These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

WARNING! Anti-provist threat.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#61 - 2013-04-06 16:17:59 UTC
indeed, but that wasn't for her benefit, it was for that of other people. Basically every Provist in the State including Tibus Heth himself have failed to see that simple logic, I don't expect Kim to be persuaded.

It was rhetoric, in other words. We're all guilty of it occasionally.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#62 - 2013-04-07 03:07:38 UTC
Stitcher wrote:
Diana Kim wrote:
... true meritocracy ... united under Tibus Heth's rule...We should not allow ant-provist scum to divide and separate us!


You are contradicting yourself. Meritocracy is by its very nature competitive. If you value meritocracy then you value the idea that nobody is irreplaceable, that a degree of division and separation is healthy and desirable because it provides the opportunity for talent, hard work and all the other metrics of merit to be demonstrated, and the room for those who demonstrate their merit to supplant their predecessors.

Which is it? Do you value the meritocracy, or do you value unification under a ruler? Because the latter is incompatible with the former. Unquestioning obedience to a leader is authoritarian dictatorship, which is inherently un-meritocratic. The moment you place any individual, concept or behaviour as being exempt from the meritocracy, then you do not HAVE a meritocracy.

Which will it be?

Now this a simple logical fallacy, Stitcher-haan.
Meritocracy indeed is very competetive, but it doesn't contradict the idea that someone, who has the most of merit, gets into the most top of it.
Indeed, nobody is irreplaceable. But the higher are merits of the person, the more valuable he is. Conclusion: Tibus Heth is the most valuable employee in the State.

The alternative question between meritocracy and unification under one ruler is not correct. Of course, such situation might rise and I will have to weight the situation. However at the moment I fight for Tibus Heth, for meritocracy and for unification under one ruler. I don't have to choose. I fight for all of them.

Stitcher-haan, have you ever been in military service? It implies unquestionable obedience to a superior officer. And this is a merit. If you fail to follow orders, you are not a professional.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#63 - 2013-04-07 04:05:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Really? Which fallacy have I committed?

Strawman? I have not misrepresented your argument at all.

False cause? not applicable.

Appeal to emotion? no, not that.

gambler's fallacy? n/a.

Appeal to Popularity? Quite the reverse, I've explicitly ruled out popularity as a good reason to support Heth.

Appeal to Authority? Nope.

the fallacy fallacy? No, not that.

slippery slope? That's more your thing, I feel.

Ad hominem? Definitely not.

Appeal to hypocrisy? Nope.

Personal incredulity? N/A

Special pleading? No.

Loaded question? No, not that.

Burden of proof? Met.

Ambiguity? I actively strive to eliminate ambiguity from my speech.

Composition/Division? The very definition of a meritocracy requires that all its component parts be treated meritocratically, so this one's not actually applicable in this case.

post-rationalization (The "No True Amarr" fallacy): not done that, no.

The genetic fallacy? That one would be on you, Heth and the Provists in fact.

false dilemma? Not so, you either have a meritocracy or you do not. By the definition I've stipulated - that all parts and persons in a meritocracy must be subject to it - anything short of that standard is unmeritocratic.

begging the question? Nuh-uh.

Appeal to nature? Not relevant.

Isolated Anecdote? again, not applicable.

cherry-picking? Not applicable.

compromise fallacy? not in this case, no.

As far as I can tell, my position is in no way fallacious. So, I suspect you're just using the term out of ignorance for what it actually means in the hopes that you can use it to lend some legitimacy to what is effectively just a flat denial of my position, which is that unthinking loyalty to any leader, even one who earned their position on merit (which I contend Heth didn't, in fact), is un-meritocratic. Denouncing any dissenting opinion simply because it dissents against The Great Leader is unmeritocratic.

You simply cannot have it both ways.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#64 - 2013-04-07 04:18:40 UTC
I may be not skilled at reasoning, but I know that It is called "false cause", Stitcher-haan. I don't know why you said it is "not applicable".
You made a statement that "meritocracy is competetive", but being competetive doesn't lead to absence of single leader.
Instead of arguing with me, you list some of fallacies that really wasn't applicable, clogging comms with unrelated information.

