Activity
#5621·Jad Elmourad, about 4 hours agoBut with any luck, he’ll get the remaining funds, provided that the arguing ends now.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying that my eligibility for the remaining funders' funds depends on me not continuing this discussion?
If so, then this statement seems to block discussion and thus the growth of knowledge. Isn't the point of this platform to be able to hash out ideas and conflicts between them and thereby become more rational and knowledgeable?
I like the quote at the bottom of the website
[T]he growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement.
— Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework
I hope this is what we are doing here :)
Veritula discussion trees can’t accurately reflect problematic vs unproblematic ideas when unreasonable people are involved, see #5624. Submitting this as a fix. Jad agrees to terms, breaks them, then wants to argue the purpose and meaning of them. That’s arbitrary, ie the opposite of reason and Veritula. He will no doubt claim he was just trying to follow the Veritula method of addressing criticisms, but the effect is that he’s turning Veritula on its head in the process. There’s no point discussing with people like him.