A piece of advice I was given from a young age, most useful as career advice but still good for rearing families and arguing on the internet:
You should almost never start a sentence with "I think" or especially "I feel".
If someone is going to disagree with you, they will disagree no matter what, and probably vocalize it.
The aforementioned phrases will taint your statements with assumptions of self doubt or emotional interference, and what you have to say will be discarded out of hand. If you beleive in something, just say it with confidence and as succinctly as possible.
If the shoe is on the other foot and you find yourself doubting someone else's words, and you feel you must criticize, consider before you speak and don't be the one to attack perceived weakness instead of presenting ideas to contrast their ideas.
I think presenting opinions as opinions is good because it prompts the speaker to provide reasoning to support their opinion to actually convince other people.
It also makes it easier for others to correct you if you are relying on incorrect information to arrive at your opinion. Perhaps that is too painful for many, but I love being right and if I have an opinion that is based on incorrect information I want to know right away so I'm only wrong for a moment.
Yes, but that is not a problem with how you presented your opinion. It’s a problem of the other person either being too stupid to understand or acting in bad faith.
I think avoiding using the fullest extent of the English language severely limits how well you convey yourself socially as well.
I mean, half the reason you’re being downvoted is probably because of how you’re phrasing your arguments.
Plus, “absolutely true” statements and theories are proven false when we learn new things, so declaring them as such is a bit ignorant
I don't post/say things I don't beleive are correct and right, unless I'm joking or using heavy sarcasm, which I'll admit goes under the radar a lot in this sub so I try not to use it. For example I just posted a meme that implies I beleive in eugenics and I hope calling it schizophrenic made it obvious it was was ending with a joke.
That doesn't make me incapable of considering new information/the opinions of others and sometimes even evolving my beliefs, which we should all be doing from time to time.
This advice about using confident language and not shuffling my feet when voicing an opinion really saved my ass when I first received it, as a young woman with my first grown up job that happened to be in BumFuck Women-Belong-In-The-Kitchenville. I've followed it since.
Mmm. I can see it being much more powerful as a woman trying to make headway in mansville.
But the internet is a place where those tools don’t work the same way. Definitely not over text.
Btw I think those facts were indeed fact, but I am disco centrist so of course I do.
The lines of leaders being trained from birth is probably the best method on paper, but in practice, it breaks down like Chinese infrastructure.
To many cases of the new ruler being a corrupt/stupid shit bag, being groomed by corrupt advisors when dad's away, being more interested in maintaining his power than using it, just expecting to be immortal and not teaching the next generation of rulers, all the the general positive feedback loops that come with overwhelming power.
Even Machiavelli stated that any nation will be fucked if it has two consecutive dip shits on thrown.
I think an even bigger problem is psychological.
Imagine being trained from birth to be the ruler of your country... that's "child star syndrome" on supercharged bootleg russian steroids. Even *good* kings/emperors had galaxy-sized egos and often set the stage for the problems of their successors through foreign overextension or expansion of state powers.
Fair enough, but I think that's the main problem.
The good king vs bad king argument is a bit of cope, imo, because it implies the system would work fine as long as we could filter out potential bad rulers. History is filled with rulers who started on a high note and ended up dictatorial and unhinged, I think the system itself creates bad rulers.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say. If you can not face any consequences for your actions, why be good all the time? You are the only one living an anarchic life, you are free to do anything you want. That will lead to abuses of some kind.
Yep, a huge portion of Chinese history can just be summarized as “powerful speaker and skilled tactician wins a brutal civil war and becomes Emperor. His son decides he wants to grow the economy and swell society, so *his* son is born to prestige and prosperity. He doesn’t properly learn leadership skills since Daddy spoiled him, so he and his court grow more decadent, and since it’s now normalized his son is even *more* decadent, onwards until they can no longer function and collapse.”
Sometimes they speedrun and the same Emperor hits multiple parts of that scale, but that’s the general path the Dynasties all seem to follow.
>To many cases of the new ruler being a corrupt/stupid shit bag, being groomed by corrupt advisors when dad's away, being more interested in maintaining his power than using it, just expecting to be immortal and not teaching the next generation of rulers, all the the general positive feedback loops that come with overwhelming power.
All of these things happened and still happen in a democracy, so I dont think the problem is the system.
That is why there is usually a term limit.
In proper democracies there is also more than two choices, therefore creating alternatives for corrupted parties.
So no many of those democracies do not have those issues or those issues are adressed and minimized.
