http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/ashley-olsen-backpack_n_910616.html
QuoteWe already went on a tear about The Row's crocodile skin backpack -- you know, the one that rings in at $39,000 and apparently belongs in The Museum Of Overpriced Accessories as opposed to slung over our humble shoulders.
Style.com previously reported that a pair of these puppies had already been pre-ordered. But by whom? And, now, an answer: behold a pic of Ashley Olsen as spotted leaving the Tribeca Hotel in Manhattan on Tuesday.
Yuk, yuk, just kidding. We're sure she didn't pay full price since she and sister Mary-Kate designed the line.
So will the two backpack buyers please come forward? We have so many questions...mainly: can we borrow?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F316166%2FASHLEY-OLSEN.jpg&hash=525e2e8ecf229af0a6f8278b18872b61c3bb4f1c)
Why did you post this?
Maybe he's trying to piss Ide off. Or maybe he has a crush on the Olsen girls. :hmm:
Wow, she's so much better than those plebes and their $2000 strollers.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 27, 2011, 06:02:47 PM
Wow, she's so much better than those plebes and their $2000 strollers.
Right?
Too fat, too old.
Rich girl wastes money on stupid shit. Film at 11.
Once you hit like a billion or whatever she's worth you get a to buy $39,000 purses
They killed Heath Ledger.
They should get a medal.
If I had a billion dollars, buying a $39K bag would be more of an anxiety reaction than anything else...either on the grounds that I needed it as a status symbol or else that I *should* really be spending this billion before I croak.
Quote from: garbon on July 27, 2011, 06:20:20 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 27, 2011, 06:02:47 PM
Wow, she's so much better than those plebes and their $2000 strollers.
Right?
I still don't know why you posted this.
The bag is from her own line of apparel, and this is free publicity. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on July 27, 2011, 05:36:55 PM
Why did you post this?
Yeah wtf. Is garbon the People's Magazine equivalent of Tim?
News at 10. Some people on Languish are sensitive to conspicuous consumption.
You can buy a house for that in the Midwest or Wales. But I'd rather have the backpack.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 27, 2011, 07:39:53 PM
They killed Heath Ledger.
They should get a medal.
They did? :unsure:
What do you have against Ledger?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 28, 2011, 04:17:54 AM
What do you have against Ledger?
Had long hair in several movies, played a gay dude, used drugs?
Ed doesn't really need a reason to hate on people.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 28, 2011, 04:17:54 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 27, 2011, 07:39:53 PM
They killed Heath Ledger.
They should get a medal.
They did? :unsure:
What do you have against Ledger?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu5XLz.jpg&hash=967bb5c7e7ad368b234f91ede2b47eaa4fd4614b)
Clearly a very good example of efficient allocation of resources according to the laws of supply and demand. Meanwhile, somewhere else: someone starving because there is no demand to supply food.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 07:47:36 AM
Clearly a very good example of efficient allocation of resources according to the laws of supply and demand. Meanwhile, somewhere else: someone starving because there is no demand to supply food.
Not in the civilized world they aren't. As for the locusts of the Third World, let them starve.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 07:47:36 AM
Clearly a very good example of efficient allocation of resources according to the laws of supply and demand. Meanwhile, somewhere else: someone starving because there is no demand to supply food.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQXfL7j5sRT3mrQbopbSxGfjUuca5Wz1WSdK6-Pdaq8V61I5g_j&hash=2ad75f3a29d04516f1167befcc999368152e3c84)
Quote from: Neil on July 28, 2011, 08:13:16 AM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 07:47:36 AM
Clearly a very good example of efficient allocation of resources according to the laws of supply and demand. Meanwhile, somewhere else: someone starving because there is no demand to supply food.
Not in the civilized world they aren't. As for the locusts of the Third World, let them starve.
A narrow interpretation that misses the wider point. I could rephrase: "Meanwhile, somewhere else: someone lacking X because the demand for it is not acknowledged as a real demand)".
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 08:31:45 AM
A narrow interpretation that misses the wider point. I could rephrase: "Meanwhile, somewhere else: someone lacking X because there is no demand to supply it (while clearly the person in question does have a demand for it)".
They should be more aggressive in their demands then.
Being aggressive in your demands is generally frowned upon and labelled theft.
Horrible crime against humanity, crocodile skin accessories are so 1990s.
Quote from: Drakken on July 28, 2011, 08:40:20 AM
Horrible crime against humanity, crocodile skin accessories are so 1990s.
How gay.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 08:37:31 AM
Being aggressive in your demands is generally frowned upon and labelled theft.
They clearly don't want it enough then.
How does her not buying a bag (or the suppliers not making a bag) feed a hungry person? If anyhing the VAT and sales tax from her purchase well flow into welfair and poverty programs making it more likely hypothetical hungry person will get fed.
Quote from: HVC on July 28, 2011, 08:45:19 AM
How does her not buying a bag (or the suppliers not making a bag) feed a hungry person? If anyhing the VAT and sales tax from her purchase well flow into welfair and poverty programs making it more likely hypothetical hungry person will get fed.
Didn't you know luxury is vain and bad?
It's the same logic than arguing that so and so's millions from "useless services" (entertainment, sports, etc.) are excessive because they are payed for that rather than saving lives in Africa as a doctor.
Quote from: HVC on July 28, 2011, 08:45:19 AM
How does her not buying a bag (or the suppliers not making a bag) feed a hungry person? If anyhing the VAT and sales tax from her purchase well flow into welfair and poverty programs making it more likely hypothetical hungry person will get fed.
Not true. Apparently trickle down economics don't work, and the hungry are better off by her hoarding the cash under her bed made of gold.
Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 08:51:39 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 28, 2011, 08:45:19 AM
How does her not buying a bag (or the suppliers not making a bag) feed a hungry person? If anyhing the VAT and sales tax from her purchase well flow into welfair and poverty programs making it more likely hypothetical hungry person will get fed.
Not true. Apparently trickle down economics don't work, and the hungry are better off by her hoarding the cash under her bed made of gold.
Trickle down economics. :lol:
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 08:56:18 AM
Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.
Lot's of people have more money than they need. I certainly do and I don't even have that much money.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 08:56:18 AM
Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.
Indeed. All rich people who make more than $100 000 per year should be executed and their wealth redistributed to the poor of the third world. The unemployed can then take their jobs for smaller salaries and the savings can again be redistributed on more worthy people such as the Somalis or why not the Tamils? I hear the Tamils have a hard time of it. Especially, you know, the PoW.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 08:56:18 AM
Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.
So, money is about spending it anyway you want it, she's earned it. Even burning it or spending it on fashion-horror crocodile skin packbag worth 39 grand made by her twin sister's colony of slave labor somewhere in a piss poor country.
Because by your reasoning, any rich celebrity should be honour-bound to throw away the money she's earned him or herself for the good of the others? And how exactly would you execute that, other than by taxation?
Quote from: Drakken on July 28, 2011, 09:02:31 AM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 08:56:18 AM
Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.
So, money is about spending it anyway you want it, she's earned it. Even burning it or spending it on fashion-horror crocodile skin packbag worth 39 grand made by her twin sister's colony of slave labor somewhere in a piss poor country.
Because by your reasoning, any rich celebrity should be honour-bound to throw away the money she's earned him or herself for the good of the others? And how exactly would you execute that, other than by taxation?
Psst. Swedish.
Doesn't terribly mind raising taxes for everyone but himself. :whistle:
Right. Now let's say you take someone with 1 million USD in a bank account and give him 1000 dollars. He will now have 0,1% more money. Give those 1000 dollars to someone with 10 000 dollars in the bank. He will now have 10% more money. And give them to someone with 1000 dollar, he will now have 100% more money.
Quote from: Drakken on July 28, 2011, 09:02:31 AM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 08:56:18 AM
Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.
So, money is about spending it anyway you want it, she's earned it. Even burning it or spending it on fashion-horror crocodile skin packbag worth 39 grand made by her twin sister's colony of slave labor somewhere in a piss poor country.
Because by your reasoning, any rich celebrity should be honour-bound to throw away the money she's earned him or herself for the good of the others?
Doesn't follow. Humans are selfish, and it is very intrusive to tell people how they should act. Change the system, not the people.
QuoteAnd how exactly would you do that, other than taxation?
