Omniscience

[Galloism]

The rich already pretty much hold the reins. But yes, Xero would prefer we do away with any semblance of democracy entirely and leave the will of the people to the rich.

His idea that the wealthy will have the public's best interests in mind by paying for things they want is, of course, lost on the fact that the overwhelming majority of the populace are poor.

If it's truly a problem that the rich have so much power over how things are ranked, then shouldn't you really want to safely prove this sooner rather than later?

Imagine back in the day you thought that cigarettes were truly a problem. Wouldn't you have wanted to safely prove this sooner rather than later?

Notably, if we bid on whether the information came out or not, it never actually would have.

[Xerographica]

If it's truly a problem that the rich have so much power over how things are ranked, then shouldn't you really want to safely prove this sooner rather than later?

Imagine back in the day you thought that cigarettes were truly a problem. Wouldn't you have wanted to safely prove this sooner rather than later?

Notably, if we bid on whether the information came out or not, it never actually would have.

Right now I'm the only one arguing in favor for safely testing whether markets or democracy is more harmful. So it's like me back in the day being the only one arguing in favor for safely testing whether cigarettes are harmful.

[Galloism]

Notably, if we bid on whether the information came out or not, it never actually would have.

Right now I'm the only one arguing in favor for safely testing whether markets or democracy is more harmful. So it's like me back in the day being the only one arguing in favor for safely testing whether cigarettes are harmful.

Um, no. What you’re doing here isn’t really comparable to that in any way shape or form.

[Jabberwocky]

How can one group be MORE omniscient? That implies the other group doesn't know something, which means it isn't omniscient.

[Heloin]

Notably, if we bid on whether the information came out or not, it never actually would have.

Right now I'm the only one arguing in favor for safely testing whether markets or democracy is more harmful. So it's like me back in the day being the only one arguing in favor for safely testing whether cigarettes are harmful.

To put it simply, you're arguing that cartoons should still advertise cigarette commercials in the middle of them.

[Xerographica]

Right now I'm the only one arguing in favor for safely testing whether markets or democracy is more harmful. So it's like me back in the day being the only one arguing in favor for safely testing whether cigarettes are harmful.

Um, no. What you’re doing here isn’t really comparable to that in any way shape or form.

Quite a few people in this thread have the theory that it is very harmful that rich people have so much power. I'm arguing that their theory can and should be safely tested.

[Heloin]

Um, no. What you’re doing here isn’t really comparable to that in any way shape or form.

Quite a few people in this thread have the theory that it is very harmful that rich people have so much power. I'm arguing that their theory can and should be safely tested.

You're trying to ask two questions that have nothing to do with each other as the same question. Both of which everyone but you already knows the answer to.

[Galloism]

Um, no. What you’re doing here isn’t really comparable to that in any way shape or form.

Quite a few people in this thread have the theory that it is very harmful that rich people have so much power. I'm arguing that their theory can and should be safely tested.

Here’s the thing: we played along with your experiment. We saw three relatively wealthy people (compared to other users) on the forum blow up the whole thing for giggles. Multiple times.

What you’re saying is you found cigarettes are harmful, didn’t like the result, and you want to run it again and disregard prior results because you didn’t like them and made up excuses.

Which, let’s be honest, isn’t THAT uncommon for people vested in an idea.

[Xerographica]

How can one group be MORE omniscient? That implies the other group doesn't know something, which means it isn't omniscient.

One group can be closer than another group to omniscient. Just like 2 is closer than 1 to infinity.

[Heloin]

How can one group be MORE omniscient? That implies the other group doesn't know something, which means it isn't omniscient.

One group can be closer than another group to omniscient. Just like 2 is closer than 1 to infinity.

Infinity isn't something you can be closer or further away from. Infinity is a concept, one is no closer to infinity then seventy trillion.

[Albrenia]

How would we even 'test' such a thing?

[Xerographica]

Quite a few people in this thread have the theory that it is very harmful that rich people have so much power. I'm arguing that their theory can and should be safely tested.

Here’s the thing: we played along with your experiment. We saw three relatively wealthy people (compared to other users) on the forum blow up the whole thing for giggles. Multiple times.

What you’re saying is you found cigarettes are harmful, didn’t like the result, and you want to run it again and disregard prior results because you didn’t like them and made up excuses.

Which, let’s be honest, isn’t THAT uncommon for people vested in an idea.

Relatively wealthy people on this forum donated for stupid books? Therefore, the market is worse than democracy? And then what happened? And then you created a thread about how we should replace all markets with democracy? If you did, then I must have missed your thread. Please link me to it.

[Andsed]

Um, no. What you’re doing here isn’t really comparable to that in any way shape or form.

Quite a few people in this thread have the theory that it is very harmful that rich people have so much power. I'm arguing that their theory can and should be safely tested.

How exactly are you gonna “safely test” this? It cannot be in a controlled environment as society does not work like that so the only way you could is put this into place in a real scenario. Something which is big fucking no from me.

[Heloin]

How would we even 'test' such a thing?

We spend a couple dollars on whatever option Xero hates then he declares the whole thing invalid. Rinse and repeat.

[Galloism]

Here’s the thing: we played along with your experiment. We saw three relatively wealthy people (compared to other users) on the forum blow up the whole thing for giggles. Multiple times.

What you’re saying is you found cigarettes are harmful, didn’t like the result, and you want to run it again and disregard prior results because you didn’t like them and made up excuses.

Which, let’s be honest, isn’t THAT uncommon for people vested in an idea.

Relatively wealthy people on this forum donated for stupid books? Therefore, the market is worse than democracy? And then what happened? And then you created a thread about how we should replace all markets with democracy? If you did, then I must have missed your thread. Please link me to it.

