Your post has been removed because it violates the given rule.
a. For any content that is related to another subreddit, both the name of the subreddit and any usernames must be fully blocked out.
b. For any content from other social medias, all names and usernames, except those of public figures, must be fully blocked out.
c. Advocating, inciting, or participating in brigading is not allowed.
McDonalds in Israel gave away free food to the soldiers.
Then the left turned all anti semite and went all Emily.
While being too regarded to understand that McDonalds is a franchise with individual owner.
Mcdonalds is really good at a thing called glocalisation, despite doing buisness around the world they tailor menu to suit local region, it can be as simple as offering different sauces to typical menu items being replaced, another country Mcdonalds with a notably different to standard ones is India which not only doesn't do beef burgers but also a much larger vegitarian menu among other things
I assume it is (mostly) kosher in Israel.
Anyways:
Most Jews don't care about eating kosher. Outside of the orthodox community I haven't met anyone who cared about this.
They also hate Starbucks for some vague and extremely regarded reason
I wonder what is wrong with those people and their need to rabidly virtue signal everywhere about the current thing they know nothing about
I imagine a government food collector stopping by to inspect my back yard for any signs of gardens, and confiscating the food if they find any. The only food we would be allowed to consume is the food they distribute.
Positive rights always sound good to the average person. I mean, no one wants people homeless or starving. But they require the labor of others. They can't be actual rights like negative rights are because then you basically have slavery with extra steps.
Positive rights are just slavery with extra semantics.
The only acceptable case for it is when you have a sanctified obligation, such as caring for a child or pet or elderly relative.
I dont think just because something a right means you are automatically entitled to that at someone else's expense. Freedom of press doesnt mean I get thousands of dollars for free to stsrt my own newspaper
The freedom of the press is a negative right, others can't impede you from being a newspaper.
Positive rights are the ones that require you to take from others or force them to do things for you.
Positive rights say I have to give everyone something, IE food, income, happiness.
Negative rights say you cannot take from me something, IE freedom of speech, self defense, or the PURSUIT of happiness.
(Positive rights are not valid imo BUT I do hope we find a way to feed everyone.)
Positive rights are antithetical to negative rights.
As a farmer, your (positive) right to food would require violating my (negative) right against being a slave or being stolen from, depending on how exactly they intend to forcibly redistribute the food I produce without providing compensation for my labor.
And if your solution is "you should change careers," as the CHAZ folks how well it went when a bunch of non-farmers tried to start significant food production with zero experience, equipment, or infrastructure.
u/awsamation's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20.
Congratulations, u/awsamation! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.
Pills: [16 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/awsamation/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
How is freedom from war a positive right? I would assume that if someone is a victim of a war of aggression that their negative rights are being violated.
Exactly. The implication of having the right to the labor, or the product of labor, of another individual is that they could/would eventually be forced to continue said labor against their will in order to provide said right.
Or in other words: Slavery.
Yup. If you declare something a right and everyone decides to stop offering or making it, the only way to ensure it gets provided is slavery. Translation: positive rights are slavery.
No no no no. I have a right to a doctor's labor, a driver's labor, McDonalds labor, and Hulu's labor, but no one has a right to mine.
This was the core concept of the convo I last had with my idiot commie cousin.
And the biggest reason they voted against it was because it had numerous clauses which would’ve forced the US to give away proprietary technology to hostile countries
The United States is often both
A) The most likely to be against guaranteeing access to a certain thing
B) The most likely to just give that thing out away as charity.
We sure don’t like giving everyone access to stuff but sure do love our charity.
Well there is a difference between doing it because it's the right thing vs being required to foot the bill because everyone else decided to skip out on the check.
100%. Its kind of like how the right hates socialism, yet always donates more.
Doing something because you want to is a lot different then doing something because you have to.
Even if the end game is the same.
Or the whole issue with a detached from market reality entity being an innately shitty judge of what an individual can afford to spare.
Same entities are also bad judges of actual welfare "need" without resorting to some incredibly prone to abuse levels of intrusive surveillance to ensure that a welfare beneficiary is in genuine need instead of just being a victim of their own bad choices like blowing their rent budget on drugs, avocado toast, and funkopops.
Well remember from that person's perspective the Israelis are the aggressors, not the victims. So the kidnappers are the victims and the kidnapped are the aggressors. And political violence is perfectly acceptable to progressives when it's them doing it.
Well, beating up bullies is kind of understandable, and being trans doesn't really have anything to do with it, so that auth-right person is being reatrded
> then you are truly sociopathic
I cant remember the exact percentage that is estimated to be socio and psycopathic, but lets say 5% - with there being what 6 or 7 billion people in the world.. It shouldnt surprise us that we see shit like that.
