cancel reply
Posting mode: Reply

Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
name e-mail subject pw(deletion)
Post and go
Bump thread?

  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Javascript must be enabled for all of our addons to work.
  • Come chat and see that we're all a bit crazy on IRC!
  • Do not post any artwork from and/or
    Jeremy Bernal. This is now a bannable offense.

File: 1476466927.nataliedecorsair_xx_megalovania_xxpub.png - (1295.88 KB, 690x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
1326979 No.3514293

Why is assisted suicide not legal for people over 21?

The only decent suicide method I have where I live is getting hit by the train (5+ killed themselves on the same track in my area.) It's not like I want to traumatize a poor train driver but there doesn't seem to be any better options.

Why the hell does society have such hangups about people wanting to leave this fucked up world?


That was unexpectedly anti-semitic.


It's 3B entering the depressed phrase of his manic/depressive bi-polar cycle. Remember just a few weeks ago he was sperging many threads with multi-paragraph posts featuring naked ladies? That was the manic part. Now he's coming down, like a junkie off a drug high.

Expect him to make another emo post or two, then slink off to wallow for a time, then return to lulz again as the cycle begins anew. It's kinda funny, actually.

File: 1513195893.klukva_варшавское_восстание.png - (233.18 KB, 1280x653) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

don't worry, i'm sure eventually there will be some huge famine or plague or war and we can all die in a trench somewhere


That, or it's the 3B participating in the community phase of the 3B cycle, which comes before the "wise old uncle" phase, which comes before the 3B gets BTFO (again) phase, which comes before the 3B lays low for a while phase, until the 3B cycle restarts with the 3B is your friend part of the cycle.
Did I get it right?


Actually, most of 3B's behaviour can be explained by noting that he's a hollow person with nothing going on, and he's confused about his own personality becuse autists often have this problem of distinguishing the external world from internal thoughts (e.g. "I believe in X, everybody believes in X") because of stunted development, so they soak up influences and emulate other people and other roles such as latching on to cartoon characters, popular figures, etc. like he's now doing by pretending he's Batman.

So he reads a tutorial about Photoshop and starts behaving like he's a professional artist. He reads an article of politics and starts behaving like a demagog - he's basically pretending he's the people he reads about because he can't make the difference between what he is and what other people are. When he feels impressed by something or someone, he copies it - badly.


suicide by cop


Then why did the sheep fucking author of the Bible wrote that sheep fucking is punishable by death?


What does it change to the person who kills him/herself wether it's legal or not?



>It was a joke dude.

Yeah, right.

>Your theory about me switching from one popular thing to another is easily disproved by my history here.

Your history here is about flipping your coat from one popular topic to another and then denying you did.


C'mon up to Canada.




To receive medical assistance in dying in Ontario, a patient must:

be eligible for publicly funded health care services in Canada
be 18 years of age or older
be capable of making health care decisions
have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, which means the patient:
has a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability
is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability
is enduring physical or psychological suffering, caused by the medical condition or the state of decline, that is intolerable to the person
natural death has become reasonably foreseeable

There is nothing for people who just want to die but are medically healthy


euthanasia should be a human right. Applying a set of regulations to it would be so fucking easy, anyone with common sense could do it.
-legal age, first and foremost.
-no legal, registered debts, don't use death to escape paying what you borrowed or owe
-paying the appropriate fee. because giving people the treatment and then doing whatever process that needs doing to the body (burial, crematory, organ extraction, etc.) shouldn't be done on taxpayers dime, fuck you, pay your own suicide. it should not, however, be unaffordable to the lower classes.

that is everything that should be required. fuck that "incurable disease" crap. But no we can't because hurrdurr muh sins lets overpopulate the shit out of the planet with low IQ individuals that consume welfare and reproduce like rabbits and roaches, what could possibly go wrong?



>Prove it. Give us an example.

For a simple example, some years ago you were spamming the board over banning guns, almost daily, but when you caught up with the bernie bug you suddenly did a 180 turn on the gun issue and started claiming you were never for the Clintons' assault weapon ban and denied you were ever shilling for gun bans. We remember, because you're the biggest cancer tumor the board has seen.

Besides, you're twisting the point I was making:

>he reads a tutorial about Photoshop and starts behaving like he's a professional artist. He reads an article of politics and starts behaving like a demagog - he's basically pretending he's the people he reads about because he can't make the difference between what he is and what other people are. When he feels impressed by something or someone, he copies it - badly.

Everything from your pony spamming to your "I'm a professional artist let me teach you" screams about you picking up influences that you think everyone is interested in because you are interested/obsessed about it, and you believe everyone shares your infatuation, and you think you're the expert because you don't have the intuition that other people might just know better.

The autistic mind has little self-criticism for a lack of wider perspective and self-reflection and analysis. It's just "me me me", which is why spergs get caught up boring other people to death with their pet topics because they feel like everyone should be just as obsessed about it.


Suicide became bad when religious leaders wanted as many followers as possible so they convinced their followers their god would punish them for it.

These days it's probably the same- keep your work force and taxpayer base as robust as possible, make it undesirable to commit suicide. They will claim it's a mental illness that doctors can forcibly treat- why not? A patient's rights in any matter can be null & void if a doctor simply says the patient is incompetent, and force whatever treatment on you they wish. The public is taught that the idea of suicide is selfish, yet it's selfish on your end to expect someone in incredible pain to keep living solely to make you happy.



