Food insecurity by definition is a condition of nonzero risk for starvation.
Your objection is absurd on its merits, a sophistic distortion of terms, the same as conceding that smoking may shorten lifespan, but also denying it may cause death.
Again, your claim is absurd in its merits, embodying an inherent contradiction.
A society cannot be free of starvation but unfree of food insecurity, because either is a consequence of the same general forces, only named differently according to the degree of final effect.
Also, I am troubled by your insinuation that you would object less strongly to the death of someone who is mentally ill than to that of someone who is able.
I didn’t insinuate anything of the sort. You’d assume you could deduce that by recognizing I was advocating that you focus your propaganda on healthcare. Starvation isnt a thing that happens Happy to talk about mal nutrition and food insecurity, but it’s a very minor problem. It’s an empty political talking point. Nobody is dying from starvation, again, except the mentally ill. Those people need medical and institutional interventions beyond the scope of providing food. You’re inventing boogeymen. Nobody serious, sane, or even just politically impactful is pro starvation or pro the death of the mentally ill. That’s for fictional supervillains.
I’ve survived entirely on food banks and government provided food before. It was entirely sufficient nutritionally and easily accessed, although if I wasn’t a great cook it would have been a pretty tough culinary experience.
Your logic about food insecurity may satisfy your inner armchair communist, but it is not a demonstrably real problem. We have empirical data to support my position and not yours. In fact there’s so little starvation that we lump in all deaths from malnutrition together in the data, with the vast majority being from people relying on a diet of meth and/or alcohol. Upstream of that, again, is metal health. Amounts to about 0.25% of all deaths. Nobody starves. Yes, we can optimize and improve, but it’s a dumb thing to focus high level political effort on. Obesity is literally, demonstrably and empirically more of a problem in capitalist societies than starvation. You can’t have both of these things be true.
Starvation is a vastly overblown socialist propaganda/lefty talking point. I understand propaganda must exist, I just prefer it be relevant to reality. I assume it’s because it is all generated in China or Russia where the problem of malnutrition is less solved. Again, if you want to make an improvement in America, focus your lefty propaganda on healthcare. We do a shit job of that, unlike feeding people, and that argument is just as valid and important as starvation WOULD be if it actually happened.
Capitalism has demonstrably led to more people being fed, and communism has demonstrably led to starvation. I’m not referencing theory, I’m referencing reality. You can believe the sky is yellow, but it isn’t.
My position is that social support networks are in no way incompatible with capitalism, as evidenced by -gestures literally everywhere-
Listen. You are alive today only because in the past, it had not gone unnoticed that capitalist society is in its basic essence incapable of the one most obviously essential functions of society, to keep its population alive.
Food banks and government assistance are developments that compensate for the failures of the system you defend so adamantly.
I am alive today because many people realized that an economic system alone isn’t sufficient to fix all of society’s problems, and implemented social safety nets. I’m alive because greedy pharmaceutical companies invented drugs that keep me alive. I’m alive because my ancestors moved here because capitalism was demonstrably improving lives.
I understand that it seems to you that we can’t have compatibilism between communism and capitalism because the ideologies are anyithetical. But that’s just it, they’re just ideologies. They don’t like up cleanly with reality. I’m perfectly fine with socialist movements like labor unions and social safety nets working in concert with capitalism. We need significant checks on capitalism to dismantle the current oligopoly. But we also need significant checks on communism, lest we all end up driving beige cars and shopping at soviet-quality grocers.
This isn’t inane, it’s just not lining up with your extremist rhetoric. What you want under a socialist or communist government is for good to be provided to those that need it. But when it comes in the form of excess capital being redistributed to the poor by good banks, you find it inherently offensive. We are feeding the poor, successfully, under capitalism. If it were fundamentally contradictory, it wouldn’t be happening. And yet it clearly is.
Wow. You quite seem to enjoy twisting yourself into knots.
No one suggested that an economic system would solve every problem, but plainly the most essential objective is keeping everyone adequately fed.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the profit motive.
The profit motive makes some immensely wealthy, while keeping others deprived.
Therefore, capitalist society completely fails on its own merits to support the one objective that is singularly most indispensable for any society.
Do you understand why the objection is being given against capitalism, the system that insists profits are more important than people?
Also, you have begun descending more deeply into capitalist apologetics, by arguing that the profit motive of pharmaceutical shareholders, and not the skill and dedication of researchers, leads to development of successful therapies.
You got a source on that? The CIA conducted studies and found that throughout a vast majority of the existence of the USSR, that was a complete fabrication. The people were eating roughly equivalent calories, but the soviets had a significantly healthier and nutritious diet.
Food insecurity by definition is a condition of nonzero risk for starvation.
Your objection is absurd on its merits, a sophistic distortion of terms, the same as conceding that smoking may shorten lifespan, but also denying it may cause death.
removed by mod
Again, your claim is absurd in its merits, embodying an inherent contradiction.
