(1) > stating “they are not deemed sufficient”, which lacks evidence, is a slightly odd way of reasoning imo.
(2) > The folks that are satisfied with the current mechanisms, or that don’t have an issue with globals at all, do not start those discussions. Only the ones that are not satisfied do.
So you admit, in (2), that there are some people who are "not satisfied". Yet in (1) you insisted there was no evidence of "not deemed sufficient". I honestly cannot connect these two statements of yours.
> Now concluding that because you start a discussion, that it “evidently”
means others peoples problems haven’t been solved, and that the “general audience” still has an issue, is a rather big claim.
I did not make such conclusions, so I am not sure what you are arguing with.
It is evident that (A) "some people are satisfied" and (B) "some people are not satisfied". I proposed something that would be suitable for both camps, not requiring camp (A) to do anything at all.
Now I get responses from camp (A) that "this is unnecessary", because, drum roll,, they are camp (A).
> This argument equals your statement of “not deemed sufficient”. By what measure “sufficient"?
Per (1) and (2), you contradict yourself when talking about
“not deemed sufficient”. I am afraid you will need to clarify your position here.
> And I didn’t even respond to your proposal, only to your reasoning.
Ah, great. Arguing for the same of arguing, in the middle of somebody else's discussion.
Cheers,
V.
