Quote:
triqui said:
Quote:
K said:
I don't have to prove that a majority support my position. The mere fact that there is no proof that a majority do support you is enough to defeat your proposition. The result of no explicit rules to the contrary is to support using the baseline rules, either explicitly or implicitly.
|
But he is way closer to find a majority than you are. He is basing his argument on the fact that 7/37 already agree with him, while a whole total of 0/37 agree with you. You act like if "I have not been defeated *yet*" is a proof that "I am winning", which is not. That's like a Goverment that faces a 10 million people demonstration in it's 40 million country against a law and defending that it's not a proof of the law unpopularity becouse "30 millions did not demonstrate". Then they are bassically assuming that those who did not demonstrate are not only not disliking the law, but they like it, which is a huge quantum leap in logic.
Bassically it's the same we have here. 7/37 are upset enough with the law as to demonstrate. And you claim that the 30/37 which arent upset as to demonstrate, actually like the law.
|
The argument was "everyone in MP plays by this houserule." That was one of the arguments that people were trying to use to support their position that it is a fair rule and everyone should play by it.
I don't have to prove that people agree with me. I just have to show with the evidence that this argument was flawed, which the data clearly shows.