Taxation is one way, changing modes of production is another way. You don't get rid of this kind of celebrities without first changing people's perceptions, but take capitalists for example. I think most capitalists could be made into wage-earners working for major investment funds. You could start up an investment fund that invest in democratic companies. You go to the fund á la the show Dragon's Den (it's a BBC show where you ask capitalists for money to start up companies). This would mean everyone could get money to start a company, not just the ones who already have access to money. Because if you don't have access to start-up money, you will most likely not think about starting something very large. So in a way it would also emancipate the mind of people and make their dreams more realistic. Problem with democratic companies is they don't react well to lay-offs etc (very hard to decide who should go democratically). Also you don't want a raise of hands before every major decision. So there must be representative democracy and the fund needs to be able to step in and over-ride the democracy in certain pre-defined situations. Let's say you go to the fund with a constitution of how you want your company run, and how profits are shared, and it is then put to negotiation between yourself and the fund, the only non-negotiable part being that after a grace start-up period (which is also negotiable) the employees gets to decide who runs the company and free and secret elections can be held as to achieve that.
Anyway I could write more about this if someone's interested but I usually get yelled at whenever I write long posts so I'll stop. If somoene wants to know more they can ask, but don't just assume it hasn't been thought of because I haven't mentioned it.
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 09:05:26 AM
Quote from: Drakken on July 28, 2011, 09:02:31 AM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 08:56:18 AM
Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.
So, money is about spending it anyway you want it, she's earned it. Even burning it or spending it on fashion-horror crocodile skin packbag worth 39 grand made by her twin sister's colony of slave labor somewhere in a piss poor country.
Because by your reasoning, any rich celebrity should be honour-bound to throw away the money she's earned him or herself for the good of the others? And how exactly would you execute that, other than by taxation?
Psst. Swedish.
Doesn't terribly mind raising taxes for everyone but himself. :whistle:
I'm fine paying a lot of taxes as long as everyone else has to as well. This also has the added benefit of actually working, as opposed to voluntary charity where you just go "well no one else gives a lot anyway, and besides there are so many people richer than me so I need the money". Besides, why should you give a lot when no one else has to? Never thought I'd tell you this, but don't be so idealistic, be more crass.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 27, 2011, 07:39:53 PM
They killed Heath Ledger.
They should get a medal.
:lol:
Matthew 25:20-30
If I worked at a "democratic company" I would quit and find a real company. Sounds like a nightmare.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 09:21:07 AM
Right. Now let's say you take someone with 1 million USD in a bank account and give him 1000 dollars. He will now have 0,1% more money. Give those 1000 dollars to someone with 10 000 dollars in the bank. He will now have 10% more money. And give them to someone with 1000 dollar, he will now have 100% more money.
Yet it's still 1000$, and he only has 2000$ now. So his level of wealth and spending power hasn't grown a bit, and will probably be spent on a Plasma TV, some beer, cigarettes, a trip to Cuba, drugs, or hookers, or any immediate expense such people may have.
Besides, the amount of people who'd like a free 1000$ massively surpasses the number of rich celebrities you can rob, so you'll run out of 1000$ to rob sooner than you think. Because what you are arguing is in fact Robin-Hood robbery.
For the rest, TL;DR.
Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2011, 09:38:22 AM
If I worked at a "democratic company" I would quit and find a real company. Sounds like a nightmare.
In Soviet Sweden, democratic company owns you.
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 09:33:09 AM
Matthew 25:20-30
"Bagge får tacka lamm". But what if there is no afterlife?
Quote from: Drakken on July 28, 2011, 09:39:14 AM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 09:21:07 AM
Right. Now let's say you take someone with 1 million USD in a bank account and give him 1000 dollars. He will now have 0,1% more money. Give those 1000 dollars to someone with 10 000 dollars in the bank. He will now have 10% more money. And give them to someone with 1000 dollar, he will now have 100% more money.
Yet it's still 1000$, and he only has 2000$ now. So his level of wealth and spending power hasn't grown a bit, and will probably be spent on a Plasma TV, some beer, cigarettes, a trip to Cuba, drugs, or hookers, or any immediate expense such people may have.
Besides, the amount of people who'd like a free 1000$ massively surpasses the number of rich celebrities you can rob, so you'll run out of 1000$ to rob sooner than you think. Because what you are arguing is in fact Robin-Hood robbery.
For the rest, TL;DR.
What about taking the surplus value of labour from many workers and then spending it on inconspicious consumption? And maybe if you could read and understand what I was writing you would see I wasn't arguing for Robin Hood robbery or theft, even by the most libartardian standards.
Quote from: Drakken on July 28, 2011, 09:40:33 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2011, 09:38:22 AM
If I worked at a "democratic company" I would quit and find a real company. Sounds like a nightmare.
In Soviet Sweden, democratic company owns you.
Because right now, everyone owns the place they work!
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 09:45:31 AM
What about taking the surplus value of labour from many workers and then spending it on inconspicious consumption? And maybe if you could read and understand what I was writing you would see I wasn't arguing for Robin Hood robbery or theft, even by the most libartardian standards.
Because your premise starts from the assumption that such celebrities would tacitly accept being trickled-down like that, instead of voting with their feet and leaving with their surplus of money to go somewhere they are actually free to use their money as they see fit, like say the United States.
Charity is one thing, forced charity is another.
Consumption may be deemed "inconspicious consumption" to you, but to them it's just enjoying their money. And yes, people have the inherent right to be selfish, petty, and vain with their wealth as long as it doesn't trample on the liberty of others. They even have the right of hoarding or destroying that wealth for his or her enjoyment.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 09:48:57 AM
Because right now, everyone owns the place they work!
They can buy shares and become stakeholders, or they can create a coop.
I spent over a thousand on a smoker/grill and it is fabulous. No swedes are invited to my cookout. Well, maybe Brain if he brings some animals to grill.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 09:45:31 AM
"Bagge får tacka lamm". But what if there is no afterlife?
I suspect you either read it incorrectly, or not at all. :hmm:
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 28, 2011, 09:54:38 AM
I spent over a thousand on a smoker/grill and it is fabulous. No swedes are invited to my cookout. Well, maybe Brain if he brings some animals to grill.
:hug: I'll bring some lovely animals.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 28, 2011, 09:54:38 AM
I spent over a thousand on a smoker/grill and it is fabulous. No swedes are invited to my cookout. Well, maybe Brain if he brings some animals to grill.
:cry:
What if I promised to behave?
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 28, 2011, 09:54:38 AM
I spent over a thousand on a smoker/grill and it is fabulous. No swedes are invited to my cookout. Well, maybe Brain if he brings some animals to grill.
We've still got some cariboos here, I can illegally poach one and bring it over.
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 09:56:16 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 28, 2011, 09:54:38 AM
I spent over a thousand on a smoker/grill and it is fabulous. No swedes are invited to my cookout. Well, maybe Brain if he brings some animals to grill.
:cry:
What if I promised to behave?
Okay. :)
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 08:56:18 AM
Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.
could be, but wouldn't be. She'd just keep it in the bank, advertising firms and croc purse factories would shut down causing more hungry people.
Haven't several countries tried it your way already Pat?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 10:53:27 AM
Haven't several countries tried it your way already Pat?
No?
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 09:55:02 AM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 09:45:31 AM
"Bagge får tacka lamm". But what if there is no afterlife?
I suspect you either read it incorrectly, or not at all. :hmm:
I also read the passages before and after.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 11:18:10 AM
No?
Pre-liberalization China had its "iron rice bowl" policy. Cuba still has its guaranteed food ration.
Or perhaps you mean on a global scale? As long as there is still one person going hungry in Bangladesh then $39,000 rucksacks should be appropriated?
If the latter, that then begs the question of why you are still consuming at higher than a subsistence level. Don't you have a moral obligation to divert that surplus to people with a greater need than you?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 11:31:03 AM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 11:18:10 AM
No?
Pre-liberalization China had its "iron rice bowl" policy. Cuba still has its guaranteed food ration.
Or perhaps you mean on a global scale? As long as there is still one person going hungry in Bangladesh then $39,000 rucksacks should be appropriated?
If the latter, that then begs the question of why you are still consuming at higher than a subsistence level. Don't you have a moral obligation to divert that surplus to people with a greater need than you?
