2020 US Presidential Election

@alephy "People work for a living because they want to". Really? In the society in which we live, *everybody* works because they want to work for a living? Nobody hates their boss and wishes they could quit but can't because they have to put food on the table? This is quite frankly an enviable level of naiveté "Abled body adults have to work for a living" Oh, so people *don't* all work for a living because they want to? Hm. Interesting, that. You've just shifted in the same post from saying that they do. Why is that, I wonder. And now you're trying to justify something that you opened the post by saying was false. This post of yours is already practically dripping with intellectual dishonesty. "You are really far to the left" - Yes. Yes I am. Congratulations, you have learned that the person who was just saying that they were working based on socialist principles is left-wing. Though where I'm from 'blue pill' or bottle or what have you doesn't really apply quite so well for what you want (yes, everybody knows it's a Matrix reference) given that the colours of our political parties are reversed, I'm afraid it's Red for me. You might have to try a little harder to find an insult. "Working for a living is not implicit violence" - except that in what you said basically immediately before this you not only just admitted that needing to work for a living is implicit violence, you also said that it was justified for able-bodied people who did not work for a living to starve to death. To explain further why I think that explicit and implicit violence should be treated in similar ways as per assessing the validity of the voluntary nature of a transaction, I think the threat of death by starvation achieves much the same as the threat of death by direct physical violence. The end result would still be death. So that is certainly one respect in which the two would be similar. I also can't help but find it funny how you put theft in the same sentence as rape and murder there as though those things are somehow on the same level. Regardless, the point of *coercion* is to influence someone into an outcome that you want, so the actual level of the threat is not actually as relevant as whether or not the threat of such affects the individual to such an extent that it changes their decisionmaking. With regards to the final point you make on crime: It is important to bear in mind that crime is actually quite heavily influenced by a number of socioeconomic factors, such that it is far more likely that people on the breadline, and people in particularly rough and underinvested communities, will commit violent crimes than, say, Jeff Bezos, who is quite secure in his living arrangements. So actually, in a way, people like him and his fellow capitalists do actually proportionally benefit more than the average person by police catching people deemed by the law to be violent criminals, simply because by statistics (before we even get into anything else) they're less likely to be on the 'being arrested and thrown into the prison industrial complex' end of things.

@cero can you answer my question? because you seem to think its a really silly issue to argue against, so surely you can easily own me in this debate, right?

Right, time for me to catch up to where the thread actually is. Oh, what are we dealing with now, transphobia? Do I need to break out the "Sex and Gender are two different things" board? If not, I might as well fetch the "Both Sex and Gender are spectra" one.

misgendering trans ppl like how you are is super uncool, cero-kun. you really don't understand their struggle at all. i really don't think a good faith debate is possible if you can't concede that for the sake of social exchange