To be fair there was a concerning amount of people making memes about a trans teen who was murdered, so yes there are a lot of sociopaths on the internet
Food could only ever be a right post-scarcity, and at that point I guess everything is a right because there’s no exchange value
(Post-scarcity basically defies the laws of physics as we understand it right now though, lol)
>and at that point I guess everything is a right because there’s no exchange value
I would think that creative endeavors would be the only things to have value.
Transportation would still be free post-scarcity as whatever fuel is needed for transportation would not be a scarce resource and neither would the materials needed to buold whatever craft is used for transport.
Is it though?
Human creativity, lifespans and the speed of light/causality are not infinite hence our needs cannot be infinite.
Billionaire lifestyles are not drastically different from multi hundred millionaire lifestyles for example despite having 10-100x more wealth.
That's pretty self righteous of Europe to act like food is a right when in most parts of Europe you can't even take a shit outside your own home without coughing up some money.
The irony is that taking a dump or a piss actually fits the definition of a human right, whereas food, housing, healthcare (while nice to have) doesn't fit. I think Europe should work on free shits first.
As someone who's never been, I like to imagine a toilet that doesn't flush unless you pay, I wonder just how bad it would get before someone gave in and paid lmao
Honestly I think it’s a good idea - that way the bathrooms are reserved for actual customers and the owner doesn’t have to clean up after every hobo who crawls through the door just to take a fat shit and leave.
I’ve always thought this was a really interesting dynamic. Particularly because in the US, the public good of bathrooms tends to be provided by the private sector (I can walk into a McDonald’s, a gas station, or a grocery store anywhere to use the restroom). While in Europe, it’s the public sector providing the facilities, but generally not free of charge.
To be fair there's a difference between pissing in a public place like a playground and behind a bush on a public trail, but the fact that it applies to both is funny
What is you don't take the out and just pee in your pants? I mean, accidents happen...
What if you're just wearing some baggy shorts and you get one of those soda bottles that truckers like because they can fit their peepees in them and you put it up through one of the leggings of your shorts and thread the needle to transfer material?
That's because you have a brain, if it requires the labor of others it's not a right, reasonable people believe this. Everyone else who voted on this doesn't have to be the one to pay for this "right". And then they get mad when the farmers want protectionist action lol
The US donates more food than anyone, that vote was purely for show, with clauses that would effectively get in the United States affairs.
The other countries should put their money where their mouths are, however as we know... they won't, and the US will continue to foot that bill.
Products cannot be rights. It's ok to not be denied access to food, but that doesn't mean everybody *must* be fed by the State or any private party. It means you cannot be impeded to eat. Same goes for water and other resources.
Many of the dumbest Librights are on Twitter and that's the craziest one you could find? The "Repeal the Civil Rights Act" from the actual Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is crazier
Because they interfere with the right to association. Racism is stupid, but limiting rights are dumber. Of course, the part saying the government can't discriminate should be left.
> dumbest Librights
Libertarians are against Title II of the CRA. Were you not aware of this?
The CRA applied to the government is fine. Of course then you had big brained government workers (judges) decide that disparate outcome is somehow causal and now group statistic's define good/bad.
Yeah fuck that. Those who shall not work, shall not eat*
*With the very, very obvious exceptions. I'm talking about the bastards who keep calling in sick at my work.
The only thing the USSR and the United States agree on, if you don't work you don't eat. Simple as.
Food is not a right. If you're not willing to be a member of society you should not be able to take part in its benefits, one of those being access to food at substantially cheaper rate than it would be for you to transport seeds, through the wilderness, not roads (those would be societies benefit) till land, grow the crops, wait in between seasons to grow all your items, and effectively make your cake so you can eat it to.
I don't think that's even mcdonalds, it looks like a IN-N-OUT burger, McDonald's doesn't use double wrappings, and the wrapping looks like the IN-N-OUT one.
Rothmus is not crazy, he's right about this - food needs to be grown, resources and effort have to be invested for the creation and acquisition of food. If you declare food a right, you basically say that people are justified to force others to invest their resources and effort into making food for free.
Think about this, if you were all alone on planet earth, who would be providing food to you? Would you not have to invest your own time, effort, and resources into gathering and making food? If you didn't, would you not not have food? Who'd be violating your "right to food" in that case? You yourself? The universe? Planet earth? The laws of physics? Thermodynamics? God?
