He isn't right; owning something successful doesn't prove you caused the success (and I never said it did), but it is a strong indicator you caused the success, and more importantly past successes are leading indicators (not absolute assurance, however) of future performance.

Acting like I claimed some "proof" or "absolute certainty" around this topic is disingenuous and manipulative, which is why I stopped engaging with him, and honestly am suspicious of you as well.

Telling me that I believe something I do not is not a good way to interact with others, and it's not likely to breed positive discourse.

This topic is a lot fuzzier than the language being used by you and the other commenter, and it's not possible to have a civil conversation with people who don't get that.

The issue is that we have a spiral - past successes may only be a predictor of future performance because of the privileges we endow to successful people.

No one is asking for absolute certainty, people are asking for a solid argument, so far they seem very soft. If using specific language causes an argument to be impossible then the argument itself is weak - I assure you that fuzzier topics can be discussed with more specific language, it just has to be thought out carefully.

An argument isn't weak because it relies on specific language, it's specific. If we can't agree on what the word "merit" means (or indeed "weakness"), it's useless to continue to discuss what is and isn't meritorious (or weak).

That is what has happened here, along with a fairly significant number of willful misrepresentations, to the point of assumed malice, of what I've written.

I was willing to leave it where it was since you said "cheers", but this comment is a direct about-face from what you said earlier. Now apparently I'm not having a civil conversation? I didn't attack you or your character personally at all. I engaged with your comment fully and addressed your points. I haven't used any inappropriate language. So I take issue with your characterization of my engagement here.

> This topic is a lot fuzzier than the language being used by you and the other commenter

You started this whole discussion with unsupported, absolutist assertions as to the model for the economy you would prefer (in this whole discussion you haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that democracy is a terrible way to run an economy). This is the tone you set initially. The topic became "fuzzy" when you were pressed and your bold assertions turned into "beliefs".

I reply only to say you're not accurately portraying our conversation (or even what I said in the prior comment), and it's a little sad you think you can lie here now, when what you and I wrote is directly above.