>>2 It's funny how people accept capitalism as just when it leads to things like this. Hoarders contribute no labor of value and can live off of "investments". Then they want to cut welfare programs when the only difference between them and the unemployed poor is they control resources and live expensive lifestyles.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-16 23:46
I'd donate it to the EFF
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-16 23:56
>>6 Investments aren't hoarding. Things like government bonds are what allow the poor to even have welfare programs.
>>6 Investing is just another way of lending money and expecting interest in return. Without lending and interest there would be no economy and the unemployed poor would be eating their own children.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-17 0:13
>>10 Who needs an economy when you can automate production of food and the collection of water and energy?
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-17 0:19
>>6 Like I give a fuck. Poor people deserve starve in the streets. Why should the poor be given focus? They contribute nothing towards running the society, no great intellectual works, and nothing else besides brute labor. And if they did, they wouldn't be poor for long. In nature, organism that can't fight their way to an abundance of resources are culled from the gene pool. The government's approach to the war on poverty should be based on eliminating poor people, but exterminating poor people. The world would run just fine with only a billion. It would save the environment, spare already strained natural resources (hint: it's not the Rothchilds that drive the market for $1 pairs of flip-flop `shoes'), and encourage more and more automation instead of the race to the bottom caused by ignorant poor people who want nothing more out of life than cheap beer, UFC pay-per-view, and ensuring that the world conforms to whatever faggot god they get on their knees to please.
Fuck the poor, fuck Marx, and fuck you. The pitiful poor people need to be gassed.
>>12 Us Spirits are Above and Superior to nature and it's physical lowliness. I am Above and Superior to society and I do things other than contribute or not contribute. I am the Intellectual master and my works you do not comprehend so do not speak of them. My body is Strong and Masculine in Spirit though Sexually Feminine to my Partners. Your understanding of economics is zilch. Your understanding of nature is zilch. Us Spirits are Superior to illusionary genes. Organisms don't do fighting, that's a Human thing. They just go about pooping and eating. When I think of organisms I think of microbes and what do microbes have to do with how inferior and Superior humans function? They don't. Dawkins is wrong about evolution, it's much more Mathematically Complex than simple game theory and algebra and it still wont apply to Human-Spirits. Clearly you're exaggerating for you are the Poor one. You should capitalize ``government'' if you love it so much, atheist. Populations and worlds, who cares. Just playgrounds for us Superior-Spirits. Though it gets crowded and I wouldn't like you to contribute to that. The environment is only good for looking at and if it was Good it would just be Pretty Flowers Everywhere for all of Eternity. Natural resources you don't know about, atheist. Automation is only encouraged by inferiors. Only inferiors like you can be automated. I can tell you're a stupid teenage atheist. Atheists, atheism, nietzsche is dead so sayeth the Spirit. You don't know anything. I'll gas you first but you cant gas me as I am Too Smart and Powerful.
14,11
You both don't know anything and are wrong in all ways possible. You're the idiots.
>>10 Tribes are for inferiors but they just go back to living like native americans and african niggers you stupid atheist. I could willingly kill Myself If I wanted so I don't need to be eating disgusting inferiors and Superiors are the eaters, not the eaten so I wont ever need to kill Myself as I am Too Powerful.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-17 0:45
>>8 >>6 I don't support capitalism at all but I'd still do that. At least I'd still live modestly, compared to the typical millionaire.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-17 2:36
Like I give a fuck. Rich people deserve to be hung in the streets. Why should the rich be given focus? They contribute nothing towards the society, no great intellectual works, and nothing else besides using labor. And if they did, they wouldn't be hated for long. In nature, organism that can't sustain themselves without taking advantage of others via artificial conditions are culled from the gene pool. The government's approach to being controlled by the rich should be based on eliminating taxes on rich people, but exterminating taxes on rich people. The country would run just fine with only a dollar. It would save nothing, spare already strained old white people's resources (hint: it's the Rothchilds that drive the market for $100,000,000,000 pairs of flip-flop `shoes'), and encourage more and more automation for $100,000,000,000 flip flop shoes instead of the race to the bottom caused by ignorant poor people who want nothing more out of life than food, water, and shelter.
