flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
 Home   FAQ   Search   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
flat assembler > Heap > sleepsleep's vitally important things

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 127, 128, 129
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

i think owning basic necessities is necessary, and i believe each human "entitled" basic necessities, so you got the basic stuffs that enable you to live on earth,

on a long term view, no one could possibly own anything,

zerohedge wrote:
On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.



each conscious that came on earth, entitled some basic stuffs, it is not their fault they came on earth, i don't think we ever get a chance to choose, as we are on earth right now,

breeding,-> sex is an action that beyond human control, specially when you are inside fly zone,

what we could do is, put something in clouds, inside mcd, kfc, whatever damn crops that people eat, halt the breeding, (please make sure, the reverse sequence are captured and tested)

i think, asking people to stop breeding (more to having sex) is like asking people to stop using internet, stop talking, stop sleeping and etc,

what kind of "control" we want to populate here? this kinda authority is not very much different from the damn god who decide/s who goes to hell, who goes to heaven,

if i am god, i will stop every new born, and nobody die from now, thats it, now lets us figure out how to solve and proceed, Embarassed

you tell me, what kind of food we could not reproduce? pizza? Laughing
sure right now it takes man hours, machines, but in coming future, with the advancement in fields, we could make auto pizza machines, from farm, straight to your table, it is possible, it just a matter of changes and efficiencies,

eg, you could read all the mails, from your handset, anywhere, anytime, you order all the shits and delivered to your predefined address,

if common sense prevail, every order means, the person really need that thing for a purpose, instead of just want to possess and own them without any objective,

a wealthy person, ordered so many thing, but he/she got no idea what to do with those things, what is the point here? this kinda distribution doesnt makes sense,
Post 10 Jan 2018, 16:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 957


sleepsleep wrote:
i think owning basic necessities is necessary, and i believe each human "entitled" basic necessities, so you got the basic stuffs that enable you to live on earth,

Nope, I completely disagree as long as humans don't need authorization to bring new humans into the world.

What if almost everyone decides to have 100 kids? Suddenly, even people who did not have a single child are now suffering with 1/100th the necessities, for a decision they did not make.

If you want to be entitled to something, you'd better respect the system and require authorization from the system to get that entitlement. I don't want to pay for someone else's kid because he wanted to have one. Simple as that.


sleepsleep wrote:
each conscious that came on earth, entitled some basic stuffs, it is not their fault they came on earth, i don't think we ever get a chance to choose, as we are on earth right now,

Yeah so?

It's not the child's fault, it's the parent's fault. So the child is entitled to stuff, but the parents are not anymore since it was their decision to have a child. Like I said, such unauthorized breeding must revoke the "entitlement" of the parents to welfare and other such socialistic stuff. Transfer it to the child. Not both. It's not my fault they decided to breed either, why must I give more of my shares?


sleepsleep wrote:
breeding,-> sex is an action that beyond human control

That's the biggest bullshit I've ever heard, sorry. It's like saying it's out of your control to bring life into the world, what is the child then, a toy? A collateral damage? This is worse than "war" you despise because you literally play with lives. Confused


BTW if a wealthy person has so much stuff and doesn't have anything to do with it, why should he give it to people who never asked him whether it's ok to breed or not? I mean not only do you want him to share his wealth, you also want him to share it the way YOU want it to and based on your decisions.

Look, if you are born in a poor environment (like me), there's only two people to blame: your parents. If poor people did not breed, there wouldn't be more entitled poor children asking for stuff. Stop blaming the system because the alternative is worse right now. Because of how stubborn people are when confronted with authorization for having offspring.

Look at Venezuela. For generations people bred like rats. Now that it's become so bad they finally started to see why bringing children into that shit hole is suffering. They kept demanding from the state free "necessities" to support their stupid breeding. Till it collapsed. Perfect example why YOU DO NOT LET the common guy decide when to breed if he wants FREE STUFF from the system. If I was born in that shithole called Venezuela, I'd curse my parents for doing it to me, not blame the USA or other rich countries for not helping my stupid parents' decision to have offspring in their shit situation. WTF kind of entitlement is that?

