I find it hard to believe that you could really think the most likely explanation of the flaws you perceive are that Aaronson and the students that implemented this purposely introduced flaws and are trying to sabotage the work. So why do you utter such nonsense?
And did it not occur to you that disagreeing that children should have the vote could be resolved by being neutral on everybody having the vote, which is what I did after realizing that there are plausible interpretations under which I would disagree and plausible interpretations under which I would agree.
Whether you consider this as sabotage or not depends on what you think the goal of the site’s authors was. It certainly wasn’t to help find inconsistencies
in people’s thinking, given the obvious effort that went into constructing questions that had multiple conflicting interpretations.
there are plausible interpretations under which I would disagree and plausible interpretations under which I would agree.
Mostly agree is a higher degree of agreement than Agree ?
To Somewhat agree that everyone should have the vote and Disagree that children should have the vote is inconsistent ?
Obviously this is the work of the Skrull “Scott Aaronson”, whose thinking is not so clear.
Also, almost every question is so broken as to make answering it completely futile. So much so that it’s hard to believe it was an accident.
I find it hard to believe that you could really think the most likely explanation of the flaws you perceive are that Aaronson and the students that implemented this purposely introduced flaws and are trying to sabotage the work. So why do you utter such nonsense?
And did it not occur to you that disagreeing that children should have the vote could be resolved by being neutral on everybody having the vote, which is what I did after realizing that there are plausible interpretations under which I would disagree and plausible interpretations under which I would agree.
Whether you consider this as sabotage or not depends on what you think the goal of the site’s authors was. It certainly wasn’t to help find inconsistencies in people’s thinking, given the obvious effort that went into constructing questions that had multiple conflicting interpretations.
Quite.