I already answered that question, no, I don't think I have. I don't think individuals have obligations to solve structural problems as individuals (edit: except through working for structural changes that might actually make a difference on the macro level). Also, if you tried giving a chance reading what I wrote maybe you'd see I'm not arguing for maoism or castroism (sorry, I know it's like 15 lines and that's 10 lines too much for this forum...).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3272%2F3018998546_2cf2b4c4b9.jpg&hash=1f9ade36c3eca2813c6c4217ebe371cfa6bbd523)
Insanity such as yours should've been cleansed by fire a long time ago, Pat.
Nuclear fire.
It would be one of the few ways to be really sure.
Idiot en är du.
Toidi ne rä ud.
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 11:37:05 AM
Insanity such as yours should've been cleansed by fire a long time ago, Pat.
Nuclear fire.
It would be one of the few ways to be really sure.
Reading Breivik 20:83 again?
I had a roommate like Pat many years ago.
He would lie, and cheat and steal as much as he could get away with. But he was a staunch socialist, believing steadfastly in the necessity of Big Brother.
Now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense. He knows that the state needs to rule him like an angry despot because he sees his own perversion, and assumes his blackened heart is the typical condition for all men.
But, you freakish rapist, not everyone is as twisted as you are.
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 11:37:05 AM
Insanity such as yours should've been cleansed by fire a long time ago, Pat.
Nuclear fire.
It would be one of the few ways to be really sure.
It's always easier to tell other people what to do with their money. If Pat started taking all the money he makes excess of rent (and lives in the cheapest place he can) and simple necessities and giving it to charity then i could take his beliefs at face value.
"It's only too much money when you're paying it or other people are making it"
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 11:34:50 AM
I already answered that question, no, I don't think I have. I don't think individuals have obligations to solve structural problems as individuals (edit: except through working for structural changes that might actually make a difference on the macro level). Also, if you tried giving a chance reading what I wrote maybe you'd see I'm not arguing for maoism or castroism (sorry, I know it's like 15 lines and that's 10 lines too much for this forum...).
You're right, I hadn't read the part about wage-earning venture capitialists and democratic start-ups. My apologies. :blush:
Quote from: HVC on July 28, 2011, 11:39:56 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 11:37:05 AM
Insanity such as yours should've been cleansed by fire a long time ago, Pat.
Nuclear fire.
It would be one of the few ways to be really sure.
It's always easier to tell other people what to do with their money. If Pat started taking all the money he makes excess of rent (and lives in the cheapest place he can) and simple necessities and giving it to charity then i could take his beliefs at face value.
That's fucking stupid considering I'm advocating structural solutions and that would be a piss in the ocean individual "solution".
Quote"It's only too much money when you're paying it or other people are making it"
What does that even mean in this context? I don't mind paying high taxes. I'm a selfish bastard but I don't mind limiting my own wealth as long as everyone else does the same.
Slargos, I already know you don't have any solutions except fairy tales and killing people and your wishing my death is getting a bit old. Why don't you stop being an internet tough guy and take your morals to their conclusion like some of your friends?
I am shamed by your noble words, Pat.
Might we sit down over a cup of coffee and discuss the subject, do you think?
I'd prefer tea. :bowler:
Did you learn to drink tea during your stint as a PoW-rapist in the Indias? :hmm:
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
What does that even mean in this context? I don't mind paying high taxes. I'm a selfish bastard but I don't mind limiting my own wealth as long as everyone else does the same.
I see, you will live according to your own moral standard only so long as others are forced to do the same. But dont you think that the reason we dont have the "structure" you are talking about is because nobody - including you - wants to live by that moral standard?
QuoteWhy don't you stop being an internet tough guy and take your morals to their conclusion like some of your friends?
Incitement?
This thread took a strange turn.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
What does that even mean in this context? I don't mind paying high taxes. I'm a selfish bastard but I don't mind limiting my own wealth as long as everyone else does the same.
I'm willing to get filthy rich while everyone else is still poor. I'm prepared to be the change and you are not. I doubt your idealism.
Alas, no. I could tell you the story sometimes, and also why I prefer green tea. I don't like keeping secrets to myself or the world, and I'd rather suffer the condemnation of others than to feel guilty of something. I felt better after writing about that thing, you know.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 28, 2011, 12:00:00 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
What does that even mean in this context? I don't mind paying high taxes. I'm a selfish bastard but I don't mind limiting my own wealth as long as everyone else does the same.
I see, you will live according to your own moral standard only so long as others are forced to do the same. But dont you think that the reason we dont have the "structure" you are talking about is because nobody - including you - wants to live by that moral standard?
I'm forcing no-one. l2read.
QuoteWhy don't you stop being an internet tough guy and take your morals to their conclusion like some of your friends?
Incitement?
[/quote]
More importantly a statement as to his morals. If you view it as incitement it only proves me right.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
I don't mind paying high taxes. I'm a selfish bastard but I don't mind limiting my own wealth as long as everyone else does the same.
I have never understood this logic. Michael Moore wants sick people to have cheap health care. Warren Buffet wants teachers to be paid more. Why don't they write a check? If the basic premise is correct, that these outcomes are morally superior, then why do they require the coerced participation of other people?
Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2011, 12:00:54 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
What does that even mean in this context? I don't mind paying high taxes. I'm a selfish bastard but I don't mind limiting my own wealth as long as everyone else does the same.
I'm willing to get filthy rich while everyone else is still poor. I'm prepared to be the change and you are not. I doubt your idealism.
You're coherent, and you're honest, I can appreciate that. I appreciate it a lot more than the compassionate conservatism bullshit of most the people here.
Gotta go, will answer you later Yi.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2011, 12:00:54 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
What does that even mean in this context? I don't mind paying high taxes. I'm a selfish bastard but I don't mind limiting my own wealth as long as everyone else does the same.
I'm willing to get filthy rich while everyone else is still poor. I'm prepared to be the change and you are not. I doubt your idealism.
You're coherent, and you're honest, I can appreciate that. I appreciate it a lot more than the compassionate conservatism bullshit of most the people here.
:) I try never to be a jerk.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 12:05:19 PM
I felt better after writing about that thing, you know.
Oh, I don't doubt that. For all your talk of compassion, dialogue and solidarity, you're a very despicable person.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 12:05:19 PM
I'm forcing no-one. l2read.
What does that have to do with you not wanting to give up wealth unless everyone else is forced to do so?
Quote
If you view it as incitement it only proves me right.
How does your encouragement of Slargos to commit an atrocity prove you right? :hmm:
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 08:56:18 AM
Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.
Mind you, the resources and money consumed by these sorts of luxury items are pretty much irrelevant. What's 39k divided by 7 billion? I suggest you quit being whiny. Besides, using resources for the benefit of normal people isn't really a virtue. Moreover, starving people aren't normal.
Quote from: Neil on July 28, 2011, 01:00:35 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 08:56:18 AM
Buying shit like that is a clear sign you have more money than you need, whereas, on the flip-side, there are a lot of people that clearly need money. Time and resources are spent on making, advertising and selling stupid shit people wouldn't buy unless they had too much money and those time and resources could be used to the benefit of normal people.
Mind you, the resources and money consumed by these sorts of luxury items are pretty much irrelevant. What's 39k divided by 7 billion? I suggest you quit being whiny. Besides, using resources for the benefit of normal people isn't really a virtue. Moreover, starving people aren't normal.
First, it's "isn't". And yes it is.
:lol:
Where's that golfclap smilie?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 28, 2011, 12:20:08 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 12:05:19 PM
I'm forcing no-one. l2read.
What does that have to do with you not wanting to give up wealth unless everyone else is forced to do so?
All laws are force. Do you wish to get rid of all laws because they are backed by force? Mind you I'm not saying 51% is always right no matter what and I'm not even saying we should get rid of private property. Hell I'm not even saying we should get rid of private property of means of production. So what exactly is your fucking problem?
Quote
Quote
If you view it as incitement it only proves me right.
How does your encouragement of Slargos to commit an atrocity prove you right? :hmm:
Killing me would be an atrocity? In this crowd I will take that as a compliment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 12:05:37 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
I don't mind paying high taxes. I'm a selfish bastard but I don't mind limiting my own wealth as long as everyone else does the same.
