Pragmatarian Discussion Thread

[Xerographica]

I can't think of any.

This is a giant red flag.

All systems have downsides and flaws. If you can't think of a single flaw in your system, you aren't looking at it objectively.

Xero, this is absolute proof positive that you aren't being objective in your assessment, not even remotely so. It's as true as if you said it about republicanism, social democracy, communism, etc. If you can't identify a single flaw in your system, you haven't even begun to analyze that system - regardless of system.

First share the name of one expert that you've asked about this topic... and then talk about my objectivity, or lack thereof.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Maybe that's telling you something.



Have you, how's those results working for you?

Of course I have, which is why I'm still here. The experts that I've asked have not shared any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things. If you don't believe me, then ask them yourself.

Just think about it, if you asked people to name the best film ever the results would likely be along the lines of Citizen Kane or whatever I showed earlier. Ask what they'd pay for and you get the relative dross that is the top billing movies. What people recognise as quality and what they will pay for are not the same thing and generally people will pay for the trash, they won't buy the super healthy fruit and veggie yoghurt mix over, basically, 8 teaspoons of sugar with some cola.

You must know this is true.

I've already explained that buying and donating aren't the same thing.

And the reason you're doing it is you want to direct your taxes, which vastly skews to the rich over the poor.

Ask the experts whether congress is better than taxpayers at ranking things.

Otherwise, and I'm sorry dude, seems you've put a lot of dedication and effort into proving yourself right.. but you're just wrong.

Find some experts to confirm your conclusion. E-mailing experts is completely free and really easy. If you're not willing to do this, then please explain why.

Why do you keep dodging the questions and redirecting to experts?

You seem to think that your pet theory is unfalsifiable unless by an expert, but even people learned in economics have told you you are wrong and you have refused to listen.

Why the fuck do you keep doing this Xero? Why can't you just admit to the fact that you're wrong? You keep trying to weasel out of answering basic fucking questions. Why?

You are acting like a fucking con man and it is not only dishonest, but also insulting, to treat us like we're children when we have shown you to be wrong.

Shit, you can't even think of a single flaw in your system? Motherfucking bullshit. You aren't even trying to think of them because either you are too fucking lazy to come up with one, or because you have absolute faith in your system, in which case your system is not even a system anymore, it is a fucking delusional religion.

You have, consistently, denied reality to suit you, and even more so, you have consistently tried to make your system impervious to criticism because "well, see, I am testing my system but I am really not", which is fucking bullshit used car salesman car.

I honestly hope to God I never have to buy shit from you Xero, because I couldn't trust you with shit, you fucking liar.

[Bombadil]

Maybe that's telling you something.



Have you, how's those results working for you?

Of course I have, which is why I'm still here. The experts that I've asked have not shared any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things. If you don't believe me, then ask them yourself.

Just think about it, if you asked people to name the best film ever the results would likely be along the lines of Citizen Kane or whatever I showed earlier. Ask what they'd pay for and you get the relative dross that is the top billing movies. What people recognise as quality and what they will pay for are not the same thing and generally people will pay for the trash, they won't buy the super healthy fruit and veggie yoghurt mix over, basically, 8 teaspoons of sugar with some cola.

You must know this is true.

I've already explained that buying and donating aren't the same thing.

And the reason you're doing it is you want to direct your taxes, which vastly skews to the rich over the poor.

Ask the experts whether congress is better than taxpayers at ranking things.

Otherwise, and I'm sorry dude, seems you've put a lot of dedication and effort into proving yourself right.. but you're just wrong.

Find some experts to confirm your conclusion. E-mailing experts is completely free and really easy. If you're not willing to do this, then please explain why.

You're the only one motivated, and your experts don't seem inclined to think this a good use of your endless queries.

You're taking lack of evidence as evidence, I doubt experts would care to show unicorns don't exist but that doesn't mean unicorns do exist no matter how often you ask.

[Washington Resistance Army]

This is a giant red flag.

All systems have downsides and flaws. If you can't think of a single flaw in your system, you aren't looking at it objectively.

Xero, this is absolute proof positive that you aren't being objective in your assessment, not even remotely so. It's as true as if you said it about republicanism, social democracy, communism, etc. If you can't identify a single flaw in your system, you haven't even begun to analyze that system - regardless of system.

First share the name of one expert that you've asked about this topic... and then talk about my objectivity, or lack thereof.

The fact that you're now appealing to other people and are unable to defend your system yourself just shows how shit it is.

[Xerographica]

The truth is I'd actually go 'guys/gals.. why are we wasting money on voting for a location, let's just see what's best for us all?'

If you see it as a waste to help fund your group, then why would you want to meetup with its members?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This is a giant red flag.

