there. I’m starting with the concrete notions of “beneficial” and “useful”, and trying to build toward abstract notions from there. No argument about what’s useful or beneficial will influence someone who prioritizes other values over those, so I’ll stop wasting your time by making them.
Another option of course would be for me to try to start in “truth”/”good”/”right” concept-space and move toward the concrete from there, but every other time I’ve tried to have that sort of conversation online, it’s eventually turned out that each participant in the conversation had differences of opinion about the way that the truth/good/right concept area works which only come to light once the conversation makes it to the specifics. Arguing from truth/good/right down to concrete examples only to have to repeat the whole process when the definitions turn out to have been inadequately specified wouldn’t be true/good/right by my own standards, so I won’t :)