That much about being ignorant...

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Pieter Tuulinen
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#65 - 2013-04-07 05:09:02 UTC
You forgot 'No true Kirjuun' in your list of fallacies, Verin.

Not that it applies, either, but if you're doing a list then you need that one on it.

For the first time since I started the conversation, he looks me dead in the eye. In his gaze are steel jackhammers, quiet vengeance, a hundred thousand orbital bombs frozen in still life.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#66 - 2013-04-07 09:04:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyn Farel
Stitcher wrote:
Really? Which fallacy have I committed?

Strawman? I have not misrepresented your argument at all.

False cause? not applicable.

Appeal to emotion? no, not that.

gambler's fallacy? n/a.

Appeal to Popularity? Quite the reverse, I've explicitly ruled out popularity as a good reason to support Heth.

Appeal to Authority? Nope.

the fallacy fallacy? No, not that.

slippery slope? That's more your thing, I feel.

Ad hominem? Definitely not.

Appeal to hypocrisy? Nope.

Personal incredulity? N/A

Special pleading? No.

Loaded question? No, not that.

Burden of proof? Met.

Ambiguity? I actively strive to eliminate ambiguity from my speech.

Composition/Division? The very definition of a meritocracy requires that all its component parts be treated meritocratically, so this one's not actually applicable in this case.

post-rationalization (The "No True Amarr" fallacy): not done that, no.

The genetic fallacy? That one would be on you, Heth and the Provists in fact.

false dilemma? Not so, you either have a meritocracy or you do not. By the definition I've stipulated - that all parts and persons in a meritocracy must be subject to it - anything short of that standard is unmeritocratic.

begging the question? Nuh-uh.

Appeal to nature? Not relevant.

Isolated Anecdote? again, not applicable.

cherry-picking? Not applicable.

compromise fallacy? not in this case, no.

As far as I can tell, my position is in no way fallacious. So, I suspect you're just using the term out of ignorance for what it actually means in the hopes that you can use it to lend some legitimacy to what is effectively just a flat denial of my position, which is that unthinking loyalty to any leader, even one who earned their position on merit (which I contend Heth didn't, in fact), is un-meritocratic. Denouncing any dissenting opinion simply because it dissents against The Great Leader is unmeritocratic.

You simply cannot have it both ways.


The fallacy you are looking for is your assumption that meritocracy and unification under one ruler are mutually exclusive. If the ruler is himself the product of all the virtues of the meritocratic system in place, then I fail to see how they remain mutually exclusive.

Please note that I am not stating that it is the case or not for Heth. Being a matter of unquestioning obedience to a leader is another matter altogether.

In this case it is a matter of non sequitur. Meaning that unquestioning obedience to that dictator does not imply the slighest that meritocracy is mutually exclusive with one ruler.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2013-04-07 12:30:05 UTC
Lyn Farel wrote:
In this case it is a matter of non sequitur. Meaning that unquestioning obedience to that dictator does not imply the slighest that meritocracy is mutually exclusive with one ruler.

Unquestioning obedience actually would be incompatible with a meritocracy. The entire point of a meritocracy is that the holder of every position is constantly under scrutiny as to whether or not there is someone who could do their job better.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#68 - 2013-04-07 13:34:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Lyn Farel wrote:
The fallacy you are looking for is your assumption that meritocracy and unification under one ruler are mutually exclusive. If the ruler is himself the product of all the virtues of the meritocratic system in place, then I fail to see how they remain mutually exclusive.


Except that's not what I'm claiming. Now YOU'RE guilty of a straw man.

I'm claiming that unthinking, unquestioning loyalty to a single supreme leader is unmeritocratic, especially if that leader is then held to be immune from criticism and all efforts to remove them are deemed "treasonous".

I deem it better that the highest authority in a nation be distributed across many people rather than condensed in the authority of one because there is no such thing as a perfect human being. I wouldn't trust myself with that kind of authority, and there is no judgement I trust more than my own (before you accuse me of arrogance, everybody does this.). Even if a person might earn the position on merit, there need to exist safeties and limiters to stop them from doing something we will all regret. The best safety and limiter I can think of is for there to be multiple persons at the top with equal authority. Which is better? The leadership of one person who has demonstrated their competence? or the leadership of EIGHT equally competent persons?