The way I see it is like this: either capitalism where you earn your stuff (so your decision to have kids is your own responsibility, which is good), or socialism where having kids is NOT your decision but the system's, just like you want stuff from the system. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


When the entire Earth's resources will be limited, who will people turn to for "free stuff" to support their need to breed like rats? Aliens?
Post 10 Jan 2018, 16:25
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699


Furs wrote:
Nope, I completely disagree as long as humans don't need authorization to bring new humans into the world.




sleepsleep wrote:

if i am god, i will stop every new born, and nobody die from now, thats it, now lets us figure out how to solve and proceed,

what we could do is, put something in clouds, inside mcd, kfc, whatever damn crops that people eat, halt the breeding, (please make sure, the reverse sequence are captured and tested)




Furs wrote:
That's the biggest bullshit I've ever heard, sorry. It's like saying it's out of your control to bring life into the world, what is the child then, a toy?




sleepsleep wrote:

The Truth about Men, Women, and Sex
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/12/20595/


Quote:

Men. Many seem ready to jeopardize career, marriage, family, and reputation—all because of genital urges.



when men are in safe zone, where they could order, perform, cause etc themselves to have pleasure, without having to worry after effects, or they are holding on position that allow them to do so, they are most likely to do so,




Furs wrote:
BTW if a wealthy person has so much stuff and doesn't have anything to do with it, why should he give it to people who never asked him whether it's ok to breed or not? I mean not only do you want him to share his wealth, you also want him to share it the way YOU want it to and based on your decisions.


are you saying the wealthy person could buy anything he/she likes? purchase all the grains off the shelves?
who the authority to control and limit what these wealthy person could buy/sell or just perform whatever shits he/she wants?

what kind of limitation restricted on wealthy person in capitalism when eventually, it will ends up with only a few big players? whom could buy off a country, a government and etc, everything?

this shit is happening right now? the venezuela shit, from a conspiracy perspective, orchestrated by them (those big players) too?


sleepsleep wrote:

if viruses mean uncontrollable growth, then collecting personal wealth without ceiling is alike virus too,



because the whole issue of not enough for others, most likely are because the following reason

sleepsleep wrote:
why no limit in personal wealth? or monies accumulation process?

Post 10 Jan 2018, 18:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 957

You don't get it. "Urges" doesn't mean it can't be controlled (and even if it couldn't for a certain individual although I doubt it, then you need psychiatric help, not absolve him of responsibility). Furthermore, what urge is there in having a child? Maybe some desperate women (which is where the problem probably happens) cause they "want a baby so bad" or other nonsense.

That's why the world is in such bad shape. Because people who have shit lives decide to bring more innocent people into their shit lives by breeding.

As for the limit on wealth -- there's already a limit on resources, not sure what you mean here? You need to think of wealth as a certain percentage of all resources (not just natural resources, human resources i.e. services too). Like I said, it's like owning shares in this. Do you own shares in any company?

Money is not very different. "Shares" can be traded for stuff, and so can money. Money is just a share of resource because everyone wants it.


So let's use shares analogy. Is it ok for people who invested in a company and own shares to lose some of their shares because you want to distribute these company shares to an idiot called John Doe who had 13 more kids? Cause his kids are "entitled" to the company shares right? Every single investor here will suffer because an arbitrary moron decided to breed like a rabbit: they will LOSE SHARES so that that guy's kids get their "entitled shares".

Now I do understand that some things -- such as land -- are controversial to "own". After all there's only so much land to go around. But a cap on wealth will not solve it because there's not "enough" wealth for everyone to live the good life. Look how many donations the rich have done already -- does it look to you like poverty is anywhere close to solved? It will never be solved as long as poor morons keep on having offspring to have the child suffer in their shit situations.

