Consumerism is a necessary outcome of the mechanics of capitalism.
Firstly, that’s not what you said before. What you said before was that “the system necessitates consumerism because companies have the constant need to sell goods to continue to stay in business” which implies that capitalism depends on consumerism. Now you’re saying that consumerism is an outcome of capitalism which implies that consumerism depends on capitalism. You’ve reversed the direction of the dependency.
Secondly, you’re wrong. Consumerism being an outcome of capitalism is not necessary. Likely but not necessary. And to ram the point home: “likely” and “necessary” are two very different concepts.
My meaning is very clear and you’re being intentionally obtuse here.
Your meaning is not clear. That’s one of the problems here. Your writing is very problematic. It’s clear that you’re not used to being rigourous in your communication.
And it’s clear that this lack of rigour in communication reflects a lack of rigour in your thinking. A prime example being what I described above: you’ve completely changed the meaning of what you’re saying by reversing the direction of dependency between consumerism and capitalism and yet you’re presenting this changed meaning as though it’s the same thing that you’ve been arguing before. That you use the two ideas interchangably and can’t see the difference between them shows very clearly a lack of logic and rigour in your thinking.
that’s the fact of the situation
Stamping their foot and saying “I’m right and that’s the fact of the situation” is how children deal with disagreements.