In any case, Tibus Heth didn't earn the position of Executor meritocratically, he earned it because a syndicate of anonymous third party investors spent an enormous sum of ISK to buy Caldari Steel wholesale, install him as its CEO, and he used a surge of public frustration and civil dissatisfaction with the megas to hurl himself straight to the top. He didn't work his way there; he bullied, coerced and forced his way there and was only able to do so because the megas are smart enough to know when not to put up a fight, but when to bide their time.

On balance, I actually agree that this was a good thing. The system needed to be shaken up. We got a functioning Meritocracy back and we reclaimed Home. For those two things alone, I have to give Heth my respect and gratitude. For everything else, I consider him to be the greatest threat the Caldari people have ever faced.

I have opposed the Executor and the CPD from the very start. People may remember that in 110.05 I staged a week-long protest outside the Kaalakiota HQ station in response to the needless and paranoid quarantine of ethnic Gallente State citizens without good cause. I protested the idea that a single individual should be granted more authority than the committee of the CEP, or that one man should be the CEO of multiple corporations.

He has demonstrated himself time and again to be irrational, paranoid, bigoted and megalomaniacal. He is now openly flaunting the laws of the State where it suits him, he has pardoned a terrorist group solely for the purpose of recruiting them (and in the process lending credence to the idea that he himself is a Dragonaur) and is showing every sign of suffering from some kind of illness that appears to be driving his behavior to even greater extremes.

The man needs to go, the CPD needs to be dissolved, and the State needs to leave this experiment with a warmongering demagogue behind us.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#69 - 2013-04-07 14:13:43 UTC
Stitcher wrote:

I'm claiming that unthinking, unquestioning loyalty to a single supreme leader is unmeritocratic, especially if that leader is then held to be immune from criticism and all efforts to remove them are deemed "treasonous".

In order to question a superior you MUST have merit and authority to do so. The State is not democracy. Commoners are not allowed to 'vote' for or against leader. When commoner starts mutiny against leadership, he is claimed as traitor and outcasted. Real professionals know what they can question and what they cannot. Ability to question for a professional comes with ability to change the subject under question.

Stitcher wrote:

I deem it better that the highest authority in a nation be distributed across many people rather than condensed in the authority of one because there is no such thing as a perfect human being. I wouldn't trust myself with that kind of authority, and there is no judgement I trust more than my own (before you accuse me of arrogance, everybody does this.). Even if a person might earn the position on merit, there need to exist safeties and limiters to stop them from doing something we will all regret. The best safety and limiter I can think of is for there to be multiple persons at the top with equal authority. Which is better? The leadership of one person who has demonstrated their competence? or the leadership of EIGHT equally competent persons?

During war time leadership of a single person is preferred. Consultative organs produce generally better decisions - but slower, when single-headed leadership produce less optimal decisions, but faster. There is no time during the war to discuss problems, there is time only to act and respond. Besides, single person will unite all corporations, while eight equally competent CEOs will always look for benefit of their own corporation disregarding others.
Answering more directly to your qustion: yes, leadership of eight equally competent persons is generally better. But not now

Stitcher wrote:

In any case, Tibus Heth didn't earn the position of Executor meritocratically, he earned it because a syndicate of anonymous third party investors spent an enormous sum of ISK to buy Caldari Steel wholesale, install him as its CEO, and he used a surge of public frustration and civil dissatisfaction with the megas to hurl himself straight to the top. He didn't work his way there; he bullied, coerced and forced his way there and was only able to do so because the megas are smart enough to know when not to put up a fight, but when to bide their time.

It is easy to spread slanders about person, much harder to provide real evidences, especially when you wrong.

Stitcher wrote:

I have opposed the Executor and the CPD from the very start. People may remember that in 110.05 I staged a week-long protest outside the Kaalakiota HQ station in response to the needless and paranoid quarantine of ethnic Gallente State citizens without good cause. I protested the idea that a single individual should be granted more authority than the committee of the CEP, or that one man should be the CEO of multiple corporations.