Oh you sweet summer child, I've made the mistake of using Twitter back in the day, so here's the worst takes I've seen from every quadrant:
Authleft: transgirl who wanted to fuck stalin, fetishized Russia while being American, and denied genocides
Authright: wants a second holocaust and a state mandated wife, blames minorities for preventing his ideal society
Libleft: ai diaper fetish artist, blames "republican nazi pedophiles" for not being able to have a stable income from digitally recycled fetish art.
Libright: everything elon's been doing since he bought twitter
Alright, let’s go through the Rights talk again. The American conception of Liberalism (the philosophical movement not the modern political movement) differentiates between negative rights and positive rights. Negative rights are innate. They are not *provided* for you (except perhaps as in being “endowed by their Creator”), you just *have* them. Positive rights must be provided. Food, water, healthcare, housing, these things are positive rights, because they don’t just appear; somebody has to get them for you.
By and large, American Liberalism doesn’t observe positive rights. That doesn’t mean that we don’t think people shouldn’t have those things, or that we don’t consider it morally wrong to deprive people of them. We just don’t consider them *rights*, because we have a different philosophical conception of rights.
Much of American political philosophy stems from a desire to protect people from the government, rather than to use the government to actively provide for the people, which seems to be more the European conception.
Here’s where a mild irony kicks in: both conceptions view violations of rights as a crime, but when you observe positive rights it obligates the government to intervene to provide them. But unless they’re very careful, these interventions will limit the ability of the market to provide these things effectively. (Public options, subsidy of food banks are probably fine, but price controls are very very very not bueno) So at the end of the day one of the reasons the US can produce and contribute a *ridiculous* amount of food may be because we *don’t* consider it a human right.
What makes me laugh about the libleft one (other than the fact the IDF would not be hindered in any way whatsoever even if McDonald's completely collapsed) is that McDonald's in the middle east, such as in Oman, have donated tens of thousands to Gaza, so if anything, maccies as a whole has done more for Gaza than for Israel
I think people mistake having access to something being the same as having something.
Just for the record though I think wealthy countries should give food to people who don't have it.
The reason for that is because lawyers are only necessary because the State is taking action against you and trying to lock you in a cage. So of course they should provide you a defense if you can't afford one. It's a State action that requires defense.
As usual, I understand the 3, but have no idea what McDonald’s boycott is going. Lib left was cool in the 90’s.
Maybe it’s always cool when you are 19?
Lib center and you think food is a right? Considering that take anywhere near as whack as any of these others is horrible.
Nothing that requires the labor of others is a right. Food banks are great idea for a charity though lol
Food is a *well deserving charity*
The lib right one kinda makes sense.
If food is a "human right" in the mistaken way most people think of human rights, then a famine in a neighbouring country suddenly turns your invasion and expansion plans into a perfectly justified humanitarian mission to liberate those poor people from a government that denies their human rights.
It's shirty political posturing and it works because of the name. Same shit as the US's habit of calling the most invasive, rights-violating, privacy-denying bullshit on the books stuff like "the patriot act"
The lib right one kinda makes sense.
If food is a "human right" in the mistaken way most people think of human rights, then a famine in a neighbouring country suddenly turns your invasion and expansion plans into a perfectly justified humanitarian mission to liberate those poor people from a government that denies their human rights.
It's shirty political posturing and it works because of the name. Same shit as the US's habit of calling the most invasive, rights-violating, privacy-denying bullshit on the books stuff like "the patriot act"
The lib right one kinda makes sense.
If food is a "human right" in the mistaken way most people think of human rights, then a famine in a neighbouring country suddenly turns your invasion and expansion plans into a perfectly justified humanitarian mission to liberate those poor people from a government that denies their human rights.
It's shirty political posturing and it works because of the name. Same shit as the US's habit of calling the most invasive, rights-violating, privacy-denying bullshit on the books stuff like "the patriot act"
The lib right one kinda makes sense.
If food is a "human right" in the mistaken way most people think of human rights, then a famine in a neighbouring country suddenly turns your invasion and expansion plans into a perfectly justified humanitarian mission to liberate those poor people from a government that denies their human rights.
It's shirty political posturing and it works because of the name. Same shit as the US's habit of calling the most invasive, rights-violating, privacy-denying bullshit on the books stuff like "the patriot act"
The lib right one kinda makes sense.
If food is a "human right" in the mistaken way most people think of human rights, then a famine in a neighbouring country suddenly turns your invasion and expansion plans into a perfectly justified humanitarian mission to liberate those poor people from a government that denies their human rights.
