Posted: May 14, 2018 3:21 am
And again, there's no evidence for the inverse either.
Good.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:2. This means you have no objective basis to assert that one way would elevate trash and the other treasures. Especially since you haven't even properly defined what 'trash' or 'treasures' refers to exactly.
Like you pointed out... trash and treasure are subjective, so it would be pointless for me to try and define them. [/quote]
So you admit your analogy is fatally flawed?
Xerographica wrote:But if voting puts Harry Potter at the top, while spending puts Adam Smith or Charles Darwin at the top, then this is something you should seriously consider before endorsing voting as the best way to elect presidents.
Why? By what objective measure are Smith and Charles demonstrably better than Rowling?
And again, what makes you think Rowling would be at the top, because right now, she isn't.
Vacuous aphorism. Evidence is what you need, not assertions.
Xerographica wrote: Sure, I could say that the point of education is that it's correlated with income.
Which would be yet another blind assertion I doubt,
Xerographica wrote: Is there any evidence that this is true?
No, and plenty of the opposite.
Xerographica wrote: Does there need to be?
Yes.
Xerographica wrote: If so, then you should agree that there also needs to be evidence either for, or against, the effectiveness of voting compared to spending.
Again, attacking one notion doesn't prove another.
It's not a true dichotomy.
What's that appeal to authority fallacy supposed to do with anything?
Xerographica wrote: Were they reasonable?
Not in that case.
Especially not.
Xerographica wrote: In any case, I'm guessing that they would have been far more reasonable if they had been obligated to put their money where their votes were.
Which is all it is, an unsubstantiated guess.
