332
Johnson & Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
332 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32326 readers
805 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
We desperately, above all other issues, need to resolve the fact that big companies can win in court simply by paying until the other guy can't afford to keep dealing with the legal system.
In the Soviet Union, capital punishment was carried out by various methods, including firing squads, hanging, and later, the use of a single gunshot to the back of the head. These methods were employed for different periods throughout the Soviet Union's history, depending on the prevailing laws and policies.
What does that have to do with the conversation being had here?
Also, not that any of this is relevant to the actual topic at hand, but that's different from the United States... How?
Just this year Idaho approved the firing squad as a means of execution. It joined 4 other states.
We now use the lethal injection, but research is showing that it isn't painless, it just looks like it is. We used the electric chair for decades, and hanging before that.
Execute the ultra rich, problem ends. No man, no problem.
I'll take our current system over the Soviet one every day of the week. Not starving and not living under an evil dictatorship beats an unfair court system.
You're already living under an evil bourgeois dictatorship.
You have a bourgeoisie dictator as your avatar.
The inefficiencies created by the Soviet system will lead to yet another round of famine and other problems that will make those stats in your infographic look cute.
Go try your perfect world economic system propaganda on someone else who is dumb enough to buy it.
The Soviet Union existed in the past. Their policies resulted in famine.
Wat.
Hah.
You could, if there was a history of famines in America's past. The closest we really got was the dust bowl, and that was never really a famine.
Of course, the possibility is always open with global warming becoming a thing that we could experience some form of famine in the future. However, when it happens it's almost certainly going to be because of global warming cannot because of asinine communist economic decision making that dis encourages people from producing any sort of surplus by imposing state quotas on them.
In the world? Hunger and famine largely exists because people live in regions with really corrupt governments and no way to produce food locally, it's geopolitical more than economic and there really is no fixing it.
In the United States?
You guys have to use a chart that shows statistics on food insecurity instead of actual lack of access to food because lots of food programs exist and lots of people actually are able to get meals even when they are poor. Actual starvation is very rare in the United States, thanks to things like the snap programs.
The United States has problems to fix, but we seriously have a bigger epidemic of obesity among the poor than starvation.
Oh yes, the Soviet Union, wonderful passion of green technology and environment.
You blame capitalism for shit that would be happening and would be even worse under other systems. The status quo is Not the fault of capitalism and you can't simply blame the status quo on capitalism without showing that some new system would actually perform better.
Historically, non-capitalist systems are less efficient and pollute more.
Yes, was shifting goalpost by responding to the two possible interpretations of your comment.
Yes.
This isn't.... What do you think you're making a point here for? We should end subsidies on corn in the United States and allow the market to make that decision of what to produce.
That would be more capitalism.
And you're engaging in the age old internet tradition of accusing everyone who disagrees with you as a troll.
War resulted in famine.
War resulted in famine my ass.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933
And famine is just the start. If you think any government is competent enough to handle the orchestration of a system is large and complicated as a modern economy you are hilariously mistaken.
I wouldn't even know where to start. Basically every single item in your house runs through some sort of supply chain that would get fucked up if we tried to manage them all through some central planned economy.
Same page:
Also
They fought against collectivization thinking something would happen. They unleashed a famine upon themselves.
EDIT: This part is so ridiculous I need to repeat it:
So much milk lost, could have fed so many people, you can bet there were millions of chickens too, millions of eggs that were never laid, kill the cattle, kill the natural cycle of reproduction, tonnes and tonnes of meat that were never born.
Some reactionaries BURNED FARMS to oppose communism, no wonder they starved.
You do a very good job cherry picking, but all of these things together couldn't starve a nation.
At the end of the day what killed the Soviet Union was the fact that they.
Created a system or the people producing the food weren't making shit and had no incentive to actually work.
Opted to try to blame rich people instead of their own shitty system for causing the famine.
Killing millions of cattle and burning crops couldn't starve a nation, hmm. OK, supremacist.
The cattle part could could cause shortages, but at the end of the day when you don't have cattle you can still feed people perfectly fine.
You won't get to eat nearly as much meat, but you can still eat.
I'm mainly referring to the fact that you're trying to blame the rebellion from the evil rich people for the cause of the famine instead of the very real economic misincentices created by the Soviet Union
Burning crops, how many times do I need to repeat this part. They were also actively sabotaging collective farms.
And how many times do I have to repeat this part? The amount of sabotage going on was almost certainly not enough to cause mass famine.
Mass famine would require mass action. If there was enough rebellion to starve the country, it would have deposed the Soviet Union entirely.
The maximum number on the people actually having rebellions was what? 150,000? That's nothing.
No, the famine was caused by misaligned economic incentives which fucked the entire system.
Also don't forget that a very similar famine resulted from mao trying the same shit. This is not a uniquely Soviet phenomenon.
Millions of... millions of cattle killed.
Mao's famine was caused by killing birds, because he did not listen to science. We must always listen to science. That thing could've happened if China were a Christian Theocracy. There have been countless famines in history but you only care about communist ones.
You're missing about 10 other bad decisions in there, and you'll never guess what those 10 decisions were related to.
Again. If we killed all the animals right now in every country in the world we would have....
More food.
Animals eat food. They provide less than they eat, so if you took all the food that would have gone towards cattle and instead put them towards humans, you'd see people eating more, not less.
I'm not totally going to say that that wasn't a factor, but at the end of the day the famine in the Soviet Union still had a root cause.
Say it with me and say it again.
Shitty misaligned economic incentives.
I... what?