If you can’t make sense of the idea that an outcome that the system selects for is a quintessential property of the system then what else is there to say to you.
My meaning is very clear and you’re being intentionally obtuse here. Consumerism is a necessary outcome of the mechanics of capitalism. You can play all the word games you like, but that’s the fact of the situation. Nobody is shifting any goal posts on you, and you’re just making a clown of yourself here.
Consumerism is a necessary outcome of the mechanics of capitalism.
Firstly, that’s not what you said before. What you said before was that “the system necessitates consumerism because companies have the constant need to sell goods to continue to stay in business” which implies that capitalism depends on consumerism. Now you’re saying that consumerism is an outcome of capitalism which implies that consumerism depends on capitalism. You’ve reversed the direction of the dependency.
Secondly, you’re wrong. Consumerism being an outcome of capitalism is not necessary. Likely but not necessary. And to ram the point home: “likely” and “necessary” are two very different concepts.
My meaning is very clear and you’re being intentionally obtuse here.
Your meaning is not clear. That’s one of the problems here. Your writing is very problematic. It’s clear that you’re not used to being rigourous in your communication.
And it’s clear that this lack of rigour in communication reflects a lack of rigour in your thinking. A prime example being what I described above: you’ve completely changed the meaning of what you’re saying by reversing the direction of dependency between consumerism and capitalism and yet you’re presenting this changed meaning as though it’s the same thing that you’ve been arguing before. That you use the two ideas interchangably and can’t see the difference between them shows very clearly a lack of logic and rigour in your thinking.
that’s the fact of the situation
Stamping their foot and saying “I’m right and that’s the fact of the situation” is how children deal with disagreements.
“the system necessitates consumerism because companies have the constant need to sell goods to continue to stay in business”
I described the exact mechanism that results in capitalism necessitating consumerism here.
Now you’re saying that consumerism is an outcome of capitalism which implies that consumerism depends on capitalism. You’ve reversed the direction of the dependency.
What you’re doing here is known as sophistry.
Secondly, you’re wrong. Consumerism being an outcome of capitalism is not necessary. Likely but not necessary. And to ram the point home: “likely” and “necessary” are two very different concepts.
Secondly, I am right because that’s precisely what we observe in practice everywhere capitalism has ever been tried. Again, because the mechanics of capitalism directly select for this. Companies that embrace consumerism outcompete companies that don’t because they sell more things which is the fitness function of the capitalist system.
And it’s clear that this lack of rigour in communication reflects a lack of rigour in your thinking.
The only thing that’s clear here is that you don’t understand basic concepts like selection pressures, and given that you’ve got no business questioning the rigour of other people’s thinking. I gave you a clear explanation of why capitalism necessitates consumerism, and repeatedly explained the mechanics of the system to you.
Despite all your bleating here, you’ve yet to produce any coherent counterpoint to anything I’ve said. That’s what actually shows lack of logic and rigour in your own thinking.
To sum up, you’re a troll who is incapable of producing a coherent argument to support your own position, and there is no value attempting to have any further discussion with you.
I suggest that you spend a bit more time working on your critical thinking skills instead of making a clown of yourself here.
Except it is necessitated and fundamental because these are the behaviors the capitalist system selects for. It can’t function any other way.
Selecting for a behaviour does not imply that the behaviour is either necessitated or fundamental. What you’re saying doesn’t make sense.
If you can’t make sense of the idea that an outcome that the system selects for is a quintessential property of the system then what else is there to say to you.
You keep changing the words you’re using. I’m not going to keep playing shift the goal posts with you.
I get the idea you’re trying to convey, you’re just wrong.
My meaning is very clear and you’re being intentionally obtuse here. Consumerism is a necessary outcome of the mechanics of capitalism. You can play all the word games you like, but that’s the fact of the situation. Nobody is shifting any goal posts on you, and you’re just making a clown of yourself here.
Firstly, that’s not what you said before. What you said before was that “the system necessitates consumerism because companies have the constant need to sell goods to continue to stay in business” which implies that capitalism depends on consumerism. Now you’re saying that consumerism is an outcome of capitalism which implies that consumerism depends on capitalism. You’ve reversed the direction of the dependency.
Secondly, you’re wrong. Consumerism being an outcome of capitalism is not necessary. Likely but not necessary. And to ram the point home: “likely” and “necessary” are two very different concepts.
Your meaning is not clear. That’s one of the problems here. Your writing is very problematic. It’s clear that you’re not used to being rigourous in your communication.
And it’s clear that this lack of rigour in communication reflects a lack of rigour in your thinking. A prime example being what I described above: you’ve completely changed the meaning of what you’re saying by reversing the direction of dependency between consumerism and capitalism and yet you’re presenting this changed meaning as though it’s the same thing that you’ve been arguing before. That you use the two ideas interchangably and can’t see the difference between them shows very clearly a lack of logic and rigour in your thinking.
Stamping their foot and saying “I’m right and that’s the fact of the situation” is how children deal with disagreements.
Firstly, that’s exactly what I said before.
I described the exact mechanism that results in capitalism necessitating consumerism here.
What you’re doing here is known as sophistry.
Secondly, I am right because that’s precisely what we observe in practice everywhere capitalism has ever been tried. Again, because the mechanics of capitalism directly select for this. Companies that embrace consumerism outcompete companies that don’t because they sell more things which is the fitness function of the capitalist system.
The only thing that’s clear here is that you don’t understand basic concepts like selection pressures, and given that you’ve got no business questioning the rigour of other people’s thinking. I gave you a clear explanation of why capitalism necessitates consumerism, and repeatedly explained the mechanics of the system to you.
Despite all your bleating here, you’ve yet to produce any coherent counterpoint to anything I’ve said. That’s what actually shows lack of logic and rigour in your own thinking.
To sum up, you’re a troll who is incapable of producing a coherent argument to support your own position, and there is no value attempting to have any further discussion with you.
I suggest that you spend a bit more time working on your critical thinking skills instead of making a clown of yourself here.
Bye.
Wow.
You didn’t address my criticism. What you’ve said here is equivalent to “NO U!”
Take care now.