> If I offer you advice on ways you could make your art better, why does it bother you do much?

Because your opinions on what is "better" for art is pure bollocks: you treat stylistic choices as matter of technique, and technical choices as matter of style, and you don't understand simple linear perspective, color theory, or how to even properly work the software you're using. You merely think you're helping.


>You are mistaking the fact I believe everyone SHOULD be interested in fighting corruption in goverment with the fact everyone does.

You're just dodging the point. You're playing "batman" because you see other people taking a grandstand against whatever they define as "corruption", and you're trying to emulate them to feel you're doing it, when in reality you're doing jack shit - you're ranting on a backwater imageboard where nobody listens to you except to say how full of shit you are. Again, you think you're helping but you're not.

>but you're the one who has a seizure every time anyone questions you.

You don't question anyone - you just barge in with bad advice, copycat political demagoguery, or just spam off-topic images and derail threads and the accuse others of "having seizures" when they argue why you're wrong again.

Even as people try to argue with you, you always read whatever you want into other people's arguments and never ask whether they actually meant what you think they do - you simply assume what anyone said to mean whatever makes you right, which then leads you to going off into tangents and not answering the question.

All this seems to be because you just don't understand why anyone would think otherwise - you're totally solipsistic. Everyone's been telling you to drop dead for a decade now.



>Is there anyone here who remembers me EVER being Ra-Ra! More guns? Anyone?

That's another twisted version you just made up.

You were originally in support of the Clintons assault weapon ban. Then you decided you don't like Hillary and started arguing against weapons bans, and now you're backpedaling again and telling us you're for "regulating" "weapons that can be used to kill large groups of people" which somehow isn't the same thing as the Clintons' assault weapon ban?

Hell, you were arguing against the very concept of assault weapons on the side that said assault weapons simply means "scary black guns" and doesn't make any sense, right after you were arguing against military style weapons.

You're simply all over the place like that time when you were railing against fascism and yet suggested that all Southern art and culture should be quarantined in a "museum of bad ideas" and banned elsewhere - while arguing that this is somehow not fascism.



>Because it makes your life better when you have power over your goverment.

And another backflip. Some time ago you were arguing how Bernie would save everyone through a strong progressive government, but since Trump is in power now you're all for reducing the role of government in society. You flip from one position to the next without any conceptual framework behind your thoughts - nobody can tell whether you're a libertarian or liberal because you change sides depending on which you feel would make you the hero.

You can't have your cake and eat it as well.


it's perfectly possible to have a strong progressive government which, nonetheless, the people have power over.

(well, theoretically. practically, the only option after 1976 is permanent regression.)



>it's perfectly possible to have a strong progressive government which, nonetheless, the people have power over.

It's an oxymoron. Either the government is in power, or the people are. Giving the people the power means taking it away from the government. That's the main confusion of liberal thought: thinking that a bunch of (non-)elected bureaucrats and politicians truly are/represent the people.



>greedy leaders

When suicide (and murder) was banned, tribes had difficulty maintaining adult populations. Women would often die giving birth and children would just as often die before they reached adulthood. Disease and hazards were rampant. It was not simply wanting to maximize the number of subjects, it was having enough adults to support the tribe and defend it from competing tribes.
Legalize assisted suicide, and they'll take it one step further. The state will decide who should be culled. The faction who has control at the moment will decide.



>>Overpopulate the earth.
>That's pretty much a myth at this point in most civilized nations.

As has been pointed out before: poor people still breed at above replacement rates even in the civilized nations, while rich people breed at below replacement rate. The average effect at this point in time is zero or negative growth.

But this situation leads to concentration of wealth and growing income disparity through inheritance and closed-circle investments, which eventually tips more people into the "poor" category and re-starts population growth as they start to have larger families for income security - people switch breeding strategies depending on whether they find they can make wealth by concentrating effort, or casting the net wider with more offspring.

Then, you'd think that redistributing the wealth from the rich to the poor would fix that, but such unearned income has an opposite effect: since people are paid for nothing, making more people means your family gets paid more collectively, so the "winning" strategy is still to produce larger "tribes" (bigger families) in order to gain more resources. Just like in historical times when your sons would work the fields and make you wealth - now your sons farm the welfare office for you.



>Either the government is in power, or the people are.

hope you paid royalties on this cliche



Don't forget that time ge was banned for spamming politics threads nonstop, then used proxy to flood the site with pony shit in protest, demanding to be unbanned. He was unbanned under condition that he keeps all politics talk to one thread, and he couldn't even stick to that, making politics talk threads under various excuses, while it was obvious he did it because he realized people were minimizing his shitty thread, depriving him of the attention he so badly craves.


OP, I don't want anyone to commit suicide. I don't care what you've done or how you've fucked up. If you deserve to be punished, that's for the world to do, not you.

But I also don't want you making a corpse out of yourself in a way that's gonna fuck up someone else's life. Like you said, jumping into a train cattle guard is a dick move.

Why not asphyxiation through helium? Google exit bag. You don't even feel your loss of oxygen because of how helium blocks up your red bloodcells and prevents them from giving the "Full of Co2" signal. You just pass out and die.

