First, my conclusion is that meritocracy is impossible. Your conclusion was something you came up with on your own.
Second, capitalism isn’t the ONLY problem. It’s still a problem. Greed will corrupt any system, but capitalism is a system that openly rewards this corruption.
I don’t think I said “nothing can be done”. I just said meritocracy is impossible. And since it’s impossible, we need a different system we can actually achieve. It won’t be without flaws, but we can still aim to have LESS flaws than currently.
You made the bold claim that a system could be designed to prevent cheating, then asked if a meritocracy could exist. I said no. I also backed up my claim with actual reasoning, while you just stuffed your fingers in your ears and made loud noises.
Did you actually WANT people to respond to you, or did you just want people to agree with you? Because we don’t.
I’m not convinced you actually read my comment before responding.
I don’t even think you wanted a discussion. I think you just want to say your belief and have it treated as fact.
I did. It was a whole lot of assumptions backed up with anecdotes all designed to come to one single conclusion.
Okay, you definitely didn’t read my comment if that’s what you think it was. Let me sum it up for you:
I explained all of that without a single anecdote.
From which semi-tautological contortions we can conclude that, uh, capitalism probably isn’t the problem, after all.
First, my conclusion is that meritocracy is impossible. Your conclusion was something you came up with on your own.
Second, capitalism isn’t the ONLY problem. It’s still a problem. Greed will corrupt any system, but capitalism is a system that openly rewards this corruption.
Yes yes, nothing can be done. All is futile. It’s always the same shit with you people.
I don’t think I said “nothing can be done”. I just said meritocracy is impossible. And since it’s impossible, we need a different system we can actually achieve. It won’t be without flaws, but we can still aim to have LESS flaws than currently.
You don’t improve by pretending nothing’s wrong.
Why would I want to discuss anything with someone who will contradict themselves in the first two sentences they mutter.
There are options other than “meritocracy” and “nothing”, you know. It’s worrying that didn’t occur to you.
This is the common definition of meritocracy:
Yes, I dismiss you off hand for the very bold claim that meritocracy is impossible.
You made the bold claim that a system could be designed to prevent cheating, then asked if a meritocracy could exist. I said no. I also backed up my claim with actual reasoning, while you just stuffed your fingers in your ears and made loud noises.
Did you actually WANT people to respond to you, or did you just want people to agree with you? Because we don’t.