You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Introducing Smackdown Kitty
"If you are really driving at the unspoken question, which is 'how do the people with low self esteem and talent earn money on steem' the answer is, they don't. There is a million other ways such a person can make a living honestly that do not require them to spam up a community blockchain with empty, vapid upvotes on their own, vapid, empty comments."
No I wasn't driving at that question. Why would I?
"Also note, and I am not sure if it was Ned who coined the name, but the word Steem is shortened also from Esteem, which means 'to value something'. Excessive self esteem is called arrogance and conceit."
Are you name calling? Just because I dare to question?
You would not want to admit that is the case but why else would you cast self upvoting as so vital to the platform and the distribution if that was not implied?
Demonstrating that a person's blind spot towards an aspect of a debate resembles bad behaviour most certainly does not constitute an Ad Hominem fallacy.
I admire your desire to continue trying to find a way through my wall of reasons, don't stop, please. I am not trolling you in this statement, at all, this is why I have not made any such explicit declarations.
You know, I could be wrong on a very critical point. I don't see it yet, and this is not the first debate I have had about this with people, as you can imagine. I would like you to keep looking as long as you feel dissatisfied with my answers, and probe me as much as you like. Of course if you were to start using Ad Hominems I would simply stop replying.
This is a collaborative process of truth discovery, vitally important to the progress of our species.
"You would not want to admit that is the case but why else would you cast self upvoting as so vital to the platform and the distribution if that was not implied?"
I said that it should be in the rules of SteemIt rather than having a bot.
" You know, I could be wrong on a very critical point. I don't see it yet, and this is not the first debate I have had about this with people, as you can imagine."
You do realize that it is about a matter of opinion and not a matter of right and wrong.
As I said to you in the other thread, Good Night (or day)!
I agree, it should be in the rules of the steem blockchain consensus. But unless you are unaware of the history of the last 10 months, or how we came to have HF19, it required @abit and @smooth to stick their head on the chopping block, precisely running a bot to neutralise whale upvotes, during their experiment, which was intended to demonstrate how the distribution of rewards changes to the benefit of the majority of the users.
The laws of cause and effect no less apply rigidly and inexorably as they do to the motions of electrons and celestial bodies. Humans have the unique capacity amongst all living things on this planet to develop models of cause and effect, and these laws no less apply to society than anything else. Conversely, we also have to contend with the fact that we cannot appraise 100% of the available data, as some of it may not even be recognisable as having relevance, or may be simply indefineable, or the most negative, that we may be defending a belief because it suits us, while those around us are suffering because of our false beliefs.
Without such rules, there can only be disorder and conflict, the purpose of rules is eliminating conflict. In a court, the overarching objective of the arbitration is to settle the conflict and determine a consensus, in order that the cooperative and productive activities of the people in society may continue unimpeded, to the benefit of all.
By the way, I'm following you now for engaging with me this intensively. and it shouldn't be hard for me to remember to actually take a look at your profile to see what I can see, with the number of your posts in my reply feed.