Do it in the woods, so no one has to find your body and clean up your piss and shit stains. Leave a suicide note so you're not "Missing" for 30 years explaining exactly where and how you've done it.

There you go, there's your clean exit.



>hope you paid royalties on this cliche

It is a cliche, but it's also true.

It depends on how you define government and the people. If you're a socialist, you make the equation "Government = the people", because according to their fundamental principle the people aren't the collection of individuals in the society but a sort of abstract "ghost" that can only be seen or heard by the select leadership. That's how socialists can erect tyrannies and still claim they're giving power to the people.

If you're a classical liberal or just disagree with Marx on the fundamental nature of society, the government (a select group of leaders) is not the same thing as the people (few is not the many), and therefore it true that giving power to the people means taking it away from the government, and vice versa.



>If you deserve to be punished, that's for the world to do, not you.

It's their life, not the world's.



I think you misunderstand. Like, let's imagine this guy fucked a dog and hurt it and he feels guilty. Instead of suicide, he should turn himself in. Let himself be punished properly. Just as an example.

>the person who should be banned right now


>Yet, I can and often do, leave for weeks and you never notice because other people are just as involved in politics now as I am.

Broken window theory. When you spray graffiti on a wall, the place starts to look like a dump. If the graffiti isn't cleaned off, or if it keeps re-appearing despite peoples' attempts to keep the neighborhood clean, that invites the kind of people who spray graffiti on the walls and slowly the demographics shift. Just because you're gone for a week doesn't change it back to the way it was because the damage takes a long time to reverse.

>We didn't even have these conversations before me. Now you can't stop them.

Actully, we did. Politics (and religion/philosophy if you remember) was part of the board and actively discussed by various people from various angles, but ever since you came along YOU started butting into all of the threads and derailing them into meta-discussion where people were trying to explain to you why your arguments don't make sense. It became immpossible to have any sensible argument because people got caught up trying to answer your gish galloping and distortions to the point that the original topic was lost within ten posts.

When people stopped making the politics/religion/philosophy threads for the impossibility of having any discussion without you ruining it, YOU started the daily gun thread spam, and then later the daily pol spam, and other people started leaving while the polacks and trolls moved in.


Not every life has value. There's probably a bare minimum 50 million people that don't work, refuse to participate or only drain resources without giving back who could die right now of spontaneous combustion and the world would not lose any productivity for it.

Not everyone deserves to live. Some people are horrible and will never be worth a goddamn. Most people never change and redemption is a fantasy. Second changes rarely exist and most know this so they never bother with a futile effort.

Some people realize that their lide is shit, their reputations are shot, they blew every chance they had, they probably have a shit financial future and no fucking chance of finding love. They could keep going in the 0.001% chance things will get better? Yeah.... in 2018 they probably won't get better.

And here's the big argument for suicide- everyone dies anyway. It's our ultimate destiny. Unavoidable. Sometimes it's better to go on your own terms than be taken by an accident, left paralyzed/a total vegetable, what have you. Do you sit in a hospital bed of some untreatable illness, watching shit cable TV and only having 3 meals a day(which BTW if you are a diabetic, NO SUGAR, even if you're dying) or do you stay at home with the things you care about and go out quick when you determine? Because that hospital only wants to milk your insurance company and family for more cash under the guise of "easing your pain". Fuck them.



>They could keep going in the 0.001% chance things will get better? Yeah.... in 2018 they probably won't get better.

with people like you it's a miracle humans made it to the 21st century


it's more of a cataclysm than a miracle.
the narrative behind humanity ran out of steam in the 1970s at best and the clinton era at the latest. now we're just bobbing around in circles with a broken rudder waiting for a rogue wave to roll the credits.



Even with the war, the strife, the blood... It's still better than nothing. I'd be perfectly fine with humanity becoming a plague on the universe. Why not? You think the rocks care? You think the earth cares? It's going to get consumed by the sun anyway. We're all gonna die, too. Might as well make use of the molecules around us before the big rip pulls everything apart anyway.

File: Gaia_byMari_s.jpg - (57.37 KB, 1000x655) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>>3514654 ...and it's just that kind of thinking that's the reason humanity will obliterate itself within the next century. Good job. No doubt you'll 'woke' yourself in a few years time and strive to change things. It's too late. Time to count the years :3

File: 1666641__safe_artist-colon-the+smiling+pony_silver+spoon_derpibooru_derpibooru+badge_earth+pony_lidded+eyes_meta_pony_simple+background_smiling_smug_so.png - (69.99 KB, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

I'm going to second him. There's worthless people and some know it. Some even committed crimes, or raped, or fucked up completely. In most cases, suicide occurs when the degenerate has a short moment of lucidity, and in this short moment knows it has to end.

Anyone own their own life and everyone has the ultimate right to pick a gun and explode their brains, or jump from the top of a building or a functional plane without parachute. Even if suicide is illegal, what could happen? Cops shooting you for trying to kill yourself? Getting arrested as you're dead?

Suicide is illegal because you are a meatbag owned by the society, you are only worth as a consumer and a taxpayer, nothing else and this is the sick truth of the weak degenerate trying to prevent you, lying to you so you're not committing suicide. They hate people like you, they don't give a fuck, they are paid for this.

