I fail to see how one could possibly think these things are not fundamentally intertwined arguments, so I really don't understand what you are trying to prove h

I fail to see how one could possibly think these things are not fundamentally intertwined arguments, so I really don't understand what you are trying to prove here. My previous point was that a walled garden being "huge" offers no benefit for the vast majority of people outside of the walled garden. How does this not apply to these arguments according to you? Because if they do, and I claim they do, then that reinforces my other statement that talking about walled gardens being huge is completely missing the point.