Capitalism has led to more death than any other system we’ve come up with. It is a useful intermediary step between feudalism and socialism and instead of progressing we’ve stalled here and slowly but steadily turned it back into feudalism.
Capitalism has led to more death than any other system we’ve come up with. It is a useful intermediary step between feudalism and socialism and instead of progressing we’ve stalled here and slowly but steadily turned it back into feudalism.
Sounds like the free market has spoken. Please die quickly, ““AI”” industry
That was the argument the entire time, you smug imbecile
have you ever seen normies riding bikes that close?
Yes. In the Netherlands. It ends fine.
Stay away from the Netherlands you’d have a heart attack
Uh, they’re not? The cars are in fact much closer to one another than they could possibly be while moving at speed. They would only get this close to one another during a traffic jam. On the other hand, the walkers are entirely capable of moving in exactly the way they are pictured.
There are more empty homes than homeless people. There is no housing shortage, it’s a myth. Put benches, public transport, walkable infrastructure, bike infrastructure, etc everywhere. And then when those dastardly evil homeless people show up and dare to use your person-centric infrastructure to exist, that’s when you ambush them with a house. What better way to punish them than to strip them of their homeless identity? We’ll brutally steal their homelessness from them, feed them, clothe them, and then they won’t feel any need to sleep on our nice benches ever again.
Does this framing help you understand or does it have to actually involve violence against the downtrodden for you to be on board?
Pretty much it, yeah. Capitalism is fundamentally evil and they’ve spent so many decades now projecting all of its flaws on to any society that tries to work to a brighter future.
Of course you don’t put benches there.
I’m not following. Why not? This is clearly a place where people gather and then wait for a period of time long enough to feel that sitting is necessary. Provide a fucking place for them to sit, it’s not complicated
If the only animal corpses anyone ate was euthanized pet remains and the practice was somehow free of influencing the unnecessary euthanization of more pets, I can’t say I care. Same way I don’t really care if people eat roadkill or animal products from a dumpster. I’m not going to do it, I don’t see these things as food. And I think there’s a minuscule harm done in the proliferation of the perception of these things as food. But that harm is negligible in the face of animal agriculture which is my primary concern.
What part of my reference to it as animal abuse sounds like an endorsement of the practice? I’m not sure about you, but personally I consider animal abuse to be unacceptable.
But then you’re still causing plants pain by farming and eating them. Isn’t that argument no different than saying if you believe that harming animals causes them pain, you should be in favor of eating the ones that are hunted because farming them causes more pain?
If you insist on animal abuse then you should do it through hunting rather than factory farming precisely because of the diminished amount of suffering caused. But it’s still more suffering than would be caused by just eating plants so I’m not sure I understand your point
Nah that doesn’t really have anything to do with anything, when you water you just saturate all the soil at once anyway. Think about how plants get watered in nature: not that often but thoroughly
If you actually believe harming plants causes them pain and that that is bad, you should be vegan. Animal agriculture harms far, far more plants than any plant agriculture ever could.
Not only do you jump to an insane straw man.
It wasn’t an insane strawman though? It was literally the argument they made. Something has to die for you to eat, therefore it doesn’t matter how many things you kill or how necessary those deaths are. The fact that you must kill something absolves you of any guilt for any amount of killing, is the ridiculous argument the person made (and which carnists often make) which we are making fun of for being obviously evil and wrong.
Women are going to be a little late in the morning
I just don’t understand why it’s necessary to be a nuisance to other people inside their homes at any hour on any day, outside of necessary rare events such as work being done on the house with power tools. I manage to live my life without creating a noise that could conceivably wake someone at any hour of any day more than once a month or two. I view people blasting loud music, letting their dogs bark for hours on end, mowing lawns with deafening machinery, and so on as the equivalent of walking around my house banging pots and pans together. I know you think of it as “necessary” but I assure you that it isn’t. You’re loud because you don’t care about the disturbance you cause people, not because you truly have to be.
Exactly! In English! Which this person does not know!
You seem to be getting pretty confused here. We’re talking about the literal meanings, that is to say the ones that someone who doesn’t have a strong grasp of English should know. Metaphors and idioms and so on are famously difficult for those without a strong grasp on the language, but I am arguing that this is not one of those. This is a phrase with a straightforward literal meaning, unlike such phrases as “pulling your leg.”
Or the number of days since their birth? That’s the simpler explanation.
“Those apples are numbered” = “we know how many apples there are right now”
No, that does not make equal literal sense to what I said. Because days that are in the past are gone, we don’t have them anymore. We refer to moving through time as “killing” time or as “losing” time, in English we don’t tend to think of the past as something we currently have. The future is something we have or will have, the past is something we had and no longer have.
As a communist… Yeah