You have just demerited yourself. This is not Caldari way to cry about something that you don't content with if you don't have authority to change it. All this protesting will suit well a gallentean crybaby like Ixiris, who can't do anything, but not a Caldari citizen.

Stitcher wrote:

The man needs to go, the CPD needs to be dissolved, and the State needs to leave this experiment with a warmongering demagogue behind us.

I have a counter-proposition. All discontent with rule of Tibus Heth should be put under detention or removed by any other means necessary. This will make political situation in the State stable and we will focus on national goals without further hindrances.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#70 - 2013-04-07 15:04:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyn Farel
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Lyn Farel wrote:
In this case it is a matter of non sequitur. Meaning that unquestioning obedience to that dictator does not imply the slighest that meritocracy is mutually exclusive with one ruler.

Unquestioning obedience actually would be incompatible with a meritocracy. The entire point of a meritocracy is that the holder of every position is constantly under scrutiny as to whether or not there is someone who could do their job better.


That is exactly what I am saying.

Unquestioning obedience is incompatible with a meritocracy.

That does not make every meritocracy and single rulers mutually exclusive however. Please, read again what I stated above.

Stitcher wrote:
Lyn Farel wrote:
The fallacy you are looking for is your assumption that meritocracy and unification under one ruler are mutually exclusive. If the ruler is himself the product of all the virtues of the meritocratic system in place, then I fail to see how they remain mutually exclusive.


Except that's not what I'm claiming. Now YOU'RE guilty of a straw man.


Stitcher wrote:

Which is it? Do you value the meritocracy, or do you value unification under a ruler? Because the latter is incompatible with the former.


That is not a strawman on my behalf, that is what you wrote exactly.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#71 - 2013-04-07 15:06:33 UTC
Stitcher wrote:

I'm claiming that unthinking, unquestioning loyalty to a single supreme leader is unmeritocratic, especially if that leader is then held to be immune from criticism and all efforts to remove them are deemed "treasonous".


Then if that is what you are really claiming, then I would tend to agree.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#72 - 2013-04-07 15:16:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Lyn Farel wrote:
Stitcher wrote:
Lyn Farel wrote:
The fallacy you are looking for is your assumption that meritocracy and unification under one ruler are mutually exclusive. If the ruler is himself the product of all the virtues of the meritocratic system in place, then I fail to see how they remain mutually exclusive.


Except that's not what I'm claiming. Now YOU'RE guilty of a straw man.


Stitcher wrote:

Which is it? Do you value the meritocracy, or do you value unification under a ruler? Because the latter is incompatible with the former.


That is not a strawman on my behalf, that is what you wrote exactly.


Then I apologise for accusing you of a straw man, and revise my question to "do you value meritocracy, or do you value fascist dictatorship? Because the latter is incompatible with the former."

Kim - the only reason we are at war is because we installed, during peacetime, a warmongering racist moron as our leader. The only thing KEEPING us at war is said warmongering racist moron. The rest of the State and the Federation have both demonstrated the capacity to find a peaceful resolution, and the only one who's unhappy is your Great Leader. Your argument does not stand up. We wouldn't BE at war without Heth. The solution to a problem is NOT to cling desperately to the cause of it.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Fractal Muse
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2013-04-07 15:21:32 UTC
Stitcher wrote:

I'm claiming that unthinking, unquestioning loyalty to a single supreme leader is unmeritocratic, especially if that leader is then held to be immune from criticism and all efforts to remove them are deemed "treasonous".

What if one of the main merits is loyalty to the corporation as exemplified by the CEO?

I thought Caldari citizens held loyalty to their corporation and through that the State as a merit?

What of respect for authority and the proper governing channels of an organization? Is that not something Caldari are expected to uphold?

Perhaps I was mistaken as to the nature of the Caldari System.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#74 - 2013-04-07 15:42:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Loyalty to the corporation does not mean loyalty to individuals. Automatic subservience to whoever is currently in charge is the Amarrian way of doing things, not ours. Corporate loyalty means "working towards the benefit of."

