It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)The 1%(103 posts) (103 posts) 
(103 posts) 
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 05, 2012
avatar
ET3D: I think that the underlying point has value, but both talking about individuals and suggesting killing them derails any discussion.

Think of corporations such as everyone's beloved EA, or Disney, or the RIAA or whatever big corporation you "love". That love of money over everything else is making such companies screw people. A world where everything is measured by profit, and where there's no "good enough", will always end up immoral. I can perfectly understand where resentment to such corporations come from.

That's why things like Kickstarter come into being, trying to be more hands on, where people feel they have a say.
i agree with you !
Posted April 05, 2012
avatar
Titanium: Hey, I have an idea! Let's not kill people just because, ok?
He's a 1% collaborator! Quick, form a lynch mob!
Posted April 05, 2012
avatar
Tormentfan: I don't need to see rain to know it's wet.
avatar
Coelocanth: Judge, jury, and executioner are you? So what's the dollar value where you 'just know' they're crooked? I'll have to keep that figure in mind and make sure my income/net worth is a dollar less.

avatar
Tormentfan: There things define themselves and it's certainly not difficult to see, and I'm pretty sure money for the sake of money, and that's what it becomse after a certain amount because more just doesn't make any noticable difference, is a pretty good place to start.

Everyone gets it, you don't seem to understand 'redistribution' very well... Or are you going to really try to agrue that there is no one intelligent and honest enough left in the world at all who is capable for seeing solutions to the issues that would arise?
avatar
Coelocanth: I understand redistribution quite well. My question is, how is it determined who gets what? Who decides how it's distributed?
So instead of actually railing agaist the things you KNOW are wrong and be willing to fix them yourself, you would support the system and scurry to vilify those who would commit any 'atrocity' to see them fixed for the betterment of EVERYONE, and not just a select few, or it's it that you would just deny that there are problems needed to be sorted and extreme actions would have to substitue in a system where power is not put to such a high issue?

Yeah, that's pretty much the human race in microcosm.. pretty typical, that's how we got into this position in the first place.
Post edited April 05, 2012 by Tormentfan
Posted April 05, 2012
Yeah! Let's kill 70 000 000 of people to make world a better place!
Posted April 05, 2012
avatar
Tormentfan: So instead of actually railing agaist the things you KNOW are wrong and be willing to fix them yourself, you would support the system and scurry to vilify those who would commit any 'atrocity' to see them fixed for the betterment of EVERYONE, and not just a select few, or it's it that you would just deny that there are problems needed to be sorted and extreme actions would have to substitue in a system where power is not put to such a high issue?
Interesting assumptions you make about what I believe. I'm all for the idea of redistribution and fixing the system. But the moment you start talking about killing people is the moment I say I'm out. Fix the system? Sure. Close tax loopholes and shelters for the rich? Sure. Tax the rich? Sure. Kill the rich? No.
Posted April 05, 2012
avatar
Tormentfan: So instead of actually railing agaist the things you KNOW are wrong and be willing to fix them yourself, you would support the system and scurry to vilify those who would commit any 'atrocity' to see them fixed for the betterment of EVERYONE, and not just a select few, or it's it that you would just deny that there are problems needed to be sorted and extreme actions would have to substitue in a system where power is not put to such a high issue?
avatar
Coelocanth: Interesting assumptions you make about what I believe. I'm all for the idea of redistribution and fixing the system. But the moment you start talking about killing people is the moment I say I'm out. Fix the system? Sure. Close tax loopholes and shelters for the rich? Sure. Tax the rich? Sure. Kill the rich? No.
Just the same assuptions you make when you call me personally Judge, Jury and Exectioner as if I would be the one to make the choices and be holding the smoking gun.
Posted April 05, 2012
How about killing the 99%? There are two major advantages to this: First, we save all the bureaucratic effort required to redistribute that wealth in a fair manner. Second, we solve the overpopulation problem, or at least postpone it for quite some time (maybe this "culling" could be repeated in fixed intervals). Tension among the remaining 1% would be low, and redistribution of jobs etc. would happen automatically, out of necessity.

