Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: But Bob could be. -three basic questions
-
>> Always, an idea might origin from a senator, a journalist, a citizen or > a president for instance. > Yes or no?
>-M: Yes. And this idea can be communicated to many others. But at no point is this idea separate from people.
-Wrong, the authour might dissapear, but his ideas can live luckily.
>>mG: -And the idea can be improved by anyone else, for instance if the first > originator is killed or muted. Yes or no?
>-M: Yes, absolutely, and I encorage the improvement of ideas.
-Start look at them as that then and not as part of persons. This is less arbitar ofcourse.
So where is your correct conclusion?>>mG: Your idea of governance[SD2-S] is built around governors, giving a bias against RD.
>-M: No. SD2-S is built around the voting inputs, so it is nothing but RD.
-But if the voting inputs are giving reps, you will have (maybe improved but still) RD, wrong again.
>>mG: My [AD] is built arond the citizens, giving a bias against DD. > Yes or no?
>-M: Your system uses the lemming-algorithm, so it a fucked-up combination of DD and L-RD.
And I don’t think that your use of L-RD creates a bias against DD - the direct voting appeases people’s arbitrariness.-It is obvious that it is here you have the largest problems convincing since your are here starting to use f-words etc.
Your conclusion about Lemming algorithms is nothing but bullshit without any proof of correctness.
And again, just because your own bias against RD have problems with arbitrariness when choosing whom to vote for, you can’t use that as a proof of the shortcomings of DD.
So: wrong again.Wasn’t your goal to be correct in debates?
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
20/11/06 21:49
Arbitrary Directness: DD and L-RD
> >> Always, an idea might origin from a senator, a journalist, a citizen or > > a president for instance. > > Yes or no?
> >-M: Yes. And this idea can be communicated to many others. > But at no point is this idea separate from people.
>mG: -Wrong, the authour might dissapear, but his ideas can live luckily.
-M: Where would the ideas live, if not in people? Again, people are the ONLY dwelling grounds of ideas.
> >>mG: -And the idea can be improved by anyone else, for instance if the first > > originator is killed or muted. Yes or no? > > >-M: Yes, absolutely, and I encorage the improvement of ideas.
>mG: -Start look at them as that then and not as part of persons. This is > less arbitar ofcourse. So where is your correct conclusion?
-M: Ideas are part of persons, which is why these ideas should be ranked by the ranks of those who endorse those ideas.
> >>mG: Your idea of governance[SD2-S] is built around governors, giving a bias against RD. > > >-M: No. SD2-S is built around the voting inputs, so it is nothing but RD.
>mG: -But if the voting inputs are giving reps, you will have (maybe > improved but still) RD, wrong again.
-M: The rep vote is the accumulation of all voters votes. No arbitrary math(such as the limitation to direct votes) has been introduced into the process. Didn’t you know this already?
This is how PageRank works.> >>mG: My [AD] is built arond the citizens, giving a bias against DD. > > Yes or no?
> >-M: Your system uses the lemming-algorithm, > so it a fucked-up combination of DD and L-RD. > And I don’t think that your use of L-RD creates a bias against DD - > the direct voting appeases people’s arbitrariness.
>mG:[…]Your conclusion about Lemming algorithms is nothing but bullshit > without any proof of correctness.
-M: The lemming-algorithm is vote directness. This is either directness toward an issue or a rep: DD or L-RD. Why not have chains of reps into infinity?
Why the arbitrary limitation?>mG: And again, just because your own bias against RD have problems with arbitrariness when choosing whom to vote for, you can’t use that as a proof of the shortcomings of DD. > So: wrong again. Wasn’t your goal to be correct in debates?
-M: The problem is arbitrary directness. It gives the lemmings too much power.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
20/11/06 21:49