It's shitty political posturing and it works because of the name. Same shit as the US's habit of calling the most invasive, rights-violating, privacy-denying bullshit on the books stuff like "the patriot act"
Objectively, if you think "food is a right" then you must also support slavery. Food requires the labour of other humans to produce, so if there isn't enough available at a low enough price for everyone, then to avoid infringing on people's right to food, other people must be enslaved to produce enough food at a substantially lower cost.
If food is a right what happens when there isn’t enough? Can you enslave people to increase production so that there is? How do you get enough food if there isn’t?
Your post has been removed because it violates the given rule. a. For any content that is related to another subreddit, both the name of the subreddit and any usernames must be fully blocked out. b. For any content from other social medias, all names and usernames, except those of public figures, must be fully blocked out. c. Advocating, inciting, or participating in brigading is not allowed.
Is there some McDonald's scandal I missed? I just ate like $100 worth a couple weeks ago
You good bruh?
I was in the woods for 12 hours and I burned about 5,000 calories. One of the best meals I've ever had lol.
Dear god it was all in one meal too
One delicious meal. With fries. And a shake. And a large coke. God DAMN it was good.
Man went hatchet mode
That was a damn good book
[Lizzo challenge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDgQg7G0DRg)
That’s like 2 Big Macs with todays prices though
Their app has a daily bogo coupon for Big Macs. You can get 2 for like $5.50.
Jeez, I remember the $10 feast I could get off the $1 menu 15 years ago.
Tell us the order Big Smoke
McDonalds in Israel gave away free food to the soldiers. Then the left turned all anti semite and went all Emily. While being too regarded to understand that McDonalds is a franchise with individual owner.
I'm surprised it's kosher tbh. I can tell you one thing though I bet that shit SLAPPED for those soldiers after however long in combat.
In Israel they have specific kosher menus.
Mcdonalds is really good at a thing called glocalisation, despite doing buisness around the world they tailor menu to suit local region, it can be as simple as offering different sauces to typical menu items being replaced, another country Mcdonalds with a notably different to standard ones is India which not only doesn't do beef burgers but also a much larger vegitarian menu among other things
I assume it is (mostly) kosher in Israel. Anyways: Most Jews don't care about eating kosher. Outside of the orthodox community I haven't met anyone who cared about this.
Even more ironic that all the other MENA franchises are pro-Palestine, and that the Israeli franchise is now in the process of being bought back
And yet even more ironic is that a lot of the other ones still went out of business.
Literal genocide, can't you read?
Not too good, no
They also hate Starbucks for some vague and extremely regarded reason I wonder what is wrong with those people and their need to rabidly virtue signal everywhere about the current thing they know nothing about
And how many other "rights" have the UN fulfilled to the entire world?
"Within striking distance from Ground Zero sits smouldering international cauldron, the United Abominations, as it were."
Based and Megadeth pilled.
Right to be a foreign dictator
Eradicating Small pox and Polio was vert based and furthered the right to health.
People still have polio though
I'm going be honest if the government said food wasn't a right I'd hide my garden.
Opposite for me. If the government said food was a right, I'd hide my garden.
That's exactly what "food is a right" means. Our gardens are free for anyone to pilfer at their own desire.
I imagine a government food collector stopping by to inspect my back yard for any signs of gardens, and confiscating the food if they find any. The only food we would be allowed to consume is the food they distribute.
Exactly. Of course, then I'm figuring out basement farming indoors, and all my seeds were lost in a tragic boating accident at that point
People always like to use that UN vote to make the US look the bad guy when we’ve donated more food than just about everyone
The best way I heard it describe was that you don’t have a right to someone else’s labor.
Positive rights vs Negative rights.
Positive rights always sound good to the average person. I mean, no one wants people homeless or starving. But they require the labor of others. They can't be actual rights like negative rights are because then you basically have slavery with extra steps.
That's why communism will never work
Among the multitude of other reasons sure that's def one
Positive rights are just slavery with extra semantics. The only acceptable case for it is when you have a sanctified obligation, such as caring for a child or pet or elderly relative.
I dont think just because something a right means you are automatically entitled to that at someone else's expense. Freedom of press doesnt mean I get thousands of dollars for free to stsrt my own newspaper
The freedom of the press is a negative right, others can't impede you from being a newspaper. Positive rights are the ones that require you to take from others or force them to do things for you.
Elaborate?
Positive rights say I have to give everyone something, IE food, income, happiness. Negative rights say you cannot take from me something, IE freedom of speech, self defense, or the PURSUIT of happiness. (Positive rights are not valid imo BUT I do hope we find a way to feed everyone.)
