He’s saying not everyone is in agreement on being pacifist because if they were there wouldn’t be a war going on in Ukraine. I can’t believe that needs to be explained to you.

The reason their repair service is expensive and slow is because it is mobile.

We are used to bringing our cars to the repair shop when they need service.

With Tesla the repair shop comes to you and that is much more expensive and time consuming to do.

It’s bad enough that religions get to freeload and not pay taxes but now they’re trying to take our tax dollars to pay for their indoctrination.

Is Russia capitalist?

Your hypocrisy is simple, yes

In other words, Israeli violence = Israeli are to blame, Hamas violence = both sides are to blame

It’s an obvious attempt to make Israeli violence seem more valid than other types while trying to downplay Hamas violence.

Laziness is posting a bias article to defend your own bias.

The 70 dead are allegedly from Israeli bombings, although we have neither ability to confirm or deny what’s caused ~half the hostages to die since Oct 7. I’d bet good money on it being multifaceted with both sides to blame. All in all a fair cry from the mental images the title invokes of a secret torture dungeon where they’re chopping hands off.

You downplay it as sensationalism in you last paragraph also.

You excuse Hamas violence but not Israeli violence? Seems pretty bias.

Here’s what was actually “asked”:

“We have also engaged with European allies and partners over the past few days and urged them as well to send a clear message to Iran: that escalation is not in Iran’s interest, it’s not in the region’s interest and it’s not in the world’s interest,”

Godspeed.

So Communism is:

concept

classless

moneyless

stateless

achieved by Socialist states

takes a long time

never been achieved before

I wonder why it hasn’t been achieved before.

Yes, I am talking about why you think Communism is the solution to inequality but it just hasn’t achieved it yet after centuries of existing.

Then you moved the goalpost to claim that communism has never been achieved.

So let’s talk about that now.

Why do you think Communism has never been achieved but at the same time think it is capable of solving inequality?

Just because something hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it is guaranteed to happen in the future.

I didn’t think that I needed to explain that to you. I was wrong. Sorry.

I am not saying things can’t happen if they haven’t happened yet.

I am saying if Socialism and Communism have existed for centuries and that whole time they have had disparity. What reason is there to believe that disparity cannot exist in socialist or communist economies?

If it just needs to be “based in logical progression of real systems” to achieve the goal, then why has it not succeeded yet after centuries of existence?

If I can take your exact same argument and use it against Capitalism in pre-revolution France

My argument that disparity is caused by people pursuing power and not economic systems?

Please explain how your example of France proves my argument wrong.

Goals are nice. But we are talking about how to achieve an economic system that actually achieves this. Not just sets goals to.

You are claiming Communism and Socialism can do it but when I ask for an example you say they just haven’t done it yet.

If they have existed for centuries but haven’t achieved their goals yet what makes you think they can?

There are still hierarchies in socialist economies. Thats why there is still disparity in socialist economies.

Do you have an example of one of these socialist societies where everyone has equal power?

You can account for bad actors and power-seekers woth egalitarian distribution of power and a prevention against gaining in power.

How? Without stating how this is accomplished, you’re response is only really saying,

‘you can account for bad actors and power-seekers by living in a perfect world where bad people don’t exist’

If there were an economic system that achieved that it would be a utopia. I don’t know of any utopias on earth.

Not every economic system, economic systems that place significant barriers against ballooning of individual wealth off exploitation see less disparity, and thus less of an impact of money on politics.

You say not every economic system, but then you say less disparity, less impact.

Less disparity means there is still disparity. Less impact means there is still impact.

Because like I said, as long as there are human beings who want more power, there will be a struggle in any economic systems to prevent disparity.

That is because it isn’t the economic system that deregulates or undermines protections.

It is those who seek more power who deregulate and undermine protections.

And those people exist in all types of economic systems.

Even capitalist America had a point in history where disparity was low and the middle class and lower class thrived.

That is no longer the case because of those who removed regulations and changed the laws to suite themselves. And again, those people exist in every type of economy.