Aug 9, 2017 · 1 min read
Are you really that invested in the quality of your original article that you can’t even think seriously about constructive criticism?
- OK, only great wars. So, picking just a few examples, when the Mongol hoards swept across Asia and Europe was that a great war? Was that somehow because of stagnation? Care to elaborate? When Alexander the Great conquered practically the whole known (at the time) world, was that a great war? Was it somehow because of stagnation? When the Romans expanded from a city state in southern Europe to a huge Empire, mostly by means of war, was that because of stagnation? Or perhaps none of their wars counted as “great” wars. Not even, say, the one against the rival Carthaginian Empire? Come on, I’m not even remotely a historian and I don’t think your thesis holds water.
- Whatever you think of the current state of repair of public infrastructure in the US, on its own or compared to that of other nations, your original article asserted “America’s karma is sealed, precisely because it never built such public goods…”. This is blatantly false; why would you try to stand behind it?
The only thing more disappointing than the quality of the original article is the quality of your reply to its criticism. You are a better writer than this. Stop trying to defend it. Fix it or toss it and get back to writing the meaningful, relevant stuff that is your usual fare.