I have never understood this logic. Michael Moore wants sick people to have cheap health care. Warren Buffet wants teachers to be paid more. Why don't they write a check? If the basic premise is correct, that these outcomes are morally superior, then why do they require the coerced participation of other people?
Can't read their minds but I'm guessing that's because MM can't afford to provide health care to everyone and WB might be able to foot the bill for a short while before he runs out of money. I've said it before, structural problems need to be solved structurally, not through pointless vigilante individual action that is a piss in the ocean.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:09:03 PM
Killing me would be an atrocity? In this crowd I will take that as a compliment.
How did doing what happened on the weekend become just killing you? Seems delusion isnt isolated to Norwegians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 12:05:37 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
I don't mind paying high taxes. I'm a selfish bastard but I don't mind limiting my own wealth as long as everyone else does the same.
I have never understood this logic. Michael Moore wants sick people to have cheap health care. Warren Buffet wants teachers to be paid more. Why don't they write a check? If the basic premise is correct, that these outcomes are morally superior, then why do they require the coerced participation of other people?
Uhm this "logic" is called social contract. We do not use violence, respect someone else's property, respect other people's lives and freedoms exactly by that kind of "logic".
"If you think people shouldn't be murdered by those stronger than them, why don't you stop murdering the weaker than you, rather than insisting everyone should do that?" would be an equally idiotic question.
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 12:17:03 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 12:05:19 PM
I felt better after writing about that thing, you know.
Oh, I don't doubt that. For all your talk of compassion, dialogue and solidarity, you're a very despicable person.
I'm probably a rather average person morally. I never claimed to be particularly moral. Do you?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 28, 2011, 02:12:14 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:09:03 PM
Killing me would be an atrocity? In this crowd I will take that as a compliment.
How did doing what happened on the weekend become just killing you? Seems delusion isnt isolated to Norwegians.
You idiot. It was in the context of his repeated wishing for me to die.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:09:03 PM
Can't read their minds but I'm guessing that's because MM can't afford to provide health care to everyone and WB might be able to foot the bill for a short while before he runs out of money. I've said it before, structural problems need to be solved structurally, not through pointless vigilante individual action that is a piss in the ocean.
That's just restating my question. If health care for everyone is a good thing, isn't health care for one person (or however many Mike can afford) a good thing too?
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:13:54 PM
"If you think people shouldn't be murdered by those stronger than them, why don't you stop murdering the weaker than you, rather than insisting everyone should do that?" would be an equally idiotic question.
Exactly! Thank you.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:14:26 PM
I'm probably a rather average person morally. I never claimed to be particularly moral. Do you?
I thought it was clear that I consider you a very immoral person.
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:13:54 PM
Uhm this "logic" is called social contract. We do not use violence, respect someone else's property, respect other people's lives and freedoms exactly by that kind of "logic".
"If you think people shouldn't be murdered by those stronger than them, why don't you stop murdering the weaker than you, rather than insisting everyone should do that?" would be an equally idiotic question.
All the things you've mentioned are reciprocal acts. Pat's not talking about about reciprocal acts, he's talking about one-way transfers.
I would think that a guy who's had his arguments blown up time and again would be a little more judicious in labelling the positions of others as idiotic, but I suppose that's all part of what makes you so special.
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 02:19:15 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:14:26 PM
I'm probably a rather average person morally. I never claimed to be particularly moral. Do you?
I thought it was clear that I consider you a very immoral person.
Yes, but then again your notion of morality is rather distorted. It's like asking Charles Manson who his heroes are.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 02:19:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:13:54 PM
Uhm this "logic" is called social contract. We do not use violence, respect someone else's property, respect other people's lives and freedoms exactly by that kind of "logic".
"If you think people shouldn't be murdered by those stronger than them, why don't you stop murdering the weaker than you, rather than insisting everyone should do that?" would be an equally idiotic question.
All the things you've mentioned are reciprocal acts. Pat's not talking about about reciprocal acts, he's talking about one-way transfers.
I would think that a guy who's had his arguments blown up time and again would be a little more judicious in labelling the positions of others as idiotic, but I suppose that's all part of what makes you so special.
I disagree. For a stronger person, a rejection of violence is not really reciprocal, any more than for a rich person an agreement to share wealth with a poorer one is reciprocal.
The reciprocity comes from what I would call a hypothetical solidarity - I will share my wealth with those in a worse situation than I am, on the account that had the situation been reversed, they would do the same for me. A social welfare system guarantees that, not human "good heart". Just as a strong law enforcement system guarantees the strong do not kill the weak - they do not do it out of pure morality either.
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:21:01 PM
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 02:19:15 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:14:26 PM
I'm probably a rather average person morally. I never claimed to be particularly moral. Do you?
I thought it was clear that I consider you a very immoral person.
Yes, but then again your notion of morality is rather distorted. It's like asking Charles Manson who his heroes are.
You've hinted before that you find rape to be a trivial crime, but I guess this seals it. :hmm:
Of course, when it comes to morality one shouldn't expect much from a Polack.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 02:14:37 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:09:03 PM
Can't read their minds but I'm guessing that's because MM can't afford to provide health care to everyone and WB might be able to foot the bill for a short while before he runs out of money. I've said it before, structural problems need to be solved structurally, not through pointless vigilante individual action that is a piss in the ocean.
That's just restating my question. If health care for everyone is a good thing, isn't health care for one person (or however many Mike can afford) a good thing too?
Of course they're good things. But health care for everyone would be even better, and giving away all your money won't make anything change large-scale or big picture anyway. Sorry, perhaps this was not helpful but either I don't understand the question or you don't understand the answer.
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 02:19:15 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:14:26 PM
I'm probably a rather average person morally. I never claimed to be particularly moral. Do you?
I thought it was clear that I consider you a very immoral person.
I asked if you claimed to be particularly moral. And who are you to judge? Is that not for your god? Isn't christianity supposed to be about forgiving, btw? I will readily admit I have done many bad things. I may even go as far as to call them sins. I might even ask for forgiveness. Do you know what's right or wrong, Slargos? If so, why don't you tell me? Help a poor sinner, will you?
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:23:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 02:19:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:13:54 PM
Uhm this "logic" is called social contract. We do not use violence, respect someone else's property, respect other people's lives and freedoms exactly by that kind of "logic".
"If you think people shouldn't be murdered by those stronger than them, why don't you stop murdering the weaker than you, rather than insisting everyone should do that?" would be an equally idiotic question.
All the things you've mentioned are reciprocal acts. Pat's not talking about about reciprocal acts, he's talking about one-way transfers.
I would think that a guy who's had his arguments blown up time and again would be a little more judicious in labelling the positions of others as idiotic, but I suppose that's all part of what makes you so special.
I disagree. For a stronger person, a rejection of violence is not really reciprocal, any more than for a rich person an agreement to share wealth with a poorer one is reciprocal.
The reciprocity comes from what I would call a hypothetical solidarity - I will share my wealth with those in a worse situation than I am, on the account that had the situation been reversed, they would do the same for me. A social welfare system guarantees that, not human "good heart". Just as a strong law enforcement system guarantees the strong do not kill the weak - they do not do it out of pure morality either.
Very good post, just want to say that I agree 100%.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:14:26 PM
You idiot. It was in the context of his repeated wishing for me to die.
You idiot, in the context of him wishing that just you were dead you egged him on to commit mass murder.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:26:54 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:23:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 02:19:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:13:54 PM
Uhm this "logic" is called social contract. We do not use violence, respect someone else's property, respect other people's lives and freedoms exactly by that kind of "logic".
"If you think people shouldn't be murdered by those stronger than them, why don't you stop murdering the weaker than you, rather than insisting everyone should do that?" would be an equally idiotic question.
All the things you've mentioned are reciprocal acts. Pat's not talking about about reciprocal acts, he's talking about one-way transfers.
I would think that a guy who's had his arguments blown up time and again would be a little more judicious in labelling the positions of others as idiotic, but I suppose that's all part of what makes you so special.
I disagree. For a stronger person, a rejection of violence is not really reciprocal, any more than for a rich person an agreement to share wealth with a poorer one is reciprocal.