I don't disagree with a cap on wealth in a more broad sense, but it's not going to solve your problems. If you want to stop poverty, the fairest and best way is for poor people to stop breeding. Simple as that. Idiots in Venezuela learned this the hard way, but it's too late.

I mean, seriously, you don't have basic necessities in life and yet you decide to bring a child into your world so he can suffer as well and maybe even starve? Those people deserve *zero* sympathy. Zero.
Post 10 Jan 2018, 20:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

calm down, calm down, calm down, please calm down,

why:
when you are calm, you are in control of you, you are less likely to get affected by all the chemical reactions, and roaming signals etc inside your vessel,

assume, someone release some sort of lsd stuffs into air inside a meeting room, or indoor stadium etc, on a trip, then you started seeing all kinds of weird stuffs,

or assume, you die, or etc shit that happened too quickly, (assume after life exists), then you started seeing weird stuffs,

what should you do now,

you should calm down, because during the calm down moment, i am i, instead of i that drove by chemical or signals reactions,

maintaining this i am i, this moment of calm, you could feel some sort of closeness or nearest to your surround, as if you become bigger and filling up your surround,

well, you dont have to calm down if you dont want, it just i feel i am more like i when i calm down,
Post 11 Jan 2018, 18:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

i could only feel i am safe when i am inside a pyramid,
Post 12 Jan 2018, 01:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 957

Trump called a bunch of shithole countries well... "shithole countries". Respect the man for saying what most have in mind without being scared of social justice warriors. He is the best president even if some of his policies are questionable.

I know someone will disagree, but this is no rocket science. If the country was not a shithole, then people wouldn't want to go to the US and escape it. If the US was a bad country, people wouldn't make a fuss over not being able to go there. But they do, proving that their bullshit is pure lies when they always talk shit about the US from their shithole countries.

I'm surprised he didn't call NK or Venezuela yet a "shithole country" since they fit the bill quite perfectly.

It is not the US's responsibility to clean the mess from shithole countries, especially when the people who emigrate to the US don't even hate their shithole country but want to spread their shit into the US to infect it. Yeah there will be few "victims" here from those shithole countries who truly despise their country and want to be part of the US genuinely. It's unfortunate they won't be able to, but it's like a viral outbreak; sometimes you have innocents trapped into the quarantine. Blame the shithole country instead of the US for trying to be safe from the shithole virus; because it's the shithole country who infected you with its shit, not the US. You can't blame the US for wanting to stay clean even if it means a few innocents won't be able to join it. Most importantly, never blame the one who would provide you with aid for NOT providing you with it, that's childish.

I mean, seriously, the US even took in people who don't speak english (not even at basic level) before, wtf? GTFO. All the other pathetic presidents make me puke.

(and btw, I do NOT live in the US, so I'm not biased, in fact I'm from an European "shithole" myself, not nearly as shithole as the ones Trump mentioned though)
Post 12 Jan 2018, 13:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15382
Location: Monstropolis

Hehe, shithole ... shithole ... shithole ... shithole ... shithole ... shithole ... shithole ... Smile
Post 12 Jan 2018, 14:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 957

Yes. That's literally what he said. Wink (placing in quotes to emphasize that as a quote)
Post 12 Jan 2018, 14:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699


Furs wrote:

As for the limit on wealth -- there's already a limit on resources, not sure what you mean here?


let us define wealth first,
1. an abundance of valuable possessions or money.
2. a plentiful supply of a particular desirable thing.

well, i dont agree with both definition,

wealth is
1. anything that sought by mankind, which indirectly having the ability to influence, command a person to perform something,

wealth could be created, as long as the sun still shines, it is possible to create enough wealth to all humankind,
Post 12 Jan 2018, 14:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 957

Wealth is a percentage of the total amount of services or resources you "own" as shares. This is your definition: which indirectly having the ability to influence, command a person to perform something,

That's "service". While it's right, do you even understand what that actually means? You can't have that both ways: to be "commanded", you must want money in return or shares of the total resources/services. A rich person doesn't want it since he's already rich (he doesn't work at a job etc). To "command" someone, he must want money in return for it. What do you use money for? That's right, for the same thing.