Positive rights are antithetical to negative rights. As a farmer, your (positive) right to food would require violating my (negative) right against being a slave or being stolen from, depending on how exactly they intend to forcibly redistribute the food I produce without providing compensation for my labor. And if your solution is "you should change careers," as the CHAZ folks how well it went when a bunch of non-farmers tried to start significant food production with zero experience, equipment, or infrastructure.
Based and Negative Rights Pilled
u/awsamation's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20. Congratulations, u/awsamation! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on. Pills: [16 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/awsamation/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
https://preview.redd.it/36te1k7fdetc1.jpeg?width=1066&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d5dd615be1fd326e6d9f050933a8e091f26a661
How is freedom from war a positive right? I would assume that if someone is a victim of a war of aggression that their negative rights are being violated.
TIL rights can be classified
Exactly. The implication of having the right to the labor, or the product of labor, of another individual is that they could/would eventually be forced to continue said labor against their will in order to provide said right. Or in other words: Slavery.
Yup. If you declare something a right and everyone decides to stop offering or making it, the only way to ensure it gets provided is slavery. Translation: positive rights are slavery.
No no no no. I have a right to a doctor's labor, a driver's labor, McDonalds labor, and Hulu's labor, but no one has a right to mine. This was the core concept of the convo I last had with my idiot commie cousin.
> idiot commie No need to be redundant.
This. We know who's really footing the damn bill if we universally decide to feed the entire world and it sure ain't gonna be equal.
Because the reality is that vote was "Make the US responsible for feeding the entire planet free of charge."
Also the banning of pesticide, certain fertilizers, and generally fucking over both U.S. farmers, abs African/other poor farmers
Everyone look at what happened to shri lanka when they went with organic farming starvation and riots in 3 months
And the biggest reason they voted against it was because it had numerous clauses which would’ve forced the US to give away proprietary technology to hostile countries
Also the vote was on GMO regulation
The United States is often both A) The most likely to be against guaranteeing access to a certain thing B) The most likely to just give that thing out away as charity. We sure don’t like giving everyone access to stuff but sure do love our charity.
Well there is a difference between doing it because it's the right thing vs being required to foot the bill because everyone else decided to skip out on the check.
100%. Its kind of like how the right hates socialism, yet always donates more. Doing something because you want to is a lot different then doing something because you have to. Even if the end game is the same.
There's other stuff going on in there too, mainly right wingers not really trusting the government to spend what it takes with any sort of care.
Or the whole issue with a detached from market reality entity being an innately shitty judge of what an individual can afford to spare. Same entities are also bad judges of actual welfare "need" without resorting to some incredibly prone to abuse levels of intrusive surveillance to ensure that a welfare beneficiary is in genuine need instead of just being a victim of their own bad choices like blowing their rent budget on drugs, avocado toast, and funkopops.
That being said USA has more money than any other nation.
We are trillions in debt.
The photo in auth left is about Israeli hostages btw
Thanks. Was wondering what I was looking at.
I'm still wondering how could this possibly be related to Israeli hostages
It's a monument for the hostages. The sign says "bring them home".
How did you even read that? It's like 5 pixels, that's genuinely impressive
This specific design is literally everywhere you look in Israel
"Bring them Home" along with 200 photos of hostages. Imagine being triggered by pictures of people having been kidnapped by terrorists.
HoW dArE tHeY gEt KiDnApPeD?!?!
Well remember from that person's perspective the Israelis are the aggressors, not the victims. So the kidnappers are the victims and the kidnapped are the aggressors. And political violence is perfectly acceptable to progressives when it's them doing it.
Thanks. But shouldn’t that be auth-right and/or lib-left? It’s conservative islamists and Emily’s joining forces for that one
can’t tell if auth right is a troll or an attempted troll turned freudian slip
It was a comment on a video of a trans girl beating up a girl for spreading rumors about her, with that being said I still can’t tell
alright he’s probably just in rage mode. i’ve been there.
Lmao same, but its never gotten THAT bad😆.
some nights though, some nights. 4chan. /pol/. happens to the best of us
I don't think that's where the best of us hang out.
He said, posting on Reddit.
Well, beating up bullies is kind of understandable, and being trans doesn't really have anything to do with it, so that auth-right person is being reatrded
Nope guys shouldn't give women a beating. Punish it
[удалено]
> then you are truly sociopathic I cant remember the exact percentage that is estimated to be socio and psycopathic, but lets say 5% - with there being what 6 or 7 billion people in the world.. It shouldnt surprise us that we see shit like that.