Tell me, what have you done with your life, are you proud of it?

File: innawewdsanon.jpg - (97.40 KB, 1000x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


>Actually the poor and downtrodden are way, way, more generous and virtuous than the wealthy

This is why you're poor.

> People who are born rich grow up to be sociopaths or psychopaths because they never face any real hardships and learn to empathize with other human beings.

Rich people do it everyday because it's by working hard you get rich and not letting yourself drown in misery drove by your kindness.

>They see things like you do, that everyone else is out to take what they "earned" by being born into a wealthy family.

You've watched too much disney shit, because in reality it does not works like this, people work hard to fund a family and ensure their children lives in happiness.

>People are just people, some good, some broken, some you can save, some you can't.

Why do you think you need to "save people"? Wat kind of holy holistic mission do you think yourself entitled to?

>The point is that we try because in tying we turn the tide away from collapse and towards progress.

You will never progress with dead weights. Force the poor to raise to your level and work hard, instead of crying with them in their misery.

If you can write this you are not poor. You are just a socialist who lacks any plan. Kind of remind me of Nuclear, on Rizon's IRC, but in much more civil. The jealousy against people being rich is still omnipresent in you, even when the topic is about suicide. Is suicide always economical why is it more present in high and middle classes than the lower classes? Guns aren't this expensive.

I think there's a biological trigger in the mind of the suicidal that exist for the sole purpose of cleaning the civilization, just like every cell has its own charge of explosive proteins that will trigger its own autodestruction at some point, preventing itself to become a cancer.


You're not going to become wealthy by complaining that it's all rigged against you. The only friends you'll attract are the like-minded. Misery loves company.


Looking for short cuts? Nothing will change. The prize doesn't last. Without the networking and know-how money does a vanishing act.



>Dude, you're obsesses with that one image of Batman. I don't think I'm batman. It was a meme about justice.

That's why I put it in quotation marks. I didn't think you believe you're literally batman either; I too was referring to the idea it reprensents, while you're just completely unable to comprehend any sort of subtlety - or you're intentionally distorting the point like you always do.

>You pick one thing and you hyper-focus on it to the exclusion of all logic and reason. Let it go, dude. You're being OCD.

That's a great example of your distortions. Any normal and honest person would have understood that by "batman" we're not talking about the literal cartoon character - what we actually mean is that you're roleplaying a social justice character.

I always forget that autists need everything spelled out precisely in elementary terms because their beep-boop brains can't pick up normal conversation.



> Helping other people makes YOU a better person as well. It makes YOUR life more fulfilled.

In terms of what? Helping lost causes is a pointless loss of resources - it merely seems like you're doing something gainful.

There was a social experiment done where people were put to bail water with a bucket from the side of a pier to the other side, essentially just filling buckets and pouring them back immediately, and the researchers noted that people fall into two groups: those who walk away immediately, and those who come up with a cognitive distortion about why they're continuing a meaningless activity. The longer the people continued to do it, the crazier the excuses became.

>end up with severe shoulder pain from bursitis
>take ibuprofen, does jack shit
>have to take ibuprofen with Tylenol, which is supposed to be safe, still does jack shit or pain but works slightly better
>get prescribed steroid pills instead, instant relief
>sudden pain in abdomen, right side, under ribs, right as I start taking steroids
>write it off as trying to sleep in a chair hunched over
>still not gone away 2 days later
>that's where your damn liver is and Tylenol is not very good for the liver
>notice in mail that insurance wants to redetermine eligibility which means they want an excuse to cut it
>would drain bank account and more if this is a damaged liver

You tell me why suicide should not be considered in this case. If the meds did cause liver damage, which is likely as the pain seems to be getting worse, and I'd go broke on medical care, let alone insurance probably not wanting to pay for a transplant, what would be the point? I'd see suicide as optimal to living homeless with nothing, everything you had wasted on medical care just so you can live in the streets.

File: 1415068__safe_artist-colon-nobody_starlight+glimmer_all+bottled+up_spoiler-colon-s07e02_delet+this_firearm_hand_handgun_m1911_pistol_pony_simple+backgr.png - (17.60 KB, 922x868) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Not at all, your America is no different than any western or civilized country. I am not American but I tell you, for working in human resources this is more easy there than in the fiscal hell I live in.

You need to be smart if you want to earn more, and not kind and gullible like you.
That's why you are poor and angry about the rich. Or rather, the middle class since you seem to love the very rich ones who tells you through the social network, movies, games and pop culture to hate the richer than you.
You poor little man that's your problem and the reason of your anger here. You need balls to survive, or I will be the first to squish you, it's like that.

(Also, Do you realize ponies live in a highly libertarian monarchy?)


Fighting is wrong, you can't fight. If you are suicidal you need help from others, to force the ass*oles who push you down to feel miserable, if you are weak it's okay.
But thank you I am depressed myself and struggling against bad thinks.



>If you really think this, you need to see a shrink because you're a psychopath. And I don't mean that as an insult but as a legit diagnosis.

That's not how psychopathy works.

