2 ms·

Pretty much this Also, the articles tries to pull the "there's no majority opinion" which is a sneaky trick and it's false. Because no, you can't consider the

Pretty much this Also, the articles tries to pull the "there's no majority opinion" which is a sneaky trick and it's false. Because no, you can't consider the set as indivisible and one set of opinions different from the other, when they only differ by something like "if a tank should be considered". This is a similar problem to the air force finding out there's no standard human And I'd say that, as much as lawyers like to play gotcha with the laws, I think you'd find the average lawyer is more realistic and practical than the "actually" takes here on this park problem

ronald_raygun 3y ago
What are you talking about? If you have the set {A, B, C} and {A, B, not C}, those are two different sets. And the difference is going to matter precisely when C or not C comes into effect. Like imagine two parks - you have Central Park in nyc that is full of statues, sculptures, etc. And you have a National Park that is essentially a pristine nature reserve with some back roads in it. The majority opinion of "if a tank should be considered" is going to change drastically between those two parks