zorga
Yes they are.
> The only valid position to hold about this topic is that it's complex and multi-faceted.
Incorrect. That's a valid position, it's certainly not the only one.
> the carb-dependent metabolism they end up with by the time they reach adulthood will most certainly complicate their ability to make healthy choices.
Nonsense, your metabolism is not set in stone, they can simply change their diets and if they don't, no one is to blame but them for their continued unhealthiness.
> Why do you hold a different position regarding sugar?
Sugar isn't remotely comparable to those two; they're restricted to minors because they're lethal drugs, sugar is not.
I understand addiction just fine, addictions can be broken: that is a fact; you can break your body of any such dependency and that you can, means it's your responsibility to do so and thus your fault if you remain addicted. I understand addiction, you don't understand that we don't all then conclude from that that one has no culpability. Other people have different moral reasoning than you do, that they disagree with you about something does not mean it's because they don't understand it.
Want to break a sugar addiction, stop eating, fast until you've broken all food addictions and shed much of the stored calories, and then build up a better diet when you start eating again.
And that implies you don't allow for those who reject the very political and racist concept of white privilege to reject this presupposition. It's not a matter of "understanding"; he's not failing to understand privilege, he's rejecting it and thus doesn't like her pushing those politics on him.
> So?
So he doesn't want to hear her whining about how white men are to blame for bad things that happened to her because he probably doesn't like listening to racist drivel.
> Partially sounds fair if they did a lot of it. What's the problem?
The problem is such thinking is fallacious. Just because bad things happened to her, and white men did it, in no way implies they did it because they're white. They probably all had hair to, does she blame all men with hair? Or to put it more scientifically, correlation isn't caution. What people call white privilege, generally isn't; usually it's just majority privilege which has nothing to do with whiteness and more importantly is not a bad thing at all.
> That's political?
Yes, it was; you don't think it was because you don't accept your own beliefs as political beliefs but rather as reality.
> It doesn't matter how you got that information.
Yes it does, if I didn't do anything illegal to acquire it, and I have no obligation to the company, I can use it legally, I'm not an insider.
No it isn't, a rock is not alive.
> Just because we can't consciously communicate with something it doesn't mean it's not alive.
Strawman, no one thinks life requires communication.
> Why wouldn't Earth be alive?
Because it's not, it's a big rock, it has life on the surface, but is not itself alive.
> We love separating things by arbitrarily naming and defining them, but the universe is completely connected, we can't exist outside of it or disconnected from it.
More strawmen.
> If anything, the only life that exists is the entire universe and we are just tiny tiny pieces of it with a very limited view and awareness of the whole.
The universe is not alive.
What's clear is that you just don't know what you're saying, you're just pontificating woo woo.
Life self replicates, metabolizes something for energy, and grows through cellular division. None of the things you just called alive do that, so they're not alive; you don't get to change the meaning of the word life to suit your narrative.
Psychopaths are born, sociopaths are made.
No, he's asking for it for a wall, not for border security; wall's are't security, they're security theater. Actual security requires people, not walls. Most illegals fly in on Visa's and just over stay, they don't sneak in through the desert. Walls are easily by ladders, ropes, and shovels, only an idiot like Trump would want to spend billions on a wall.
Incentive to live is the primary but not only incentive to work. Wealth is what you need when you're trying to survive, only after that's achieved do other incentives matters.
> The meaning of wealth is going to have to change.
No, wealth is wealth, it's just stuff, that's not going to change. You need stuff to survive, food, shelter, etc, that's not ever going to change.
What's going to change is how wealth is distributed, that's where the conversation is.
That's not going away, automation doesn't mean people aren't producing wealth, it just means said wealth is produced by fewer people but those robots belong to someone and its output is rightfully theirs. Just because a robot produced something doesn't mean everyone is entitled to it.
> This puts us all between a rock and a hard place - most of us will be out of a job, and at the same time the factories are in the hands of the folks who built them. So lots of goods available, and no market (few people have any money).
This is true.
> Clearly this is a different world than the 1800's free market system anticipated. So we'll have to change.
This is true as well, but that change isn't going to be moving away from capitalism and seizing the labor of the productive to give to the non productive for nothing. The productive will not stand for that and will simply stop producing for others which means no robots and no automation and everyone fending for themselves again. Automation drives down the cost of goods, less work will be require from people to obtain those goods, but those who produce must necessarily have incentive to do so or they won't, and that incentive is wealth and always will be.
You have a right to life, you are not entitled to be taken care of, these are entirely different things. He's not saying you owe anyone anything. Basic life sustaining resources require labor to be made useful, shelter doesn't just appear out of nowhere, someone has to labor to make it: you do not have a right to someone else's labor, you must do your own labor to take care of yourself, it is not owed to you. Being required to labor for yourself does not imply you owe anyone anything.
> The idea of wealth you're referencing is also rooted in the current system.
It really isn't, wealth just means stuff. All systems will have it, it has nothing remotely to do with just the current system. Stuff doesn't just exist, someone has to create it, that someone by natural right owns what they create; no one is entitled to another mans efforts.
All models are wrong, some are useful, boolean logic built the modern world. It's a damn useful model most of the time.
> There are other options that are currently not feasible
Which means they are not actually options.
> For example robots could provide everybody's needs
Someone still owns those robots so you're still living off someone else's property/labor.
There are no options where you can avoid paying your own way AND avoid living off someone else's labor. Nothing is free, it came from somewhere and someone who made it happen.
> Or we could genetically engineer people so that everybody finds their particular job meaningful and fulfilling.
People would object to that for a multitude of other reasons, however, as long as your providing for yourself, I don't really care in terms of this argument.
Because it is. Your entire response is so strikingly naive one has to wonder how old you are.
> The very idea of someone "paying for you" is built on the premise that some group of people is entitled to own and control such vast quantities of the planet's resources that they enjoy access to many orders of magnitude beyond what they need to subsist
No it isn't.
> The entire premise is asinine when you really think about it.
You haven't thought about, clearly, your entire argument fails to understand basic reality.
> And, it's even more so when you add the fact that the "accepted solution" to avoiding the dilemma
The "delima" is called survival, and it's not remotely something you're entitled to.
> If you're still not seeing it, then consider the simple phrase that is applied literally: "earn a living". I mean, really think about what that means.
I know exactly what it means, you apparently don't, you seem to think you're "entitled" to food, water, and shelter on someone else's back. You are not.
> Start with the fact that to earn something implies that one is not otherwise entitled to it
Because you're NOT. To be entitled to something means someone owes it to you, please do tell me who "owes" you food, want, and shelter?
> thus owes something in order to receive it. To whom do they owe this and why?
Not owes... since you're not entitled, then you must offer something in order to receive it, that's called trade. If you're not willing to trade for the things you need, then you will die. No one owes you the things you need.
Your entitlement is that of a child who still doesn't understand how basic reality works.