What you may feel you ought to do, like helping lost causes, doesn't mean it makes logical or practical sense to do so because it's counterproductive: in putting resources to futile causes, you're depriving those same resources from other people who could be helped, and therefore you're actually causing harm.

Insisting that you should pointlessly help people regardless of the outcome is basically insanity. This observation hasn't got anything to do with having or not having empathy, but the realization that what you feel like you should be doing isn't necessarily what you should be doing if you just took a moment to think about it.



>You don't need anyone to save you. You have the power to save yourself.

The power to "save yourself" includes both the will and the means. If you lack either, you lack the power - so all you're saying is just empty words.

If you don't have the will, you can't will yourself to have the will - that's a logical paradox and an infinite regress. Part of the condition of being depressed like that is that you have no such will: that's what being depressed means.

It doesn't mean just being deeply unhappy - it means being indifferent, and when you're indifferent you can't will to save yourself.



> If you have that little basic human empathy, you're broken and you need to get on medication before you just decide to stab your family one day because they bother you.

Let's see how much of a psychopath you are:

A pathological criminal with a terminal cancer is laying in a hospital bed being miserable. You can spend a million dollars in experimental cancer treatments and prolong his life for up to a year, or you can spend the million on buying more incubators and other equipment for the neonatal unit of the hospital, so more prematurely born babies may survive.

Which do you choose?

File: tumblr_omff7ecL2w1s0u653o1_1280.jpg - (357.99 KB, 1207x1076) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Implying babies later on could not get cancer and thos need treatment for that, what could have been researched by that 30something year in the mean time.
Fucking shortsighted tools.


You may always end up with bad results anyhow, but if you have to make a choice between a known futile end and something which is beneficial at least in the foreseeable future, only stupid or incredibly narcissistic people would make the first choice because it makes them feel better about themselves.



>If you stopped replying completely, he would eventually go away, the way Bear King finally did.

No such luck with 3B. Bear King was an actual troll - 3B is just autistic.


I don't listen to conservative "logic" on this issue, it's as broken as their logic on abortion.

>Abortion is evil, it's murder and it goes against God's will! You WILL have this child!
>What? You can't afford to raise the kid and want welfare? Tough shit, you dirty liberal snowflake, get 2 jobs and stop draining society because you can't keep your legs together!
File: tumblr_p4h2riGbbr1sndzdgo1_1280.jpg - (106.83 KB, 960x667) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


What I implied is that neither choice is "good", both should be issued because even that you "save" infants, later on some of them could get cancer what will need treatment...

xcept if you are an ultra capitalist fag whom thinks its ok if only the rich can get cancer treatment in a Swiss private medical facility, why did not got rich? get rich or die trying!

Try to make a public vs universal healthcare moral compass pls.


Careless behavior and normalizing sexual recreation is the responsibility of the person/people who do it. The unwanted pregnancies, diseases and children are in aggregate a disaster for everyone. If you think sex is suitable as a cheap thrill, you get to foot the bill for what you do, and nobody else should be dragged into it. The Christians went soft, that's their problem.



>What I implied is that neither choice is "good", both should be issued because even that you "save" infants, later on some of them could get cancer what will need treatment...

Of course there are no ultimate "good" choices - because you've given life to a child also means you've condemned them to illness and death, but, what you're saying is, because the children might get cancer, that justifies spending the money on a terminally ill criminal instead.

The question was whether it is some sort of imperative to "help" regardless of the futility of the cause, where 3B's argument was that you're a psycho (and therefore wrong) if you make any sort of calculation about the costs and benefits of such choices.

In other words, according to 3B it's more ethical to act in a way that strokes your own ego by following your whims of empathy regardless of the outcomes - like a monkey who drags a fish up a tree to save it from drowning.



> it's as broken as their logic on abortion.
>>Abortion is evil, it's murder and it goes against God's will! You WILL have this child!
>>What? You can't afford to raise the kid and want welfare? Tough shit

It's actually a logically consistent position: two wrongs don't make a right. You got raped - don't worry, we can solve it by killing an innocent human being.

The argument that people born into adverse conditions don't need to live, therefore unwanted babies can be aborted, opens a whole other can of worms.

File: tumblr_p60fczPAio1r24pklo2_540.png - (40.76 KB, 502x289) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


Ah thanks for the explanation, Im not fallowing this as close as I should care about the OP (3B).

What I tend to see is, that the "socialist" type of budget tend to set far term goals, while the "capitalist" one tend to do only "fire hydrant hosing" on short term problems...
Also only in Sweden an other fucked up ultrarich fucker countries a criminal with a terminal illness could live the day it gets its penalty spent.
Come here and see a 260% overloaded prison, in orbanistan.

File: 20131017000811191789.jpg - (85.44 KB, 700x567) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


If you look closely, there is a 3rd radio ma...skeleton there. Maybe, as I cant tell for sure, this is some sort of high ranking officer surrounded by radioma...skeletons serving as a proxy to the immediate are operations command.

This also reminds me of why theres no Vietnam or Korean War CoD? BECAUSE IT WAS LOST BY MERICANS HUE HUE HUEHEUHEUEHUEHEUHEUEHUE



>What I tend to see is, that the "socialist" type of budget tend to set far term goals, while the "capitalist" one tend to do only "fire hydrant hosing" on short term problems...

