5 ms·

There was no argument being made here. Just some frivolous claim that since Google is a big scary ambitious company and unelected we should be worried. No. Back

There was no argument being made here. Just some frivolous claim that since Google is a big scary ambitious company and unelected we should be worried. No. Back up your absurd claim with evidence. 1) Who's to say that "elected" is the best approach for humanity's benefit? Has a double blind study ever been done? Some dictatorships have flourished while most have floundered. 2) An elected government is working in partnership with with a company (Google) to develop a part of it's jurisdiction. Is the author proposing the government should do it all it's self? Canadian city governments aren't in the business of developing anything. They contract or provide permits. How is this different than the city giving any other developer a permit to build?

mfoy_ 9y ago
You're "rebuttal" is equally, if not more so, absurd than any claim made in the article. You're calling democracy into question as your first argument for letting Google do this? REALLY? Then you ask for research, as evidence, that would be impossible to do? I agree if the city wants to let Google do this then so be it, but your response to the article was even more pointless than you claim the article to be.
- rafiki6 9y ago
  My "rebuttal" isn't a "rebuttal". It's taking the serious lack of objectivity in the article to task. Yes, I am calling democracy into question. Especially representative democracy which is the only real democracy that currently exists. The US has Donald Trump for a president. If that isn't a refutation of the hypothesis of democracy I'm not sure what is. In order for social and political sciences to carry weight they should be held to the same standard as all sciences. Therefore they should follow the scientific method:http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html I've included the link so there's no confusion as to what the scientific method actually entails. Democracy is an unproven hypothesis that we are using to govern society and has shown time and time again that it can be poorly executed and have dire consequences. For example, Hitler was democratically elected. Your response to my response was by far the most pointless activity. You achieved nothing but showing that you lack a certain awareness and might have a reading comprehension issue. Thanks.

mfoy_ 9y ago

You're "rebuttal" is equally, if not more so, absurd than any claim made in the article. You're calling democracy into question as your first argument for letting Google do this? REALLY? Then you ask for research, as evidence, that would be impossible to do? I agree if the city wants to let Google do this then so be it, but your response to the article was even more pointless than you claim the article to be.

rafiki6 9y ago
My "rebuttal" isn't a "rebuttal". It's taking the serious lack of objectivity in the article to task. Yes, I am calling democracy into question. Especially representative democracy which is the only real democracy that currently exists. The US has Donald Trump for a president. If that isn't a refutation of the hypothesis of democracy I'm not sure what is. In order for social and political sciences to carry weight they should be held to the same standard as all sciences. Therefore they should follow the scientific method:http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html I've included the link so there's no confusion as to what the scientific method actually entails. Democracy is an unproven hypothesis that we are using to govern society and has shown time and time again that it can be poorly executed and have dire consequences. For example, Hitler was democratically elected. Your response to my response was by far the most pointless activity. You achieved nothing but showing that you lack a certain awareness and might have a reading comprehension issue. Thanks.