Because implying that someone who needs a justification for "One person, one vote" is below you is not dickish at all. I saw my post as doing you a favor: giving you my return argument so that you could write up a proper rebuttal ahead of time.
But hey. You can poison the well all you like. The burden of proof is not on me.
Your curt replies would hardly give mikeash sufficient context to understand either your intentions or what your return argument was going to be. I presume he thought you were simply going to twist his words ("one person, one vote" -> "mob rule") and was irked.
Your reply to ktizo was much more informative and appreciable.
> I presume he thought you were simply going to twist his words ("one person, one vote" -> "mob rule")
No, that's what I did. "Mob rule" is a proxy for the entire notion that direct democracy cannot work; the only other responses are that people don't want it or people can't do it. It's a blatantly obvious response from anyone who did not already buy into whatever mikeash is selling. The fact that he was framing his next response to be a sophisticated, high-fallutin, knock-your-socks-off thesis of epic proportions was disgusting and offensive. I'm not surprised that a taste of his own medicine cornered him into name-calling and running away.
> Your reply to ktizo was much more informative and appreciable.
Because ktizo was asking for information. If someone asks a question, I answer it earnestly. If someone is clearly ignorant, I try to explain what they're missing. If someone claims to have a solution to a well-known problem like "ZOMG!SHEEPLE", I expect them to actually have the damn solution ready at hand and not dangle it like a fucking carrot.
He could have called me on my tone and then answered the question. But I suspect he has no answer. All he has is an intuitive appeal to fairness completely unsupported by thousands of years of world history.
> Because implying that someone who needs a justification for "One person, one vote" is below you is not dickish at all.
I don't know what the hell you think you read, but you need to go back and try again. I never implied anything of the sort. I didn't know what level of justification you were after, so I started off with the most obvious rationale and left the door open to further discussion.
I have no idea how you could interpret that as "implying that someone... is below you". Maybe jerks think everyone is jerks, I don't know.
But hey. You can poison the well all you like. The burden of proof is not on me.