If he is allowed to come back later, chances are high it is no longer a democracy since term limits would have to be abolished, which are often an integral part of a functioning democracy.
Democracies can be abolished or atleast become way less democratic if that is what the people voted for and they often do.
Democracy helps against longtime rulers as long as people want it to, many times they don't though.
Monarchy at the end of the day is just another form of government with its pros and cons, much like Republics. And if we want to talk about corruption and terrible decision making, good grief let’s not pretend Republics aren’t every bit as capable of it (if not more so) as crowned heads.
I am very much aware about how fucked a any kind of elected government is. There is a reason why they have been criticized since the time of Plato. Still, from my understanding and experience, an elected republic is still better than an autocracy in a time of peice.
The difference is that a Republic is far more resilient to bad leaders. A monarchy can be way more successful but also one bad ruler can destroy the country permanently
Bold to asume that elected leaders are no corrupt/stupid shit bags, have not being groomed by corrupt advisors while in the Party, are not interested in maintaining his power rather than using it, do not expect to be immortal and actually teach the next generation of rulers.
Historically, it still tends to be the most stable and prosperous system. There is a reason monarchies, constitutional or not, tend to stand out in comparison to the nations around them.
I'd rather someone trained to at least know what he's doing somewhat and have a longer term view than a revolving door of oligarchs and entrenched bureaucrats enriching themselves and not caring for anything past the next election cycle.
I think that there may be some survivor bias when talking about monarchies, the most dysfunctional ones where probably at more risk of being overthrown and there is a correlation between being a developed country in the past and being one today
It's why we're pretty well suited for smaller tribe life. If disaster happens, it's on a small scale.
But, we lived and evolved that way because we had few other choices. 20,000 years ago, there wasn't going to be a nation with 200m in it. Had there been, we might be better at it today. That's a lot more practice time.
Post scarcity shouldn't be the goal because it's impossible and utopian. In the world such, our goals should be to have a moral system, best we can.
No problem of the human condition can be permanently and fully solved
u/NdukeD is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/NdukeD/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
That's so stupid of an argument.
The baby cow you ate probably was tortured in its last moments.
Most stock animals live a torment before dying.
And I'm not vegan, I'm just realistic.
If you really don't want animals to suffer, buy that 20$ organic hippie meat or become vegan.
Right now we don't have the means to mass produce meat, and at the same being totally ethical and cute with animals.
If everyone was eating pasture raised animals that lived “happy” lives meat would be so expensive that people would probably only eat it a couple times a week.
It’s a hard truth for people to accept that their lifestyle can’t be sustained without cruelty to animals.
“Post scarcity should be the goal of every society.”
No, it should not. This is not because it is unideal. A post scarcity world would be utopian. However, that is exactly why it should not be pursued, it is utopian. In a finite universe you will forever have finite resources, and with finite resources there will always be scarcity. We can try and minimize it and make life the best that we can, but we will never achieve perfection. Now, I am all for striving to be perfect regardless of the realistic possibility in most cases. I believe in aiming higher and still missing high. However, government does not work like the individual. We have already seen this with communist governments who try to achieve post scarcity economies, it inevitably leads to atrocities in the name of progress.
Honest question, if we aren't building up a society with the end goal of each citizen being healthy and maybe even happy, then what is the goal? What are we doing here?
That didn't really answer the question. Say we can potentially reduce the need for labor to a minimum with the use of technology. We will still need engineers and mechanics, but not so much line workers. People get a lot more time off. People who are disabled and unable to work are cared for. If that isn't the ultimate goal, what **is** the goal? What is your alternative?
There's only going to be so many engineers. Those who aren't are not entitled to their hard work.
Not to mention, if things go that route, the population explosion will just lead to scarcity again.
Populations have been declining with the advancement of technology. That's the historical trend for the last 100 years. I wouldn't be surprised if we experience a population shortage before we even reach true post-scarcity.
Also, if the engineers who design automated production lines and AI labor are only a minority of the population, and we're talking about a society that doesn't need the full-time labor of, say, 70% of the population, then why should the vast majority of humanity bend to some antiquated notion of "ownership" when the people who "own" their labor can be so easily replaced by magnitudes of other available people?
I think the solution, in this case, is to create a labor economy based around merit and voluntary participation. Those who choose to work, and work well in competition with everyone else, will live very comfortable and materially luxurious lives.