Fuck the rich, fuck Bill Gates, and fuck you. The successful and influential rich people need to be given more awards and recognition for the important role they play in enriching our society, such as but not limited to shifting market forces to increase the production of $100,000,000,000,000 flip flop shoes made of diamonds, golds, elephant tusks, rhino horns, Snowy Owl heads.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-17 2:38
>>16 link me to your tumblr pls so i can like your blog posts and worship you
In nature, organism that can't sustain themselves without taking advantage of others via artificial conditions are culled from the gene pool.
Hard to take you seriously with knowledge of biology this bad. Parasites, carnivorous plants, viruses, and animals are all thriving niches. What do you even mean by artificial conditions? Certain bacterias will necrotise flesh to increase it's living space. Plants trick bees into having sex with them by mimicking other bees. Wolves know how to trick a herd of gazelle and pull one from the herd to kill it. All these things involved the organism altering it's environment to ensnare another for it's own gain.
Or, if by artificial you meant man-made, then, well, that's just stupid and a tautology.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-17 2:55
>>20 Knowledge of biology applies only to biology... ``animals'' (read: not humans).
There is no such thing as a ``universal'' gene pool. Organisms neither fight nor strive toward an abundance of resources; nay is there such a thing ``culled'' in the organism's world.
Secondly, note that humans most certainly are animals.
Lastly, I do not appreciate your attempt to circle jerk your way out of this with nonsensical postmodern garbage. Please return to your sociology class or art criticism class or whatever and stop commenting on things that require actual intellect.
Humans are as much of animals as the animals in a zoo are humans. Now actual thinking could be done of your proposition but I'm not going to make that obvious to you and it would be pointless to debate with an idiot.
What about post-modernism? Just got done reading that wikipedia article about that ``controversy''? Trying to fit in on the side you deem to be the winner of the presumed conflict of ``science'' and things that aren't ``science''? Your assumptions about me are amusing, your ignorance and misunderstanding of what intellect is and what requires it is also amusing.
I think you need to go visit a zoo and take a nice hard look at that chimp’s asshole.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-17 3:34
>>23 Look, I'm right, you're wrong, end of story. But by all means, feel free to persist in being an idiot; it you wear it well and you probably couldn't stop if you tried. Since I've argued with you on here before and I remember that you are impervious to actual reasoning (and I cannot physically harm you), I'll leave you to your anthrocentric arrogance and mysticism.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-17 3:45
>>24 Look, I'm right, you're wrong, end of story. But by all means, feel free to persist in being an ignorant imbecile; it is clearly a fundamental part of your being and you probably couldn't stop being one if you tried. Since I haven't argued with you on here before as I have a life and from what I can tell you are inept at actual ACTUAL reasoning and intelligence (and psychically harming such a weak skinny person that you are is a no no ;)), I'll leave you to your hippie idiocy and emotionalism.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-17 4:00
>>23 all humans are animals, not all animals are humans. You're confused
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-17 4:05
>>26 The interesting and important questions related to this ``subject'' are obvious but eludes you. You're confused.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-17 4:06
>>26 Your reading comprehension is also terrible``!''
>>32 Maybe you should stop being such a pedo-intellectual.
Name:
Anonymous2014-05-17 8:00
Y'all talk about REASONING and INTELLIGENCE and all kinds of other vague bullshit. But it's pretty obvious that you just want to fling poopoos at whoever disagrees with your preferred definition for the word "animal".
While dictionaries don't tell us which definition is "correct" or "incorrect", they tell us how words have previously been used in certain writings. Here's what mine says:
[1] living organism which feeds and has sense organs and a nervous system and is able to respond rapidly to stimuli. [2] such an organism other than man. [3] brutish person
Next time you come across a word whose intended definition you disagree with, accept the writer's definition. If their definition isn't clear, ask them to be more specific. Willy->>21 and willy->>22, fly with me! :-)
Now let me do the honours. Willy->>20: Which definition did you intend?