brianary

I can tell you're really proud of these replies, but I'm afraid they don't actually make sense.

You were hoping to prove a logical implication (if P then Q), but you feel it was disproved since the premise didn't happen. However, "not P" doesn't actually prove anything about the implication.

Anyway, no one is really accomplishing anything constructive here. Good luck!

If it's not compelling enough for you to read it to support your position, why would I read it?

There's a lot of hope being pinned on the probably uncorroborated testimony of a coconspirator being questioned by agents of a prime suspect. I have a hard time seeing either side accepting anything that comes out of it.

So you didn't read it either? Interesting.

It looks to me like that same feeling toward any population concerns are the clear sentiment of the op, even if they don't state it so openly. I guess you didn't see that? No sense trying to beat this to death, we're seeing different things.

It's a diversion to another topic. No thanks.

Why are you asking me?

I thought maybe someone was capable of answering a reasonable question to support their position, assuming they had already read the article. Apparently I have to do that work for them?

Not everyone has equally arable land.

Edit: Beyond that, have you talked to anyone performative driving one of those child-killing tall pickups? We are a people that lost their shit about straws, and the kind of changes being talked about here are just… [waves arms at all of this]

It's not my job to make your point. You don't get free labor.

Why? I'm not the one using it to justify an argument.

This is Crazy Jane from Doom Patrol.