Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    OVdose

    + friends - friends
    63,783 link karma
    30,089 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] What You Think is Capitalism isn't Actually Capitalism OVdose 1 points ago in EnoughLibertarianSpam

    I didn't say that.

    Yes, you actually are saying that. You're literally saying the successes of those countries can only be attributed to capitalism, because without capitalism their success would not exist.

    But those services are paid for by wealth that is generated by capitalism.

    And is the wealth generated by capitalism, or is it wealth generated by a productive group of people who happen to live under a mixed capitalist-socialist economy? Isn't it possible that they would be just as efficient under a completely socialist government, since part of their modern success can be attributed to their more socialist tendencies? Maybe their GDP wouldn't be as high, but that can't possibly be your only measure of success.

    Take capitalism out of the equation, and you run out of money for the services, public debt spirals out of control, and Sweden quickly becomes a colder version of Greece

    This is not true. Socialist countries don't eliminate their productivity, they just collectively regulate it. It's possible they could generate more wealth and that it would be distributed more evenly without capitalism, but the mixed economy they have now is already good and it seems closer to collective regulation and redistribution than laissez-faire capitalism.

    And Greece had a tumultuous and corruption-ridden history. They haven't even had a stable constitution for more than a couple decades. That you're attributing their failures to socialism or public spending now leads me to believe that you don't really understand the topics you're talking about.

    The fact that you can't name a successful socialist country leads me to believe that there isn't one.

    Especially now that you've brought up this shit argument again. How do you measure success? By GPD? How many billionaires you can make? Happiness? How small a gap there is between rich and poor? How few children are starving?

    How about a communist asks you to name a successful capitalist country? I wonder what measures of success you would use to convince them that, say, the U.S. is successful. Do you think they would care about GDP and how many billionaires there are when the gap between rich and poor is growing and people are dying in the streets? Mmmm, smells like success to me.

    Success is subjective, and you've already made it quite clear that you'll change your measures of success depending on the economic system in question. If it's good it's capitalism's fault. If it's bad it's socialism's fault. If it's socialism and good, it's actually capitalism't fault.

    [–] Muh Guns OVdose 2 points ago in ChapoTrapHouse

    No. Switzerland has about 27 guns per 100 persons. In the US the number is 120 guns per 100 persons. About 4 and a half times the number of guns per capita. No other country comes close.

    [–] This makes me sad too, but the fact that people can’t connect factory farming and situations like this drives me nuts. OVdose 0 points ago in vegan

    Can only discuss it with you when I'm perfect, understood. Thanks bye.

    Yes, how does it feel to be on the other end of your own argument? lol

    You are literally saying vegans can't connect climate change to forest fires since they do things that contribute to climate change. I'm turning it around on you, since you already admitted there's more you could do. Does that mean you can't connect climate change with forest fires? Your small edit doesn't change the overall argument, and you still apply that argument to subscribers of /r/vegan in your other comments.

    [–] This makes me sad too, but the fact that people can’t connect factory farming and situations like this drives me nuts. OVdose 1 points ago in vegan

    I'm not equivocating or using a "what about" argument as an excuse for inaction. I'm saying that doing things that still contribute to climate change doesn't preclude connecting climate change with forest fires. Which was your entire point.

    So unless you want to admit that you are yourself one of those vegans who can't connect climate change with forest fires, I would reconsider the position you're still trying to defend.

    [–] This makes me sad too, but the fact that people can’t connect factory farming and situations like this drives me nuts. OVdose 0 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago) in vegan

    I never said that.

    You never explicitly say it. But you claim vegans can't connect forest fires with climate change. Then when confronted with the fact that vegans often do connect those things, you switch to saying they're not doing enough to prevent it. Let's set aside the fact that you moved goal posts. What is "doing enough" by your standards? At what point does someone earn the right to say they care about climate change? Does it just happen to be exactly as much as you're doing? How convenient for you.

    To summarize, yeah I'm not perfect, but being alone on this journey doesn't make it any easier.

    You even admit you're not doing as much as you can to reduce your footprint. You make excuses for the things you continue to do, but you paint other vegans as incapable of caring about the environment until they do more. If you're living in and benefiting from an industrialized nation, then I'm sorry to break this to you but your footprint is not zero. Unless you don't have a job, don't pay rent, don't heat your house, don't pay for electricity, make your own clothing, mine and smelt your own metals, etc. There's always a way to do better for the environment. But you don't have to do everything in order to realize the connection between forest fires and climate change. Your initial point is stupid and makes you seem like a bitter elitist who just wants people to know that there are levels to veganism, and that you're above them.

    By the way, until you move to a cabin, cut all ties with outside society and start living off of the land in a non-exploitative way, I won't take you seriously. I can't imagine someone who says they care about climate change would ever live in a society and use the internet. As I said in my last comment: you're not doing everything in your power to reduce your carbon footprint. Therefor you can't connect climate change with forest fires. Therefor you are one of the vegans you claim drive you nuts. Welcome to the club, my guy.

    [–] This makes me sad too, but the fact that people can’t connect factory farming and situations like this drives me nuts. OVdose 6 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago) in vegan

    Your claim is that vegans can't connect climate change with issues like increased rates and intensities of forest fires. Your proof is that you got downvoted a couple times when you brought it up. Then you ignore the fact that tons of vegans are only vegan because they care about climate change and the environment. Instead you focus on the fact that some vegans still do things that contribute to global warming, like using palm oil. Can you only claim to care about climate change if you convert to Jainism and move to a cabin in the middle of nowhere? What more are you doing that gives you the right to claim you care about climate change? If you're not doing everything then it's not enough, according to your logic.

