3 ms·
You didn't argue for why the chain analogy applies here. You just argued that we should reject the entire agreement if one part is so egregiously bad that it o
by ryporter 11y ago
You didn't argue for why the chain analogy applies here. You just argued that we should reject the entire agreement if one part is so egregiously bad that it outweighs the others, which is obviously true. Why does the "weakest link" analogy apply to the actual TPP, which, as far I know, does not call for the murder of any children at all.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 11y agoThe agreement is supposed to be a chain. The things in it are supposed to be related in some way, otherwise why are they together? Dumping many completely unrelated things into the same agreement so that things that should not pass have to be passed in order to do things people want is the thing so egregiously bad that it outweighs everything else. It's a chain with a link so weak it doesn't even exist. Otherwise you could take an agreement which is net +1000, add absolute garbage to it until it's net +0.5 and then argue that we should still pass it because the net result is still positive. Which, compared to the alternative of throwing away the net +0.5 agreement and insisting on the net +1000 agreement, is net -999.5.
- mortehu 11y agoA chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The strength of all other links is irrelevant. A better measure for a deal like this is the geometric mean of its components. If one component is zero, the entire deal is worth zero, but otherwise each component contributes to the aggregate value of the deal.