That would take a lot of work, and would be problematic even if I put in the time, since with any given implementation, we could point out other factors. Besides, we'd be working with a very long time scale. How long, for example, has NY had policies favoring dense building and mass transit? But, what we can do is compare liberal areas, as a group, to conservative areas, as a group, and see what the outcomes look like. If one set of areas is having desirable results, on average, and the other is having undesirable results, we'd be wiser to experiment with the solutions favored by the group experiencing success.
Hi -- New here.
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
So you were just bloviating, as I thought.
The link.
No, anecdotal illustration of the concept. Odd that you wouldn't get the difference. Oh well, keep trying.
The data can be found just by following the link.
What link, sock?
Irrelevant, and unverifiable. Yet you keep trying.
Cite this data, sock.
Earlier in the thread. I'd go back and find it for you, but since this is happening repeatedly, I now suspect you're just trolling (like when you claimed I hadn't answered the post about how I'm posting here during a week day, and then when I said I had, you required me to go find the post for you). I gave you the post number for that one, but at this point it's looking like you're being disingenuous or just lazy, so I'm not going to continue doing your work for you.
You won't go back and find it because it doesn't say what you claim it says, sock?
Is there a specific fact you're disputing. If you could identify which it is, I'll be happy to help you out with a source to support it. However, I'm not going to take the time to footnote every common-knowledge claim I build into an argument.
Then go back and actually read the post to which you were replying. I was quite clear about the fact I was speaking in terms of spending levels relative to contemporary countries. If you make a habit of reading before replying, we can skip the steps where you ask me about something I already covered and then I redirect you to the post where I covered it.
Yes. Why, don't you?
What are these alleged "morals" you claim to possess, sock?
Not that I know of, but if people genuinely suspect me of being a sock puppet (rather than just throwing that out there in hopes of derailing the substantive discussion), there would need to be some reason for that. If my posting were very similar to some other poster, that would be a reason.
There is a reason for it, sock. It's not what you tried to pretend it is, as far as anyone has stated, is it?
The one we're talking about.
Since it's an illustration, not evidence, it doesn't matter that it's unverifiable. You needn't believe that's my commute -- it can simply be a hypothetical commute. The point is merely to get people thinking about how time isn't the only factor deciding how a commute impacts quality of life.
I did. Reread.
No. I explained why. Reread.
There are a great many of them, but the overarching theme is summed up easily enough in Kantian form as trying to act according to the maxims you would want people generally to follow. So, for example, if I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone just dumps their garbage wherever they want, I shouldn't litter. It's basically just a somewhat more sophisticated formulation of the Golden Rule.
How about you? What morals do you possess?
Post it. Do it now, sock.
So much illogicality.
I don't see it, sock. Re-post, and cite the relevant text.
You are, sock. Is that why you can't get another project?
evince
Truthmatters
is there some point in time you will actually add to a discussion
or should I just say Ping