[ALawPoker]

You're confused as to the order of replies.

My first response to your mafia thing said this:

[ QUOTE ]
One example of an injustice existing counts as an argument against the idea that over time mistakes will tend to die out?

Odd.

If it was that easy you could also just point to the existence of the US government as the critical kink in my theory.

Yawn.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing with all the exclamation points was later on after (I thought) I had effectively pointed to my obvious objections to your mafia thing.

Why did your example not mean anything to my point? If that wasn't already clear, here's your answer:

A.) Because, like I said in my first reply after you brought it up, it's one example, which you used to claim:

[ QUOTE ]
[my arguments] do not hold up in the real world

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, that's what you said in your mafia post.

One example of a "mistake" occurring does not mean the theory that mistakes will tend to die out is invalid. I'm amazed this requires explanation.

And B.) Because they exist in the context of a state who opens up black markets for them by making things illegal!!!

The example, like most any example I've seen you dream up on here, was patently absurd and irrelevant to the point I was making. Accept it. I thought I had made my objections clear before I told you I was done with the topic. If what I was getting at was not clear to you, my apologies, but sometimes I am just confused how your mind actually works since I think the explanation is beyond obvious.

[ QUOTE ]
Your 80s quote pledge didn't last long. I think you're taking me too seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I take you for what you are. I was just worried people reading might not be familiar enough with you to know better, so I wanted to clarify rather than let a hypocrisy charge stand.

80's thing goes back into effect now.