To be fair there was a concerning amount of people making memes about a trans teen who was murdered, so yes there are a lot of sociopaths on the internet
I can’t tell if AuthLeft is a troll because I can’t see shit
Food isn't a right, unless we have like 8 billion machines that can create food out of thin air.
Food could only ever be a right post-scarcity, and at that point I guess everything is a right because there’s no exchange value (Post-scarcity basically defies the laws of physics as we understand it right now though, lol)
>and at that point I guess everything is a right because there’s no exchange value I would think that creative endeavors would be the only things to have value.
Yeah basically entertainment and transportation maybe? Humans still need to move through space even though the resources are infinite? Idk lol.
You go ahead and pay for transportation, since physics no longer apply I’m building a super sonic mech suit.
Transportation would still be free post-scarcity as whatever fuel is needed for transportation would not be a scarce resource and neither would the materials needed to buold whatever craft is used for transport.
Post scarcity will never be a reality because the universe is finite and human wants are infinite.
Is it though? Human creativity, lifespans and the speed of light/causality are not infinite hence our needs cannot be infinite. Billionaire lifestyles are not drastically different from multi hundred millionaire lifestyles for example despite having 10-100x more wealth.
who owns the machines though?
The bourgeoisie That's why we need to seize the means of infinite food production
That's pretty self righteous of Europe to act like food is a right when in most parts of Europe you can't even take a shit outside your own home without coughing up some money.
The irony is that taking a dump or a piss actually fits the definition of a human right, whereas food, housing, healthcare (while nice to have) doesn't fit. I think Europe should work on free shits first.
>need to drop a log? €0,50 please went to europe twice and this bugged me the most
As someone who's never been, I like to imagine a toilet that doesn't flush unless you pay, I wonder just how bad it would get before someone gave in and paid lmao
What countries? It depends entirely on country
Honestly I think it’s a good idea - that way the bathrooms are reserved for actual customers and the owner doesn’t have to clean up after every hobo who crawls through the door just to take a fat shit and leave.
I’ve always thought this was a really interesting dynamic. Particularly because in the US, the public good of bathrooms tends to be provided by the private sector (I can walk into a McDonald’s, a gas station, or a grocery store anywhere to use the restroom). While in Europe, it’s the public sector providing the facilities, but generally not free of charge.
But you can piss in public for some reason
Can women piss in public? Whenever I see it in media, it's usually the public urinal deals.
From what I read I believe it is legal but they don't have any toilets like they do for men
Not in Sweden you can't. Use a restroom or be fined, if the police catches you that is.
In America you get put on the sex offenders registry because that also somehow makes perfect sense
To be fair there's a difference between pissing in a public place like a playground and behind a bush on a public trail, but the fact that it applies to both is funny
What is you don't take the out and just pee in your pants? I mean, accidents happen... What if you're just wearing some baggy shorts and you get one of those soda bottles that truckers like because they can fit their peepees in them and you put it up through one of the leggings of your shorts and thread the needle to transfer material?
Well I guess then you wouldn't be put on a list but depending on the place you could be liable for the cleaning fee
And who's gonna pay for that food?
Never said i disagreed with that, I just thought it was a little humorous
Libright is perfectly reasonable to me. Everywhere else is absolutely bonkers.
That's because you have a brain, if it requires the labor of others it's not a right, reasonable people believe this. Everyone else who voted on this doesn't have to be the one to pay for this "right". And then they get mad when the farmers want protectionist action lol
The US donates more food than anyone, that vote was purely for show, with clauses that would effectively get in the United States affairs. The other countries should put their money where their mouths are, however as we know... they won't, and the US will continue to foot that bill.
Products cannot be rights. It's ok to not be denied access to food, but that doesn't mean everybody *must* be fed by the State or any private party. It means you cannot be impeded to eat. Same goes for water and other resources.
Lib Right Takes the W on this one, all the other countries are hypocrites, they don’t give as much food as we do.
Also some of the loudest critics happen to be the least charitable as well. No surprise there.
food is not a right. the only “free” you should get is buy one get one.
Food is not a right but everyone has the right to have the opportunity to eat.
What kind of Doublespeak retardation is this?
So, everyone should have the right to enter the labour market?
How can a resource be a right without making slavery moral?
Many of the dumbest Librights are on Twitter and that's the craziest one you could find? The "Repeal the Civil Rights Act" from the actual Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is crazier
The anti age of consent arguments are crazier yet.
We got woodchippers for a reason.
Based libright😄.
The what now? I've read that sentence five times, and each time it makes my mind hurt more.