Nah. But I don’t think a one size fits all solution is going to work here. Just as there’s no one best way to transport goods, or educate a child, or post on NSG.

[Xerographica]

Quite a few people in this thread have the theory that it is very harmful that rich people have so much power. I'm arguing that their theory can and should be safely tested.

How exactly are you gonna “safely test” this? It cannot be in a controlled environment as society does not work like that so the only way you could is put this into place in a real scenario. Something which is big fucking no from me.

The debate is whether democracy or markets are better at ranking/prioritizing things. For example, we could use both systems to prioritize ideas to improve NationStates. You could vote and/or donate for an idea. Then we'd all be able to directly compare how differently the ideas were ranked by democracy and a market.

This would be a safe experiment, given that it would be entirely up to the owner of this website, Max Barry, to decide whether to implement an idea.

[Heloin]

How exactly are you gonna “safely test” this? It cannot be in a controlled environment as society does not work like that so the only way you could is put this into place in a real scenario. Something which is big fucking no from me.

The debate is whether democracy or markets are better at ranking/prioritizing things. For example, we could use both systems to prioritize ideas to improve NationStates. You could vote and/or donate for an idea. Then we'd all be able to directly compare how differently the ideas were ranked by democracy and a market.

This would be a safe experiment, given that it would be entirely up to the owner of this website, Max Barry, to decide whether to implement an idea.

You could make you're own website and see who comes along to "test" your "theory". That'd probably provide more useful information then making the same thread over and over again.

[Albrenia]

How exactly are you gonna “safely test” this? It cannot be in a controlled environment as society does not work like that so the only way you could is put this into place in a real scenario. Something which is big fucking no from me.

The debate is whether democracy or markets are better at ranking/prioritizing things. For example, we could use both systems to prioritize ideas to improve NationStates. You could vote and/or donate for an idea. Then we'd all be able to directly compare how differently the ideas were ranked by democracy and a market.

This would be a safe experiment, given that it would be entirely up to the owner of this website, Max Barry, to decide whether to implement an idea.

I'm not sure what that would prove. Pretty much anything to do with this place is subjective, so I'm not sure how you could determine which answer was more or less 'omniscient'.

[Galloism]

The debate is whether democracy or markets are better at ranking/prioritizing things. For example, we could use both systems to prioritize ideas to improve NationStates. You could vote and/or donate for an idea. Then we'd all be able to directly compare how differently the ideas were ranked by democracy and a market.

This would be a safe experiment, given that it would be entirely up to the owner of this website, Max Barry, to decide whether to implement an idea.

You could make you're own website and see who comes along to "test" your "theory". That'd probably provide more useful information then making the same thread over and over again.

viewtopic.php?p=34269919#p34269919

I’m still waiting.

[Kannap]

The rich already pretty much hold the reins. But yes, Xero would prefer we do away with any semblance of democracy entirely and leave the will of the people to the rich.

His idea that the wealthy will have the public's best interests in mind by paying for things they want is, of course, lost on the fact that the overwhelming majority of the populace are poor.

If it's truly a problem that the rich have so much power over how things are ranked, then shouldn't you really want to safely prove this sooner rather than later?

Imagine back in the day you thought that cigarettes were truly a problem. Wouldn't you have wanted to safely prove this sooner rather than later?

And how, beg tell, do you safely prove that cigarettes were a problem sooner using your system? Because all I'm seeing is Big Tobacco's endless streams of propaganda hiding the information that smoking kills.

[Xerographica]

The debate is whether democracy or markets are better at ranking/prioritizing things. For example, we could use both systems to prioritize ideas to improve NationStates. You could vote and/or donate for an idea. Then we'd all be able to directly compare how differently the ideas were ranked by democracy and a market.

This would be a safe experiment, given that it would be entirely up to the owner of this website, Max Barry, to decide whether to implement an idea.

I'm not sure what that would prove. Pretty much anything to do with this place is subjective, so I'm not sure how you could determine which answer was more or less 'omniscient'.

You would have your preferred ideas. Would they be higher ranked with democracy or donations?

[Kannap]

Notably, if we bid on whether the information came out or not, it never actually would have.

Right now I'm the only one arguing in favor for safely testing whether markets or democracy is more harmful. So it's like me back in the day being the only one arguing in favor for safely testing whether cigarettes are harmful.

Your idea of donations and markets to make decisions is obviously more harmful, which is why we don't test it. There is no safe way to test something that we know is harmful.

How about we test whether or not getting hit by a car is harmful, but do it safely?

How about we test whether or not crashing a plane full of people is harmful, but in a safe manner?

[Xerographica]

You could make you're own website and see who comes along to "test" your "theory". That'd probably provide more useful information then making the same thread over and over again.

viewtopic.php?p=34269919#p34269919

I’m still waiting.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=483327

[Albrenia]

I'm not sure what that would prove. Pretty much anything to do with this place is subjective, so I'm not sure how you could determine which answer was more or less 'omniscient'.

You would have your preferred ideas. Would they be higher ranked with democracy or donations?

Considering I don't care enough about any of my ideas to put money towards them, democracy probably, since I could count on at least my vote.

[Kannap]

Um, no. What you’re doing here isn’t really comparable to that in any way shape or form.

Quite a few people in this thread have the theory that it is very harmful that rich people have so much power. I'm arguing that their theory can and should be safely tested.

Unfortunately there's no safe way to test that theory, since if we believe it's harmful for rich people to have all the power, it would be wise to not give them all the power.

It's like saying, "We think Hitler will try and kill all the Jews, but we can't know for sure unless we give him the power to do so"