Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Derid
You cannot prove that society must be present, because you cannot prove that other people will even necessarily be around.


Good luck living on an island, creating wealth and not paying for any social programs, Mr. Derid Crusoe.

Quote:
1) That other people are inherently needed. This is patently false, and self-evident.

2) That other people are even present. Unless you can prove that a guy hidden away in the mountains cannot create wealth for himself, your argument falls apart.


I have about 7 billion reasons why this line of thinking is laughable.


Heheh getting snippy I see wink


You should have just taken my tip and argued from the position of "society having enabled higher degrees of wealth" as opposed to arguing semantics from an incorrect position. I never even wanted to get into the semantics debate, I just wanted to clarify the vernacular and force you to use more precision with your wording. Was hoping you would be precise and produce a logically consistent argument that would be interesting to pick apart.

It appears to have backfired though, since you seem to want to obsess over it and refuse to see the difference between "usually is" and "has to be".

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)