Closer than my attempt at nuance? I didn’t know I made an attempt at nuance yet. I thought I just vaguely gestured towards the nuance and said it exists. Can you please explain what my position is on how much I think voting can accomplish so I’m all caught up with the conversation?
The correct approach is to ask “how much can voting accomplish”, and with that question we can actually arrive at an answer with some nuance
I’m with you here, you’re “just asking questions” and I provided context on my understanding of the answers to those questions.
But the binary question Dessalines asks can afford no nuance, and is obviously not supported by theory or anything else.
A “theory” is a reductionist model that is falsifiable, by claiming that the level of nuance you suggest proves Dessalines understanding is “not supported by theory” you explicitly state that nuance as an empirical contradiction of the theory.
Either:
A. You have some measure or metric which wasn’t clearly communicated showing how that nuance falsifies the theory. ^Which was my initial understanding and was hoping to clear up the miscommunication there.^
B. You’re doing a tiresome argument from ignorance thing and simply muddying the waters because the “theory” conflicts with your pre-formulated understanding of reality and you haven’t put in any effort to actually validate your own understandings.
You claim, rather rudely I might add, that “Even if Dessalines read theory, he didn’t understand much of it.” Don’t do the glib, spineless, two-faced “I didn’t make any claims yet”.
Lmao I read that whole entire comment, and it wasn’t easy, and it’s all frantic backpedaling.
For the record I think the study you’re citing makes a methodological mistake by applying an issues based measurement framework in a representative democracy, but I have no intention of elaborating because you’re not arguing in good faith and you’re just going to waste everyone’s time.
Anyway next time post the version of the study that actually passed peer review and got published, not a draft.
I think the study you’re citing makes a methodological mistake by applying an issues based measurement framework in a representative democracy
I don’t necessarily disagree. It’s definitely not a holistic view, but I haven’t found much else that even asks that question much less has any real methodology behind it. Have you?
What would be the correct methodology in your opinion?
I have no intention of elaborating
You’re not communicating anything other than the vaguest of concern trolling. You clearly have thoughts and opinions, this is a place to share those.
You can’t both be upset when you are misunderstand and refuse to communicate.
Quit backpedaling and say it with your chest.
Anyway next time post the version of the study that actually passed peer review and got published, not a draft.
You do know how to use sci-hub right? You have the title, or if you’re morally opposed to that option a quick Google and you can pay $30 here for it.
However, before you gish-gallop into concern trolling the source I linked why don’t you provide one, or multiple, of your own that supports the concerns you have surrounding “nuance”.
Closer than my attempt at nuance? I didn’t know I made an attempt at nuance yet. I thought I just vaguely gestured towards the nuance and said it exists. Can you please explain what my position is on how much I think voting can accomplish so I’m all caught up with the conversation?
I’m with you here, you’re “just asking questions” and I provided context on my understanding of the answers to those questions.
A “theory” is a reductionist model that is falsifiable, by claiming that the level of nuance you suggest proves Dessalines understanding is “not supported by theory” you explicitly state that nuance as an empirical contradiction of the theory.
Either: A. You have some measure or metric which wasn’t clearly communicated showing how that nuance falsifies the theory. ^Which was my initial understanding and was hoping to clear up the miscommunication there.^
B. You’re doing a tiresome argument from ignorance thing and simply muddying the waters because the “theory” conflicts with your pre-formulated understanding of reality and you haven’t put in any effort to actually validate your own understandings.
You claim, rather rudely I might add, that “Even if Dessalines read theory, he didn’t understand much of it.” Don’t do the glib, spineless, two-faced “I didn’t make any claims yet”.
Prove it pot, say it with your chest.
Lmao I read that whole entire comment, and it wasn’t easy, and it’s all frantic backpedaling.
For the record I think the study you’re citing makes a methodological mistake by applying an issues based measurement framework in a representative democracy, but I have no intention of elaborating because you’re not arguing in good faith and you’re just going to waste everyone’s time.
Anyway next time post the version of the study that actually passed peer review and got published, not a draft.
Kettle
I don’t necessarily disagree. It’s definitely not a holistic view, but I haven’t found much else that even asks that question much less has any real methodology behind it. Have you?
What would be the correct methodology in your opinion?
You’re not communicating anything other than the vaguest of concern trolling. You clearly have thoughts and opinions, this is a place to share those.
You can’t both be upset when you are misunderstand and refuse to communicate.
Quit backpedaling and say it with your chest.
You do know how to use sci-hub right? You have the title, or if you’re morally opposed to that option a quick Google and you can pay $30 here for it.
However, before you gish-gallop into concern trolling the source I linked why don’t you provide one, or multiple, of your own that supports the concerns you have surrounding “nuance”.