I said we want a trusty person because there's a big chance of us getting no L, which a scum can take safety in.
You say that means I can't want a trusty person for a different reason: that there's a big chance of us getting L, which a trusty person would put through.
I want both.
Well I wanted both. But y'alls's horrible, horrible plan worked and now we're ruined.
If you're saying "X because of Y" you're implying Y causes X. If not(Y) causes X too then why mention it?
To distinguish it from Q causes L?
hm... I asserted that we don't want an F in power (X) because they can use the large chance of no L to do bad things without consequence(Y)
you assert that because I say I want "X because of Y", then I'm implying Y causes X. (a large chance of no L to do bad things without consequence causes I don't want an F in power)
I asserted that we want an L in power (X). because a large chance of L would be useful to an L government (notY).
I mentioned Y because it was a good point.
It seems you're arguing that because Y causes X
, then everything other than Y must cause notX
How's this for an example?
The governor of the island says "If we continue throwing things into the sea (Y), current wave conditions will mean that stuff that we throw will get all broken up and we want a clean sea(X)."
The people say "I don't get it, tell us again why we want sea that's nice and clean?" three or four times.
The governor, whose name is Joe and who is exceptionally good at governance, says "Look, if we don't throw things into the sea (notY), then our current wave conditions will help us power sea cleaning-filters, and we want a clean sea(X)"
The people say "The first time you explained it I didn't understand but now I agree with you"
The governor says "wait, have you been throwing stuff into the sea this whole time?