My respect for your opinion is such that your lack of belief in me is a wound that will take much time to heal.

Indeed, this thorough trouncing has really put things into perspective for me.

indeed, your witty repartee and peerless argumentative structure have left me nowhere to hide, conversationally speaking.

Even the animated equivalent of a "no u" was a masterstroke, perfectly timed to wound me.

I am bested.

And again, as I said ,all of that was In response to specific context.

Amongst all of the other replies that you've conveniently ignored.

Taking quotes from a specific context and pretending they apply overall is poor reasoning. Again congrats on the consistency.

I suspect you aren't going to understand what I mean though (intentionally probably, but possibly just struggling).

Tell you what, you win, congrats on your intellectual triumph, a victory truly earned.

A masterful retort.

Still not what I said, but at least you're consistent, if not interesting.

You can put new people on the ISS, fucking duh, and it’s still much lower risk than a moon mission. Not zero risk, just significantly lower risk for the same results, as I already said.

If you'll go back and read what i said i was responding directly to the quote :

You could get 40% more of the same data by increasing output on the ISS with no increased risk of death.

The difference between zero and low gravity is not subjective.

Agreed, It's a good job that isn't what i was claiming then, "The difference in environment between the ISS and the moon is worthless" is subjective.

“Justifications exist for this course of action even if they’re stupid” is a bad argument to make and you should stop making it,

Not what i said originally , it's in the chat history, please try harder.

I'll put down the sentence you wrote, and my response to it.

There is literally zero reason for us to put people in space when we can send drones to do it.

response

There are several reasons to put actual people in to space.

They might be reasons you think worth it, but they do exist.

The follow up :

Whether or not the reasons are good is irrelevant to my original argument.

Doesn't imply the reasons are bad, just that they are irrelevant.

if you know you’re not qualified to evaluate the validity of those justifications then quit trying

If you think qualifications are required for statements clearly stated as opinions then feel free to provide yours.

Also, not what i said, you should really read the comments properly before responding to them, if you incorrectly paraphrase text that is easily accessible if makes you look incompetent.

Not directly referencing the text you are paraphrasing because it wouldn't help your pseudo argument if you did, is also a weak move.

If you’re asking me whether or not i think the reasons are good, my answer is i don’t know and I’m not invested enough in the answer to go looking.

a bit further down is :

I don’t know enough to be certain about any of that though.

and that has a specific context attached to it, arguing against a point while pretending the clearly established context doesn't exist is also not a good look.

This is somewhat disappointing, at least come up with something that will hold up to more than 10 seconds of scrutiny.

From the rest of this thread i get the impression you'll appreciate this...so..

Whom is lying now?

Pretty sure that would be a who rather than a whom.

Carry on though...

Perhaps the argument that it isn't possible to assess merit for a job position is so far outside the realms of reason that asking for clarification is the only way to formulate an answer.

But if you want a simple, quotable answer for the obvious question as it is written, here you go:

• Asses the criteria for which a job would be considered to be successfully performed.
• Check if historical evidence/experience/current skill/expected future growth gives indication that the candidate could meet or exceed those criteria.
• Rank the candidates, based on how well they match to the success criteria.
• ???
• Profit?

It's tremendously disappointing to see people act like assessing fitness for a role isn't a thing that has been going on since the dawn of civilisation.

Get a grip.

Now, if you want argue that this isn't how things are currently done ? I’m right there with you.

The system is a shambolic remnant of what it should be ? couldn't agree more.

A lot of it is probably by design ? sure, i'm down for that perspective.

But "It isn't possible to assess merit for a job role", is a troll at best or extreme ignorance at worst.

If people weren't asking "are you sure that this is what you meant?" i'd be worried for the state of basic reasoning.

I think to a degree you can see our different styles in just our replies itself, I do care about conversation. I like it and think it’s best when it shares information or opinion about people who care to do so. I also dont think to think I can control it but add my opinion so it is seen and move on when it is obviously not productive.

I can see the difference in style but i think it's also a difference in perspective. For me, most interactions have useful information in them, even the ones like we've been talking about. There is a range of information that you can only get (or is more prevalent in) interactions that aren't a standard sharing of ideas or opinions, for me at least.

As i said, i do understand this is not the same for everyone.

And I dunno I care about others. I think frustrated yipping at each other isn’t fun empatheticly but I could be wrong about it. If you find interest in this conversation I am not meaning to stop you just wanted to know you were not stuck in that recursive loop (that was the word, thank you) against your own better judgement.

I will admit that my empathy seems to be non-standard, it's not like i don't have any but the situations in which it applies seem to differ from what i hear from others.

When i said fun in that initial reply, what i really mean was interest, in a sense that new information/perspectives are enjoyable because of the influx of new information.

Having to work through and around the yipping from one side is sometimes a requirement to get to the interesting bits, it's not fun, but it is what it is.

i appreciate the heads up though, i'm not immune to getting sucked past the point of interest sometimes.

ok, i'll change the emphasis.

Who can run is not the only criteria for who is qualified for a position.

Ok, so leaving out the subjective argument of who should be qualified, let's go with straight up logic, i'll bullet point it for you.

I'll even start with your very correct assertion that anybody who can run, can win.

• Anyone eligible to run, can win.
• To win, a candidate has to be voted in (by whatever voting system is used, it doesn’t matter for this)
• A vote is cast by an individual who has their own set of criteria for qualification.
• Unless every single voter's only criteria is whether or not the candidate is eligible to run then there are other criteria at play.

I'll also requote myself from an earlier reply.

Perhaps "evaluated for" is more accurate.

Eligibility to run is still not the full criteria for how someone is evaluated for a position though.

Perhaps the disconnect is that you think everyone who is eligible is qualified for the job and it's just the winner of all these qualified people that is determined by the vote ?

Some A-Train shenanigans afoot

Oh i see where my confusion is coming from, you're the personification of a county.

That is entirely my bad for thinking you were talking about either voting population or actual population, neither of which has a vast majority of anything.

You were just talking about how you and your swing state county personification buddies won out by a narrow margin.

What were there, like 10 of you, 12? i suppose 7 or 8 out of ~12 could be considered a vast change.

You have defeated me sir (or whatever the pronoun for a county is) , with unassailable logic, facts and a true understanding of statistics and the word "vast".

I concede.

Just realised that if you are struggling with "vast" you might not understand what a personification of something is, if so , disregard all of the above it isn't going to make any sense.

Dammit forgot the rating.

Repeating of a factually incorrect statement, self-proclaimed victory over a position not claimed or proven.

1/10 - lacks originality, no personal attacks, no strawmen, no fallacies at all as far as i can tell, not even a single slur.

A single easily provable mis-truth and then a self proclaimed victory over an imaginary battle, what is this amateur hour?

If a gambit doesn't land, you switch tactics or double down, come on now, it's like you aren't even trying.