But you want to command the rich to give away their money for nothing in return just to please the irresponsible poor? Poor people want this (money) in exchange for their services because they're poor. And they're poor because there's too many of them. Instead, they decide to breed, making this problem even worse. It's always the poor people who breed the most like rats, then demand welfare for their own decisions. Why should these irresponsible poor people get anything at all for free?

Maybe if they become responsible and stop adding to the problem, they'll start to earn some respect from the rich and may get paid better and earn more free stuff. I mean, you see people starving in some parts of the world, and yet those people continue having offspring, making this problem even worse than it is already.

Giving anything to them is like giving your money to a moron who wastes it all on drugs and alcohol to get high. I don't know about you, but that's appalling and a spit in the face. That's why many of the rich hate most poor people; they're completely irresponsible with money and anything they're given.



In general, it's not the rich kid's fault for inheriting a massive wealth from his parents. It's your parents' fault for giving birth to you without having you inherit a vast wealth (because they're poor as fuck). When you fail something at work, do you also blame your colleague for not accepting your demands and give you some of his work to make up for your failure?

Having offspring while you're poor is a failure unto itself, but then complaining about others' lack of empathy to your demands due to your decision (failure) is even worse.

Note that a lot of poor people are responsible, yet have been born into a crap situation. The problem is these poor people don't blame their parents, and that makes them not understand the picture. The rich are not at fault for not helping you due to a situation created by the poor people's parents. They're not supposed to fix someone else's mistakes.
Post 12 Jan 2018, 15:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699


Furs wrote:

Wealth is a percentage of the total amount of services or resources you "own" as shares.


nope


Furs wrote:

to be "commanded", you must want money in return


yes, but when industry only left with a few big players, nobody could negotiate anymore, eg, there is only two telcos in this region, either you use telco a or telco b, both are controlled by same parent company,

the accumulation of wealth by one party could directly control and enforce whatever rules, the one party prefers, and no one else could argue,


Furs wrote:

But you want to command the rich to give away their money for nothing in return just to please the irresponsible poor?


i dont, that is their wealth,
i am only having issue with the system, which allow them to do whatever shits they like, and they will end up buying everything on earth, which leave no space for others,

you dont seem to get my point,


Furs wrote:

Why should these irresponsible poor people get anything at all for free?


irresponsible poor people should not get anything they want for free,

irresponsible wealthy people will buy anything they want and they will basically end up as owner of everything,


Furs wrote:

you see people starving in some parts of the world, and yet those people continue having offspring,


you keep on blaming irresponsible adults having more and more babies, but would you invest in education or etc else for them first in order to let them aware about the dangerous of uncontrolled breeding? and the responsibilities of having babies?


Furs wrote:

they're completely irresponsible with money and anything they're given.


and the rich are completely irresponsible with their purchased and take over too,


Furs wrote:

It's your parents' fault for giving birth to you without having you inherit a vast wealth (because they're poor as fuck).


your parents cant give anything to you because all those "resources" are damn it purchased, owned, controlled by the riches already,

because the riches manipulate every rules, there hardly a fair play, fair competition, or fair industries, the riches hack the game and the system to their own favor,

others become slave, suck the balls and repeat forever
Post 12 Jan 2018, 16:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 957


sleepsleep wrote:
yes, but when industry only left with a few big players, nobody could negotiate anymore, eg, there is only two telcos in this region, either you use telco a or telco b, both are controlled by same parent company,

the accumulation of wealth by one party could directly control and enforce whatever rules, the one party prefers, and no one else could argue,

Well I was speaking about individual wealth, not companies, which is a totally different topic. I don't see what a monopoly has anything to do with you wanting people to have handouts from the rich, no questions asked.