All systems have downsides and flaws. If you can't think of a single flaw in your system, you aren't looking at it objectively.

Xero, this is absolute proof positive that you aren't being objective in your assessment, not even remotely so. It's as true as if you said it about republicanism, social democracy, communism, etc. If you can't identify a single flaw in your system, you haven't even begun to analyze that system - regardless of system.

First share the name of one expert that you've asked about this topic... and then talk about my objectivity, or lack thereof.

We don't need to.

You're just deferring to experts because you want to stall. You're not actually interested in the opinions of experts, because you will still keep believing your idea is right. You have proved to us as much.

You're being not only intellectually dishonest, you're also now resorting to weasel-tier tactics to deflect.

[Galloism]

This is a giant red flag.

All systems have downsides and flaws. If you can't think of a single flaw in your system, you aren't looking at it objectively.

Xero, this is absolute proof positive that you aren't being objective in your assessment, not even remotely so. It's as true as if you said it about republicanism, social democracy, communism, etc. If you can't identify a single flaw in your system, you haven't even begun to analyze that system - regardless of system.

First share the name of one expert that you've asked about this topic... and then talk about my objectivity, or lack thereof.

First name me an expert that has asserted your system has no flaws or no discernible flaws.

All systems have flaws Xero. Hell, they’ve been demonstrated to your face and logiced through many others with you. If you “can’t think” of any flaws, it’s because you refuse to.

I don’t give a damn how many people you make chortle with your funny emails. If you can’t recognize any flaws in a system, any system, it’s either because you failed to analyze it or refuse to. And we know which one.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The truth is I'd actually go 'guys/gals.. why are we wasting money on voting for a location, let's just see what's best for us all?'

If you see it as a waste to help fund your group, then why would you want to meetup with its members?

Because funding a group is not the fucking same as voting for a location.

I can fund a group just fine without your dumb as fuck system.

[Bombadil]

The truth is I'd actually go 'guys/gals.. why are we wasting money on voting for a location, let's just see what's best for us all?'

If you see it as a waste to help fund your group, then why would you want to meetup with its members?

I don't think I need to pay, I'd meet out of interest not because they're prostitutes. Are prostitutes the best people Xero, people are paying a preference over choosing..

[Xerographica]

Of course I have, which is why I'm still here. The experts that I've asked have not shared any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things. If you don't believe me, then ask them yourself.


I've already explained that buying and donating aren't the same thing.


Ask the experts whether congress is better than taxpayers at ranking things.


Find some experts to confirm your conclusion. E-mailing experts is completely free and really easy. If you're not willing to do this, then please explain why.

You're the only one motivated, and your experts don't seem inclined to think this a good use of your endless queries.

How much motivation does it take to e-mail an expert and ask them what they think about something?

You're taking lack of evidence as evidence, I doubt experts would care to show unicorns don't exist but that doesn't mean unicorns do exist no matter how often you ask.

DV is used to rank all the non-profits in the world. So it's really not something that I've invented. It's not a figment of my overactive imagination. It is a very real and very consequential system.

[Washington Resistance Army]

DV is used to rank all the non-profits in the world.

No it fucking isn't. As someone who fairly regularly donates to non-profits I don't use your dumb as shit system to do it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

DV is used to rank all the non-profits in the world. So it's really not something that I've invented. It's not a figment of my overactive imagination. It is a very real and very consequential system.

Then you don't understand how non-profits work.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

First share the name of one expert that you've asked about this topic... and then talk about my objectivity, or lack thereof.

First name me an expert that has asserted your system has no flaws or no discernible flaws.

All systems have flaws Xero. Hell, they’ve been demonstrated to your face and logiced through many others with you. If you “can’t think” of any flaws, it’s because you refuse to.

I don’t give a damn how many people you make chortle with your funny emails. If you can’t recognize any flaws in a system, any system, it’s either because you failed to analyze it or refuse to. And we know which one.

The thing is, this isn't about the experts.

This is about childish retorts. "Well, you're not an expert! So therefore how do I know you are right?!"

It's fucking sad, and insulting, to think someone wants to "vernos la cara de pendejo", as we say.

[Bombadil]

You're the only one motivated, and your experts don't seem inclined to think this a good use of your endless queries.

How much motivation does it take to e-mail an expert and ask them what they think about something?

You're taking lack of evidence as evidence, I doubt experts would care to show unicorns don't exist but that doesn't mean unicorns do exist no matter how often you ask.

DV is used to rank all the non-profits in the world. So it's really not something that I've invented. It's not a figment of my overactive imagination. It is a very real and very consequential system.

For question one.. not hard at all but a. I can see plenty of examples that your system is wrong and b. you've done it with little if not no response.. I have a sample of experts who do not think it a useful use of their time.

