• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    You’ve equated absence of regulation of body to absence of regulation of business entities without defining the reasoning

    OPs quote is clear unless you’d working to redefine the word they used: “unconditional”. I don’t have to provide the reasoning. OPs quote doesn’t allow any reason to change the outcome. How is “regulation” which presents specific conditions compatible with the OP’s original quote of “unconditional”?

    • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      “Unconditional” obviously violates the social contract. My error was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not participating in meaningless mental masturbation. Cum soon. You’ve better things to do.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        Good arguments should stand up to scrutiny. If this one fails its because the premise is flawed. I’m not claiming to have all the answers, but I’m pointing out that the OP’s quote stood strong on language but weak under observation. You took up the banner in defense of the OP quote. I don’t know if you lost faith in the OP argument or just don’t recognize its flawed.

        My error was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not participating in meaningless mental masturbation.

        I’m exploring an idea someone else presented. I’m not sure why you engaged if you weren’t interested in doing the same.