How does it feel to be poor?

"These are not a lot to ask for. These are not difficult for any society to provide for all its citizens. Any leader that truly cares for their people should be ensuring none of their people are without these. No worker doing labor for anybody should be left without these. It is not difficult to provide this for all."

Unbelievable.

They're all nice things, sure...

But you have no basis for the statement.

Just saying "this isn't hard" doesn't fucking say anything, you pathetic worm. If it "weren't difficult" you wouldn't be talking about it as something that doesn't exist, because someone would just do it. YOU would have just done it.

Eat shit, ball licker.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First of all, I asked where I stated everyone is poor.
I never stated it or implied it. I have stated many times that there are the incompetent rich and the poor. Stop taking words out of context. You cannot even explain how you implied that fron what I specifically said in context because you took a statement disregarding all other statements around it.

Your logic is flawed claiming that you cannot possibly poor according to my so called, law.

Woud would would would would would would.
The pathetic worm is you. Throw away those moronic would statements, and start using actual sense for once. Sepculation has no basis in fact. Logical individuals avoid this utterly stupid form of thought proccess. There is a term for it ----> Circular Reasoning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No you didn't. You asked

To which I responded with the following:

I showed how this statement implies that the most dysfunctional possible economy is one in which everyone is poor. And it does. Anyone with a brain can follow the logic. The dysfunctionality of an economy in which everyone is poor is a claim that YOU made, not me.

You did. Anyone can see.

This contradicts nothing previously said.

That's not taking words out of context. This is:

I already did.

My logic is impeccable. I would dare you to prove otherwise, but this would be improper decorum from a master to his servant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your logic is flawed. You are a certified idiot.

You are not taking a few things out of context. You are taking EVERYTHING out of context. I have not contradicted anything. I have stated over and over that there are incompetent rich, and there are poor.
Nor did I ever state that everboy was poor in a disfunctional economy in that context.
You're an asshole.

 

My logic is impeccable. You have no logic. You are a dumb rock whose existence is only good for mindless servitude to Me.

Perhaps you do not see the context because you do not know what context is.

Of course you never contradict yourself. That's why we can conclude you are my servant. It is logically imperative, undeniable.

Yes, I know.

No, you didn't. You DID say that the less poor people in a society, the less dysfunctional its economy. Therefore the more poor people in a society, the more dysfunctional. Therefore an economy with only poor people would be more dysfunctional than an economy with a few rich people. Since I am infinitely wealthy, then, the economy as a whole is better off for it; for if no one was wealthy like me, then the economy would be the worst possible.

The real question is, as I am able to attain infinite wealth with less material possessions than you, why can't you be wealthy? Perhaps some inherent inferiority prevents you from success.

Ad-hom irrelevant. It doesn't matter how big of an asshole I am, you will always be my inferior servant.

 

Well, yeah. The problem we are trying to solve is poverty. You're just going in depth.

How many mansions are there in the US alone? How much each cost?

How many bedrooms and bathrooms are there in Oprah's mansion?

 

Yes.
Unfortunately the rest of what you say is complete nonesense that has nothing to do with this.

You are my servant and blah blah blah. Typical elitist mornicism.

 

It only appears that way because you have no sense of logic, my tool.


Don't worry. Leave the thinking to those of us who can.

 

You have no sense of logic. You're an idiot.

 

Cool skill, you are the epitome of idealism. You're absolutely certain that you know WHAT should be done but you haven't a clue HOW to do anything.

You know, you'd make an excellent politician... "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage!" (Sorry, that was before your time... my time too actually.)

You've read far too much into my use of the term "human nature". But it's quite amusing to watch your conniptions, so I'll push the issue. There is plenty of research that demonstrates that genetics play a significant factor in human behavior. Are you presuming to assert that human behavior is established entirely by environmental factors? Even if behavior were entirely environmentally drive, how would develop a new society without it being influenced by all the negative factors currently existing in all societies and people?

