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.
Wow. You quite seem to enjoy twisting yourself into knots.
No one suggested that an economic system would solve every problem, but plainly the most essential objective is keeping everyone adequately fed.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the profit motive.
The profit motive makes some immensely wealthy, while keeping others deprived.
Therefore, capitalist society completely fails on its own merits to support the one objective that is singularly most indispensable for any society.
Do you understand why the objection is being given against capitalism, the system that insists profits are more important than people?
Also, you have begun descending more deeply into capitalist apologetics, by arguing that the profit motive of pharmaceutical shareholders, and not the skill and dedication of researchers, leads to development of successful therapies.
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.
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
Wow. You quite seem to enjoy twisting yourself into knots.
No one suggested that an economic system would solve every problem, but plainly the most essential objective is keeping everyone adequately fed.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the profit motive.
The profit motive makes some immensely wealthy, while keeping others deprived.
Therefore, capitalist society completely fails on its own merits to support the one objective that is singularly most indispensable for any society.
Do you understand why the objection is being given against capitalism, the system that insists profits are more important than people?
Also, you have begun descending more deeply into capitalist apologetics, by arguing that the profit motive of pharmaceutical shareholders, and not the skill and dedication of researchers, leads to development of successful therapies.
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
I asked for a source, not a name.