• blazera
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    Your wording had it like qualifying as being the same has nothing to do with agreeing on legislation. This is one piece of legislation, but so is every piece of legislation we discuss one at a time. Its still a piece of supporting evidence.

    • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -11 year ago

      Your wording had it like qualifying as being the same has nothing to do with agreeing on legislation.

      Not my intent, but happy to clear it up.

      Its still a piece of supporting evidence.

      I stand corrected. It’s just terrible evidence that doesn’t even remotely come close to proving the point.

        • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -11 year ago

          Because it’s so easily shown to be drastically incomplete.

          It’s like we have two polygons. You say “We have good evidence that they are the same shape because they are both polygons!” Well, sure, that’s one tiny piece of the question. But we have to ask how many sides they have, what the angles are between the sides, how long the sides are in length, etc… It’s terrible to claim you have good evidence they are the same because they are both polygons.

          • blazera
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            again, we’re only talking about one piece of legislation to begin with. Come back by when something like votes are cast for congress owning stock.

            • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 year ago

              No one here is claiming they don’t have anything in common. Having another thing in common would not change anything. But I’m definitely interested in seeing what happens. Although I suspect if it passes, it will pass with bipartisan support, with people from both sides also voting against it.