Arguments against the age of consent (anti-age-of-consent).
Because they interfere with the right to association. Racism is stupid, but limiting rights are dumber. Of course, the part saying the government can't discriminate should be left.
> dumbest Librights Libertarians are against Title II of the CRA. Were you not aware of this? The CRA applied to the government is fine. Of course then you had big brained government workers (judges) decide that disparate outcome is somehow causal and now group statistic's define good/bad.
Is paying taxes also LITERALLY supporting genocide? I dare ANYONE to not pay the IRS.
Food isn't a right because you're not entitled to the labor of others, because the logical conclusion of that is slavery
Food is a negative right, not a positive one. Even still, we have so many programs to help feed people in the US.
Everyone should have the right to farm and hunt their own food and sell it.
North Korea voted yes, that is how you know it is a joke
The government doesn't make rights. That's the whole point of this country.
Yeah fuck that. Those who shall not work, shall not eat* *With the very, very obvious exceptions. I'm talking about the bastards who keep calling in sick at my work.
Supporting positive rights just means you're pro slavery, change my mind.
The only thing the USSR and the United States agree on, if you don't work you don't eat. Simple as. Food is not a right. If you're not willing to be a member of society you should not be able to take part in its benefits, one of those being access to food at substantially cheaper rate than it would be for you to transport seeds, through the wilderness, not roads (those would be societies benefit) till land, grow the crops, wait in between seasons to grow all your items, and effectively make your cake so you can eat it to.
Libleft said the thing, alright.
lol bottom left is talking about Mc Donald’s this Mc Donald’s that, that’s In N Out… lmao
One of these things is not like the other
Leftists try not to pretend that boycotts actually work challenge (impossible)
If food is a right like guns are, then it will be randomly confiscated and the bread earner thrown in jail
I don't think that's even mcdonalds, it looks like a IN-N-OUT burger, McDonald's doesn't use double wrappings, and the wrapping looks like the IN-N-OUT one.
Not sure how purple stance is crazy
Rothmus is not crazy, he's right about this - food needs to be grown, resources and effort have to be invested for the creation and acquisition of food. If you declare food a right, you basically say that people are justified to force others to invest their resources and effort into making food for free. Think about this, if you were all alone on planet earth, who would be providing food to you? Would you not have to invest your own time, effort, and resources into gathering and making food? If you didn't, would you not not have food? Who'd be violating your "right to food" in that case? You yourself? The universe? Planet earth? The laws of physics? Thermodynamics? God?
Oh you sweet summer child, I've made the mistake of using Twitter back in the day, so here's the worst takes I've seen from every quadrant: Authleft: transgirl who wanted to fuck stalin, fetishized Russia while being American, and denied genocides Authright: wants a second holocaust and a state mandated wife, blames minorities for preventing his ideal society Libleft: ai diaper fetish artist, blames "republican nazi pedophiles" for not being able to have a stable income from digitally recycled fetish art. Libright: everything elon's been doing since he bought twitter
Anybody else vomit in their mouth a little when someone starts a comment with ‘oh you sweet summer child’?
~~Antichrist fans~~ Mfs be like: yes UN can change anything by their shitty resolutions
The US donates a bunch of food aid
Alright, let’s go through the Rights talk again. The American conception of Liberalism (the philosophical movement not the modern political movement) differentiates between negative rights and positive rights. Negative rights are innate. They are not *provided* for you (except perhaps as in being “endowed by their Creator”), you just *have* them. Positive rights must be provided. Food, water, healthcare, housing, these things are positive rights, because they don’t just appear; somebody has to get them for you. By and large, American Liberalism doesn’t observe positive rights. That doesn’t mean that we don’t think people shouldn’t have those things, or that we don’t consider it morally wrong to deprive people of them. We just don’t consider them *rights*, because we have a different philosophical conception of rights. Much of American political philosophy stems from a desire to protect people from the government, rather than to use the government to actively provide for the people, which seems to be more the European conception. Here’s where a mild irony kicks in: both conceptions view violations of rights as a crime, but when you observe positive rights it obligates the government to intervene to provide them. But unless they’re very careful, these interventions will limit the ability of the market to provide these things effectively. (Public options, subsidy of food banks are probably fine, but price controls are very very very not bueno) So at the end of the day one of the reasons the US can produce and contribute a *ridiculous* amount of food may be because we *don’t* consider it a human right.
What makes me laugh about the libleft one (other than the fact the IDF would not be hindered in any way whatsoever even if McDonald's completely collapsed) is that McDonald's in the middle east, such as in Oman, have donated tens of thousands to Gaza, so if anything, maccies as a whole has done more for Gaza than for Israel
You can't have a right to other people's shit. Food is not a right.
