191–194 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the "random punk" is probably a swimming coach ;)
That's the point. The defense should be valid whether or not the identity of the critic is known.
This criticism should be valid regardless of my identity and credentials?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the point. The defense should be valid whether or not the identity of the critic is known.
"Michael Phelps sucks. He doesn't know shit about swimming." This criticism should be valid regardless of my identity and credentials?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Michael Phelps sucks. He doesn't know shit about swimming." This criticism should be valid regardless of my identity and credentials?
That's not what I said. I said that the defense should be valid regardless of the identity of the critic.
>> Having 14 gold medals means that though his butterfly stroke might or might not need improvement, a random punk on the internet doesn't have the authority to make a judgement call.
>>> the "random punk" is probably a swimming coach ;)
That's the point. The defense should be valid whether or not the identity of the critic is known.
>>>>> "Michael Phelps sucks. He doesn't know shit about swimming." This criticism should be valid regardless of my identity and credentials?
>>>>>> That's not what I said. I said that the defense should be valid regardless of the identity of the critic.
I don't know what defense you are talking about, and who are these critics defending themselves from, and why are they talking about things they have no fucking idea about, and why do they think "I sometimes drown in my bathtub but my opinions on swimming are as valid as Phelps' because fuck, you can't appeal to authority Even PG agrees with me about appeal to authority being invalid."
All I am saying is:
Does winning 14 gold medals mean Phelps technique is perfect? NO
Does it mean a random punk on the internet can critic him? YES. Freedom of speech and stuff.
Will the opinion mean anything? FUCK NO.
Will it mean anything if the random punk happens to be a swimming coach? FUCK NO.
Will it mean anything if the random punk happens to be a former olympic champion or an olympic coach? IT MIGHT. There are no rules of thumb. Different things work for different people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what I said. I said that the defense should be valid regardless of the identity of the critic.
> Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. >> Having 14 gold medals means that though his butterfly stroke might or might not need improvement, a random punk on the internet doesn't have the authority to make a judgement call. >>> the "random punk" is probably a swimming coach ;) That's the point. The defense should be valid whether or not the identity of…
The critics are not doing the defending. Let me break it down for you.
jimmyvanhalen criticized Andreessen Horowitz use of money as being a relatively inefficient, compared to re-investing or lowering their fees. That was the criticism.
yesbabyyes defended with "you are a nobody in the investment world" and "you don't have as much money as Andreessen Horowitz, so you don't know what you're talking about." That was the defense.
The defense to the criticism is invalid because (aside from other logical fallacies), it hinges solely on the identity of the critic (jimmyvanhalen) and his personal accomplishments, relative to the entity being criticized (Andreessen Horowitz).
A defense with substance, one that works regardless of identity or accomplishments, would have been an argument as to why donating all the money to charity is helping people more people than re-investing.