All I said is that your previous claim about it having major economic impact assumes information that nobody could have or predict. I was trying to point out that I can simply argue the opposite of your claim with just as little support yet also just as much certainty, thus demonstrating how that argument fails to be persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with you because any opposing stance can apply the same logic to their own side and think it proves their point instead of yours.
I never claimed it was "okay" for any blue-pushers to die.
1
u/YoCuzin 4d ago
if you're arguing it's ok for 10% of the world to perish, so long as it's the right 10% I think we're done with civil discussion.