a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment

I'm struggling to understand your point of view.

Surely the ground on which to weigh the 'value' of an idea is the argument you use to back it up? You seem to be claiming that one idea is inherently more valuable than another idea, without even taking the 'framework' into account. It just seems like saying "you are wrong because I said so" rather than saying "you are wrong because of x,y,z" and building an argument from there.

Note: I've just gotten back from taking time off of Hubski, and it seems that some more drama occurred which I wasn't aware of. Maybe in that context this statement would make more sense. In any case, I'm just addressing your statement as I see it.