I would let the person starving choose life or death, I wouldn't force either on him. Hell maybe I have a free meal or two in me as well. But to say you should force the rich at gunpoint to feed the underserving, threatening their life or locking them in a cage, is the more twisted idea here.
Yeah obviously we should just let the people starve while the rich guy sits on his money because he decided he doesn't wanna share today. The fact that you keep siding with the greedy person over the desperate people in need is offensive. If you're trolling just stop. If you're serious then you need help.
I'm not trolling, I'm just not without morals, or at least my morals don't include theft and violence. I'm not siding with the greedy ones, you are and it's your type of thinking that you say you're against. The hypocrisy is tangible
---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:12 PM ----------
It's ok and good to feed the starving, it's not ok to force someone to. It's bad, or is that also some new thing, where stealing and violence is good?
Are you sure you are using the right word here? if you did mean to use that word please stop, people throwing that word around willy nilly are a bigger immediate threat than anything to do with the rich vs. poor debate.
Last edited by Slime Slayer; 08-27-2015 at 06:21 PM..
It is impossible to act outside of one's own self interest. Unless of course you are insane or something. Are you people just getting glass eyed when I say you advocate murder and stealing? Looking out for someone else by stealing from another isn't valiant or righteous, is disgusting.
Socialism is a disease, capitalism is the only fair system. By definition, if you for some reason didn't know, is privately owned business. ooooo scary scary
Are you sure you are using the right word here? if you did mean to use that word please stop, people throwing that word around willy nilly are a bigger immediate threat than anything to do with the rich vs. poor debate.
No I mean it. Saying that you'd prefer to let innocent people starve to avoid taxing rich people a little more is very offensive. I actually chose that word because anything else I'd use would break the rules.
And no that's not more of a threat, what the hell is wrong with you? Starving people is a million times more important than people potentially misusing a word. Did I fall into bizarro world or something? Why are people so cool with starving poor people?
No. I'm just telling him that his world view is offensive. I don't see why that's such a big deal for you. It'd be the same as me saying I think his view is disgusting or repulsive. I bet you wouldn't be up in arms about those words.
No. I'm just telling him that his world view is offensive. I don't see why that's such a big deal for you. It'd be the same as me saying I think his view is disgusting or repulsive. I bet you wouldn't be up in arms about those words.
Just use disgusting or repulsive, quit trying to play victim.
This poll is definitely slanted towards certain candidates.
The questions are the major political debate topics. The results are based on the candidates answers to those questions. How could that be slanted? If you are surprised by the results then I think that can only mean the political message have mislead you. I hope it is not a shock that politicians are trying to dupe you.
@DB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dudebro
Why are people so against globalism?
Because when politicians say globalism they really mean corporatism.
@David
( Click to show/hide )
You said you preferred feudalism. If you assume you would be a noble then I understand. I don't agree but I understand. If you have a 90% chance of being a peasant would you still prefer feudalism?
If yes then you are going to have to explain this to me in baby steps. That is so far beyond me. If I can not be made to understand why we disagree on 15th century politics, then I'll bow out of the rest of the conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by david man45
Everyone *isn't* a special snowflake.
That's my point! Everyone is the same and therefore no one deserves to be born with a trust fund and everyone deserves Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Quote:
No king who starts bullshit wars and wastes and impoverishes his kingdom will be a king for long, you know?
Never took a European history class or at least watched Game of Thrones?
Quote:
You're alone on an island what do you do? Work. Handicapped or mentally ill? You die.
100% agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by david man45
People acting inside their rational self interest helps everyone.
Read up on game theory. This is very very often not true. Google "Tragedy of the Commons", "Prisoners Dilemma", "Dictator Game".
Quote:
Just watch as this unsustainable socialist hell hole starts to crumble and turn into mexico or w/e.
Most countries with the socialist policies we are discussing - education, health care, food, shelter - beat America in nearly any non-military contest, except noble prizes. Far from hell holes.
Quote:
Most people shouldn't be able to afford cars
Agreed. But if most people have good free public transportation then they wont have to have cars, so roads will be less congested, the environment less polluted and they can make it to work and stores improving the economy. Detroit shut down public transit in the outer city. Result people didn't show up for work and the economy collapsed further.