You know, what you said is an exaggeration, but is a valid point. However, if we exaggerate the other way, the situation is even worse.

So let's say companies/rich people are forced to give money to the poor. At first, everyone is happy (well rich are slightly less happy, but they're still well-off, so they're still happy).

Then some morons decide to breed, without them producing any wealth. This is the first problem. First, everyone else will start to lose wealth since you have a total amount and now it's split to more people (there's more people fighting over the same amount of resources). Then their children will breed, exponentially making everyone poor, and the guy who did not have a single child suffers equally which is total BULLSHIT.

What's better, a world where a few people are incredibly well off, or a world where EVERYONE is in poverty? If we go by extremes, your idea is far worse, because that's what will happen.

You don't have to think of hypothetical scenarios; it already exists. Look at Venezuela. That's how the world would look if morons who don't produce any wealth demand equal distribution while having offspring and deteriorating the wealth for everyone.


sleepsleep wrote:
i am only having issue with the system, which allow them to do whatever shits they like, and they will end up buying everything on earth, which leave no space for others,

you dont seem to get my point,

The rich follow the same law as the poor.

They only do whatever they want because the poor allow them to, by slaving off for them. Why do poor slave off for them? Cause they're poor and need money. Why? Because they bred like rats. If, instead of having a child or multiple children, they invested their fucking money, they'd be well off by now and not at the mercy of the rich.

Note that AIs in the future will replace most jobs. I do agree that ownership of vital resources is bad and so are monopolies. However, what is equally bad is uncontrolled/arbitrary breeding. A society that needs to be ruled by the state, such as in the future when AIs will produce the most wealth, also needs breeding to be fully controlled by the state. Period.


sleepsleep wrote:
you keep on blaming irresponsible adults having more and more babies, but would you invest in education or etc else for them first in order to let them aware about the dangerous of uncontrolled breeding? and the responsibilities of having babies?

Huh? If the law says you lose your right to welfare if you have a child (or it gets transferred to the child), you don't need education. You need a brain to connect the dots. If you can't do that, then you deserve to be poor. The government is not a baby sitter!


sleepsleep wrote:
and the rich are completely irresponsible with their purchased and take over too,

What? How can they be irresponsible if they earn the money (i.e. don't demand it)?

Irresponsible is when you do stuff and fail your life and then you ASK OTHERS for MORE help in regards to it. I don't think the rich demand help from anybody.


I'm not against welfare. I'm against welfare with no restrictions on breeding. The logic in this is incredibly simple, without even looking at hypothetical situations. Welfare distributes a certain amount (necessities) to every person. So far so good.

So why should an individual decide to "boost" income here by having a child? Human beings are treated "specially" under welfare, thus the one PROVIDING the welfare which is the state must decide WHEN to spawn a new "welfare receiver", aka it is the STATE which must decide when a child is authorized into the world and to receive welfare or not. Otherwise it's bullshit.

tl;dr The one which provides is the one which decides. If you want welfare, then you accept the state decides when you're allowed to breed or not. If not, you're on your own (i.e. no welfare for you). Simple as that.
Post 12 Jan 2018, 16:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699


Furs wrote:

Well I was speaking about individual wealth, not companies, which is a totally different topic.




sleepsleep wrote:
the accumulation of wealth by one party could directly control and enforce whatever rules, the one party prefers, and no one else could argue,


this happened regardless of individual wealth, or companies wealth,


Furs wrote:

I don't see what a monopoly has anything to do with you wanting people to have handouts from the rich, no questions asked.


please quote me where i said, people should demand their handouts from the rich?


Furs wrote:

You know, what you said is an exaggeration, but is a valid point.


which part of it is exaggeration? which part of it is valid?

rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, does this sound exaggeration to you?


