So I’m making the likely controversial case that this argument is the result of post-hoc reasoning that would not convince us in the alternative timeline I also tried to make alievable, not only believable, with my language.
There’s very probably extensive research on the subject, so wild speculation about historical political trajectories isn’t necessary. Have you read any?
There’s very probably extensive research on the subject, so wild speculation about historical political trajectories isn’t necessary. Have you read any?