    In fact, I'm surprised you're even trying to make this argument from behind a computer and while living in a (presumably) industrialized country. You're not doing everything in your power to reduce your carbon footprint. Therefor you can't connect climate change with forest fires. Therefor you are one of the vegans you claim drive you nuts. Welcome to the club, my guy.

    Sorry but your claim that vegans can't connect worsening weather patterns with climate change is just ridiculous. You're not being downvoted for bringing up climate change, you're being downvoted for coming off as a contentious and sanctimonious ass-hat.

    [–] What You Think is Capitalism isn't Actually Capitalism OVdose 10 points ago in EnoughLibertarianSpam

    You're missing the point, bud. This isn't about where Socialism works or doesn't work. This is about ignoring external factors when determining the success of a capitalist or socialist country depending on which one you think is better.

    "Capitalist country going great? Obviously it's capitalism's doing."

    "Capitalist country doing poorly based on other metrics? It obviously can't be capitalism's fault because those problems exist in other systems."

    Yet the horrors of Venezuela are mentioned by every right-wing idiot who thinks he's pwning the libs with facts and logic. All while conveniently ignoring the external factors that led to their current situation.

    If it's good it's capitalism's fault. If it's bad it's socialism's fault. Obviously Nordic countries are so happy and healthy because of capitalism, not because of the enormously high taxes and top-tier social safety nets. It couldn't be that they have some of the strongest labor unions in the world. It couldn't be that they have a mixed economy that balances a somewhat free market with socialist taxing and spending schemes. It's C A P I T A L I S M.

    [–] layt stayj capitulizm OVdose 2 points ago in coaxedintoasnafu

    Most tax dollars go toward education, transportation and medication.

    [–] What You Think is Capitalism isn't Actually Capitalism OVdose 40 points ago in EnoughLibertarianSpam

    "Socialism doesn't work because look at how corrupt Venezuela is."

    -You, probably

    [–] Parkland Shooter Nikolas Cruz Registered to Vote Republican From Jail OVdose 12 points ago in GunsAreCool

    That's what you get out of this. Not the fact that this mentally deranged individual happens to be drawn to the Republican party.

    [–] Nudie says goodbye to the leather patch. OVdose 1 points ago in rawdenim

    I know what he's saying. What I'm saying is that leather isn't a by-product of the meat industry. Leather is made from a variety of cattle and other animals, including ones that aren't very profitable for their meat. Ostrich, kangaroo, exotic snakes, alligators, buffalo, and other bovines are only made more valuable when you buy their skin. Anything that increases the price over an animal's head contributes to its being slaughtered.

    [–] Nudie says goodbye to the leather patch. OVdose 1 points ago in rawdenim

    The increase in profitability that comes from selling the leather is definitely an incentive to keep killing them. Whether you like it or not, it isn't simply a by-product of meat production. As it is right now the profit from the animal skin is factored into the equation when costs are analyzed. If leather sales drop, profitability from killing animals also drops, which incentivizes fewer animals being raised and killed. The animal simply isn't worth as much without its skin being sold. When something's value decreases it makes good business sense to look elsewhere for profits.

    [–] Death Anxiety OVdose 1 points ago in Existentialism

    Hi, thank you for taking the time to write this post. I'm glad to see you've gotten some feedback, but unfortunately I have to remove your post because it breaks rule 2 of this sub:

    Posts that are purely about self-help are not allowed and will be removed.

    Please consider reposting this to /r/ExistentialSupport, /r/AskPhilosophy, /r/self, /r/SeriousConversation or another appropriate subreddit if you want additional feedback.

    [–] Nudie says goodbye to the leather patch. OVdose 4 points ago in rawdenim

    Not necessarily. If we didn't eat the animal but continued to use its skin, the animal would still be killed and its skin tanned into leather. In fact, the skin from an animal can make up a significant portion of the profit made from the animal, making the animal's death that much more profitable. Without selling the skin as leather, killing the animals would be far less commercially viable. Leather isn't a "by-product" of meat, it's a "co-product" that helps drive demand for the killing of these animals.

    Not buying leather decreases the demand for animal products which makes raising and killing them less profitable.

    [–] Libertarians when they talk about Facebook OVdose 19 points ago in EnoughLibertarianSpam

    Take your last sentence.

    Replace criticism with "consequences."

    Boom. You've made OP's point.

    [–] Henwo Mr Gwinch owo OVdose 2 points ago in ExpandDong

    I demand an explanation.

    [–] I got banned for posting this in r/Conservative OVdose 1 points ago in ChapoTrapHouse

    True. I guess I assumed you were talking about the US since the post was about the caravan.

    [–] Nudie says goodbye to the leather patch. OVdose 20 points ago in rawdenim

    But buying products made from animals increases demand for those goods. Which increases the number of animals being killed for those goods. The whole point of going vegan is to reduce demand for animal products. It doesn't matter of you're "deriving as much utility as possible."

    It's a similar argument to the, "well the cow is dead already so if you don't eat it then its death was in vain!"

    Yes, if you don't use the products then the animal will have died for arguably less utility. But the point isn't to utilize the animal, it is to reduce demand for that animal's body parts.

    [–] I got banned for posting this in r/Conservative OVdose 0 points ago in ChapoTrapHouse

    Hate speech is technically protected under free speech laws.

    [–] Oh magic conch... OVdose 6 points ago in BikiniBottomTwitter

    Por que no los dos?

    [–] Crying tears of joy 😭🙌🏾 OVdose 3 points ago in BlackPeopleTwitter

    Well I think if you find spitting in someone's face justification for killing them, the world would probably be better off without you. Who knows what other minor things you feel warrant murder.