The reciprocity comes from what I would call a hypothetical solidarity - I will share my wealth with those in a worse situation than I am, on the account that had the situation been reversed, they would do the same for me. A social welfare system guarantees that, not human "good heart". Just as a strong law enforcement system guarantees the strong do not kill the weak - they do not do it out of pure morality either.
Very good post, just want to say that I agree 100%.
Just so you know when Marti says he will share his wealth he is talking just as hypothetically as you. no way in hell he would do so voluntarily and so its easy to say since he knows that he will not have to give it up mandatorily. In short he suffers from the same thing as you. Strong faux morals.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 28, 2011, 02:27:24 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:14:26 PM
You idiot. It was in the context of his repeated wishing for me to die.
You idiot, in the context of him wishing that just you were dead you egged him on to commit mass murder.
And judging from your replies you don't exactly seem to disagree with me in my view of Slargos. Actually, I'd rather he killed me and were caught than have something like that happen again.
Quote
Just so you know when Marti says he will share his wealth he is talking just as hypothetically as you. no way in hell he would do so voluntarily and so its easy to say since he knows that he will not have to give it up mandatorily. In short he suffers from the same thing as you. Strong faux morals.
I could say something about you and your morals, except I know pretty much nothing about you, so who am I to judge?
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:31:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 28, 2011, 02:27:24 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:14:26 PM
You idiot. It was in the context of his repeated wishing for me to die.
You idiot, in the context of him wishing that just you were dead you egged him on to commit mass murder.
And judging from your replies you don't exactly seem to disagree with me in my view of Slargos. Actually, I'd rather he killed me and were caught than have something like that happen again.
Is that an invitation? :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:23:33 PM
I disagree. For a stronger person, a rejection of violence is not really reciprocal, any more than for a rich person an agreement to share wealth with a poorer one is reciprocal.
The reciprocity comes from what I would call a hypothetical solidarity - I will share my wealth with those in a worse situation than I am, on the account that had the situation been reversed, they would do the same for me. A social welfare system guarantees that, not human "good heart". Just as a strong law enforcement system guarantees the strong do not kill the weak - they do not do it out of pure morality either.
The strongest man in the world is just as susceptible to a knife in the liver or bullet in the brain as the weakest.
I understand the argument about the vagaries of fortune and chances of birth (I've studied Rawls too). It breaks down a bit in the national setting, where most countries have already experienced examples of recipients of social insurance who are not as eager as prophesied to view it as a reciprocal system of insurance against misfortune but rather as one-way transfer. And it's completely useless in the international context, where the currently starving Somalis who would stand to benefit from Ashley Olsen's $39,000 backpack being diverted to improving their lives can not be coerced into reciprocating once their lives have improved.
So it seems to me without the ability to coerce reciprocity, you lose the argument for the original coerced transfer.
As for your morality, Pat, you are surely damned by the heinous act of forcing me into agreement with CC. :D
Fire. Die. Etc.
Edit: What really gets me about you and yours, Pat, is that you swear by ideology and you would pretend to hold "good" values yet when given the chance to act in a righteous manner, you simply don't. Not because of any weakness of character, but because you're simply too selfish. You are the worst kind of filth.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2011, 12:00:38 PM
This thread took a strange turn.
Because everyone here - save Brazen - agree that that crocodile skin packbag is a fashion crime, so what else is there to discuss?
Quote from: Drakken on July 28, 2011, 02:53:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2011, 12:00:38 PM
This thread took a strange turn.
Because everyone here - save Brazen - agree that that crocodile skin packbag is a fashion crime, so what else is there to discuss?
I don't agree to that. In fact, I really don't care much about one way or the other. I am agnostic as to the issue of Crocodile skin packbags. It just seems an odd thing to start a thread over.
I don't think there's anything wrong with crocodile skin. I'd like to see more of it.
Contrarian buggers. <_<
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:25:09 PM
Of course they're good things. But health care for everyone would be even better, and giving away all your money won't make anything change large-scale or big picture anyway. Sorry, perhaps this was not helpful but either I don't understand the question or you don't understand the answer.
So the individual doesn't need to do anything because the state operating for all would be better?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmanolomen.com%2Fimages%2FVersace%2520alligator%2520suit.JPG&hash=4e731b156d1fc11f74eae05a2605d8511bd880ea)
:bleeding:
Quote from: garbon on July 28, 2011, 03:11:38 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmanolomen.com%2Fimages%2FVersace%2520alligator%2520suit.JPG&hash=4e731b156d1fc11f74eae05a2605d8511bd880ea)
I'd fuck me. I'd fuck me hard.
Quote from: garbon on July 28, 2011, 03:10:55 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:25:09 PM
Of course they're good things. But health care for everyone would be even better, and giving away all your money won't make anything change large-scale or big picture anyway. Sorry, perhaps this was not helpful but either I don't understand the question or you don't understand the answer.
So the individual doesn't need to do anything because the state operating for all would be better?
No, I don't wish for that extreme. I'm taking dialectical positions in my arguments and they need to be understood in their context.
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 02:41:36 PM
As for your morality, Pat, you are surely damned by the heinous act of forcing me into agreement with CC. :D
Fire. Die. Etc.
Edit: What really gets me about you and yours, Pat, is that you swear by ideology and you would pretend to hold "good" values yet when given the chance to act in a righteous manner, you simply don't. Not because of any weakness of character, but because you're simply too selfish. You are the worst kind of filth.
Well, what can I say? I forgive you for you wanting me dead. I don't wish you anything bad, even though I disagree with you. I think you're at your core a good person that's gone bad. A bit like in the Bible, you know? The devil being a fallen angel, and all that. But I don't think the devil should be feared, he should be pitied.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je8MXiwmNIk
Quote from: garbon on July 28, 2011, 03:11:38 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmanolomen.com%2Fimages%2FVersace%2520alligator%2520suit.JPG&hash=4e731b156d1fc11f74eae05a2605d8511bd880ea)
That is pimpin'. :)
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:14:26 PM
I'm probably a rather average person morally.
I rather doubt it. The average person isn't a rapist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 02:41:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:23:33 PM
I disagree. For a stronger person, a rejection of violence is not really reciprocal, any more than for a rich person an agreement to share wealth with a poorer one is reciprocal.
The reciprocity comes from what I would call a hypothetical solidarity - I will share my wealth with those in a worse situation than I am, on the account that had the situation been reversed, they would do the same for me. A social welfare system guarantees that, not human "good heart". Just as a strong law enforcement system guarantees the strong do not kill the weak - they do not do it out of pure morality either.
The strongest man in the world is just as susceptible to a knife in the liver or bullet in the brain as the weakest.
I understand the argument about the vagaries of fortune and chances of birth (I've studied Rawls too). It breaks down a bit in the national setting, where most countries have already experienced examples of recipients of social insurance who are not as eager as prophesied to view it as a reciprocal system of insurance against misfortune but rather as one-way transfer. And it's completely useless in the international context, where the currently starving Somalis who would stand to benefit from Ashley Olsen's $39,000 backpack being diverted to improving their lives can not be coerced into reciprocating once their lives have improved.
So it seems to me without the ability to coerce reciprocity, you lose the argument for the original coerced transfer.
That's really well argued.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 02:41:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:23:33 PM
I disagree. For a stronger person, a rejection of violence is not really reciprocal, any more than for a rich person an agreement to share wealth with a poorer one is reciprocal.
The reciprocity comes from what I would call a hypothetical solidarity - I will share my wealth with those in a worse situation than I am, on the account that had the situation been reversed, they would do the same for me. A social welfare system guarantees that, not human "good heart". Just as a strong law enforcement system guarantees the strong do not kill the weak - they do not do it out of pure morality either.
The strongest man in the world is just as susceptible to a knife in the liver or bullet in the brain as the weakest.
I understand the argument about the vagaries of fortune and chances of birth (I've studied Rawls too). It breaks down a bit in the national setting, where most countries have already experienced examples of recipients of social insurance who are not as eager as prophesied to view it as a reciprocal system of insurance against misfortune but rather as one-way transfer. And it's completely useless in the international context, where the currently starving Somalis who would stand to benefit from Ashley Olsen's $39,000 backpack being diverted to improving their lives can not be coerced into reciprocating once their lives have improved.
So it seems to me without the ability to coerce reciprocity, you lose the argument for the original coerced transfer.
