|
|
|
|
|
|
by eqvinox
22 days ago
|
|
|
What I said was "It makes much more sense to argue there is no consensus […] can be argued even in a "60:40" situation regardless of direction". Not "there's a 60/40 split, therefore there's no consensus". Can be argued even in. That's a statement of allowance, not sufficiency. And I was speaking in the context of contrasting against a vote. You can't argue with a vote's tally. |
|
|