The animal rights movement is, unfortunately for humanity, only one of the many clear examples of what radical leftism is about (= decreasing human welfare through totalitarian control of human behaviour justified by arbitrary morality crusades).

your ideal society is a beehive or an anthill wtf are you even talking about

mother of god

wtf? no it's not.

Well of course you don't recognize it as such. If you did you wouldn't believe what you do.

But, none of guys see that you don't actually value human life. Like, at all.

People who want to use violence against people with a different value scale are the problem, and you are among them. Those want an anthill society, with recalcitrant ants being forced into submission or eliminated.

OK that was the grunchiest grunch I ever grunched...

No, see, I get the exact particulars, and the source and catalyst of your confusion; why you have it exactly backwards. You don't have to reiterate.

2 points:

1. You don't believe or are unaware that psychological, psychic pain is a thing.

2. Bees and ants don't have therapists and psychiatrists.

I am well aware that psychological pain exists, is what i feel right now reading your posts.

I enjoy a good nit but 'like it when people use heroin' is close enough to 'in favour of people using heroin'.

Of course and people understand that even if they disagree. We also all understand why people disagree about hate speech laws even when they agree that hate speech is bad.

Ok! so why don't you see it's the same about me and animal torture? arguing against a ban is simply not the same as being in favour of something.

And saying "but if we don't ban it some people will do it" is in no way an argument that can justify the ban, by itself.

LOL, another ACist who can dissect the smallest of grievances against current society but is completely ****ing blind to what an ACist society would be like for all but the most privileged.

I did. You're a tough person to agree with about something

You're wrong because of you're actual argument, not because of the cheap rhetoric.

So, you are against (1) evictions, (2) repossessions for unpaid interest, and (3) suppression of sit down strikes... correct?

If not, you are a "people who wants to use violence against people with a different value scale", and by your own pronouncement, you "are the problem".

Just that simple. What say you...

In no reply in any thread i ever said i am an acist, and i repeatedly said i am in favour of some regulation and some taxes, included to fund a basic income so stop lying

If it walks talks and squawks like a duck....

Or

But I haven’t heard you come out against it

This is literally the first line i wrote in this thread (post 143)

as an answer to libertarian extremists, just switching from lake pollution to air pollution would suffice to show their positions is untenable.


So you either can't read, or you lie.

You assume I read way more of your posts than I actually do. You'll forgive me if misrepresent your position, the only people I've seen actively campaign for moving poors to poor farms and allowing people to torture animals for money have been ACists. What is your opinion on roof roads?

I never heard the expression "roof road" before. Googling it, it doesn't seem to be a special phrase to specifically describe some phenomenon.

So what do you mean with "roof roads"?

Btw i don't campaign to "move poors to poor farms". I campaign for people to MASSIVELY increase their quality of life, WITH PUBLIC MONEY, going to live in places where the cost of life is lower when it makes sense FOR THEM, after they get money to solve absolute poverty.

They wouldn't be POOR with an UBI, in an absolute sense. Only in the monstrous radical left "relative poverty" definition.

It's the only way for people to get to work when the company that owns the roads puts a use tax on the road to your house equal to your take home pay.

narrator: he does

And the people who can't move to your poor houses, what are we to do with them?

A UBI won't make someone not poor. A UBI would remove them from poverty allowing them to focus on something more productive than whether they should buy food or medicine today.

I am strongly in favour of most roads in most cases being public.

Define "can't move", and explain their situation, then we will see if it's up to the public to help them or not.

If you have an higher, guaranteed by the state, income thatn the median bulgarian, indonesian and so on and you still get defined poor then the person using that word is a liar.

If the median bulgarian can not only survive but live a decent life, then an american can do the same with 10-12k$ per year. If he doesn't manage to that's entirely his/her fault. Median bulgarian personal income at PPP is less than 6k per year.

Remember that this doesn't include healthcare. So it would be basic income + healthcare, like the proposals going on in europe, canada and so on.

But it's never enough for you radical leftists. Never. Enough.

Having 100% of the resident population permanently out of poverty is NOT ENOUGH. Because maybe some of them have to move.

You know what? people like you are the reason i don't fight as much as i could in favor of basic income or other welfare of that kind. Because as long as people like you exist no concession can be made to your side. It's too dangerous to ever allow you any possible political victory. You have to disappear completly before decent people can put togheter decent solutions to real problems.

Until them i think you deserve trump and people like him. Enjoy that, knowing fully well they exist only because you generated them, disallowing pratictal and useful centrism in your country.