4 ms·
"You agreed with the majority: 100%" Which proves it's not actually impossible, the majority opinion is actually sensible, and this take is incorrect. Case clo
by codeflo 3y ago
"You agreed with the majority: 100%"
Which proves it's not actually impossible, the majority opinion is actually sensible, and this take is incorrect. Case closed.
- radlad 3y agoThe fact that you agreed with the majority answer to each of the individual questions, 100% of the time, does not mean that there is widespread agreement on the rules, which is part of what this article gets at.
- codeflo 3y agoBut there is widespread agreement. Looking at the graphs, the only questions where opinions are in the 40%-60% range are the bike and the tank memorial. Neither of those two is even in the 45%-55% range, and on everything else, there's an even clearer majority. So even this intentionally and unrealistically vague rule would work in practice. This proves the opposite point of what's claimed here.
- radlad 3y agoI don't think the rule was intentionally or unrealistically vague at all - to the contrary, it was extremely straightforward, and the directions ask you to ignore any preconceived notions, such as laws in your jurisdiction. What's clear to me from the graph - and the author of this article - is that it's unlikely for any one person to agree with any other one person on how the rule should be enforced - in at least one (or likely many) circumstances, you will probably disagree.
- codeflo 3y agoYou think that any rule in any realistic scenario would be just a single sentence containing an ambiguous word without any known surrounding context, clarifications, examples, or rationale? I've never seen such a thing. This scenario is completely contrived, and still, it kind of worked.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]