I never claimed anyone was purchasing land solely for a tree, but if you buy land and there is a tree on it you are paying for a tree. In any case I conceded that there are options out there for free food but they don't apply to the majority. However you ignored my last statement which, if we are taking into account any stipulation for any subset of people regardless of size, my final example negates your original claim of shit being free. Not all food necessarily costs money but not all shit is necessarily free. I'd venture to say that this deal is actually cheaper than shit in that scenario.
As far as starting arguments for no reason, I was simply pointing out inaccuracies. Your original comment, completely unrelated to the deal, is far more contrarian than anything I've posted and literally for no reason.
I said "shit is free," not "all shit is free," or "all food is free." You've done nothing but ramble. My point stands. Also, food, although scare, is freely available to a large portion of humanity, and it's provided by nature. Whether we're talking about rural people in the US, or peoples throughout developing and third world nations that need to get their food from nature. We're not talking about a tiny minority of people here. Free food is freely available to most people, just not all people. Living in a city makes you dependent on other people in every conceivable way. Most people don't live in cities though...
By the way, you're not purchasing trees when you purchase a house, unless you're in an upscale neighborhood with some pretty expensive landscaping and you've got a real specialty tree that's the focus of the yard. I have loads of oak trees on my property. I can guarantee not a dime of the purchase went toward them.
Anyway, your entire argument seems to be based on my saying "all," when in fact I didn't. So why are you even arguing?