4 ms·
Yeah when you frame it that way, it's one thing. However, what if two people agree to buy the car given all the available information. Then, one person changes
by defertoreptar 7y ago
Yeah when you frame it that way, it's one thing. However, what if two people agree to buy the car given all the available information. Then, one person changes their mind and the other doesn't? Person A keeps saying, "well, let's decide later" and keeps kicking the can down the road. Is that fair to person B, who originally had an agreement and never not wanted the car?
- mumblemumble 7y agoBut here you're taking the analogy to making a financial decision within a domestic partnership and stretching it well past the breaking point. Let's keep people A and B, but also add people C through CZZZZZ. And now we no longer need to frame it as an intractable argument between two people; we can recast it as an opportunity to re-survey all these people's opinion in order to see how everyone's opinion has changed in light of the new information that's been presented.
- jaredklewis 7y agoNot sure what relevance your metaphor has on Brexit since the voting public did not have "all the available information." Because no one could have possibly known what the terms of Brexit would be, because they would have to be negotiated. Which was the problem with the referendum. As in the example comment above it was like asking "Do you want lower taxes?" Well that kind of depends on a lot of stuff. Are the lower taxes coming from budget cuts (if so, from what), debt increase, or what?
- defertoreptar 7y ago> since the voting public did not have "all the available information." What information then was available but the public didn't know? > Because no one could have possibly known what the terms of Brexit would be, because they would have to be negotiated. So then it's fair to say that information was not available.