Contemporary politics is turning every proposition into the most polarized argument conceivable. Which is exactly what this comment is doing. And it is in fact against the HN rules of conduct.
Except this isn’t a political issue, it’s humanitarian and basic empathy. Never said anyone should be removed from earth, that’s quite the projection, but go on.
Basic empathy, except for those folks you disagree with. Maybe they just lack an perspective? Maybe you just need to point out one or two things and they understand?
When the other side is advocating for children to starve, then yeah, fuck them. There is no point in being charitable to people incapable of the most basic decency.
The OP wouldn't have starved. There appears to have been food in the house the OP could have taken, but the OP didn't because he wanted his father to, in his words, "buy lunch food." You'll note that he says his family could afford food, but that he dad wouldn't pay for school lunch specifically because he thought the government should pay for it.
The previous poster didn't want to bring the food that was in his home because it wasn't "lunch food," so he justifies how he stole from his father, his classmates, and local businesses. And now he's going to judge other people's humanity by whether or not they agree with his stance that he was entitled to the kind of lunch he wanted, and call people subhuman if they disagree.
I'm someone who's in favor of the government providing free lunches, but this discussion shows why caution is needed. To many people will ignore the actually events that happened and start manufacturing catastrophes, then say that because of their fabricated scenario anyone who isn't in favor of what they want is a horrible human being, or that they were justified for harming others.
Yeah, some people need to be fought, they can't be reasoned with. One clear sign that they aren't open to reason is that they want other children to suffer while they and their children don't.
We don't necessarily have to kill them, we could fight them by other means, like general strike or by destroying their property. Disowning them of their privileges or social status typically causes them to change their positions on policy.
amelius|10 months ago
mtnGoat|10 months ago
blueflow|10 months ago
harvey9|10 months ago
I got food assistance as a kid.
anabab|10 months ago
unknown|10 months ago
[deleted]
sigkill|10 months ago
madeofpalk|10 months ago
gsck|10 months ago
pertymcpert|10 months ago
thrance|10 months ago
gonzobonzo|10 months ago
The previous poster didn't want to bring the food that was in his home because it wasn't "lunch food," so he justifies how he stole from his father, his classmates, and local businesses. And now he's going to judge other people's humanity by whether or not they agree with his stance that he was entitled to the kind of lunch he wanted, and call people subhuman if they disagree.
I'm someone who's in favor of the government providing free lunches, but this discussion shows why caution is needed. To many people will ignore the actually events that happened and start manufacturing catastrophes, then say that because of their fabricated scenario anyone who isn't in favor of what they want is a horrible human being, or that they were justified for harming others.
cess11|10 months ago
We don't necessarily have to kill them, we could fight them by other means, like general strike or by destroying their property. Disowning them of their privileges or social status typically causes them to change their positions on policy.