3 ms·

You wrote that people would have to choose between having no police and firemen, and having low housing prices. You did not say "fewer" police and fireman. You

You wrote that people would have to choose between having no police and firemen, and having low housing prices. You did not say "fewer" police and fireman. You said there would be none. It's clearly a ridiculous thing to say, and no matter how high housing prices get, it's very unlikely to become true. I'm not sure why you would try to defend such a silly and extreme statement. The existence of a single police officer disproves it. You also said that lack of police and firemen would cause downward pressure on housing prices. That's also untrue. If you think that has happened, it is your job to provide evidence for it, not my job to provide evidence to refute it. You can nitpick all you want about whether the numbers indicate a sufficient amount of police or not. That's moving the goalposts. You said there would be none, and that is untrue. You have no evidence that this has affected housing prices. So I can indeed just say "you're wrong," because the burden of proof is on you, and you haven't met it.

DannyBee 10y ago
"You wrote that people would have to choose between having no police and firemen, and having low housing prices. " That was write after writing "This is the same as the cities having trouble attracting police/firemen/etc because they can't pay enough." So, first, yes, i did essentially write about "fewer", and you are just ignoring that part. I also can't possibly see how one would assume i was being literal in the sentence you quoted in light of that (reading your other comments on hacker news, you don't seem to do that elsewhere) Since that doesn't make a lot of sense, i'm just going to assume you simply have no evidence, and instead of saying "you know what, you might be right, maybe i should reevaluate", you've chosen to just instead be super pedantic. That's kind of sad. I was hoping you actually had any data to back up your counter-argument, because i'd really like to see the other side of this.
- twblalock 10y ago
  You wrote "no police/firemen," not "fewer." It's not "super pedantic" to use the plain, obvious meaning of words. Furthermore, it's not reasonable to expect people to read what you "essentially" wrote. People read what you actually wrote.

DannyBee 10y ago

"You wrote that people would have to choose between having no police and firemen, and having low housing prices. " That was write after writing "This is the same as the cities having trouble attracting police/firemen/etc because they can't pay enough." So, first, yes, i did essentially write about "fewer", and you are just ignoring that part. I also can't possibly see how one would assume i was being literal in the sentence you quoted in light of that (reading your other comments on hacker news, you don't seem to do that elsewhere) Since that doesn't make a lot of sense, i'm just going to assume you simply have no evidence, and instead of saying "you know what, you might be right, maybe i should reevaluate", you've chosen to just instead be super pedantic. That's kind of sad. I was hoping you actually had any data to back up your counter-argument, because i'd really like to see the other side of this.

twblalock 10y ago
You wrote "no police/firemen," not "fewer." It's not "super pedantic" to use the plain, obvious meaning of words. Furthermore, it's not reasonable to expect people to read what you "essentially" wrote. People read what you actually wrote.