If I define the benefit of the Corporation and the State as being "Somebody get this perkele out of the big seat and let somebody with a working brain have a turn... in fact, burn the seat, too." then I am still being loyal to the corporation and the State because I genuinely feel that doing so is in the collective best interest.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Fractal Muse
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2013-04-07 15:50:08 UTC
Stitcher wrote:
Loyalty to the corporation does not mean loyalty to individuals. Automatic subservience to whoever is currently in charge is the Amarrian way of doing things, not ours. Corporate loyalty means "working towards the benefit of."

If I define the benefit of the Corporation and the State as being "Somebody get this perkele out of the big seat and let somebody with a working brain have a turn... in fact, burn the seat, too." then I am still being loyal to the corporation and the State because I genuinely feel that doing so is in the collective best interest.

Then you should do just that.

Take aim and shoot for your vision. Burn the seat.
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#76 - 2013-04-07 20:21:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyn Farel
Stitcher wrote:
Loyalty to the corporation does not mean loyalty to individuals. Automatic subservience to whoever is currently in charge is the Amarrian way of doing things, not ours. Corporate loyalty means "working towards the benefit of."

If I define the benefit of the Corporation and the State as being "Somebody get this perkele out of the big seat and let somebody with a working brain have a turn... in fact, burn the seat, too." then I am still being loyal to the corporation and the State because I genuinely feel that doing so is in the collective best interest.


There are Amarr citizens or officials that strongly believe in that their loyalty stands for the throne, and not the one sitting on it.

Actually I can think of similar cases for most governments. Gallente citizens saying that their loyalty goes to the Federation ideals rather than the president elected by the majority, or Minmatar people saying that their loyalty belongs to their tribe or their kin, not the one(s) leading them.

Some use such excuses when justified, others, just as a moral crutch for every one of their whims when they are not pleased with the people leading them. It is often a delicate question, no ? Especially in societies where the emphasis revolves around duty.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#77 - 2013-04-08 04:23:49 UTC
Fractal Muse wrote:
Stitcher wrote:

I'm claiming that unthinking, unquestioning loyalty to a single supreme leader is unmeritocratic, especially if that leader is then held to be immune from criticism and all efforts to remove them are deemed "treasonous".

What if one of the main merits is loyalty to the corporation as exemplified by the CEO?

I thought Caldari citizens held loyalty to their corporation and through that the State as a merit?

What of respect for authority and the proper governing channels of an organization? Is that not something Caldari are expected to uphold?

Perhaps I was mistaken as to the nature of the Caldari System.

Indeed loyalty to the corporation and the CEO is one of greatest merits, surpassed maybe only by loyalty to the State as a whole. Most loyal of employees can even end their life if they don't agree with superiors to prevent stirring in their corporations.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Pieter Tuulinen
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#78 - 2013-04-08 08:26:13 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:

Indeed loyalty to the corporation and the CEO is one of greatest merits, surpassed maybe only by loyalty to the State as a whole. Most loyal of employees can even end their life if they don't agree with superiors to prevent stirring in their corporations.


'The State' is a rather poorly defined concept - and certainly not defined by the Executor and the CPD, Kim-haani.

For the first time since I started the conversation, he looks me dead in the eye. In his gaze are steel jackhammers, quiet vengeance, a hundred thousand orbital bombs frozen in still life.
Makoto Priano
Kirkinen-Arataka Transhuman Zenith Consulting Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#79 - 2013-04-08 16:17:05 UTC
And, as others have said before me, the State can surely not be defined by a man and an organization that have only participated in State politics for the last five years.

Also -- Pieter, a Quafe shirt? Really? I would've thought you'd be a Starsi man!

Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?
Pieter Tuulinen
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#80 - 2013-04-08 16:35:21 UTC
Makoto Priano wrote:
And, as others have said before me, the State can surely not be defined by a man and an organization that have only participated in State politics for the last five years.

Also -- Pieter, a Quafe shirt? Really? I would've thought you'd be a Starsi man!


When Starsi send me an awesome t-shirt I shall wear it.

For the first time since I started the conversation, he looks me dead in the eye. In his gaze are steel jackhammers, quiet vengeance, a hundred thousand orbital bombs frozen in still life.