I just want a plausable chain of reasoning from "international trade" to "self-sufficient farmers can no longer operate".
Once again, since I never made that specific claim, why
Finally, you noticed. How many times have I said "self-sufficient" and "subsistence"? Now you see why I refuse to read your references? Because I really don't expect them to explain the answer to that. Now you surely agree they don't.
I fail to see why it matters.
You disagree with my claim that globalization has had a negative effect on the quality of life of people in the 3rd world. Mu citations support that claim.
You continue to ignore those citation, and continue to refuse to provide evidence your claims are correct. Instead you pick apart paragraphs and use sophistry to avoid dealing with the root issue - that I can support my claims and you cannot.
If you'd read some of my posts a long time ago you'd have been able to make that clarification back then instead of banging on about all this irrelivant rubbish.
All that "irrelivant rubbish" was in reply to points you made. The fact you continuously ignore the context in which those statements were made doesn't change that fact one bit.
BTW, "irrelivant" is spelled "irrelevant".
Notice that I've been making an effort to understand what you say, but you haven't been doing the same. You're more interested in regurgitating facts to make yourself feel proud. I'm more interested in understanding.
How can you have understanding in the absence of fact?
More to the point, how do you come to an understanding by actively avoiding facts?
I reiterate again - I've provided outside evidence that my opinions are based on fact. You have not. Until you can either show my evidence to be wrong, or provide evidence in support of yours, I can only continue to assume that posts like these are simply red herrings to try and hide the fact that you have an unsupported position.
Bryan