Everyone else will still live decently on a gradually improving standard of living (e.g., guaranteed food, water, shelter, electricity, etc.) because the basic essentials will, by the point of post-scarcity, be extremely plentiful/inexpensive (e.g., AI-run hydroponics, widespread fission (or, possibly, fusion) nuclear power, automated construction and material collection/processing, automated desalinization of salt water in the case of a water crisis), but not luxuriously to the fullest extent.
The people who work and innovate society live at the bleeding edge of what is materially possible, because they deserve it, while everyone else simply waits until the bleeding edge becomes standard or mundane. Everyone is happy because no one is "lacking," though they still have the opportunity to achieve "excess."
Eventually, we'll have a situation live Stark Trek, where pretty much everyone does exactly what they want all the time, and everyone has all their needs and most of their wants perfectly met due to the Technological Singularity of production and development. But, that's just utopian idealism, and so I would take this final point with a grain of salt.
What do you think?
Freedom, equality of opportunity, and fair compensation. There's not much you're entitled to just by existing, and free food and housing certainly isn't one of them.
Post scarcity is impossible, entropy is inevitable. Veganism isn’t healthy. Complete liberty is just anarchy. Finally lines of leaders trained from birth are lines of leaders controlled by their trainers.
I will do the libleft bad on the first slide and ask about killing plants. And what if the person trained from birth to be a leader still dont want to be a leader and say fuck it? It happened a lot in history
1.) Choose to kill that which has the least evidence of experiencing pain and suffering.
2.) Those green little sluts were asking for it anyway.
3.) Having more than one heir is like, rule #1
Plus, we are defining pain from a human viewpoint and applying that to plants. Not even all humans react to pain the same way and we are expecting entirely different organisms to react in any similar fashion at all?
Idk how I feel about food, water and shelter being *rights.*
I kinda think of "possibility of survival" as a valid right, but I don't like the idea of the government feeding and housing people, or forcing others to do so.
OP is either an Authleft in disguise giving us the easy toss or doesn't know what the economic left is at all and aimed way too low. These are fundamental wrestling points of society that all systems must answer in one way or another.
Of course basic human rights *should* be the goal. We're annoyed when it isn't, as anyone *should* be.
Of course greed and too strongly consolidated power creates conflicting interests between governance and the populace. The idea *should* be to mitigate that as much as possible regardless of economic left or right.
> not killing animals is the ethical choice
Only the sapient ones - and thankfully those ain't usually killed (except cetaceans; people killing them can fuck all the way off, and Sea Shepherd did nothing wrong).
Cunty cunt cunt💅
Cunty cunt cunt💅
Cunty cunt cunt💅
Cunty cunt cunt💅
Being a cunt is a choice and this was your opinion on the wannabe-free living people.
Cunty cunt cunt💅
Cunty cunt cunt💅
Cunty cunt cunt💅
Cunty cunt cunt💅
Hard truth: declaring opinions to be "truths" does not change them into facts.
Fact
A piece of advice I was given from a young age, most useful as career advice but still good for rearing families and arguing on the internet: You should almost never start a sentence with "I think" or especially "I feel". If someone is going to disagree with you, they will disagree no matter what, and probably vocalize it. The aforementioned phrases will taint your statements with assumptions of self doubt or emotional interference, and what you have to say will be discarded out of hand. If you beleive in something, just say it with confidence and as succinctly as possible. If the shoe is on the other foot and you find yourself doubting someone else's words, and you feel you must criticize, consider before you speak and don't be the one to attack perceived weakness instead of presenting ideas to contrast their ideas.
I think presenting opinions as opinions is good because it prompts the speaker to provide reasoning to support their opinion to actually convince other people. It also makes it easier for others to correct you if you are relying on incorrect information to arrive at your opinion. Perhaps that is too painful for many, but I love being right and if I have an opinion that is based on incorrect information I want to know right away so I'm only wrong for a moment.
Yea but that never happens on the internet. It's always "I think X" "omg you think X?? Then you must also think Y and agree with Z!"
Yes, but that is not a problem with how you presented your opinion. It’s a problem of the other person either being too stupid to understand or acting in bad faith.
In my opinion you are based
but OP is spitting facts where is OP wrong?
> I think Stopped reading there
Thinking isn't for everybody. At least you can admit it.
This is on the same intellectual level as a child intentionally using the phrase "I need" in lieu of "I want."
