I don't think he is saying that meritocracy is a bad thing. I think he's saying it's over-rated and unachievable.SJConspirator » 22 Sep 2022, 8:19 pm » wrote: ↑I agree that meritocracy has never existed. I disagree that it would be a bad thing
Nepotism rarely has anything to do with merit.Cannonpointer » 22 Sep 2022, 9:17 pm » wrote: ↑
One of the things you will never see me cuss a man for is nepotism - on the simple principle that I don't cuss folks for doing the same **** I do.
Being a fellow who will **** on meritocracy to hook up a relative, I'm in no great position to champion it, outside of the realm of theory - which is the only realm in which a meritocracy ever has existed or ever will exist.
What we have done, historically, is meritocracy-ish. The question FOS raises is whether a PURE meritocracy (could such exist) would have served better. I believe he makes a pretty strong argument that it would not have done.
We have never had zero meritocracy. Even in the least merit driven systems when the king was a babbling idiot a steward would quietly run the country.
why is it unquestionable? Oh your ideology said so and history of obedience to power of suggesting life exceeds being eternally separated as conceived to replace previous 4 generations next 4 generations nobody is duplicated twice between event horizons as inception of a species and extinction of all ancestral lineages developed between.
always channeling the talking point as the core of the debate instead of the means life is never same total sum population existed prior to living going forward now twice currently here. Describe the connection sustaining eternal separation of evolving results balancing out what arrived to date.FOS » 23 Sep 2022, 6:16 am » wrote: ↑
Many people try to meme that the nazis suffered because they did not allow jews to do technology. But that is actually total rubbish. The nazis in fact had a technological edge over the allies despite rejecting jew scientists. They invented the rocket, the jet engine, and many other things well before the allies.
They did not develop the nuclear bomb not because they couldn't but because Hitler refused to support the project, saying such a weapon would be too destructive.
They also suffered from a general lack of resources. Their airplane and tank design was far superior to ours.. but they had to build things that would not cost too much oil or rubber...cause they didn't have such resources
Users browsing this forum: Beekeeper, Bill Gates [Bot], Buck Naked, Buffalo, Cannonpointer, ConsRule, Goodgrief, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Jamesato, jefftec, Justin Sane, Kisses, Kobia2, LowIQTrash, MackTheFinger, Majik, Monderegal, Mrkelly, murdock, nefarious101, NEILCAR, Neo, OdeToJoy, PhiloBeddo, Pinterest [Bot], Punch, Redheaded Stranger, ROG62, Semrush [Bot], Skans, sooted up Cyndi, Steve Jobs [Bot], Str8tEdge, Sumela, Tempest62, Twitter [Bot], Vegas, walkingstick, Yandex [Bot], Z09 and 1 guest