For question two.. why do you think the charity with the most donations is the most useful when it's the Roman Catholic Church? A religion.. oh the irony!

[Xerographica]

First share the name of one expert that you've asked about this topic... and then talk about my objectivity, or lack thereof.

First name me an expert that has asserted your system has no flaws or no discernible flaws.

All systems have flaws Xero. Hell, they’ve been demonstrated to your face and logiced through many others with you. If you “can’t think” of any flaws, it’s because you refuse to.

I don’t give a damn how many people you make chortle with your funny emails. If you can’t recognize any flaws in a system, any system, it’s either because you failed to analyze it or refuse to. And we know which one.

Of course it's possible that my perspective is faulty. This is the very point of asking an expert to share their own perspective. You can't even name a single expert that you've asked about this topic , despite the fact that you've been debating it for several years.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

How much motivation does it take to e-mail an expert and ask them what they think about something?

I mean, I already emailed Charlie the Legit Economist :^)

We have already established he is a real expert on economics, so I am sure that's acceptable.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

First name me an expert that has asserted your system has no flaws or no discernible flaws.

All systems have flaws Xero. Hell, they’ve been demonstrated to your face and logiced through many others with you. If you “can’t think” of any flaws, it’s because you refuse to.

I don’t give a damn how many people you make chortle with your funny emails. If you can’t recognize any flaws in a system, any system, it’s either because you failed to analyze it or refuse to. And we know which one.

Of course it's possible that my perspective is faulty. This is the very point of asking an expert to share their own perspective. You can't even name a single expert that you've asked about this topic , despite the fact that you've been debating it for several years.

You're moving the fucking goalposts.

First you said it could be wrong, but nobody was willing to pay for it.

When people began paying for it you said it could be wrong, but your test kept being sabotaged so it wasn't really your system.

Now that that's been proved to be a farce you're resorting to experts.

You are not interested in a discussion, you are interested in being proved right. For what fucking reason I don't know. But I already know you won't accept any expert testimony unless it fucking agrees with you, because that is the person you have proved to be.

[Xerographica]

DV is used to rank all the non-profits in the world.

No it fucking isn't. As someone who fairly regularly donates to non-profits I don't use your dumb as shit system to do it.

You use your money to communicate that some non-profit is important to you. This is my system.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No it fucking isn't. As someone who fairly regularly donates to non-profits I don't use your dumb as shit system to do it.

You use your money to communicate that some non-profit is important to you. This is my system.

No, it isn't and no he doesn't.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No it fucking isn't. As someone who fairly regularly donates to non-profits I don't use your dumb as shit system to do it.

You use your money to communicate that some non-profit is important to you. This is my system.

That's not what I'm doing though.

[Bombadil]

First name me an expert that has asserted your system has no flaws or no discernible flaws.

All systems have flaws Xero. Hell, they’ve been demonstrated to your face and logiced through many others with you. If you “can’t think” of any flaws, it’s because you refuse to.

I don’t give a damn how many people you make chortle with your funny emails. If you can’t recognize any flaws in a system, any system, it’s either because you failed to analyze it or refuse to. And we know which one.

Of course it's possible that my perspective is faulty. This is the very point of asking an expert to share their own perspective. You can't even name a single expert that you've asked about this topic , despite the fact that you've been debating it for several years.

I am an expert, I work in data analytics, UX and visualisation across primary research, secondary and hard metrics - with a focus on human behaviour - and I'm telling you I have enough evidence to know you're wrong, and why other experts are not responding to your requests.

You may not believe me but I can show you a post from some five years ago saying the same and I doubt I planted that in anticipation of you.

[Galloism]

First name me an expert that has asserted your system has no flaws or no discernible flaws.

All systems have flaws Xero. Hell, they’ve been demonstrated to your face and logiced through many others with you. If you “can’t think” of any flaws, it’s because you refuse to.

I don’t give a damn how many people you make chortle with your funny emails. If you can’t recognize any flaws in a system, any system, it’s either because you failed to analyze it or refuse to. And we know which one.

Of course it's possible that my perspective is faulty. This is the very point of asking an expert to share their own perspective. You can't even name a single expert that you've asked about this topic , despite the fact that you've been debating it for several years.

I don't know an economics professor. I did go through it with a psychology professor. And it blew up.

[Xerographica]

How much motivation does it take to e-mail an expert and ask them what they think about something?


DV is used to rank all the non-profits in the world. So it's really not something that I've invented. It's not a figment of my overactive imagination. It is a very real and very consequential system.

For question one.. not hard at all but a. I can see plenty of examples that your system is wrong and b. you've done it with little if not no response.. I have a sample of experts who do not think it a useful use of their time.

