As some who has no clue who Mike Beasley is, that seems like a perfectly legitimate Interpretation. A lot of people, like the one he is replying too, knowingly or not are defending the existing system and the existence of health insurances companies.

I mean, forget about health for a second: we all know insurance companies fucking suck, and they are essentially just a symptom of a shitty system. So why are we fighting/wishing/hoping for them to be run better/more empathetically instead of wanting a different system?

I think the his comment can be seen as a call-out of how some people are missing the root of the issue.

But I also don’t think the law should protect people with some amount of wealth.

Well, what’s “some amount of wealth”? We all have some amount of it. At what point is it okay to take someone’s life because of it? I don’t think that’s very different from saying “I think we should use capital punishment on murderers”. One of the reasons I oppose capital punishment is also because government convict innocent people; but another is that I think people can be rehabilitated, and I believe that both for murderers and people with wealth.

It’s not called a false dichotomy; it’s called taking a firm stance, and speaking the language properly and clearly.

Pro-lifers think abortion is bad at any point; pro-lifers choicers are people who think abortion is okay to a certain point. People who are pro capital punishment only want it in certain scenarios; people who are anti capital punishment don’t want it at all.

If you say you are “pro capital punishment in certain scenarios”, then you support the death sentence; end of. Saying you’re “anti but (…)” is like saying “I’m anti-abortion/pro-life except for the first 3 months or in special circumstances”.

That doesn’t make you pro this or anti that.

Then don’t claim to be anti this or that when you’re not? I was quite specific in that I was talking to people who say they are “anti” when they are not.

Any Communist knows that this future is not possible until money is no longer a necessity.

We make money a necessity, and so no, “any communist” doesn’t know that because it isn’t true. You clearly have a very limited and ignorant view of communism and communists. The person I quoted was an anarchist-communist, and I feel like “any communist” should know that.

That being said, they’re giving her a choice, pay back $9 billion or die. Pretty simple. She has an opportunity to not die.

Unless I’m missing something: they are the state, they can just seize her assets and put her in prison, there’s no reason for killing.

Pro-rehabilitation folks still can believe that not all people can be rehabilitated.

If we were talking hypotheticals I might agree, but like you said this is the real world and a question remains: who decides who is incapable of rehabilitation? People who have committed murder (which I personally would classify as the worst type of crime - taking away someone’s entire life) have been rehabilitated before, and completely changed their lives and become productive members of society. Plus, the same goal could be achieved with permanent incarceration, and at least then they have a chance of being released if we ever find there was a miscarriage of justice.

Some crimes and criminals are beyond what the sane and just can fathom.

But who gets to decide who that? Who are the “sane and just” who will draw the line? In Texas, USA, the “sane and just” decided you should get the death penalty if you murder a “peace officer”. And off course by “peace officer” we know they mean the type of people who kill children and people’s dogs; but if anyone were to kill one in self-defence a court would probably still convict them of murder.

This thread in a nutshell:

I’m against the death penalty, but/except/unless…

Well, then you’re not against it, are you? People who are pro death penalty also have their limits from which point forward they believe death penalty to be justifiable. If you have an exception, you are pro-death penalty.

And to all the “revolutionaries” in these comments:

My Disillusionment in Russia, by Emma Goldman (Afterword):

There is no greater fallacy than the belief that aims and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics are another. (…) All human experience teaches that methods and means cannot be separated from the ultimate aim. The means employed become, through individual habit and social practice, part and parcel of the final purpose; they influence it, modify it, and presently the aims and means become identical. (…) Psychologically and socially the means necessarily influence and alter the aims. (…)

No revolution can ever succeed as a factor of liberation unless the MEANS used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency with the PURPOSES to be achieved. (…) It is the herald of NEW VALUES, ushering in a transformation of the basic relations of man to man, and of man to society. It is not a mere reformer, patching up some social evils; not a mere changer of forms and institutions; not only a re-distributor of social well-being. It is all that, yet more, much more. (…)

To-day is the parent of to-morrow. The present casts its shadow far into the future. That is the law of life, individual and social. Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society. The means used to prepare the future become its cornerstone.

If you are a leftist that imagines/wishes a future with no government oppression, sponsored killing, and violence; and if you claim to be pro rehabilitation instead of punishment, you should not be celebrating capital punishment.

You’re right, it is a false dichotomy on your part. There’s a difference between an active threat and someone who has been arrested. We are talking about sentencing someone who is on trial, not about active self-defence. Or would you shoot someone as they are running away from you, just because they attacked you earlier?

Do you think the people who are pro death penalty want to kill people for every minor crime? Because they also just want to condemn to death the people who they believe to be morally righteous to do that to.

It’s a classic.

I’m against the death penalty, but…

There are no buts; if there’s a “but” then you’re pro capital punishment.

I’ll reply all in one comment:

make any excuse you want

Sorry you failed math, I guess?

all the evidence is to the contrary

production determines availability. there is no reason to assume we could produce more meat than we do, given land and technology constraints.

meat production happened before trade. there is no reason to assume it will ever end.

