Originally Posted By: sinij
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?


This post seriously brought a smile to my face, and yes I mean that literally. The irony that you have allowed your inability to process and properly respond to simple logic has led you to degenerate to behaving in the same manner you took so much issue with in regards to Vuldan is not lost, at least on me. Not my intended outcome, but amusing nonetheless.

Now to pick apart what apparently passes for reasoning among leftists.

" Ignores that a) other people can help and impede " - As I pointed out earlier, I do not ignore that aspect in the slightest. It is you who by nature of the absolutism of your poorly worded argument that is trying to set a definition where outside interference is guaranteed. Again, you are confusing the way things "typically are" for "the absolute meaning of the words as used". Its really a black and white concept.

"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? " - Who ever said anything or even implied that hiding 7 billion people was practical or had anything to do with anything? It is however possible for one person to hide, and there is a ton of open space. Or perhaps the example could be set in prehistoric times, or even far in the future. The debate over the meaning of the terminology is a debate about the concepts at hand.

Remember, the debate was over the strict meaning of the wording you used - not any type of argument that hiding all 7 billion people would be practical. I will leave silly assertions of that nature to leftists.

"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"." - no it gets back to the root concepts. If you allow a logical fallacy of that nature to stand, then presumption of the correctness of that fallacy can in turn be used to create an illogical case.

The concept of whether or not multiple people are, in the "strictest sense" required for wealth creation has powerful implications if extrapolated into a plausible scenario. As such, it is important to make sure someone misusing the terminology to misrepresent the concept is called out on it. Though in this particular case I may have just been over thinking it.

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