Furs wrote:

if we exaggerate the other way


please en-light me, what is the other way,


Furs wrote:

So let's say companies/rich people are forced to give money to the poor. At first, everyone is happy (well rich are slightly less happy, but they're still well-off, so they're still happy).


let us get the statement right first, you said, not me, you said,
lets say companies/rich people are forced to give monies to the poor,


Furs wrote:

What's better, a world where a few people are incredibly well off, or a world where EVERYONE is in poverty? If we go by extremes, your idea is far worse, because that's what will happen.


suddenly this become my idea?
what you mean by your idea is far worse, what is the "my idea" that you are talking about is far worse?

here the Venezuela birth rate,
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html
https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ve&v=25


Furs wrote:

The rich follow the same law as the poor.


are you living on earth?


Furs wrote:
They only do whatever they want because the poor allow them to,


this is the most ridiculous statement i heard from you, please re-think and re-write


Furs wrote:

What? How can they be irresponsible if they earn the money (i.e. don't demand it)?



Furs wrote:

I do agree that ownership of vital resources is bad and so are monopolies.




Furs wrote:
Irresponsible is when you do stuff and fail your life and then you ASK OTHERS for MORE help in regards to it.


asking people for help is not irresponsible, demanding others and forcing others to help you is,


Furs wrote:

I don't think the rich demand help from anybody.


they dont have to, because they will force the poors and others to suck balls, like it or not,
Post 13 Jan 2018, 15:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 957

I guess you don't understand what "trade" means. People can always say "no" to a job. Because they get money in return, they don't work for free. The rich aren't above the law (and if they do shady stuff, they have to hide it for a reason, because they are not above the law). Force means that you don't have a choice. How does Jeff Bezos force you to do anything? He's the richest man. You also always have a choice to not breed -- if you claim you don't have a choice (genetic predisposition, instincts, etc), then you're nothing more than an animal, and animals don't have human rights for a reason Wink


sleepsleep wrote:
please quote me where i said, people should demand their handouts from the rich?

You didn't say it, but it's what your logic implies.

  • You want everyone to have basic necessities, regardless of them working for them or not.
  • Basic necessities don't grow in a tree. You need resources and work to get them.
  • Resources are limited, thus, by popping babies, you decrease the "resource per capita" of everyone -- make everyone else poorer, assuming equal wealth distribution.
  • Who will provide the basic necessities for people who don't work?
The "government" gets its money from everyone who pays taxes, including the rich. So yeah, if you want free money or basic necessities from the government, you want handouts from everyone else, because the government gets its money from everyone else, it's as simple as that.

I'm not against free handouts but only if you respect the provider and let it decide how to distribute this. That's why breeding must be controlled by the government if you want to get things from the government. It really is that simple.

Buying a computer is your choice, not the government's, because a computer is not entitled to government handouts "basic necessities". Unlike people who pop babies every year which stress the system with more "basic necessities" for which everyone else has to pay.

You know what force is? Forcing people to pay for others' basic necessities when they pop babies like rabbits.


BTW the government can't just "print money" to solve this problem. Printing money only *DECREASES* the value of everyone else's money -- now you have more money in circulation but the same resources, so each money has less % share of the resources.

This is called inflation. Basic economics. To add new money into the system without inflation, resources or services need to increase, which means people need to earn them. This is why you must be authorized by the government to breed; so that you must have contributed enough back to be able to add a new life without impacting anyone else's resource share.

I guess you really don't understand much of economics on a basic scale.

Let's put an example. If Jeff Bezos distributed his 100 billion wealth to everyone equally, each person would get... about 15$ bucks (less actually). 15$ bucks is nothing considering Bezos got it in decades by being smart. Not only do you devalue his work, but it would also have absolutely zero effect. There's too many fucking people because they breed like rabbits, PERIOD. That's why there is poverty.

