Reply #81: It was framed in response to your stance, so of course it's poorly framed.

[trotsky]

Sorry I forgot the "we" as the second word. "If we don't have zero..."

We will never hit zero, but we are well above where we should be. It is therefore implied that some number a bit more than zero but well below where we are is the best that we can achieve. At that point we won't be at zero and the system won't be broken.

So, what's the point? When do we declare the system isn't "broken" anymore? You are setting up an unreachable goal. People - even alternative medicine quacks (!) - can make mistakes.

Did you really fail to understand this from my last post?

I fully understood it. You aren't seeing the implications.

I ignored this because it is ridiculous to link the two and I thought you were being sarcastic. How does having one system broken mean that the other will always be worthwhile?

That is exactly what you were implying. Since the current system is "broken," then we must use alternative medicine. Go back to your post #6 and your effusive praise of "alternative medicine" and incessant bashing of allopathic. And now, even though your source for the condemnation of allopathic medicine has been debunked, you continue the claims.