@NonProphet
"Taking care of the poor is a hallmark of a civilised society."
You'd be surprised how much tax money is spent on people that are in no way poor. Not to mention on the corporations that leftists rail against (not entirely unjustified, but usually for the wrong reasons). What the fuck do you think subsidies, bailouts, legal favors and special tax benefits that nobody else gets are? Not to mention that the "poor" in the US would probably be middle class in Africa and probably still better off than some kings. I think I'll take being poor in the 21st century any day over living in an era with 0 antibiotics, 0 computers, 0 air conditioning, little entertainment opportunities, little stability or human rights etc. no matter how much wealth you throw at me.
"Nobody is "owed" food and shelter, but it's a bit sociopathic to subscribe to the idea that anyone who can't afford to survive on their own deserves to be homeless & starve."
It's also plain stupid to equate poor with "starving and homeless" or to assume that if government doesn't help them, nobody else will.
Or to assume that government can even properly identify who is genuinely helpless and who is just lazy or makes bad decisions in life.
"Also, please learn the definitions of "theft" and "unjust initiation of force.""
Look in any reputable dictionary. (As a side note, no wonder the millennial generation is so horrible when they don't even know what theft is.)
"Taxation is not theft nor a show of force"
Taxation is based on an implicit threat of violence. "Pay up or men with guns will come to your house to take you to a small cage, probably shot if you resist any further." And that is what you have to argue for every time you propose an increase in taxes to pay for X, Y and Z. That X, Y, and Z are SO important and NOBODY else can do them that we have to extort people to fund them.
Some taxation is necessary for the continued existence of government and the country, as well as to enforce the natural rights of individuals, there's no way around it unless you're an anarchist. But from that to justifying a big expansive welfare state that governs every aspect of society is a LONG way.
I also see no evidence whatsoever that the people actually in need are being helped, otherwise there would be exactly 0 perpetually homeless people. It's not about helping people, it's about concentrating power in institutions that are inherently untrustworthy and easily corruptible.
Like if you REALLY wanted to, you could institute a program where if someone shows up visibly malnourished (hasn't eaten or showered for 5 days, that would actually be evidence that they truly can't help themselves) they're automatically put on a 6 month recovery plan, temporary housing, papers sorted out so they can apply for a job etc.
- Then again I see no evidence that private charity couldn't do this and do it better. If leftists put as much effort into this as they put into trying to make government bigger, there would be no homeless left.
How about you try to be charitable with your money and not everyone else's? It's easy to preach virtue when you're not the one paying for it (or not paying most of it anyway).
"probably taken from a MRA site"
I don't care where it's taken from, I care if it's true, hence why I might sometimes agree with Bernie (yup, special interests are bad, I don't agree with his solutions though) or the feminists as well (like I agree with the statement that men aren't owed sex, it's just not a principled statement, feminists don't care about individual liberty otherwise they would apply that principle to many other issues, no, as evidenced by your post, this is all about demonizing male sexuality and trying to control it by telling men that they don't "really need it")
"-Sex is not a need, and certainly not more for men than women. It is a biological drive for most people, and a desire, but it is not necessary for an individual's survival or even well-being. Period."
Well that's pretty stupid to say. It's certainly not needed for survival, but well-being that's a different thing. Just ask any penile amputee how miserable they are (particularly if they're young) knowing that they'll never have sex again like a normal person. Peeing isn't the issue, you can pee through a straw if you have to or whatever. It's sexual function that's the problem, never mind the ED that also causes depression (because they also can't have sex). Never mind that men, particularly the younger ones, get moody if they can't at least masturbate. It builds up and you need to release it somehow and that's linked with lower rates of prostate cancer.
But yeah, keep telling men what they do and do not need. Might as well join the creatard crowd and preach abstinence. (No wonder you people have been called the "regressive left".) Fuck off.