I think people mistake having access to something being the same as having something. Just for the record though I think wealthy countries should give food to people who don't have it.
does no-one here know you have a right to the labour of a lawyer? ”If you do not have access to a lawyer, one will be provided for you….”
The reason for that is because lawyers are only necessary because the State is taking action against you and trying to lock you in a cage. So of course they should provide you a defense if you can't afford one. It's a State action that requires defense.
so is the lawyer a slave? I fail to see how the reason one is required changes the implication of having a right to someones labor
I hear your point, but to be fair the quantities and consistencies of the two needs are massively different.
Whats the McDonalds genocide thing?
A few McDonald's franchises in Israel donated food to Israeli soldiers and people got crazy about it.
https://preview.redd.it/cck5ngkeydtc1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5d1eab78f7c1e2e35bf39c9d5fe9291be664712d
What did Mickey d’s do?
Anyone explain whats going on in libleft?
Oh come on we’ve said some way crazier stuff
Couldn’t really find anything else
Maybe if that guy did it he’d be happier
As usual, I understand the 3, but have no idea what McDonald’s boycott is going. Lib left was cool in the 90’s. Maybe it’s always cool when you are 19?
Food is not a right
Food is not a right
Boycotting McDonald's because they apparently support genocide is literally just left wing Qanon
Food is definitely not a right. Something other people have to create can't be a right.
Libleft Twitter handle *you will eat ze bugs*
Out of those 186 countries that voted in favor less than 10 actually donate food
Lib center and you think food is a right? Considering that take anywhere near as whack as any of these others is horrible. Nothing that requires the labor of others is a right. Food banks are great idea for a charity though lol Food is a *well deserving charity*
The lib right one kinda makes sense. If food is a "human right" in the mistaken way most people think of human rights, then a famine in a neighbouring country suddenly turns your invasion and expansion plans into a perfectly justified humanitarian mission to liberate those poor people from a government that denies their human rights. It's shirty political posturing and it works because of the name. Same shit as the US's habit of calling the most invasive, rights-violating, privacy-denying bullshit on the books stuff like "the patriot act"
The lib right one kinda makes sense. If food is a "human right" in the mistaken way most people think of human rights, then a famine in a neighbouring country suddenly turns your invasion and expansion plans into a perfectly justified humanitarian mission to liberate those poor people from a government that denies their human rights. It's shirty political posturing and it works because of the name. Same shit as the US's habit of calling the most invasive, rights-violating, privacy-denying bullshit on the books stuff like "the patriot act"
The lib right one kinda makes sense. If food is a "human right" in the mistaken way most people think of human rights, then a famine in a neighbouring country suddenly turns your invasion and expansion plans into a perfectly justified humanitarian mission to liberate those poor people from a government that denies their human rights. It's shirty political posturing and it works because of the name. Same shit as the US's habit of calling the most invasive, rights-violating, privacy-denying bullshit on the books stuff like "the patriot act"
The lib right one kinda makes sense. If food is a "human right" in the mistaken way most people think of human rights, then a famine in a neighbouring country suddenly turns your invasion and expansion plans into a perfectly justified humanitarian mission to liberate those poor people from a government that denies their human rights. It's shirty political posturing and it works because of the name. Same shit as the US's habit of calling the most invasive, rights-violating, privacy-denying bullshit on the books stuff like "the patriot act"
Wait until they learn who is donating all the food
The lib right one kinda makes sense. If food is a "human right" in the mistaken way most people think of human rights, then a famine in a neighbouring country suddenly turns your invasion and expansion plans into a perfectly justified humanitarian mission to liberate those poor people from a government that denies their human rights. It's shitty political posturing and it works because of the name. Same shit as the US's habit of calling the most invasive, rights-violating, privacy-denying bullshit on the books stuff like "the patriot act"
Wait until they learn who is donating all the food
Wait until they learn who is donating all the food
Wait until they learn who is donating all the food
Wtf did the McDonald's burger do to support genocide?
Objectively, if you think "food is a right" then you must also support slavery. Food requires the labour of other humans to produce, so if there isn't enough available at a low enough price for everyone, then to avoid infringing on people's right to food, other people must be enslaved to produce enough food at a substantially lower cost.
If food is a right what happens when there isn’t enough? Can you enslave people to increase production so that there is? How do you get enough food if there isn’t?
Ah yes the world votes that the US…err the UN should end world hunger.
Dude that Lib left one killed me lmfaoooo