A society cannot be free of starvation but unfree of food insecurity, because either is a consequence of the same general forces, only named differently according to the degree of final effect.
Also, I am troubled by your insinuation that you would object less strongly to the death of someone who is mentally ill than to that of someone who is able.
I didn’t insinuate anything of the sort. You’d assume you could deduce that by recognizing I was advocating that you focus your propaganda on healthcare. Starvation isnt a thing that happens Happy to talk about mal nutrition and food insecurity, but it’s a very minor problem. It’s an empty political talking point. Nobody is dying from starvation, again, except the mentally ill. Those people need medical and institutional interventions beyond the scope of providing food. You’re inventing boogeymen. Nobody serious, sane, or even just politically impactful is pro starvation or pro the death of the mentally ill. That’s for fictional supervillains.
I’ve survived entirely on food banks and government provided food before. It was entirely sufficient nutritionally and easily accessed, although if I wasn’t a great cook it would have been a pretty tough culinary experience.
Your logic about food insecurity may satisfy your inner armchair communist, but it is not a demonstrably real problem. We have empirical data to support my position and not yours. In fact there’s so little starvation that we lump in all deaths from malnutrition together in the data, with the vast majority being from people relying on a diet of meth and/or alcohol. Upstream of that, again, is metal health. Amounts to about 0.25% of all deaths. Nobody starves. Yes, we can optimize and improve, but it’s a dumb thing to focus high level political effort on. Obesity is literally, demonstrably and empirically more of a problem in capitalist societies than starvation. You can’t have both of these things be true.
Starvation is a vastly overblown socialist propaganda/lefty talking point. I understand propaganda must exist, I just prefer it be relevant to reality. I assume it’s because it is all generated in China or Russia where the problem of malnutrition is less solved. Again, if you want to make an improvement in America, focus your lefty propaganda on healthcare. We do a shit job of that, unlike feeding people, and that argument is just as valid and important as starvation WOULD be if it actually happened.
Your position is that you oppose people starving, but not the social forces that carry people toward ever greater risk of starvation.
I explained your entire position in a single sentence, without invoking a Gish gallop about China, armchairs, and propaganda.
Again, your position is absurd.
You are straining your own imagination to defend systems that are plain for you to recognize are indefensible.
Capitalism has demonstrably led to more people being fed, and communism has demonstrably led to starvation. I’m not referencing theory, I’m referencing reality. You can believe the sky is yellow, but it isn’t.
My position is that social support networks are in no way incompatible with capitalism, as evidenced by -gestures literally everywhere-
Listen. You are alive today only because in the past, it had not gone unnoticed that capitalist society is in its basic essence incapable of the one most obviously essential functions of society, to keep its population alive.
Food banks and government assistance are developments that compensate for the failures of the system you defend so adamantly.
Invoking them as a defense is absolutely inane.
I am alive today because many people realized that an economic system alone isn’t sufficient to fix all of society’s problems, and implemented social safety nets. I’m alive because greedy pharmaceutical companies invented drugs that keep me alive. I’m alive because my ancestors moved here because capitalism was demonstrably improving lives.
I understand that it seems to you that we can’t have compatibilism between communism and capitalism because the ideologies are anyithetical. But that’s just it, they’re just ideologies. They don’t like up cleanly with reality. I’m perfectly fine with socialist movements like labor unions and social safety nets working in concert with capitalism. We need significant checks on capitalism to dismantle the current oligopoly. But we also need significant checks on communism, lest we all end up driving beige cars and shopping at soviet-quality grocers.
This isn’t inane, it’s just not lining up with your extremist rhetoric. What you want under a socialist or communist government is for good to be provided to those that need it. But when it comes in the form of excess capital being redistributed to the poor by good banks, you find it inherently offensive. We are feeding the poor, successfully, under capitalism. If it were fundamentally contradictory, it wouldn’t be happening. And yet it clearly is.
Again, all I want from you is better propaganda.
Wow. You quite seem to enjoy twisting yourself into knots.
No one suggested that an economic system would solve every problem, but plainly the most essential objective is keeping everyone adequately fed.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the profit motive.
The profit motive makes some immensely wealthy, while keeping others deprived.
Therefore, capitalist society completely fails on its own merits to support the one objective that is singularly most indispensable for any society.
Do you understand why the objection is being given against capitalism, the system that insists profits are more important than people?
Also, you have begun descending more deeply into capitalist apologetics, by arguing that the profit motive of pharmaceutical shareholders, and not the skill and dedication of researchers, leads to development of successful therapies.
You got a source on that? The CIA conducted studies and found that throughout a vast majority of the existence of the USSR, that was a complete fabrication. The people were eating roughly equivalent calories, but the soviets had a significantly healthier and nutritious diet.
removed by mod
I asked for a source, not a name.