Where do you think meat is going? Why do you think it was being produced before trade, for fun? And do you not understand the basic concept that less =/= more, and that less emissions is better than more emissions?

It’s really not a hard concept to grasp, but go ahead and keep trying to hide your head in the sand and justify your consumerism while pretending to give a shit. I won’t bother wasting my time on someone who apparently can’t grasp basic math.

In 2021 Americans ate about 37.81kg of beef per capita per year in 2021, that’s about 0.73kg per week, or 1.6lbs.

Cheapest beef in Walmart that I can find, 1 pound for $5.93; so, for 1.6lbs, it comes out to $9.49 per week, for the cheapest Walmart beef. Keep in mind, 1.6lbs = 25.6 oz.

Beans (didn’t go for the cheapest): Can of black beans (15oz) for $1.42, another can of butter beans(16oz) for $1.54.

Lentils (not the cheapest): Iberia Lentils 12 oz for $2.59.

Mushrooms (16oz) for $4.34.

So a total of $9.89 for varied and healthy food, vs $9.49 for Walmart’s cheapest beef (which realistically would cost $11.86, because you can’t just buy 0.6lbs of that beef).

Yeah, because there’s more people in total. That doesn’t mean people going vegan doesn’t stop the growth of the meat industry.

Say 50% of people eat meat, and the other 50% are vegan. Then say the world population doubles. Now there will twice as many vegans, but there will also be twice as many meat eaters, and so meat production will double. But there’s still only half the meat production that there would be if 100% of people ate meat. And if you could get that value to 0% percent, there would be no meat industry.

I’ve heard people say they were both bad, and they were both most appealing to the millionaire/billionaire class - and I would agree - but I really haven’t seen any significant number of people that think they were both equally bad. Maybe one now and then, but certainly not enough that it has stuck in memory.

Can you elaborate on this? Maybe give me some examples?

Because for the vast majority of people in western countries (which have by far the most emissions per capita), it is much cheaper to eat a plant based diet. Rice, beans, and lentils are much cheaper and much healthier than eating beef every day of the week.

How so? Meat factories exist to feed the people who buy meat. The more people go vegan, the less meat those factories produce, until they shut down. There is no “green version” for the meat industry, it just has to die, and the alternatives already exist and are cheaper. The power is all on people’s hands. The government won’t do anything about (not even cut the large meat industry subsidies) as long as people keep eating tons of meat, because they know that would mean protests and losing elections.

As you said, plenty of countries are better in terms of public transportation, but most people still insist on driving cars even in places with good public transportation coverage.

And the biggest counter to the “it’s not a personal issue, it’s companies who don’t give options” is diet: eating meat is far worse for the environment as well as more expensive than a plant based diet; but people hate the idea of eating less meat and they love to mock vegans.

Meat is one of the bigger polutters. Meat industry is subsidized by the state. Plant based diets are still cheaper. The vast majority of people still choose to eat meat and actively mock vegans. Just go look at beef (worse meat for the environment) consumption stats in the US.

That’s just one example.

People say they want change but won’t take it where they can, because deep down it’s a lie and they just want someone to fix the problem without them having to do anything.

The topic is about the genocide happening in Palestine. You said:

The “a vote for Kamala is a vote for genocide” people were literally saying before the election that Palestinian genocide cannot get worse because genocide is genocide.

So I guess this isn’t worse?

Also about Palestine.

I simply pointed out to you that this is nothing new and was happening under the Dems, and has been happening for decades, and then you decided to bring up “concentration camps in the U.S.”.

The conversation was not about that.

Why are you shifting goal posts so much and being so antagonizing? Are you just embarrassed that you fell for propaganda and don’t want to admit it? Or are you consciously trying to help spread propaganda and make people forget the Dems supported Genocide?

Either way you are certainly not helping the image that internet forum mods are insufferable people. I’m moving on from this conversation.

Ok? I don’t disagree, but that’s not what this conversation is about. We are talking about Palestinian genocide and specifically the occupation of the West Bank. And either way, I haven’t heard anyone on Lemmy say Trump isn’t worse for the US.

This is from June 2020.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he is planning to effectively annex parts of the occupied West Bank in what would be a major - and highly controversial - act.

This is from July 2023.

Israel Is Officially Annexing the West Bank

A quiet bureaucratic maneuver by Netanyahu’s government has begun transferring control over the occupied territory from military to civilian leadership—violating international law.

Here’s an entire wiki page about all they’ve been doing in the West Bank since 1967.

This is nothing new, it’s just a next step that would have been taken regardless.

This is from June 2020.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he is planning to effectively annex parts of the occupied West Bank in what would be a major - and highly controversial - act.

This is from July 2023.

Israel Is Officially Annexing the West Bank

A quiet bureaucratic maneuver by Netanyahu’s government has begun transferring control over the occupied territory from military to civilian leadership—violating international law.

Here’s an entire wiki page about all they’ve been doing in the West Bank since 1967.

If you think this is new and is only happening because of Trump, you haven’t been paying attention and are falling for propaganda.