That may be so. However, the fundamental reason is that the socialist thinks they can predict the future and figure out the exact definition of "good" regardless of the circumstances or people involved (they assume to know it already), while the "capitalist" recognizes that you can't really do that for the future generations or even the future of this generation, so the only thing you're really to choose is for yourself, in the present.


Or, another way of seeing the same thing is that, one sees the society as a sort of superorganism that is more than the sum of its parts, and naturally see themselves as the brain of this organism. The other sees the society as a collection of people living together, where nobody in particular has any priority or rights over another.

So, the socialist sees the society as a person might see their own body. The brain is talking while the arms and legs are doing all the work. The "capitalist" on the other hand identifies himself as one of the cells in the body. The socialist may choose to amputate an arm to save themselves (the brain) from gangrene, whereas the "capitalist" realizes that it's better to take antibiotics first and hope for the best than kill a lot of innocent cells.

File: tumblr_ob0s6y9wsT1qztcdbo1_1280.jpg - (464.96 KB, 838x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


>>The socialist may choose to amputate an arm to save themselves (the brain) from gangrene, whereas the "capitalist" realizes that it's better to take antibiotics first and hope for the best than kill a lot of innocent cells.

Shit analogy since the current capitalist system we are living in are in term to overuse and then dump the employees instead of forming a livable worktable with proper healthcare table.

In fact, in our shit iteration of "soicalism" younger aka workable population had PRIORITY over older/retired populace, because they administered the more expensive but "you can go back to work in a week" medicine to those whom were in working age instead of the "nyuggers" whom could take a 2-4week of sickness.

Problem with tomorrows "capitalism" that they imply that you should be "motivated" like in a communist forced work camp while paid like a dimwit, and if you get expired because of said overwork, they they are "fine and morally OK" to fire the fuck out of you and start to look for a fresh usefull idiot whom would work for them for dimes.

I dont even talk about the 8 wall covered middle class jobs where you think you only have to complete a 1-2y school with 56% fail rate to get a chance to work as an underpaid beginner. Nope, if you are not within the "guilds" wall, then dont ever hope that anyone will even call you in for an interview. Only Guild members know and gets the resources to learn the shit they want (over the government certified piece of shit certificate)l.

Specially kek when all in your early life you get fed with "STUDY OR YOU GET A SHIT JOB" and then you boom fail ONE FUCKING SHIT, namely UNIVERSITY/COLLAGE and then you are treated not only by your family but the general populace as an utter failure worse then those whom never have finished the elementary school and cant even write a line in English -.-

In b4 not that I want hugz and shit, only that you can end up nowhere while you been a good "soyboy" studying and shit while kept your self out of "trouble". Suddenly being treated like the worse prole whom skipped school, never learnt a langue, and been wasted on weed since he was 14...


If cards is like investment money, poor people don't get 5 cards because they're a bad risk. A poor person who demonstrates they are a good investment will get an investment upgrade. Nature doesn't bet on losers.


why dont you just let me rape you to death?


>>3514842 yeah... but doesn't work! ya sack o DICKS!



>"I don't like this individual because he rustles my jimmies because he has an opinion that I do not like. therefore I shall call him Troll in attempt to silence him".


Ironically they asked white guys where Iran, Iraq and other "terrorist nations" were.
A ton (almost all of them bible belt white trash) of the people questioned.. pointed at Australia or even China when asked to point Iran.

People in Liberal majority states always had higher education and had correctly pointed out the correct nation.



>> according to 3B it's more ethical to act in a way that strokes your own ego by following your whims of empathy regardless of the outcomes...
>Wow, way to put words in my mouth. I never said that.


>>Helping lost causes is a pointless loss of resources...
>If you really think this, you need to see a shrink because you're a psychopath. And I don't mean that as an insult but as a legit diagnosis. If you have that little basic human empathy, you're broken

You're literally saying a person is "broken" if they don't jump to help another at their first instinct of empathy.


>Helping other people is never pointless because you grow as a person when you do it. No matter what their outcome, you become stronger by helping.

In other words, you "grow as a person" by throwing a million on the terminal cancer patient and not even thinking about what good the money could do to the premature babies instead, and this is logical because of... what? Your "growing as a person" is exactly the kind of short-sighted narcissistic ego-stroking I was talking about, where you follow your bleeding heart and tell yourself you're a better person for it, even as your actions are causing more harm than good.



>Your logic is amazingly inverted. Capitalism is always willing to sacrifice people for efficiency. Workers are just a cost to be cut. We see that every single day.

Capitalism isn't a think like socialism is. Capitalism, or the free market, is what happens when people interact with each other freely - it's not a conspiracy that's throwing people under the bus. People get "sacrificed" because of circumstances - not because of deliberate politics.

Socialism is a "conspiracy", because socialism by nature involves the state that has the task to rule and guide the society as its head, and the socialists as the head of the state telling everyone what to do.

When you're talking about Capitalism, what you're actually talking about is crony capitalism, or the collusion of the owning class with the political elite, but you blame this on the free market and claim the solution is to regulate the society and institute more socialism, which just puts you further down the well of crony capitalism because the state always works primarily for itself, then for the people who pay the state, and only thirdly for the people who they're supposed to represent.



>Capitalism is not nature. There is nothing natural about capitalism at all.