Ok, Yi. If your argument against helping this child:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegrio.com%2Fassets_c%2F2011%2F07%2Fstarving-somalian-thumb-400xauto-21952.jpg&hash=930aa77120769efa568f8b0281d5b6dee1a6c810)
is that it is unlikely to repay you back, then I really see no point discussing anything with you any further.
Quote from: The Brain on July 28, 2011, 03:05:39 PM
I don't think there's anything wrong with crocodile skin. I'd like to see more of it.
Same. I think the bag is rather pretty. i think crocodile skin is fine on accessories - stuff like suits and coats are a no-no, of course.
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:37:17 PM
I could say something about you and your morals, except I know pretty much nothing about you, so who am I to judge?
If you were to do so you would merely be speculating what my morals might be while on the other hand you have explicitly expressed yours.
You were quite right to remain silent on the subject.
hey marti. how do you feel about the fact that your monthly payment on your flat could feed that kid's entire vilage. :hmm: :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 04:52:36 PM
Ok, Yi. If your argument against helping this child:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freakyweather.com%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Flocust.jpg&hash=cfd124d99ab33b124237d6ce9b8a72b1a96f9b2e)
is that it is unlikely to repay you back, then I really see no point discussing anything with you any further.
FYP.
:lol: man that's cold :lol:
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 05:06:48 PM
hey marti. how do you feel about the fact that your monthly payment on your flat could feed that kid's entire vilage. :hmm: :hmm:
Marty should let Somali refugees move in with him.
God, you guys are such assholes. :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 28, 2011, 05:02:05 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:37:17 PM
I could say something about you and your morals, except I know pretty much nothing about you, so who am I to judge?
If you were to do so you would merely be speculating what my morals might be while on the other hand you have explicitly expressed yours.
You were quite right to remain silent on the subject.
Have I explicitly expressed my morals? Then what of them is it that you find so repugnant? Please bear in mind we are talking about morals and not individual actions.
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 05:06:48 PM
hey marti. how do you feel about the fact that your monthly payment on your flat could feed that kid's entire vilage. :hmm: :hmm:
Well, I may be a selfish asshole but I don't try to adopt a faux ideology to justify my iniquity.
Except when it comes to fucking guys. I built an entire moral system around it. :P
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 05:20:50 PM
God, you guys are such assholes. :lol:
If you can make a goofy appeal to retarded emotion, then I can make an appeal to dickery.
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 04:52:36 PM
I really see no point discussing anything with you any further.
Tell me Marti, what prevents you from giving up your high standard of living to help feed that child?
edit nvm
Quote from: Slargos on July 28, 2011, 09:56:16 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 28, 2011, 09:54:38 AM
I spent over a thousand on a smoker/grill and it is fabulous. No swedes are invited to my cookout. Well, maybe Brain if he brings some animals to grill.
:cry:
What if I promised to behave?
You are always welcome at my kosher cookout.
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 04:52:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 02:41:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:23:33 PM
I disagree. For a stronger person, a rejection of violence is not really reciprocal, any more than for a rich person an agreement to share wealth with a poorer one is reciprocal.
The reciprocity comes from what I would call a hypothetical solidarity - I will share my wealth with those in a worse situation than I am, on the account that had the situation been reversed, they would do the same for me. A social welfare system guarantees that, not human "good heart". Just as a strong law enforcement system guarantees the strong do not kill the weak - they do not do it out of pure morality either.
The strongest man in the world is just as susceptible to a knife in the liver or bullet in the brain as the weakest.
I understand the argument about the vagaries of fortune and chances of birth (I've studied Rawls too). It breaks down a bit in the national setting, where most countries have already experienced examples of recipients of social insurance who are not as eager as prophesied to view it as a reciprocal system of insurance against misfortune but rather as one-way transfer. And it's completely useless in the international context, where the currently starving Somalis who would stand to benefit from Ashley Olsen's $39,000 backpack being diverted to improving their lives can not be coerced into reciprocating once their lives have improved.
So it seems to me without the ability to coerce reciprocity, you lose the argument for the original coerced transfer.
Ok, Yi. If your argument against helping this child:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegrio.com%2Fassets_c%2F2011%2F07%2Fstarving-somalian-thumb-400xauto-21952.jpg&hash=930aa77120769efa568f8b0281d5b6dee1a6c810)
Seems like a bad investment. I don't own any cotton fields. Also seems like it couldn't pick any cotton if I did either.
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 04:52:36 PM
Ok, Yi. If your argument against helping this child:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegrio.com%2Fassets_c%2F2011%2F07%2Fstarving-somalian-thumb-400xauto-21952.jpg&hash=930aa77120769efa568f8b0281d5b6dee1a6c810)
is that it is unlikely to repay you back, then I really see no point discussing anything with you any further.
I haven't made any arguments against helping that child. The arguments in favor are abundant and self-evident. I've asked the question why someone who *is* inclined to help that child is unable to do so unless others are too.
But you of course knew that before you posted.
Quote from: Neil on July 28, 2011, 05:17:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 04:52:36 PM
Ok, Yi. If your argument against helping this child:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freakyweather.com%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Flocust.jpg&hash=cfd124d99ab33b124237d6ce9b8a72b1a96f9b2e)
is that it is unlikely to repay you back, then I really see no point discussing anything with you any further.
FYP.
They are likely equivalent, as both are probably dead by now.
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 04:52:36 PM
Ok, Yi. If your argument against helping this child:
Is that a human-bat hybrid?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegrio.com%2Fassets_c%2F2011%2F07%2Fstarving-somalian-thumb-400xauto-21952.jpg&hash=930aa77120769efa568f8b0281d5b6dee1a6c810) = (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud.frontpagemag.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Fpakmad.jpg&hash=d8ebcb57f6aa39945b30125fa0562077f22875a4) = (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldsecuritynetwork.com%2FArticleImages%2FHamas_suicideEng_0001.jpg&hash=8cd640bc5253e0b5372611b44b1c7bc3f1718dac)
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2011, 06:27:14 PM
They are likely equivalent, as both are probably dead by now.
I know this is Languish, but saying a dead child is equal to a dead bug is still pretty low, even for you, Raz.
Quote from: Siege on July 28, 2011, 07:11:44 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegrio.com%2Fassets_c%2F2011%2F07%2Fstarving-somalian-thumb-400xauto-21952.jpg&hash=930aa77120769efa568f8b0281d5b6dee1a6c810) = (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud.frontpagemag.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Fpakmad.jpg&hash=d8ebcb57f6aa39945b30125fa0562077f22875a4) = (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldsecuritynetwork.com%2FArticleImages%2FHamas_suicideEng_0001.jpg&hash=8cd640bc5253e0b5372611b44b1c7bc3f1718dac)
The smartest thing you have said (well, put in pictures) in ages. Crushing poverty and hunger breeds extremism.
That's funny. Sweden had crushing hunger and poverty in the 19th century, yet I must've completely missed the extremism that resulted from it.
Might be a failure of my meager education, however, I will admit.
Perhaps you can enlighten me, Martinus?
Quote from: Slargos on July 29, 2011, 05:47:32 AM
That's funny. Sweden had crushing hunger and poverty in the 19th century, yet I must've completely missed the extremism that resulted from it.
Might be a failure of my meager education, however, I will admit.
Perhaps you can enlighten me, Martinus?
I'm sure 19th century Sweden is an apt analogy for 21st century Somalia, but I do not immediately see it. Perhaps you can enlighten me, Slargos?
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2011, 05:56:32 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 29, 2011, 05:47:32 AM
That's funny. Sweden had crushing hunger and poverty in the 19th century, yet I must've completely missed the extremism that resulted from it.
Might be a failure of my meager education, however, I will admit.
Perhaps you can enlighten me, Martinus?
I'm sure 19th century Sweden is an apt analogy for 21st century Somalia, but I do not immediately see it. Perhaps you can enlighten me, Slargos?
You make the blanket statement, you lie on the filthy bed.
Quote from: Slargos on July 29, 2011, 05:59:25 AM
You make the blanket statement, you lie on the filthy bed.
I thought you considered grumbler to be an idiot when he argues the way you just did.
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2011, 06:01:05 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 29, 2011, 05:59:25 AM
You make the blanket statement, you lie on the filthy bed.
