“LA LA LA! I CANT HEAR YOU I CANT HEAR YOU!”
Yeah, you’re brilliant.
I'm sure that would be very hurtful if you weren't the one ignoring my arguments and saying idiotic things to the point where I feel that attempting to reason with you is futile.
In a debate about Marx, you literally couldn't even refer to anything he said even once. So you lost.
Ask any Marxist who's right about Marx and they'll choose me, because I am a Marxist who has studied Marx. Sorry bro, but I've got commie cred, you just have quotes from the internet that you don't understand in a Marxist context because you were told what to think about communism long before you ever started cherry picking quotes about it.
Reason may be objective, but the most reasonable path for human action depends on values. You cannot reasonably determine what is reasonable for every aspect of other people's value structures.
In the first sentence you say reason is objective, but your second sentence claims that what is reasonable changes based on whatever subjective values shape someone's outlook. This is because your values are not aligned with reason or objective truth, they are based in the subjective. But since mine are aligned with reason I know that subjective cultural values are not valid unless reason is what they value in and of itself. You see it as a tyranny to be correct because you value opinions and superstitions, I see at as a tyranny to perpetuate opinions and superstitions because I value facts and reality. You see it as an issue of individual choice, but it is all to obvious to one who has the IQ befitting of a human being that the values you speak of which go against reason are not a choice, they are dangerous cultural programming that is perpetuated in human cultures rather than critical thinking skills because humans are type 0 ape monkeys who live in conceptual worlds of bullshit.
Furthermore, no one person has at there disposal all necessary information. This is why reasonable people disagree.
That's why we need socialism, there will be much more think tanking and information pooling.
If there were entire societies predicated on this idea, it would behoove us to teach people about them.
That doesn't change the fact that it is fucking retarded.
This is awesome. You literally don't know what integrity means.
You think that having a society based on the rule of whoever has the most money is morally and logically superior though. You're a joke.
How is need determined?
By the amount of money someone has.
If resources are not sufficient to supply everyone, who decides who gets what?
Money.
Reasonable people can disagree. Whose reason do we rely on?
Money decides who's reason you rely on.
Those would be my answers if I was a capitalist, in order to even begin to understand socialism, you first need to be not retarded enough to understand the problems created by the above.
So in your imaginary system what is the chain of custody for the wealth? You have my attention
To understand that you will have to focus on reality for a moment and forget about the social constructs that exist under capitalism, are you prepared?
Everyone equally owns everything and owns nothing, wealth does not exist, and resources are allocated based on reason and need rather than fictitious wanker units.
I didn't even think there was as much concern on the healthy aspect as there was "let's not kill animals".
Yes, most vegans see it as a moral issue primarily, but there is also a great deal of evidence which suggests a vegan diet is generally healthier when executed properly. In reality though it depends on the individual, different diets work best for different people and not everyone can be healthy as a vegan.
So now I wonder if it's lab grown if it could be modified even more to be healthier and provide the essential nutrients needed but in bacon flavor or something like that.
It could definitely be done, but it will probably be unhealthy at first, more so than actual meat. In order for it to be healthy, it will have to not be in the hands of corporations.
I wouldn't see why not but how much is too much for tampering with it?
I imagine if we tampered with it at all right now we would fuck it up but who knows what we will pull off in the future.
Sorry. But that just cannot possibly taster better than a white chocolate raspberry cheesecake.
Do you comprehend the fact that taste is subjective? To some people your cheese cake is not that good, to you it might be a heavenly ray of sunshine penetrating your third eye chakra. There is no such thing as something that tastes better or tastes worse, There is only what tastes better TO someone. Of course there is overlap amongst our tastes, because we are wired to go after certain flavours that we biologically associate with nutrients, but theoretically to an alien from another planet fecal matter might taste delicious and cheesecake might be repulsive.
@AlofRI
What we call conservatives now were actually called liberals in the past, "classical liberals" to be precise. The monarchists used to called "conservatives" because they were in favour of maintaining the status quo. Indeed, conservatism's defining trait is a desire to maintain status quo, and thus one could say that the very essence of leftism is "progress" whereas the right is in favour of regression or stagnation.
But look at your average establishment "lib" in America, someone like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, they serve the exact same moneyed interests as the right, and the only ones who are going for any real meaningful change or ones like Bernie who is not even a liberal. As I said before, what we call conservatives today are actually liberals historically speaking, so what does "liberal" actually mean in a modern context? Slightly more liberal classical liberals.