Quote:
most people shouldn't be able to afford cell phones
Obama phones is what Fox News calls free cell phones for the poor. They were created by Regan though because if someone can answer a phone they have a better chance of getting a job, thus improving the economy.
Arizona gave free homes to all homeless. Arizona is a strong red, republican state. They didn't do it for the warm fuzzies. They did it to save money. Homeless people spend a lot of time in jails and hospitals. They cost an average of $30K-$50K per year. Rent is less than $10K per year. Give someone shelter and they have a chance of getting their life together and contributing to society. Or you can let them stay on the street, annoy you and cost you 3-5 times more in taxes. It's possible to be both selfish and selfless at the same time.
Nearly every city in America will give the homeless a free greyhound bus ticket to anywhere they want for the same reason. It's a good business decision.
Quote:
Those who should be in power will be
Rupert Murdoch has power over the media, should he? How is your life better because he is in control of nearly all news?
Quote:
And at least with a bad king, you can chop his head off.
How?
Quote:
Originally Posted by david man45
the best possible outcome is to have a 'benign dictatorship' where one person has absolute rule, but is somehow in the best interest for everyone.
Maybe. Brazil sorta pulled this off. Very risky game though. Let's replay history and place a bet on each dictator. I'll take selfish prick, you take benign good guy. I'll bet any amount you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by david man45
You should not have a vote in how your country runs simply by existing. You aren't owed anything.
You know those guess how many jelly beans are in the jar contests. Nearly everyone guesses way wrong but the average vote is always nearly exact. Countries with 100% compulsory voting spend less time dealing with extremist issues and more time discussing issues that matter to the majority middle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by david man45
It is impossible to act outside of one's own self interest.
Tim Berners-Lee
Clair Cameron Patterson
Galileo Galilei
Aaron Swartz
Norman Borlaug
Jimmy Wales
Brewster Kahle
Retro Uprising
If there was no consequence then you would always make the most selfish choice? Rape, steal, lie, look out only for yourself and damn everyone else? I hope, at some point, there is a line you wouldn't cross. If so, then even you sometimes act outside your own self interest.
Do you think most billionaires earned their money though merit?
Do you think one day a law affecting multi-billionaire might also affect you?
Can you imagine the difference in being a billionaire vs being a multi-billionaire?
Can you imagine the difference of having rotting teeth and no money for a smoothie vs having dental insurance and a hamburger?
It's not about the questions, it's about the results.
Everybody here is a relatively sane individual right?
Why are the same handful of names coming ups so consistently? Why hasn't anybody happened to get Howard Gleason in their top results? This test is twisting something along the way. How could my results yield a 87% and a 29% for 2 separate candidates that are virtually the same?
I challenge you to try and get Ben Carson as your top match. PROTIP: It aint gonna happen.
Last edited by Slime Slayer; 08-28-2015 at 02:23 AM..
When David made the statement "You don't deserve to live if you can't provide for what you need."
That's when people needed to realize that this idea is so out to lunch that there is no point in arguing the point.
So David go ahead with your survival of the fittest thought mode. You definitely were born 300 years too late.
As far as the original topic. 84% Bernie, 75% Hillary, and 73% Rand Paul. People like Walker, and Carson were people least like me.
How much you wanna bet that he's had lots of help all his life, including from the government?
Certainly you're not implying that he has ever visited a hospital, went to school, used municipal water, used electricity, used a fuel to heat his home or fuel his car, walked on a sidewalk, visited a park, received mail, traveled a road, benefited from a local police force, or even consumed food that was grown on a farm?
Because those would all be subsidized by taxes to some extent and would be completely hypocritical of him to do so.
Because those would all be subsidized by taxes to some extent and would be completely hypocritical of him to do so.
Nah I'm sure he lives up in the mountains in a completely independent society where the people with power and money mix with regular hard working people and they do their part to keep it running. They don't do that altruistically though, obviously, they only do what benefits them directly! If one of them falls on hard times they just banish him or her and let them die, don't need that worthless person contaminating the perfection.
All jokes aside though Ayn Rand was a nut. She was also a hypocrite. She was on social security and medicare(or it's equivalent) when she got old and sick from decades of chain smoking.
Linear Mode
