It would be more helpful if you expanded on why it's a bad argument. Off the top of my head:
> They don't want it, as evidenced by their not voting for it, so they won't get it
Was there a vote on it? When exactly?
Here's a book about how election results can change people's opinions on topics. It applies here because X. I used to think Y, but it changed my thinking to Z. I'd highly recommend it.
Not that GP is any better, but hey... And to be fair, the guy is practically trolling, whether intentional or not.
> Please avoid calling arguments emotional / irrational just because you disagree.
I wasn't.
> people are forced into bad situations by contingencies that aren't facts of nature but human policy choices.
What human policy choices are forcing ride-sharing companies to provide jobs to people that HN commenters think are substandard but 100% of people do willfully?
Direction of society: If you are a small player like me, you have no control on it. The best that can do is what you can do for yourself along with similar minded people. For those that are disillusioned with people in general follow the link on my profile. ( summary: if you are a misanthrope, actively from alliances with 'level-headed' people, whatever your definition of 'level-headed' may be)
> To the people downvoting me here: can you list some figures who have been protesting authoritarianism who are left-coded in contemporary American society?
Well, I don’t entirely have an explanation, just an observation. Coming up with an explanation any deeper than “random chance arrangement of related issues” would require speculating about other people’s intent, something I consider to be a complete waste of time as intent is fundamentally unknowable. The outcome is what matters, not the intent, so I’m fine with not knowing.
What I mean to say is that these types of discussions rarely achieve anything because we’re picking away at a single issue (in this case water shortage) which is conceptually interlocked with several other issues such that no progress can be made on any one component.
It’s a pattern that repeats all over the place once you know to look for it, but let’s stick with the example from this sub-thread: there is a water shortage, in part because of inefficient land use for crops, because that land doesn’t have the transportation or other infrastructure to be economically viable as anything else, because building infrastructure is very expensive or even legislatively impossible, because Environment™, because there is a water shortage (among many other things).
They’re interlocked such that none of them would be an issue if they weren’t all an issue. It’s a Hermetic Seal in the classical sense (not as in “air-tight”[0]). Does that make any sense? Not asking you to agree with me, just that you’re right that it is difficult to explain :)
> Conservative views typically wind up grayed, even when they are substantive arguments.
Not sure about that, could you find one such comment? Many people would upvote any greyed comment that comes with substantive arguments, regardless of their political view.
> Damn dude, it's just a funny anecdote, no one is claiming it's a national security threat or anything like that.
Sibling to parent comment:
> Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. [followed by long analysis on how other constitutions feel they need to solve this very serious issue]
King Solomon, is that you[1]?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon
reply