If poor idiots stopped breeding, eventually they'll die off (natural cause etc) and there will be no more poverty anymore, because all the poor ones are gone. Perhaps world population will be in the 100s of millions, but at least everyone will live off the millionaire lifestyle at the very least, which is a good scenario, and much less suffering.

Even the richest man on Earth will not be able to make ANY difference whatsoever, as you can clearly see. There's not enough resources on this planet for all the leechers who want to breed non stop.
Post 13 Jan 2018, 17:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699

define:trade
1. the action of buying and selling goods and services.
2. a job requiring manual skills and special training.


Furs wrote:
People can always say "no" to a job.


but not always, it is more harder when you are poor, you cant choose, you will need to do everything so that you could survive,

wait, seriously, for god sake, do i have to tell you this?


Furs wrote:

The rich aren't above the law (and if they do shady stuff, they have to hide it for a reason, because they are not above the law).


above the law means you kill a person and got away with it,
above the law doesnt means you kill a person, dont brag about it, hide it,

for god sake,

the rest of your sentences are full of flaws, i could explain to you if you want, but i doubt you really want to understand,


Furs wrote:

Printing money only *DECREASES* the value of everyone else's money


no,


Furs wrote:

There's too many fucking people because they breed like rabbits, PERIOD. That's why there is poverty.


there are other factors that cause poverty, breeding is one of them but not the main factor,


Furs wrote:

eventually they'll die off (natural cause etc) and there will be no more poverty anymore, because all the poor ones are gone.


no,

you dont even bother to think, i guess this is your style, this is the way you treat ideas,
Post 13 Jan 2018, 18:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 957


sleepsleep wrote:
but not always, it is more harder when you are poor, you cant choose, you will need to do everything so that you could survive,

wait, seriously, for god sake, do i have to tell you this?

Huh? You can still say no, and then starve to death as a consequence. I never said that saying no is without consequences. Do you also think people don't suicide or something? It's a choice too and just as valid. Yeah, it carries consequences, but all choices do.

Just because the consequence is death (but not at the hands of someone else) does not mean it's not a choice, wtf.


sleepsleep wrote:
above the law means you kill a person and got away with it,
above the law doesnt means you kill a person, dont brag about it, hide it,

for god sake,

the rest of your sentences are full of flaws, i could explain to you if you want, but i doubt you really want to understand,

Wrong. Above the law means that the law does not apply to them.

If they are caught (i.e. "bragging") and the law puts them in prison it means the law applies to them. Yeah, they are resourceful and can hide their tracks better, so what?

A thief is not above the law just because he was not caught yet. Nonsense definition.


sleepsleep wrote:

Furs wrote:

Printing money only *DECREASES* the value of everyone else's money


no,

lol?!? You don't know the most basic of all economics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

Economists generally believe that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply (i.e. printing money)

Rolling Eyes

Please, go trade cryptocurrencies (like Bitcoin) and learn basics that way with your own money. Cryptos, unlike fiat, usually have a decentralized supply, which is clearly visible. Double supply = half value of coin. This is an universal fact of economic mathematics.

And ofc, Venezuela has highest inflation in the world (see wikipedia article). Nobody wants their currency because it has no value, it loses value 5 times in a year. That's pathetic. But well, they followed some of your principles, doesn't surprise me their currency is worthless and the state of the country.


sleepsleep wrote:
there are other factors that cause poverty, breeding is one of them but not the main factor,

Actually, it is. Let's use some of that "thinking" logic with an example.

Suppose, for the sake of this example, that we can equally distribute ALL wealth in the world to every person on the planet currently, and it happens to be 50k$/year which is quite decent for such a goal. Suppose that nobody complains yet and everyone is happy that poverty was finally eliminated etc.

Sounds like utopia? Hold on. We're just getting started. So, 50k$/year right now with current resources cap and all that, equal distribution to everybody (this is unrealistic, but bear with me).

Some morons decide to breed. They have 4 kids. But then others see it too, and why not they have kids too, in the end let's say everyone has 4 fucking kids.