I thought you considered grumbler to be an idiot when he argues the way you just did.
When you turn around a causal relationship like a goddamned fucktard, there's every excuse.
The way i see it poverty on its own doesn't create extremism. 19th century sweden sucked? guess what, 19th centaury anywhere sucked. it's poverty in contrast to others wealth (or apparent wealth) that pisses everyone off. starving somali sees a western movie or commercial, or any media really, and it looks like everyone is loaded. then he gets pissed. French revolution same shit. poor can't eat, rish building guilded palaces, heads come off. You can find other examples.
That's not to say that's the only cause of extremism, but Marti isn't way off in his view. Still doubt he'll give money to the poor somali's to stop their plight and segue into extremism.
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2011, 05:22:20 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 28, 2011, 07:11:44 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegrio.com%2Fassets_c%2F2011%2F07%2Fstarving-somalian-thumb-400xauto-21952.jpg&hash=930aa77120769efa568f8b0281d5b6dee1a6c810) = (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud.frontpagemag.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Fpakmad.jpg&hash=d8ebcb57f6aa39945b30125fa0562077f22875a4) = (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldsecuritynetwork.com%2FArticleImages%2FHamas_suicideEng_0001.jpg&hash=8cd640bc5253e0b5372611b44b1c7bc3f1718dac)
The smartest thing you have said (well, put in pictures) in ages. Crushing poverty and hunger breeds extremism.
You do realize how retarded you sound, right?
Terrorists are middle and upper class.
The lowest classes are terrorists only if palestinians.
Other muslim lower classes have little if any participation in terrorist activities.
They are too poor to worry about ideology.
Like Karl Marx said, "a man have to eat and dress, then think of communism".
Quote from: Slargos on July 29, 2011, 05:47:32 AM
That's funny. Sweden had crushing hunger and poverty in the 19th century, yet I must've completely missed the extremism that resulted from it.
Might be a failure of my meager education, however, I will admit.
Perhaps you can enlighten me, Martinus?
Would anyone have even noticed if Sweden had extremism? Maybe it had extremism, but in the real world nobody noticed or cared. Didn't half the country break away and become Norway in 1905 or something?
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:13:54 PM
"If you think people shouldn't be murdered by those stronger than them, why don't you stop murdering the weaker than you, rather than insisting everyone should do that?" would be an equally idiotic question.
Exactly! Thank you.
Well, at least we found someone who can swallow Marti's absurd analogies! :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2011, 06:11:52 PM
Would anyone have even noticed if Sweden had extremism? Maybe it had extremism, but in the real world nobody noticed or cared. Didn't half the country break away and become Norway in 1905 or something?
Even that was fairly benign, it was more of a divorce than a secession. Besides, odds are Sweden would have lost a Reconquest war with Norway.
Swedes who were starving (and no, they weren't really starving to death, just witnessing a long series of drought in a backward society) had one big neon-beaming option - leaving for America, where settlers were wanted and invited. Somalian starvers, not so much. No one wants colonies of flies in their backyards, and migrating somewhere else in Africa only means a continuation of starvation in the desert.
Quote from: Drakken on August 04, 2011, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2011, 06:11:52 PM
Would anyone have even noticed if Sweden had extremism? Maybe it had extremism, but in the real world nobody noticed or cared. Didn't half the country break away and become Norway in 1905 or something?
Even that was fairly benign, it was more of a divorce than a secession. Besides, odds are Sweden would have lost a Reconquest war with Norway.
Swedes who were starving (and no, they weren't really starving to death, just witnessing a long series of drought in a backward society) had one big neon-beaming option - leaving for America, where settlers were wanted and invited. Somalian starvers, not so much. No one wants colonies of flies in their backyards, and migrating somewhere else in Africa only means a continuation of starvation in the desert.
One interesting bit of trivia is that in the late 19th/early 20th century in North America, Swedes were discriminated against on the basis of their alleged stupidity. You can see references to this in the short stories of Jack London and poetry of Robert Service.
The "Dumb Swede" was a stock character.
Quote from: Drakken on August 04, 2011, 09:53:34 AM
Swedes who were starving (and no, they weren't really starving to death,
:yeahright:
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2011, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: Drakken on August 04, 2011, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2011, 06:11:52 PM
Would anyone have even noticed if Sweden had extremism? Maybe it had extremism, but in the real world nobody noticed or cared. Didn't half the country break away and become Norway in 1905 or something?
Even that was fairly benign, it was more of a divorce than a secession. Besides, odds are Sweden would have lost a Reconquest war with Norway.
Swedes who were starving (and no, they weren't really starving to death, just witnessing a long series of drought in a backward society) had one big neon-beaming option - leaving for America, where settlers were wanted and invited. Somalian starvers, not so much. No one wants colonies of flies in their backyards, and migrating somewhere else in Africa only means a continuation of starvation in the desert.
One interesting bit of trivia is that in the late 19th/early 20th century in North America, Swedes were discriminated against on the basis of their alleged stupidity. You can see references to this in the short stories of Jack London and poetry of Robert Service.
The "Dumb Swede" was a stock character.
Still lives in the dumb Minnesotan stereotype.
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2011, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: Drakken on August 04, 2011, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2011, 06:11:52 PM
Would anyone have even noticed if Sweden had extremism? Maybe it had extremism, but in the real world nobody noticed or cared. Didn't half the country break away and become Norway in 1905 or something?
Even that was fairly benign, it was more of a divorce than a secession. Besides, odds are Sweden would have lost a Reconquest war with Norway.
Swedes who were starving (and no, they weren't really starving to death, just witnessing a long series of drought in a backward society) had one big neon-beaming option - leaving for America, where settlers were wanted and invited. Somalian starvers, not so much. No one wants colonies of flies in their backyards, and migrating somewhere else in Africa only means a continuation of starvation in the desert.
One interesting bit of trivia is that in the late 19th/early 20th century in North America, Swedes were discriminated against on the basis of their alleged stupidity. You can see references to this in the short stories of Jack London and poetry of Robert Service.
The "Dumb Swede" was a stock character.
We worked hard though. I'm like an anti-Swede.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 12:05:37 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
I don't mind paying high taxes. I'm a selfish bastard but I don't mind limiting my own wealth as long as everyone else does the same.
I have never understood this logic. Michael Moore wants sick people to have cheap health care. Warren Buffet wants teachers to be paid more. Why don't they write a check? If the basic premise is correct, that these outcomes are morally superior, then why do they require the coerced participation of other people?
And I never understood the logic you employ. Both Moore and Buffett are making arguments about how a system should be set up, not about what people should do voluntarily. Systems require coercion. Your argument is pretty much the same as the argument that goes like "Think taxes should be higher? Why don't you donate to the Treasury?"
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2011, 05:20:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2011, 06:27:14 PM
They are likely equivalent, as both are probably dead by now.
I know this is Languish, but saying a dead child is equal to a dead bug is still pretty low, even for you, Raz.
Wow it warms my heart to see you coming out in favor of children Marty :cry:
To be fair, Marty didn't say outright whether the action required was to reduce child starvation, or to increase it.
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2011, 10:31:55 AM
One interesting bit of trivia is that in the late 19th/early 20th century in North America, Swedes were discriminated against on the basis of their alleged stupidity. You can see references to this in the short stories of Jack London and poetry of Robert Service.
The "Dumb Swede" was a stock character.
It was also there in Stephen Crane's novella
The Blue Hotel. The protagonist comes in romanticizing the violence in the West, to the point of foolishly insisting to drink with gamblers in a saloon like they were his pals, and ends dead stabbed because of it.
Same in Wilhelm Möberg's
Emigrants saga. Karl Oskar's brother Robert heads west to seek gold with his pal, almost dies in the process (his pal dies from drinking contaminated water), finally strikes gold later only to be conned by having his findings traded for wildcat currency.
He comes back to his brother's farm thinking they were finally rich, only to see his brother kicking him out in fury after having being laughed at when he went to buy stuff with the paper money Robert had brought back, thinking he was the one conning him. It's less because he was a Swede, than because he was a clueless and naive dreamer.
Quote from: The Brain on August 04, 2011, 10:36:18 AM
Quote from: Drakken on August 04, 2011, 09:53:34 AM
Swedes who were starving (and no, they weren't really starving to death,
:yeahright:
Point taken. I stand corrected.
