> If those workers stay home their income may be hurt for a while, but in contrast to 1918 we have a social security system. Depends where you are.
Citation needed?
I was going to say the same thing. If being in nature makes some people happy, that's great, but it's not a universal truth.
> That's a lovely idea, but said requirement isn't in our election laws, and it's quite clear that plenty of voters lack even basic critical thinking skills. I mean, sounds to me like you're both saying roughly the same…
I think you're blowing grovegames' original post out of proportion — he asked some pretty reasonable questions.
Which demographic would have been unable to put food on the table under Hillary but not under Trump? Not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious.
Sure, one can think of clever ways to "break" the question, but it undermines the asker's intent. The trolley problem is really only interesting if you play by a set of rigid rules (which, to be fair, are generally not…
> If those workers stay home their income may be hurt for a while, but in contrast to 1918 we have a social security system. Depends where you are.
Citation needed?
I was going to say the same thing. If being in nature makes some people happy, that's great, but it's not a universal truth.
> That's a lovely idea, but said requirement isn't in our election laws, and it's quite clear that plenty of voters lack even basic critical thinking skills. I mean, sounds to me like you're both saying roughly the same…
I think you're blowing grovegames' original post out of proportion — he asked some pretty reasonable questions.
Which demographic would have been unable to put food on the table under Hillary but not under Trump? Not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious.
Sure, one can think of clever ways to "break" the question, but it undermines the asker's intent. The trolley problem is really only interesting if you play by a set of rigid rules (which, to be fair, are generally not…