|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm in no hurry. Read/reply if/when you have the time, but if all you read is the final paragraph, then that's fine.
Summary:
If your point is based on swiss cheese, then me pointing out the holes is perfectly relevant to your big picture.
If you can't explain why the holes in your foundation are not holes, then nothing resting on that foundation is shown to be robust.
Ok well let me summarize too: The argument is that Jarvanka shouldn't be involved in government because a) they're not qualified; and b) there's conflicts of interest.
Whether you find nepotism in and of itself problematic doesn't change a) or b) above; in fact it's the least important part of the whole argument.
Edit: please answer me before banana does so I can have an intelligent conversation about it.
|
Reply With Quote