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 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.
Show me that claim. I don’t know why I suffer through this idoicy.