3 ms·

The "don't need" part is a fictitious part you inserted into the argument and not a claim I made. Injury "can be" prevented by seatbelts, that is a valid claim

The "don't need" part is a fictitious part you inserted into the argument and not a claim I made. Injury "can be" prevented by seatbelts, that is a valid claim.

nkrisc 1y ago
I don't know what else you could have meant when you answered the question "Why not both" with "one can be prevented by the other". The implied meaning is: "Not both because one can be prevented by the other".
- gosub100 1y ago
  [flagged]