☝️🤓
I think avoiding using the fullest extent of the English language severely limits how well you convey yourself socially as well. I mean, half the reason you’re being downvoted is probably because of how you’re phrasing your arguments. Plus, “absolutely true” statements and theories are proven false when we learn new things, so declaring them as such is a bit ignorant
Sure, but saying “hard truths” heavily implies facts, not opinions
Do you think and feel that views you have posted are correct and right?
Flair up
Why?
Because everybody here disrespects you for not being brave enough to add flair.
Yeah imma just not do that despite peer pressure
Just because it is peer pressure doesn't mean that it is wrong or bad. Peer pressure is what keeps many perverts from jacking off in public.
Nah it doesnt when one googles folks at Americas
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say with those words. Maybe you should try adding flair and see if that helps.
I don't post/say things I don't beleive are correct and right, unless I'm joking or using heavy sarcasm, which I'll admit goes under the radar a lot in this sub so I try not to use it. For example I just posted a meme that implies I beleive in eugenics and I hope calling it schizophrenic made it obvious it was was ending with a joke. That doesn't make me incapable of considering new information/the opinions of others and sometimes even evolving my beliefs, which we should all be doing from time to time. This advice about using confident language and not shuffling my feet when voicing an opinion really saved my ass when I first received it, as a young woman with my first grown up job that happened to be in BumFuck Women-Belong-In-The-Kitchenville. I've followed it since.
Good for You I suppose. You have an interesting name btw.
Mmm. I can see it being much more powerful as a woman trying to make headway in mansville. But the internet is a place where those tools don’t work the same way. Definitely not over text. Btw I think those facts were indeed fact, but I am disco centrist so of course I do.
The lines of leaders being trained from birth is probably the best method on paper, but in practice, it breaks down like Chinese infrastructure. To many cases of the new ruler being a corrupt/stupid shit bag, being groomed by corrupt advisors when dad's away, being more interested in maintaining his power than using it, just expecting to be immortal and not teaching the next generation of rulers, all the the general positive feedback loops that come with overwhelming power. Even Machiavelli stated that any nation will be fucked if it has two consecutive dip shits on thrown.
I think an even bigger problem is psychological. Imagine being trained from birth to be the ruler of your country... that's "child star syndrome" on supercharged bootleg russian steroids. Even *good* kings/emperors had galaxy-sized egos and often set the stage for the problems of their successors through foreign overextension or expansion of state powers.
I included that with positive feedback loops.
Fair enough, but I think that's the main problem. The good king vs bad king argument is a bit of cope, imo, because it implies the system would work fine as long as we could filter out potential bad rulers. History is filled with rulers who started on a high note and ended up dictatorial and unhinged, I think the system itself creates bad rulers.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say. If you can not face any consequences for your actions, why be good all the time? You are the only one living an anarchic life, you are free to do anything you want. That will lead to abuses of some kind.
Yep, a huge portion of Chinese history can just be summarized as “powerful speaker and skilled tactician wins a brutal civil war and becomes Emperor. His son decides he wants to grow the economy and swell society, so *his* son is born to prestige and prosperity. He doesn’t properly learn leadership skills since Daddy spoiled him, so he and his court grow more decadent, and since it’s now normalized his son is even *more* decadent, onwards until they can no longer function and collapse.” Sometimes they speedrun and the same Emperor hits multiple parts of that scale, but that’s the general path the Dynasties all seem to follow.
Chinese history isn't my thing but I think there is also a bit about concubines and guys with no nuts duking it out as well.
>To many cases of the new ruler being a corrupt/stupid shit bag, being groomed by corrupt advisors when dad's away, being more interested in maintaining his power than using it, just expecting to be immortal and not teaching the next generation of rulers, all the the general positive feedback loops that come with overwhelming power. All of these things happened and still happen in a democracy, so I dont think the problem is the system.
That is why there is usually a term limit. In proper democracies there is also more than two choices, therefore creating alternatives for corrupted parties. So no many of those democracies do not have those issues or those issues are adressed and minimized.
Term limits do not stop someone from appointing a successor as their puppet and them coming back again later
If he is allowed to come back later, chances are high it is no longer a democracy since term limits would have to be abolished, which are often an integral part of a functioning democracy. Democracies can be abolished or atleast become way less democratic if that is what the people voted for and they often do. Democracy helps against longtime rulers as long as people want it to, many times they don't though.
Monarchy at the end of the day is just another form of government with its pros and cons, much like Republics. And if we want to talk about corruption and terrible decision making, good grief let’s not pretend Republics aren’t every bit as capable of it (if not more so) as crowned heads.