It's a win-win situation!




... for the people who are still alive.
Posted April 05, 2012
avatar
Tormentfan: Just the same assuptions you make when you call me personally Judge, Jury and Exectioner as if I would be the one to make the choices and be holding the smoking gun.
You're the one advocating it. You're also the one generalizing that all the rich are 'more crooked'. I asked specifically how you judge 'more crooked' and your answer was:

"I don't need to see rain to know it's wet."

Looks to me like you're judge and jury by that statement.

I guess it's easy to say 'kill them all' when you're not willing to be the one holding the gun? Not making an assumption here, just asking (since you didn't answer) who is the one that's going to be doing the killing.
Posted April 05, 2012
avatar
XmXFLUXmX: He sounds like your typical envious Communist.
You are a freak.


Anyway, If we "kill" the 1% others will replace them. Maybe you or me if we had such power. Well ok, maybe not me, but you for sure.

And then we'll have to "kill" you!
Posted April 05, 2012
avatar
Cambrey: Anyway, If we "kill" the 1% others will replace them.
Yes, that's a mathematical certainty.
avatar
etna87: ... for the people who are still alive.
Just like the neat gun, and cake!
Post edited April 05, 2012 by kalirion
Posted April 05, 2012
insanity is strong with this one...

only people with no money want to do harm to those who have it. i guarantee you, if those people became rich, they'd change their tune in a heartbeat. sucks to be poor, i guess. i wouldn't know anything about it, though.
Posted April 05, 2012
avatar
kalirion: Yes, that's a mathematical certainty.
Except that they don't have to be the same 1%.
Posted April 05, 2012
avatar
kalirion: Yes, that's a mathematical certainty.
avatar
Cambrey: Except that they don't have to be the same 1%.
Sure, unless someone uses a Phoenix Down.
Posted April 05, 2012
avatar
Tormentfan: Just the same assuptions you make when you call me personally Judge, Jury and Exectioner as if I would be the one to make the choices and be holding the smoking gun.
avatar
Coelocanth: You're the one advocating it. You're also the one generalizing that all the rich are 'more crooked'. I asked specifically how you judge 'more crooked' and your answer was:

"I don't need to see rain to know it's wet."

Looks to me like you're judge and jury by that statement.

I guess it's easy to say 'kill them all' when you're not willing to be the one holding the gun? Not making an assumption here, just asking (since you didn't answer) who is the one that's going to be doing the killing.
And if you are using that argement then I'll use the same.. your quickness to vilify extreme soltution in the absolute absence of any other solution, rather than back up your 'reasonablity' with less extreme point of view with an eye to provide an alternative, which would show me to be the true zealot you obviously think I am, shows your reliance and compliance in such an unjust way of the world and scream of fear when faced with a risk of losing it.

And as far as ANYONE'S opinion of me, on this board or anywhere else is concerned, I would wear the title 'zealot' with pride, rather than bear the shame of 'compliant'.

You don't know how far I personally would or wouldn't go with extreme ideas, this started out as a discussion based on supposition and you, along with the other, rather than put your points of view across in general, based all of your comments in the mire of personal vilification, where as I added to the discussion at hand, regardless of position, you have added nothing.

So my choice is to be me, or to be more like you two in order to be more approved of, by people like you.....I got the better part of the deal. Your type of hypocracy and 'reasonable' complicity would turn me into something I have no wish to become.

Now it's my turn to say I'm bored with arguing with you... you may baselessly declare yourself the victor as is the want of people such as yourself.
Post edited April 05, 2012 by Tormentfan
Posted April 05, 2012
Whelp, Batman's in trouble...

http://www.dorkly.com/video/27355/dorkly-bits-batman-is-the-1
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)The 1%(103 posts) (103 posts) 
(103 posts)