(01-29-2020 02:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 02:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 02:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 01:55 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  The openly-stated political goal of people actively campaigning for change is abolishment of the electoral college, not modification. When that's the ultimate goal, steps in that direction are concerning.

I must have missed the post where we were talking about these people.

This all started with posts that referenced the pros and cons of the EC, not what the political goal of people campaigning to abolish the EC is. I mean, I don't even want to get rid of the EC. I just found the incessant need by some to avoid admitting that there are cons to the current EC.

There are pros and cons to oxygen being present in the atmosphere. I don't give the cons equal weight.

A discussion starts about oxygen and whether or not we should store cylinders of it in a hospital for use.

Person A says that we often need to use it for patients, so we should have it on hand. Person B says, you're right, but it is also flammable so we may want to consider storing it off site. Person A then says it doesn't matter if oxygen is flammable because it will eventually be used to serve patients, and that is the most important issue to consider.

Not following. Without oxygen, the disadvantages of it in the atmosphere would be moot, was my analogy.

Also, oxygen isn't flammable

Ha, good point about oxygen not actually being flammable itself, but I assume you got my point which is that it is integral in fire starting (acting as the oxidant).

If that example didn't illustrate my point about posters being unwilling to acknowledge pros and cons, I don't think another one will.