X = your perspective on my system
Y = the expert perspective on my system

Do you not realize that there's a big disparity between X and Y? If you don't realize this, then either reread the OP or actually talk to some experts.

For question two.. why do you think the charity with the most donations is the most useful when it's the Roman Catholic Church? A religion.. oh the irony!

So ask some experts whether we should use BV rather than DV to rank non-profits.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If you want a thread to discuss your economic theory, make a thread about it specifically.

Last night I watched a PewDiePie video about Lil Tay. Nearly 600,000 people have given it a thumbs up. You've probably all heard of PewDiePie, but have any of you heard of Samuel C. Rickless? A few days ago I read his paper about democracy...

Unfortunately, throwing out the scientific method will have very serious repercussions on George’s ability to live in a world that has been sculpted by the results of scientific investigation. Most every artifact used by human beings has been vetted by science. If George abjures reliance on science, then he is rationally committed to abjuring reliance on modern means of transportation (cars, airplanes), communication (cell phones), information transmission (television, wifi), shelter (skyscrapers), food production (synthetic products), sanitation (the sewage system), energy delivery (electricity, gas), medical care (drugs, surgical procedures), and more. It would be irrational for George to place a television advertisement, call his legislator, drive to church, turn on his air conditioner, take painkillers for a headache, and do most of the things he takes for granted without thinking of the scientific imprimatur they have received. - Samuel C. Rickless, A Transcendental Argument For Liberalism

I e-mailed the author and pointed out that the relative effectiveness of democracy has not been vetted by science. He responded, which kinda surprised me, but he didn't seem bothered by my observation, which didn't surprise me. Personally, I'm super perturbed by the fact that democracy has not been vetted by science, which is why I've been conducting my own experiments here on NationStates...

Experiment #1
Experiment #2
Experiment #3 (ongoing)

There have been a "few" very outspoken critics. They really don't appreciate that the only reason that I'm conducting these informal experiments is because nobody has conducted any formal ones. Some real scientists have conducted a formal experiment to determine whether there's a correlation between menstrual cycles and conservatism, but absolutely no real scientists have conducted a formal experiment to determine whether ballot voting (BV) or donation voting (DV) is more effective at ranking things. And it's not like BV and DV are purely theoretical mechanisms. All the scholarly papers in the world are ranked by BV while all the non-profits in the world are ranked by DV. These two ranking mechanisms are significantly responsible for determining the social order... but they aren't equally effective at doing so. It either is, or isn't, beneficial that BV ranks PewDiePie much higher than Rickless.

In terms of science, what's awesome about pragmatarianism is that it evolved from something that we, the members of this forum, could not test (people choosing where their taxes go) into something that we can test (BV VS DV). But even though we can, at least informally, test pragmatarianism, do we have any sort of obligation to do so? Of course! The professional scientists have overlooked something incredibly important. They have a huge blindspot when it comes to ranking mechanisms. Therefore, in order to uncover a fundamental truth about our world, we must rise to the challenge. We have to become citizen scientists.

In this thread we won't just discuss pragmatarianism, we'll use BV and DV to help rank pragmatarianism and its alternatives. In order to BV for your preferred political system simply share it in a reply to this thread. In order to donate for it, you must make a purchase from the NationStates store. You can't purchase Telegraph Stamps because doing so doesn't put a trophy on your Nation page, which is the only acceptable proof of purchase. Once you've made your purchase reply to this thread with the amount rounded up (ie $2.99 -> $3) and indicate your preferred political system. Previous purchases/donations cannot be applied to your preferred system. If you already have Postmaster-General, then in order to donate for your preferred system, you’ll have to make a purchase for somebody who doesn’t already have Postmaster-General. It's a great gift to give!

Rules

- Voting with puppets is prohibited
- You can only have one preferred political system
- Changing your vote requires a persuasive argument
- Previous donations can’t be applied to your preferred political system
- Screenshots can’t be used as proof of donation
- Trophies will be used as proof of donation

Results

BV	DV
3 - capracracy 2 - pragmatarianism 1 - democratic socialism 1 - anarcho-chadism	$22 - capracracy $20 - pragmatarianism

Discussion

- Is BV or DV better at ranking things?
- How could NS make it easier for us to test the difference between BV and DV?
- Should people have the option to use their donations to help rank non-profits?
- Should people have the option to use their Netflix fees to help rank its content?
- Should people have the option to use their tax dollars to help rank government activities?

[Survey last updated to include Xerographica's input]

Where in the fucking OP does it say anything about experts agreeing with your fucking system Xero?

[Bombadil]

7 years ago.. viewtopic.php?p=15309978#p15309978