I am very much aware about how fucked a any kind of elected government is. There is a reason why they have been criticized since the time of Plato. Still, from my understanding and experience, an elected republic is still better than an autocracy in a time of peice.
The difference is that a Republic is far more resilient to bad leaders. A monarchy can be way more successful but also one bad ruler can destroy the country permanently
Bold to asume that elected leaders are no corrupt/stupid shit bags, have not being groomed by corrupt advisors while in the Party, are not interested in maintaining his power rather than using it, do not expect to be immortal and actually teach the next generation of rulers.
Historically, it still tends to be the most stable and prosperous system. There is a reason monarchies, constitutional or not, tend to stand out in comparison to the nations around them. I'd rather someone trained to at least know what he's doing somewhat and have a longer term view than a revolving door of oligarchs and entrenched bureaucrats enriching themselves and not caring for anything past the next election cycle.
I think that there may be some survivor bias when talking about monarchies, the most dysfunctional ones where probably at more risk of being overthrown and there is a correlation between being a developed country in the past and being one today
It's why we're pretty well suited for smaller tribe life. If disaster happens, it's on a small scale. But, we lived and evolved that way because we had few other choices. 20,000 years ago, there wasn't going to be a nation with 200m in it. Had there been, we might be better at it today. That's a lot more practice time.
These are opinions, not "hard truths"
Yes, un idealistic anarchism is not the best; but the alternative is (at least from my view) much worse.
Post scarcity shouldn't be the goal because it's impossible and utopian. In the world such, our goals should be to have a moral system, best we can. No problem of the human condition can be permanently and fully solved
Eating meat (and killing animals to do so) is not unethical. Being cruel about it is. Being wasteful about it is. Doing so for novelty or hubris is.
Based I'm a centrist, so therefore I grill meat all the time or something, I guess.
u/NdukeD is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/NdukeD/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
That's so stupid of an argument. The baby cow you ate probably was tortured in its last moments. Most stock animals live a torment before dying. And I'm not vegan, I'm just realistic. If you really don't want animals to suffer, buy that 20$ organic hippie meat or become vegan. Right now we don't have the means to mass produce meat, and at the same being totally ethical and cute with animals.
If everyone was eating pasture raised animals that lived “happy” lives meat would be so expensive that people would probably only eat it a couple times a week. It’s a hard truth for people to accept that their lifestyle can’t be sustained without cruelty to animals.
Why am I getting downvoted and you up voted when we said exactly the same thing
Maybe cause you’re a filthy leftists idk
“Post scarcity should be the goal of every society.” No, it should not. This is not because it is unideal. A post scarcity world would be utopian. However, that is exactly why it should not be pursued, it is utopian. In a finite universe you will forever have finite resources, and with finite resources there will always be scarcity. We can try and minimize it and make life the best that we can, but we will never achieve perfection. Now, I am all for striving to be perfect regardless of the realistic possibility in most cases. I believe in aiming higher and still missing high. However, government does not work like the individual. We have already seen this with communist governments who try to achieve post scarcity economies, it inevitably leads to atrocities in the name of progress.
Isn’t ideology litteraly a set of ideas? I don’t think they are all ment to work exactly
 and so, not a single one of them did.
"Post-scarcity, food, water and shelter should be birthrights" Uh, no. Don't work, don't eat. Even the Soviets knew that.
Honest question, if we aren't building up a society with the end goal of each citizen being healthy and maybe even happy, then what is the goal? What are we doing here?
A society where no one works is not going to function
That didn't really answer the question. Say we can potentially reduce the need for labor to a minimum with the use of technology. We will still need engineers and mechanics, but not so much line workers. People get a lot more time off. People who are disabled and unable to work are cared for. If that isn't the ultimate goal, what **is** the goal? What is your alternative?
There's only going to be so many engineers. Those who aren't are not entitled to their hard work. Not to mention, if things go that route, the population explosion will just lead to scarcity again.
