As expected

?

As you have asked for, i have provided:

• My definitive stance, in simple bullet points so you don't get confused
• My understanding of your stance, in the same format
• A list of direct questions (the ones with ? on the end)

Most of the questions are asking for citations from you, which has not been your strong suit so far, but I’m ready to be surprised.

Feel free to respond to them or continue deflecting, your call.

As expected

You asked for an example, i gave you one.

If you need some clarification, just point at the bit that's confusing and i'll see what i can do.

.....

Yeah, ignore all the below stuff, i'll leave it there for posterity but i just a had a quick look through your history and i want nothing to do with any of that.

~~ok, i know i probably shouldn't feed the trolls, but I’m genuinely interested how you got from "here is the example you asked for" to~~

~~> How is it other people’s fault. Nobody made you guys discriminante against black people and only eat junk food~~

~~No blame was assigned, no discrimination was mentioned, nor any specific ethnicities, the only thing i explicitly mentioned was poverty and starvation, low quality food was sort of mentioned, referentially.~~

~~The necessities of poverty is a bigger discussion and given how you did with this small one , i'll just save us both time and just skip that entirely.~~

~~I'm also wondering who you mean by "you guys" who is it you think i am ?~~

~~Also also, in case it's relevant, i picked the mainland US because you sounded like you thought it was only remote regions that had this problem, but Food Security is an issue in many places.~~

TL;DR;

Any place people can/do starve to death, but might potentially have easier physical access to processed(ultraprocesed ?) foods or potentially, local animals.

See below for specifics.

Mainland US?

There are plenty of people living at or below the poverty line, the nature of the food industry as it stands means that easy and affordable access to a non-meat diet isn't always viable.

There are people dying of lack of access to food in general, let alone non-meat food, but let's focus on the latter for now.

Let's take the outdated atomic family, 2 adults 2.4 children.

Both adults working more than full time, kids in school full time.

Local access to enough viable non-meat foodstuffs isn't always feasible within budgetary and time constraints see : Food Deserts

I mentioned caloric and nutritional for a reason, it's possible to get enough calories and not be nutritionally sound in the medium to long term.

You eat what you can afford and by afford i mean in terms of both fiscal and time constraints.

There are of course vegetarian and vegan options for meals, rice, beans, lentils, vegetables etc.

Assuming you can get a hold of those things in enough quantities, all the time, forever.

I'm not saying it's everyone all the time, I’m saying extreme poverty exists, people starve and starving people don't always have the luxury of taking the moral high-ground.

Should society be like this? fuck no.

Is it , in some places? absolutely.

Does the Venn diagram of these people and the people complaining about AI being worse than the meat industry line up? i doubt it, but my point was :

Necessity is relative and contextual, there are legitimately places where eating meat is required because the caloric and nutritional consequences of not eating meat are life threatening.

Sure, but the context isn't about the ability, its about the accessibility (ease of doing the thing) and the tacit endorsement of the act.

Saying "yeah but {X} can also do that" isn't really relevant here.

You don’t seem to understand a lot of my reply, let’s see if we can clear some stuff

I would argue i understood your reply fine, i wasn't arguing against the merit (or lack thereof) of your points, only that they weren't related to the message you were replying to.

The post was complaining about the 2nd amendment folks not getting upset that ICE was treading on people’s rights

Not really, i already provided a rough translation, it seems we aren't going to agree on interpretation so let's just agree to disagree on this one.

… Why would they? Why would you expect any other group to defend your rights.

A somewhat valid point.. in a situation where it applies, alas, it does not in this case.

You don’t seem to understand what satire is.

I understand the post was satire, with an edge of actual outrage, or at least that's my interpretation.

Given that you also seem to recognise it as satire, it seems odd you'd go out of your way to reply in such a serious tone, but you do you.

Even more strange is that you'd argue against positions never taken, but we've already been over that.

Either the original poster was truly upset the 2nd amendment folks were not defending other people’s rights. Or he was trying to make a satirical point outlining that 2nd Amendment people had no intention of defending people’s rights and just wanted guns. I think given the context it is the latter. Satire is great when trying to convince others that the other party is wrong I.E. Gun rights advocates were possibly lying

All of that is still based on an points never raised in the original reply, see my original translation.

I’m simply pointing out that when there is need on the left to defend yourselves with firearms you’ve undermined your case. Look up videos with armed protesters or what the Black Panthers are doing to repel ICE. The police and ICE are a lot less willing to deploy excessive force or even to engage with armed individuals.

That's a more complicated discussion and i don't disagree on some of those points, but it still doesn't apply here because there was no reference to defense of gun rights, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of using a position to argue that you wouldn't take in the actual situation, see my original translation.

I literally quoted Carl Marx what makes you think I’m not on the left? Go left enough and guns are back on the table.

I made no assumption of your place on the political spectrum, i stand by my original reply.

Though i will concede i did make it seem like it was aimed at you directly and that was not my intention, my bad.

Are you under the impression their position toward abortion would be different if the entire state or country were 100% white? I assure you it would not be. And if that’s true, it cannot be based on race.

I've no idea, all i was stating is that dismissing race as a part of the decision making process (consciously or unconsciously) in a place known for outcomes based on race could be considered dumbing down the argument.

What’s more is this argument that their position on abortion is informed by statistics is laughable. These are low information voters. You seriously think they even know the stats? Why in the world would anyone think that?

Entirely laughable, which is why nobody has claimed this.

I was saying these people are what makes up the statistics.

As an entirely made up example:

"10% of the population don't like the taste of potatoes" doesn't mean 10% of the population base their decisions about eating fries on reading the statistics.

claims such as "All the people i know like potatoes , so potato preference can't possibly be related to the amount of fries eaten" just doesnt make any sense.

and to be clear I'm not claiming all positions are race based, just that it's enough of a factor that pretending it doesn't have any impact at all is some gold medal mental gymnastics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVhlJNJopOQ