You're viewing part of a thread.
Okay, you definitely didn't read my comment if that's what you think it was. Let me sum it up for you:
- A person's merit is subjective.
- Judging merit based on subjective values will bring in biases and corruption.
- Judging merit based on objective values is impossible, and will need to be a simplification.
- In either case, people will game the system to raise their value, regardless of whether they actually contribute anything of merit.
- Any system will become outdated VERY quickly, as society is always changing.
- Capitalism only judges the acquisition of capital, which is not a merit.
- A person can cheat literally any system if they try hard enough.
I explained all of that without a single anecdote.
From which semi-tautological contortions we can conclude that, uh, capitalism probably isn't the problem, after all.
First, my conclusion is that meritocracy is impossible. Your conclusion was something you came up with on your own.
Second, capitalism isn't the ONLY problem. It's still a problem. Greed will corrupt any system, but capitalism is a system that openly rewards this corruption.
Yes yes, nothing can be done. All is futile. It's always the same shit with you people.
I don't think I said "nothing can be done". I just said meritocracy is impossible. And since it's impossible, we need a different system we can actually achieve. It won't be without flaws, but we can still aim to have LESS flaws than currently.
You don't improve by pretending nothing's wrong.
I don’t think I said “nothing can be done”. I just said meritocracy is impossible.
Why would I want to discuss anything with someone who will contradict themselves in the first two sentences they mutter.
There are options other than "meritocracy" and "nothing", you know. It's worrying that didn't occur to you.
This is the common definition of meritocracy:
A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement.
Yes, I dismiss you off hand for the very bold claim that meritocracy is impossible.
You made the bold claim that a system could be designed to prevent cheating, then asked if a meritocracy could exist. I said no. I also backed up my claim with actual reasoning, while you just stuffed your fingers in your ears and made loud noises.
Did you actually WANT people to respond to you, or did you just want people to agree with you? Because we don't.
You made the bold claim that a system could be designed to prevent cheating
Show me that claim. I don't know why I suffer through this idoicy.
Okay, you're clearly not even reading your OWN comments now, so I don't know why I expected you to read mine. You clearly don't want people to respond to you, so I won't. Goodbye.
Learn the difference between a premise and a claim. Or is that the problem here, you assume all premises are actually claims?