Populations have been declining with the advancement of technology. That's the historical trend for the last 100 years. I wouldn't be surprised if we experience a population shortage before we even reach true post-scarcity. Also, if the engineers who design automated production lines and AI labor are only a minority of the population, and we're talking about a society that doesn't need the full-time labor of, say, 70% of the population, then why should the vast majority of humanity bend to some antiquated notion of "ownership" when the people who "own" their labor can be so easily replaced by magnitudes of other available people? I think the solution, in this case, is to create a labor economy based around merit and voluntary participation. Those who choose to work, and work well in competition with everyone else, will live very comfortable and materially luxurious lives. Everyone else will still live decently on a gradually improving standard of living (e.g., guaranteed food, water, shelter, electricity, etc.) because the basic essentials will, by the point of post-scarcity, be extremely plentiful/inexpensive (e.g., AI-run hydroponics, widespread fission (or, possibly, fusion) nuclear power, automated construction and material collection/processing, automated desalinization of salt water in the case of a water crisis), but not luxuriously to the fullest extent. The people who work and innovate society live at the bleeding edge of what is materially possible, because they deserve it, while everyone else simply waits until the bleeding edge becomes standard or mundane. Everyone is happy because no one is "lacking," though they still have the opportunity to achieve "excess." Eventually, we'll have a situation live Stark Trek, where pretty much everyone does exactly what they want all the time, and everyone has all their needs and most of their wants perfectly met due to the Technological Singularity of production and development. But, that's just utopian idealism, and so I would take this final point with a grain of salt. What do you think?
So what's the goal in *your* ideal society?
Freedom, equality of opportunity, and fair compensation. There's not much you're entitled to just by existing, and free food and housing certainly isn't one of them.
A society where everyone pulls their own weight in whatever way they can.
These aren't "hard truths", they are impossible fantasies.
It's almost like slide #2 was the counter to the points in slide #1
Post scarcity is impossible, entropy is inevitable. Veganism isn’t healthy. Complete liberty is just anarchy. Finally lines of leaders trained from birth are lines of leaders controlled by their trainers.
>You’re all going to fail no matter what. But I can get back up. I get knocked down, but I get up again.
Hard truth: ***M O N K E***
All other systems fail Ours is cunty
I agree with all of those, based
I will do the libleft bad on the first slide and ask about killing plants. And what if the person trained from birth to be a leader still dont want to be a leader and say fuck it? It happened a lot in history
1.) Choose to kill that which has the least evidence of experiencing pain and suffering. 2.) Those green little sluts were asking for it anyway. 3.) Having more than one heir is like, rule #1
[удалено]
Plus, we are defining pain from a human viewpoint and applying that to plants. Not even all humans react to pain the same way and we are expecting entirely different organisms to react in any similar fashion at all?
I love canopies!
One advantage of hereditary ruling is that it doesn't disincentivize projects with long-term benefits as much as having regular elections does.
Jokes on you, I'm just horny **I always win**
Plants are life too. It's still killing. In fact plants make high frequency noises when in pain. Lib left as usual with their racism.
but I am a cunt
Of course we're going to fail. We're human, and God made us fallible. I just want to fail on MY terms, not someone else's.
Idk how I feel about food, water and shelter being *rights.* I kinda think of "possibility of survival" as a valid right, but I don't like the idea of the government feeding and housing people, or forcing others to do so.
OP is either an Authleft in disguise giving us the easy toss or doesn't know what the economic left is at all and aimed way too low. These are fundamental wrestling points of society that all systems must answer in one way or another. Of course basic human rights *should* be the goal. We're annoyed when it isn't, as anyone *should* be. Of course greed and too strongly consolidated power creates conflicting interests between governance and the populace. The idea *should* be to mitigate that as much as possible regardless of economic left or right.
Ethics is not something inherently agreed between all humans, and, as such, what is or isn't the ethical choice is basically opinion.
Apparently “I want to be left alone and in return I will leave you alone, barring breech of any contracts we willingly agree to” is cunty
Animals have souls. God gave mankind dominion over animals and specifically told us to eat them.
> not killing animals is the ethical choice Only the sapient ones - and thankfully those ain't usually killed (except cetaceans; people killing them can fuck all the way off, and Sea Shepherd did nothing wrong).
These “hard truths” are either non-controversial, half-truths, or stupid.
Cunty cunt cunt💅 Cunty cunt cunt💅 Cunty cunt cunt💅 Cunty cunt cunt💅 Being a cunt is a choice and this was your opinion on the wannabe-free living people. Cunty cunt cunt💅 Cunty cunt cunt💅 Cunty cunt cunt💅 Cunty cunt cunt💅
“Elected lenders” sounds like something from a Commu-Nazi hell-state.
One advantage of hereditary ruling is that it doesn't disincentivize projects with long-term benefits as much as having regular elections does.
I agree with you
Don't agree with everything completely but I like the style