Of course it is natural. When people live together under a common law that grants them equality and freedom from oppression, their free choices naturally result in some form of capitalism that is marked by private property and free trade.

>It is a system by which the natural social structure of man kind is over-ridden to benefit the few over the many.

You're talking of socialism again. When there emerges a ruling class - a political elite which claims special rights over the common man and gets them - then it becomes possible to override the natural social structure and re-distribute wealth from the many to the few (even as you're claiming to do the opposite).


Basically, capitalism is the rule of capital. If you have money, you spend the money to buy what you want, then you don't have the money anymore and someone else has it, and they can decide what to do next. That's the simplest description of capitalism in the political sense.

The problems of capitalism start when money is used to buy laws and regulations, which requires the state to be progressive (i.e. socialist) instead of just upholding the constitution and providing legal arbitation.

That's because socialism is a fiction that involves the invention of a singular society out of a group of individuals, and then claiming this society is more important than the individuals. It's like looking at a bunch of trees and calling it a forest, and then pretending like the forest is the real thing instead of the trees. Then it becomes possible to argue that we need to "progress" the society somehow, to "improve" it according to some arbitrary ideal of what the society should be - and that then enables the crony capitalism to happen because the moment the state declares itself the right to command the people collectively towards some ideal, that's the moment when the capitalists start buying off all the politicians and using socialism to further their own profits.



>And again, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I'm saying they are broken is they have such a total lack of empathy that they see the world only in terms of risk/reward calculation.

If you truly had empathy - the wish to help other people - you'd make that calculation instead of following your selfish insticts to feel good about yourself. Calling that "broken" and "psychopathic" is completely ass-backwards, and means you're identifying empathy in simple narcissism.

>You like to say that but you never seem to point out that capitalism is just as much a fiction. Money itself is just something we all agree to pretend is real.

Capitalism doesn't need to be invented to exist. The free market, whether it's based on money or any sort of barter, exists whether we call it "capitalism" or nothing - the word is descriptive, not definitive. Socialism on the other hand doesn't exist of itself, and has to be invented to exist, because people don't automatically agree that even the society exists: we need a collective fiction to say first "We're Americans", and then "Being American means this..." in a way that leads to socialism. It's a fiction built on top of abstraction.

>Wait, so by your logic the problem with capitalism is that money corrupts politics

Progressive politics corrupts politics. The primary objective of a progressive state/government is to exist, to remain in power, in order to achieve and keep their goals that are unique to the establishment and may be undermined by others. So, they're forced to solicit the support of the most powerful capitalists, and in trade they give political power.

This is why the communists, rather than negotiating with the owning classes, simply confiscated their wealth and sent them to death camps. However, once they had opened that can of worms, the system auto-corrupted again because the communists became subject to their own death camps for opposing people like Stalin.

>Dude, you just described Bernie Sander's platform.

Bernie's platform was big government and more progressive politics, which auto-corrupts as pointed out above.

>You are a socialist.

No, I'm a classical liberal at the closest.

>You want individuals to have freedom and not be wage slaves to corporations...

That would be nice, but that won't be achieved by socialism because it excludes individual freedom and puts you into another kind of slavery instead. Slave to a corporation, slave to the state - what's the difference?

>You want a world where if you work hard, get an education and apply yourself you'll have a prosperous life

None can guarantee that. You'd have to define what is "work hard" independent of what the market will pay for it, so that would exclude cheaters who merely "work" hard and demand to get prosperous. That means you'd have to institute a command economy.

>You think that corrupt goverment shouldn't interfere with what the market demands, Yes?

In socialism the government assumes it MUST interfere with the market regardless. The government cannot judge whether it is corrupt itself, and a socialist government isn't responsive to public outcries of corruption once it is actually in power - it rather insulates itself from criticism on the excuse of it being capitalist propaganda and distortions.

>You're a socialist, dude.

I cannot be a socialist. I oppose the very principles of it.

>Right now the market is demanding...
>Right now the market is demanding...

You confuse "the market" with political pundits pretending to speak for all. This question sadly isn't one that can be answered by appealing to "market demand", because that's just not how the market works. You might say "the people demand", but I know you haven't actually asked anyone - you're just pulling shit out of your ass and hoping parts of it would be true.

>If you really value capitalism, you'd support Bernie Sanders because his entire platform is based on providing what the market needs to thrive.

If you really value crony capitalism, you vote a socialist like Bernie into office. That's really the only way it can go. No matter what he says he'll do, the first thing he'll actually do is buy compliance from the capitalists, which means giving them up more political power in exchange for them agreeing to be taxed and regulated.



>You do know that the citizens are what "The state" is made of... right?

The state/government as it exists as a real structure of power is not the same thing as the people. The few are not the many, and any amount of pretending that "the state is the people" is counterfactual fantasy.

>The state is people. People are the government.

Some people are the government, not all. The system of representative government makes sure that the vast majority of people have absolutely no influence at all on the operation of the state.



>You keep acting like the idea of valuing people over money is some crazy concept but at least people really exist and have value.

Now look who's putting words into mouths. Money represents power: it's accounting of who owes whom - appealing to "people instead of money" and "empathy" is just trying to bypass the whole society and say "I'm special, my feelings and wants are more important than the whole system!".

