How will we ever recover

Because cows are the best way to describe economic systems for guys who have only taken Econ 101.

I did. It's a peculiar tool of speech, rarely elucidates, mostly obfuscates.

This analogy makes sense when you remember that to bootlickers people are no more than objects.

So it's basically saying support nazis because you're white and are empowered by it.

i made this nifty little edit. what do my comrades think?

Best not to indulge their idiotic metaphors.

just as an example, i was arguing with a Holla Forums user here and he claimed that might makes right. i responded that nazi germany was defeated by the soviets, meaning that might had demonstrated that soviet socialism was right and not nazism. to which he responded, "even a mighty lion can be defeated by a pack of hyenas". he was apparently satisfied with that response. and this isn't the first time i've encountered this kind of thinking from the right. it's just insanely stupid. it's like these people never read beyond aesop's fables.

no spin throw is best throw

… Are they becoming furries because of Aesop?

this

You end up with infinite versions of the "you have a cow" shittery. Combating obfuscating metaphors should be done by bringing to light how the metaphor in question works, what it hides, what preconceptions it builds on, etc. and not by playing their game.

for those not familiar with it: youtube.com/watch?v=YIPDJ1Cc_uw

well, as to my edit, I would argue that that's what I'm trying to say. People who think communism is about equality need to read Bordiga. Communism means the end of class and hence the concept of "equality between the classes" would be a non-sense concept in Communism.

I honestly think most of Holla Forums decided what they believe by watching videos like this. This is their idea of research

wtf i love BDSM now

Because it allows them to spew unsubstantiated bullshit that you "can't" disprove.

what a garbage allegory

but muh redpill

i remember when i was like 12 trying to understand what socialism is and all i could find was weird shit about ownership cows lmao

i went away as clueless as i went in

It can safely be said that they didn't read Hegel or Lacan.

So neither side has the ability to stab the other with hurting themselves? It's MAD, it's not great but it does work.

It can also lead to both parties to earnestly negotiate.

wtf im fully automated communist now

OP I can't even

Joke's on you, faggot. I wouldn't even be able to afford meat under true equality. Checkmate, Christians.

The top knife is very useful but plain.

HOWEVER THE BOTTOM KNIFE IS STUPIDLY DANGEROUS BUT CAN BE USED FOR THE CRAZIEST GLASS CANNON ACE TRICKS! FOR DEX USERS ONLY

That's pork. There's no reason for FALC not to be vegan.
You meat addicts get artifically grown meat, better tasting and more nutritious than animal bits.

Oy yeah, nah, the bottom one can be shaped and modified and used as boomerang. Not to mention, would be neat in a scuffle.

When I read Holla Forums posts/jaypegs like those, they remind me of something I read by Orwell
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language
Also I doubt many people have two cows these days.

hello Holla Forums

why is that Holla Forums?
if you can grow meat in a petri dish why are we going to kill animals for it, there is no need

it need to have an airfoil shape to work as bomerang,

I'm 100% to this direction:
←———–

Sorry user, my bad, misread the bit about vat meat. Vat meat's fine.

That's why I said modified m8

But we already have the guy on the bottom. It's used for cutting pizza. You wouldn't use a kitchen knife for that, would you?
Also

Pathologize those who disagree with you, ever so classy.
Actually, I'd probably agree this is historically inevitable. It's prohibitively expensive right now, but the total labor cost should drop over time with refined techniques and economies of scale. Eventually, under a mode of production dictated by social need and not private profit, it will become easier, more efficient, and more environmentally friendly than livestock. The total "cuts" of meat produced then need not be in strict proportion to one another and so on. """Hurting animals""" is honestly less of a factor than the logistical demands of production.
The meat itself though is inherently non-vegan. Watch the vegans of 300 years in the future protest test tube meat because it requires animal cells, I wouldn't put it past them for a second. Remember, they claim milk is immoral.

youtube.com/watch?v=z0O_VYcsIk8

"Equality" is the name of my Bat'leth.

Three things I like in life, Communism, Star Trek, and extremely on the nose names for weapons.

Arguments from Analogy are easier to understand than functional analytical arguments.

sweet rebuttal for those things I didn't say bro

It wasn't an argument, just bants
You have to admit vegans are lolcows

FTFY

It was clearly a joke. Why are you so anxious?
Are you arguing animals don't have a nervous system? Pain started at the homo sapiens?
It is, but only due to the way cows are factory farmed.

Poe's law tbh
Pathologizing dissent again
I'm sensitive to it because I know to look for it, because it's a favored tactic of militant vegans. The livestock industry results from the invisible, unfalsifiable, omnipresent and all-powerful supremacist ideology of "carnism," people dismiss your perfectly valid and logical arguments and otherwise dislike you because of a bevy of "defense mechanisms," which further proves your points etc. Vegans are kind of like the natural reductio ad absurdum of SJWs
KEK. No. A nervous system is not sufficient for consciousness, as a headless chicken running around due to reflex action or a freshly killed fish spasming when you salt it demonstrate.
Beyond that you seem to be implying that homologous structures are sufficient to infer consciousness. This simply isn't the case.
Part of it is that "consciousness" is an ill-defined thing. We "know" humans are conscious, barring the obvious exceptions, because we are using a pragmatic theory of truth and so on. We simply haven't reduced consciousness to its material processes yet, so this line of reasoning is suspect everywhere. You'll honestly get more mileage out of moral philosophy, say, the "marginal cases" argument.
Pain is a psychological phenomenon. It's not the same as "any aversive stimulus." All organisms are governed by various feedback loops and all must respond to the environment in various ways. That's just how evolution works. Assessing psychology takes more work than just pure reasoning.
Where and on what basis do you draw the line between sentient and nonsentient organisms, so that your theory doesn't, say, treat insects as conscious moral agents? I'm just looking for a sense of your internal logic.
I love this audaciously misleading term for large scale agriculture every time it comes up

FTFY