Trust me. I know more than you on this subject. Read this and try to catch up.

http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/slides/major-trends.pdf

Did you even read what I wrote? Or do you just like repeating yourself no matter how irrelevant your statements might be to the discussion at hand.

~Raithere

 

You entire argument is pure ad hom stupidity.
You are so ignorant that you do not even know how to address the point.
Ad hom ad hom ad hom.
It is all you ever do.
The facts remain.
Your idiodicy is limitless.

Ad hom ad hom ad hom.
It is all you ever do.
The facts remain.
Your idiodicy is limitless.

Where did I presume that you moron?
Either way, I have heard the human nature fallacy too many gazillion times.
It still remains completely irrelevant. Nobody cares about it.

More ad hom stupidity.
Why do stupid people always use the “I know more about this than you do” circular mornic stupidity?
Fact: You do not know more about this than I do. You are an idiot.

Who knows more about what is not even part of the argument.
It has no relevance to the argument.
It changes no facts.
90% of all of your arguments are pure ad hom attacks.
You are a loser.

 

Actually, the focus keeps drifting back to money, which is not the problem.

Enough that if we moved Oprah out we'd be able to house maybe a few dozen homeless. Or maybe a few hundred if we took the money and built condos instead of a mansion (mansions waste space). So we outlaw mansions and use the money that all the rich people would have used for their mansions to build housing projects... maybe we can shelter a few thousand. Doesn't quite solve the problem now, does it? And don't forget the land itself is a large portion of housing cost. But that's only because there's a market for it. If we eliminate the rich then the value of the land will decrease.

~Raithere

 

Your stupid ass ad homs have completely overlooked the points at hand.
Try arguing points instead of making idiotic comments and using ad hom and human nature fallacies as part of your moronic arguments.


FACT: We are talking about a solution. Any city design has to account for human freedom. Should have laws in place to protect human freedom and the environment. Furthermore, the system should have intelligent measures against possible corruption.

FACT: There is something regarding behavior, and it is the law. And intelligent ethical law equal for all.

High education and personal care are at the forefront. How free are you if you cannot take care of yourself physically and eat a nutritious mean because it is too expensive, and you do not have the time to do it because you are a labor horse. So you get tired from work. You get addicted to crap food, TV, movies, and other forms of brain and body damage.

 

Actually, no. What I did was insult you. There's a difference.

Ad hominem is what you do, "You're an idiot, therefore you're wrong."

You're wrong because what you're saying is inaccurate, it doesn't corloate with the facts.

You're not wrong because you're an idiot.
You're wrong AND your an idiot.

See the difference?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

~Raithere

 

The only difference is that you have dodged the facts, and used ad hom as your pathetic argument. Nonetheless, the facts remain, and will continue to remain because your arguments have no relevane. You are nothing but an ad hom idiot.

 

We have such laws now. So why don't they work?

Whose ethics shall we be using then?

What if I like crap food, TV, movies, and other forms of brain and body damage? What is that's what I want?

~Raithere

 

cool skill:

You're a funny guy. Yeah. Like a clown... you know funny.

~Raithere

 

So your argument applies only to the US. All of history has no bearing on your theories. Sounds logical.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I never said all of history has no bearing. But I do not say X is great by comparing X to something irrelevant.
Windows 3.1 is better than DOS, but that does not mean it is great.
XP is probably the best OS out there, but it is far far from great.

There are alot of capitalist countries that are shitholes compared to America. America is a shithole compared to a true first world country.

Because of human nature squack squack squack.
Get over the idiotic human nature argument.
Perhaps you will figure it out.

Populist.

Enjoy yourself. Do you smoke crack as well?

 

The only reasonable way to judge something is by comparison to something else. If XP is the best OS out there, then it's the best. Saying it sucks in comparison to some imaginary perfect OS is ridiculous. The great is the enemy of the good.