Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There IS only one way in that point. What part of it are you not getting?
Well I'm not sure what you're saying in that bolded portion there, but I'll simply reiterate that only caring about profits and not caring about costs are mutually exclusive positions. Either you only care about profits, and will do whatever is necessary to eliminate costs (Your consumers dying), or you don't care about profits and are willing to let your costs mount up.
You're inserting your own strawman here. I never said they "didn't care about costs". I said they didn't care that those costs involved public health. If you have to reinvent your adversary's argument to counter it, you're not making an argument.
Yes, and very nice poetry they are. Unfortunately that's all they are. They don't mean anything specific. And you're partly right that corporations exist at the pleasure of the people, meaning the people that they serve and who pay them for that service.
No -- meaning they have a public charter giving them the right to exist in the first place. We give them that; they don't just pluck it out of thin air. And that means they're going to play by our rules, not by anarchy.
Again, the challenge is open... invent a world where dangerous food additives and bogus drugs curb themselves off the market without intervention. Oh wait, we tried that, and we had snake oil and toxic foods, and that begat the FDA.
So come up with a way to do it and then we can get rid of it. But until that happens, ain't gonna happen. We the People won't stand for it.
No, they have their justly acquired property giving them the right to exist.
I am not God. I don't invent worlds. I'm sure you think that you're being witty, but you're not making any sense.
No -- meaning they have a public charter giving them the right to exist in the first place. We give them that; they don't just pluck it out of thin air. And that means they're going to play by our rules, not by anarchy.
Again, the challenge is open... invent a world where dangerous food additives and bogus drugs curb themselves off the market without intervention. Oh wait, we tried that, and we had snake oil and toxic foods, and that begat the FDA.
So come up with a way to do it and then we can get rid of it. But until that happens, ain't gonna happen. We the People won't stand for it.
No, they have their justly acquired property giving them the right to exist.
I am not God. I don't invent worlds. I'm sure you think that you're being witty, but you're not making any sense.
This isn't wit; this is practicality. Perhaps I've demonstrated that your theory is full of holes. That isn't being outwitted; it's just being wrong. As noted before, we have no Department of Thinking Things Through. Fortunately in this case none is necessary; the free marketplace of ideas puts away snake oil like this.
Well I'm not sure what you're saying in that bolded portion there, but I'll simply reiterate that only caring about profits and not caring about costs are mutually exclusive positions. Either you only care about profits, and will do whatever is necessary to eliminate costs (Your consumers dying), or you don't care about profits and are willing to let your costs mount up.
You're inserting your own strawman here. I never said they "didn't care about costs". I said they didn't care that those costs involved public health. If you have to reinvent your adversary's argument to counter it, you're not making an argument.
See the part I bolded and italicized? That's where I addressed the public health cost. My point is still valid, and you're still trying to make two opposing arguments at the same time. If they're not concerned about the cost of their consumer base dying, or the public health as you put it, then they're not solely focused on profits as you argue.
You're inserting your own strawman here. I never said they "didn't care about costs". I said they didn't care that those costs involved public health. If you have to reinvent your adversary's argument to counter it, you're not making an argument.
See the part I bolded and italicized? That's where I addressed the public health cost. My point is still valid, and you're still trying to make two opposing arguments at the same time. If they're not concerned about the cost of their consumer base dying, or the public health as you put it, then they're not solely focused on profits as you argue.
Read that last bolded sentence in a way that makes any sense. Can't do it, can you?
You've inserted a negative where none is called for. It should read, " If they're not concerned about the cost of their consumer base dying, or the public health as you put it, then they ARE solely focused on profits".
It's an exclusive comparison. There are no "both ways"; it's either A or B. You've misstated the point. You can't do that. So you're in absolutely no position to talk about "incoherency".
See the part I bolded and italicized? That's where I addressed the public health cost. My point is still valid, and you're still trying to make two opposing arguments at the same time. If they're not concerned about the cost of their consumer base dying, or the public health as you put it, then they're not solely focused on profits as you argue.
Read that last bolded sentence in a way that makes any sense. Can't do it, can you?
You've inserted a negative where none is called for. It should read, " If they're not concerned about the cost of their consumer base dying, or the public health as you put it, then they ARE solely focused on profits".
It's an exclusive comparison. There are no "both ways"; it's either A or B. You've misstated the point. You can't do that. So you're in absolutely no position to talk about "incoherency".
Their consumer base dying is a cost to them. So no, I was absolutely on the money.
Read that last bolded sentence in a way that makes any sense. Can't do it, can you?
You've inserted a negative where none is called for. It should read, " If they're not concerned about the cost of their consumer base dying, or the public health as you put it, then they ARE solely focused on profits".
It's an exclusive comparison. There are no "both ways"; it's either A or B. You've misstated the point. You can't do that. So you're in absolutely no position to talk about "incoherency".
Their consumer base dying is a cost to them. So no, I was absolutely on the money.
No shit Sherlock. That's what I said all along.
You either have no clue what my point was, or you're deliberately misstating it because you have no argument against it.
Either way it's your problem to figure out.
Uh... I don't believe there is a Federal Department of Caveman Fire, dear. And it's obvious there is no Department of Thinking Things Through.
Bro you're mind is apparently a lost cause. Go read sarcasm for dummies before you write two posts that make a point too obvious for someone as discernibly obtuse as you make yourself out to be. Enjoy reading the TV guide for your entertainment. Anything more witty seems beyond your reach.
Yeah I've heard that stupid people don't get sarcasm. Maybe you'll understand when you're older.
Maybe by then you can figure out some kind of point.
