[QUOTE= j666]
Did I specify “inherently”? Nope. (Don’t misquote someone when there’s a record that close; it’s … unattractive.)
[/QUOTE]
Are… are… are you SERIOUS???
Well, I said inherently, and it means “: involved in the constitution or essential character of something; belonging by nature or habit; intrinsic.”
You said “actually,” and it means “in act or in fact; really.”
They’re synonymous.
And I didn’t misquote you, I attributed meaning to your statement- the SAME meaning you gave it.
Did you actually think this was a valid debating tactic?
[QUOTE= j666]
Spending very large proportions for health care for asthma and other allergies for children whose immune responses are compromised.
If they earn that much.
If they live in places with sophisticated health care.
[/QUOTE]
I assume that you’ve got backup for this. It’s probably a faulty assumption, but I’m going to make it anyway. So let’s see it.
[QUOTE= j666]
However, in the global race for the cheapest, most companies produce in areas with the lowest wages and worst workers’ rights.
[/QUOTE]
As a blanket statement, this could not be any more incorrect if you tried to make it so.
Developing nations with horrible workers’ rights records rarely have the manufacturing infrastructure in place to churn out large quantities of luxury goods of commercially acceptable quality. it’s a blanket statement, but the fact is that they make Nikes in Malaysia, not Escalades.
[QUOTE= j666]
I find things destructive when maintenance and production public costs outweigh the public good (that would be wages; not stock options, salaries, and golden handshakes).
[/QUOTE]
Of course you do. Because your worldview does not take into account nuances and necessities involved in complex economies.
Why am I bothering? Anyone who would condescendingly nitpick about the difference between “actually” and “inherently” is unlikely to be prepared to debate or do much more than spew talking points.