As opposed to the current time of surplus and abundance where it is if “you don’t work you don’t eat”. Which is morally a lot worse considering there is more than enough food to feed everyone
Yeah… no. Very little in modern history is morally worse than Soviet management of the famine of 1930-1933 (which they caused, too). That shit was at least on par with the Irish Famine in terms of sheer moral depravity.
Let me get this straight. To you, a famine produced unintentionally through policy that spiked class war and originated primarily from rich farmers sabotaging the crops and livestock as a response to their lands being collectivized in the first successful collectivization of a country in the history of the Earth, is to you as morally depraved as the English colonists literally starving Irish to death because of colonial and racist beliefs?
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
You won’t dignify me with a response because you’re simply replicating propaganda that you’ve heard on Reddit, and you can’t argue from knowledge but from vibes.
I don’t know choosing to not feed people when there is enough food to feed everyone seems a lot worse than choosing which people to not feed during a time of famine.
Obviously more people die from the famine, but at least that’s due to a lack of resources and not a manufactured scarcity
I can’t find a way to phrase this that’s not offensive, so I’ll just go ahead: Are you being obtuse or do you just not know what you’re talking about? Because if it’s the latter you should at least take a scroll down this Wikipedia page before you talk about this stuff. However, I will say that sacrificing millions of people for holy communism (which is what happened; the famine was a choice) isn’t much better than sacrificing them for holy property rights. Not asking for foreign aid and denying a famine even existed was also inexcusable.
As opposed to the current time of surplus and abundance where it is if “you don’t work you don’t eat”. Which is morally a lot worse considering there is more than enough food to feed everyone
Yeah… no. Very little in modern history is morally worse than Soviet management of the famine of 1930-1933 (which they caused, too). That shit was at least on par with the Irish Famine in terms of sheer moral depravity.
Let me get this straight. To you, a famine produced unintentionally through policy that spiked class war and originated primarily from rich farmers sabotaging the crops and livestock as a response to their lands being collectivized in the first successful collectivization of a country in the history of the Earth, is to you as morally depraved as the English colonists literally starving Irish to death because of colonial and racist beliefs?
I won’t dignify this slop with a response. Fucking tankies, man.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
You won’t dignify me with a response because you’re simply replicating propaganda that you’ve heard on Reddit, and you can’t argue from knowledge but from vibes.
I don’t know choosing to not feed people when there is enough food to feed everyone seems a lot worse than choosing which people to not feed during a time of famine.
Obviously more people die from the famine, but at least that’s due to a lack of resources and not a manufactured scarcity
I can’t find a way to phrase this that’s not offensive, so I’ll just go ahead: Are you being obtuse or do you just not know what you’re talking about? Because if it’s the latter you should at least take a scroll down this Wikipedia page before you talk about this stuff. However, I will say that sacrificing millions of people for holy communism (which is what happened; the famine was a choice) isn’t much better than sacrificing them for holy property rights. Not asking for foreign aid and denying a famine even existed was also inexcusable.
I am once again asking liberals to stop treating Wikipedia as holy Scripture.
It was a result of bad policy, and that policy was a choice, but it’s pretty misleading to try and spin that as making the famine itself “a choice”.
citation needed
look up just a few of the atrocities the capitalist west has committed. some in the name of destroying socialism.
if you think mismanaging a famine is worse than enslaving entire countries you are either misinformed or speaking in very bad faith.