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.
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.
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
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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
The people who want to end the social safety net call themselves capitalists though.
Removed by mod