Now since you need to pay 50k$ / year to each person equally, you just added a whopping $200k / year to every single fucking person before.

Where will you get that from? Resources don't grow in trees. From the rich? Nope, there's no fucking rich anymore to leech off of.

So what happens right now is that you print money, 4 times more money. But the resources are the same. Which means that 100$ before could get you a smartphone, now the same smartphone costs 400$ because, well, people have more money but there's the same amount of resources and factories. Just because you pop babies doesn't mean you can build more factories if the Earth was depleted.

So, since every person STILL gets paid $50k / year, but now their smartphones and everything else costs 4 times as much, then what the fuck, everyone just became POORER because they can buy less. Their 50k$ now buys much less "stuff" and gadgets than before, so they are ALL POORER. And why? Because morons decided to breed. This is the definition of forcing your shitty habits on others.

What will happen next? They'll breed even more. Exponentially. People will become even poorer. They won't stop until they literally can't sustain themselves. Some people want more out of life than just the "basic necessities".

This is Venezuela. Currently the birth rate isn't high because it's beyond pathetic of a situation and people finally stopped breeding to save their children from suffering. It's too late though. I don't want successful countries to end up like a shithole called Venezuela, because ultimately that's exactly what your system will bring.


Just for your info, this is EXACTLY why gold rises in value compared to the dollar and why it's considered a "long term investment". Gold is a finite resource, while the dollar is inflated by the government, so the dollar loses value relative to gold.

Remember, most people don't end up in poverty after leading successful lives. They are born into poverty. Which means, breeding by idiots, not controlled by a responsible authority.
Post 13 Jan 2018, 21:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 6993
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699


Quote:

Ok, so you and the shrew, the beaver and the duck have an amygdala. If you make a beaver, a shrew or a duck afraid, their amygdala will inhibit their motor neuron system as well as their forebrain system, which means, the animal will either fight, fly away, or if either option isn't available, freeze.



imagine a situation, so hopeless and desperate, how would you stay conscious? and exists?
Post 17 Jan 2018, 02:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 957

You always stay conscious (unless you pass out), you just won't be able to control your body. There's a difference. Wink

It's like someone who is paralyzed and uses a wheel chair. He is fully conscious and "tries" to control his legs. They just won't move.
Post 17 Jan 2018, 13:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 957

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG-xu5H6plk

This channel is great. But this video made me realize, without a doubt, that there's no such thing as particles.

Everything in the Universe is made up of waves. What we see or measure as a "particle" is simply the local peak (amplitude) of the massive wave (that spans the entire Universe) in the given field. Its position is "random" because the peak is not infinitely thin, but it's stretched smoothly (imagine a sine wave versus a square/pulse wave) and constantly "moving".

In reality, the wave's amplitude is quantized since particles have quantized energy levels. Which makes me believe even stronger that the Universe is a simulation.

I mean, position quantization is one thing, but I never understood energy quantization intuitively until now. If you think about our own wave formats (PCM) it's easy to see how quantization is perfectly normal for waves and reproduction (to analog) is 100% guaranteed, with a given noise floor and frequency limit.

It's not often I understand physics this well, but I guess dealing with programming of DSP algorithms for audio has more perks Razz


(btw, if you're confused about the black hole horizon thing -- take an impulse sample, and remove out some of its frequencies via a FFT filter, which is like removing a bunch of "space" from momentum -- you'll see the resulting waveform has a LOT of "waves" now around its big peak that used to be a single impulse, and those waves can be measured as particles now, basically removing a frequency (or momentum) "created" particles out of thin air, but they were always there because there's no such thing as particles... ahh this makes so much sense now, it's intriguing me Smile)
Post 18 Jan 2018, 21:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 127, 128, 129

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2005 phpBB Group.

Main index   Download   Documentation   Examples   Message board
Copyright © 2004-2017, Tomasz Grysztar.