[EM] Mike: malfunctioning criteria?

[James Green-Armytage]

James replying to Mike...

>I defined my PMC as I did so that it would match 
>the intent of MC, 
>and so that it wouldn't have the ridiculous malfunction 
>that FHC has.
...
>Your FHC loses meaningfulness when it 
>says that Plurality has an advantage over Approval when, in regards to
>what 
>makes Pluralitly pass FHC, Plurality has no meaningful advantage over 
>Approval.. Your FHC malfunctions seriously in that way.

	In other words, you reject my more straightforward definition of MC
because approval fails it while plurality passes it.
	I think that it's intellectually dishonest to bend and stretch basic
criteria definitions so that your favorite methods pass them, unless you
are very clear that this is what you are doing. 
	You were fairly clear about this in the beginning, but perhaps you bought
into your own trick, as you now seem to treat your "PMC" as if it were
perfectly natural MC definition, and absurdly refer to my more
straightforward MC definition as the "freedom haters criterion". 


>I defined my PMC as I did so that it would match 
>the intent of MC, 

	How do you determine the intent of MC?

James:
>
>Notice that MC is nothing more than a special case of MMC, where set S
>contains only one member.
Mike:
>No. It isn't. Your version, FHC, is. My version, PMC, is not.

	Oh. I thought that there was an EM list consensus on MC being the case of
MMC where the majority set has one member. Apparently I was wrong. If you
don't agree that MC and MMC are related in this way, then that's where we
differ. 
	Resolved: I think that your universally applicable MC definition is
bizarre and intellectually dishonest. You think that my universally
applicable MC criterion is a "freedom haters criterion". 
	Probably there is no need to continue this discussion much longer.
>
Sincerely,
James