>Capitalism is just religion for assholes that we all agree to because it's easier than carrying around gold and silver.

Capitalism is simply the observation that those who have shit can do shit, and those who don't have shit can't do shit. If you want something, you have to give something back.

Socialism is the religion, where the socialists make up excuses why they can spend other people's resources without giving anything back, so they could then eat off the cart on the way. That's the fundamental reason they're "helping" anyone.



>Capitalism is simply the observation that those who have shit can do shit, and those who don't have shit can't do shit. If you want something, you have to give something back.

my favourite line from "the wealth of nations" as it happens.

but actually:
capitalism = all the things i like
communism = everything you like which i don't like
capitalism wins again haha



>but actually:
>capitalism = all the things i like
>communism = everything you like which i don't like

Actually, I wouldn't even be calling it capitalism if it wasn't for 3B calling everything he hates capitalism - but he's autistic. He doesn't understand that other people don't necessarily agree with his private definitions of words.



>Again, you are describing capitalism not socialism. A corporation only exists to sustain itself and make a profit.

A corporation hasn't got any special powers over anyone else unless the state grants it. Of course a corporation exists to sustain itself, but when a corporation runs out of business it gets disbanded - when the state becomes counterproductive, it uses its special powers to remain in power anyhow. In capitalism, a corporation that fails, fails. In socialism, a government that fails is still the government, and still in command of the police, the army, the whole thing, and keeps on going.

>Capitalism demands that the corporation do everything it can to make a profit even if it means letting people die die.

A corporation that kills people soon finds itself out of business, unless it has special powers granted by the state to avoid the lawsuits that ensue.



>You know that goverment worked pretty darn well until the Clintons injected Neo-liberalism into it, right?

That failure was set into government all the way back in the New Deal when the government started borrowing money to pay for their social policy, setting a precedent on hiding the expenses and taking the glory. That's when the government became the lapdog of the banks.

>Not all goverment is auto-corrupt. That is why we need regulation.

It's the regulation that corrupts government, because by exercising that sort of ultimate power they can protect themselves from all criticism. Arbitrary regulation can be used for good, but it eventually will be used for bad, and even when it is used for good the consequences will be unpredictable.



>>The few are not the many, and any amount of pretending that "the state is the people" is counterfactual fantasy.
>There you go again with Bernie Sander's talking points. The 1% does, but shouldn't control goverment.

Not the same argument. You're twisting the point. I wasn't talking about the 1%. The political elite exists regardless - the few people chosen to "represent" the people never actually do represent anything but themselves and their own special interests.


>>Some people are the government, not all. The system ... makes sure that the vast majority of people have absolutely no influence at all...
>I agree, Bernie. We do need to get money out of politics

Not the same argument. This point wasn't about the money, but as above, about the people who get elected or otherwise exist as the government. Representative democracy does not guarantee that the politicians and bureaucrats who actually run the show actually do anything approaching to what the people want or what is best for them - it merely pretends that the people are in control, when in reality the state is in control.


The point is that a corporation that runs out of money because they're doing poor business goes under, whereas a government that runs out of money because its doing bad policy still has the power to print money, borrow more money, put the army on people who oppose them, write laws that outlaw overthrowing the government...

The state inevitably fails because it cannot be held accountable by anyone. The state has the absolute power to reward loyalty and punish disloyalty, so unless the state is restricted to operate within a foundational law which it cannot break, no matter what, eventually the wrong kind of people end up in the government and start covering their own asses and ruin the whole thing. It's just a matter of how long it takes for the government to upend the constitution and change everything to their own liking.

No Bernie is going to change that. No Bernie is going to "take the money ouf of government" because the flaw is foundational: pretending that the state is ahead of the people and the law guarantees that the government will fail. Yet, in order to have a "progressive" government means you have to put the government ahead of everything else so they could change things "for the better" - well, you're just putting the worst possible kind of people -politicians- in charge of deciding what to do with politicians. What did you think would happen?


The separation of powers means that the people who judge according to the law aren't the ones who set or apply the law, and the people who apply the law aren't the same ones who set the law, so neither can act arbitrarily. The police may disagree with the judges on an unjust decision, and the judges may disagree with the lawgivers on an unjust law. Checks and balances.

What the founding fathers did not realize is that the people who set the law should also not be the ones who choose the law, because that reduces to the same point: whatever the law the government sets is automatically applied because the government also sets the judges and the police, so they might as well be it themselves and the separation of powers does not work.

Only the people as a whole should choose the law, which is then set by the government which acts merely as the arbiter of the people, and arranges for the judges, the police etc. That means a different kind of democracy - not a representative one, but either a true democracy where everybody is heard, or for practicality a sampling democracy where a sufficiently large poll is made, or a sufficient number of people are chose by random to stand as an approximation of the public voice. That puts the politics out of the government, and into the hands of the people who then have to convince each other over policy rather than pay a bunch of career politicians to do their way, because nobody would know who exactly will get to make the call.


roses are red
violets are blue
post keynesians are right
there are only constraints on the availability of resources, not money.
so long as there are people unemployed and you aren't on a pacific atoll made entirely out of nuclear waste there's no excuse for not getting shit done

Delete Post []