I don't have to argue point you suggested, while it would present more interesting debate I detest conceding semantic fight, especially one where assertions are so illogical.

You argument that:

a) other people are not needed
b) other people might not be around

Ignores that a) other people can help and impede , and you don't get to pick and choose and
b) we live in a world where overpopulation is a problem, where anyone, least all 7 billion of us, will find such place to hide and create wealth?

I can't see how you can be intellectually honest and not concede this point.

Quote:
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".


This is not how I read your responses. Way I read it - "Lets take this idea to illogical and impossible extreme, see it doesn't work there, so whole concept is flawed".

P.S. How would you engage in political debates over internet if you are stuck on deserted island by yourself? Perhaps this entire debate is product of your approaching insanity? or maybe that coconut milk went bad and you should have thrown it away instead of drinking it?

Last edited by sinij; 11/17/11 08:42 PM.
[Linked Image]