They were, but not at the level of Ethiopia or Somalia.
I think that if there is a billion people too many in this planet, and this billion need to go, it is better if they are from the 3rd world.
3rd world people are not as self-aware as we are. Very few of them read books, create art, new technologies, etc.
If it weren't from the West they would still eating each other waiting for their Rennaisssance Event to occur.
If a billion people have to starve, let them be the uncivilized ones that aport very little to human advancement and our ultimate goal of Reaching For The Stars becoming a Galactic Civilization.
Quote from: Drakken on August 04, 2011, 11:43:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2011, 10:31:55 AM
One interesting bit of trivia is that in the late 19th/early 20th century in North America, Swedes were discriminated against on the basis of their alleged stupidity. You can see references to this in the short stories of Jack London and poetry of Robert Service.
The "Dumb Swede" was a stock character.
It was also there in Stephen Crane's novella The Blue Hotel. The protagonist comes in romanticizing the violence in the West, to the point of foolishly insisting to drink with gamblers in a saloon like they were his pals, and ends dead stabbed because of it.
Same in Wilhelm Möberg's Emigrants saga. Karl Oskar's brother Robert heads west to seek gold with his pal, almost dies in the process (his pal dies from drinking contaminated water), finally strikes gold later only to be conned by having his findings traded for wildcat currency.
He comes back to his brother's farm thinking they were finally rich, only to see his brother kicking him out in fury after having being laughed at when he went to buy stuff with the paper money Robert had brought back, thinking he was the one conning him. It's less because he was a Swede, than because he was a clueless and naive dreamer.
The "dumb Swede" being extra gullable and preyed on by sharpers is definitely part of the stereotype. Though Robert Service has the "Dumb Swede" turn the tables on his tormentors in one of his poems:
Quote
Dumb Swede
With barbwire hooch they filled him full,
Till he was drunker than all hell,
And then they peddled him the bull
About a claim they had to sell.
A thousand bucks they made him pay,
Knowing that he had nothing more,
And when he begged it back next day,
And wept! - they kicked him from the door.
They reckoned they were mighty slick,
Them two tinhorns from Idaho;
That poor dumb Swede could swing a pick,
but that was all he'd ever know.
So sitting in a poker game,
They lost the price for which they sold
To that bonehead a poor dud claim
That didn't have a speck of gold.
My story's true as gospel creed
Of these bright boys from Idaho;
They made a sucker of that Swede
And laughed to see the poor boob go,
And work like nigger on his ground,
Bucked by the courage of despair . . .
Till lo! A rich pay-streak he found,
That made him twice a millionaire.
So two smart Alecs, mighty sick,
Begged jobs at fifteen bucks a day.
Then said the Swede: "Give each a pick
And let them sweat to make their pay."
And though he don't know what it means,
Folks call that Swede "magnanimous"
- But picking nuggets big as beans,
you oughta' hear them fellers cuss!
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2011, 12:39:45 PM
The "dumb Swede" being extra gullable and preyed on by sharpers is definitely part of the stereotype. Though Robert Service has the "Dumb Swede" turn the tables on his tormentors in one of his poems:
(snip)
The Swede doesn't turn the tables at all; he "he begged it back next day," and then got lucky when they refused. No actions of his resulted in the "bright boys from Idaho" cursing; it was their bad luck that pissed them off.
The moral is more about the "smart Alecs" outsmarting themselves than the actions of the Dumb Swede.
Quote from: Drakken on August 04, 2011, 11:43:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2011, 10:31:55 AM
One interesting bit of trivia is that in the late 19th/early 20th century in North America, Swedes were discriminated against on the basis of their alleged stupidity. You can see references to this in the short stories of Jack London and poetry of Robert Service.
The "Dumb Swede" was a stock character.
It was also there in Stephen Crane's novella The Blue Hotel. The protagonist comes in romanticizing the violence in the West, to the point of foolishly insisting to drink with gamblers in a saloon like they were his pals, and ends dead stabbed because of it.
Same in Wilhelm Möberg's Emigrants saga. Karl Oskar's brother Robert heads west to seek gold with his pal, almost dies in the process (his pal dies from drinking contaminated water), finally strikes gold later only to be conned by having his findings traded for wildcat currency.
He comes back to his brother's farm thinking they were finally rich, only to see his brother kicking him out in fury after having being laughed at when he went to buy stuff with the paper money Robert had brought back, thinking he was the one conning him. It's less because he was a Swede, than because he was a clueless and naive dreamer.
:bleeding:
Yeah, it's Moberg. However, everything's cooler with ümläüts. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2011, 12:53:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2011, 12:39:45 PM
The "dumb Swede" being extra gullable and preyed on by sharpers is definitely part of the stereotype. Though Robert Service has the "Dumb Swede" turn the tables on his tormentors in one of his poems:
(snip)
The Swede doesn't turn the tables at all; he "he begged it back next day," and then got lucky when they refused. No actions of his resulted in the "bright boys from Idaho" cursing; it was their bad luck that pissed them off.
The moral is more about the "smart Alecs" outsmarting themselves than the actions of the Dumb Swede.
It is true that he hits the motherlode by dumb luck (and hard work), but he "turns the tables" on the slicks by "magnanimously" offering them jobs on his gold mine, just to rub it in.
If I may speculate, for a moment, it wouldn't at all surprise me if the "dumb Swede" stereotype comes from the fact that Swedes in general are relatively naive and trusting. Stemming, most likely, from the odd 600 years of very thorough religious indoctrination. The idea that what we're told by schools, journalists and politicians (or earlier on the priesthood and the king) can actually be counter-factual, and (even more horrifyingly) questioned often seems to be anathema.
I like to think of Ned Stark, for instance, as very, very Swedish. :D
Quote from: Valmy on August 04, 2011, 11:11:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2011, 05:20:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2011, 06:27:14 PM
They are likely equivalent, as both are probably dead by now.
I know this is Languish, but saying a dead child is equal to a dead bug is still pretty low, even for you, Raz.
Wow it warms my heart to see you coming out in favor of children Marty :cry:
I genuinly don't see why Marty was unhappy. A dead human and a dead bug are both are dead. A dead bug is actually worth more since you can sell it to hungry Chinese. It's illegal to sell parts of a human body.
Here's a modern retelling, thanks to Unsolved Mysteries, however it's painfully real this time as it's still unsolved. Even though it's true crime, it's the sort of things a modern Stephen Crane or Robert Service would have learned of and muttered "dumb Swede".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f37BN502_hg
Watching it at first, I never thought of this as "dumb Swede" per se. But now in hindsight it's true that the two were repeatedly advised not to hitchhike due to the risk, by American and Swedes alike, and they shrugged it off thinking they would be allright.
I wonder if UM did pander to that character stock template in the way they constructed and edited this segment, by focusing on the fact that they were Swedish and, thus, naive. Why them, and not the gazillions of girls hitchhiking and getting napped each year in the US?
Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2011, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: Drakken on August 04, 2011, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2011, 06:11:52 PM
Would anyone have even noticed if Sweden had extremism? Maybe it had extremism, but in the real world nobody noticed or cared. Didn't half the country break away and become Norway in 1905 or something?
Even that was fairly benign, it was more of a divorce than a secession. Besides, odds are Sweden would have lost a Reconquest war with Norway.
Swedes who were starving (and no, they weren't really starving to death, just witnessing a long series of drought in a backward society) had one big neon-beaming option - leaving for America, where settlers were wanted and invited. Somalian starvers, not so much. No one wants colonies of flies in their backyards, and migrating somewhere else in Africa only means a continuation of starvation in the desert.
One interesting bit of trivia is that in the late 19th/early 20th century in North America, Swedes were discriminated against on the basis of their alleged stupidity. You can see references to this in the short stories of Jack London and poetry of Robert Service.
The "Dumb Swede" was a stock character.
Well they did come across the ocean from Sweden and settle in
Minnesota.
Quote from: Drakken on August 04, 2011, 01:17:32 PM
Here's a modern retelling, thanks to Unsolved Mysteries, however it's painfully real this time. Even though it's true crime, it's the sort of things a modern Stephen Crane or Robert Service would have learned of and muttered "dumb Swede".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f37BN502_hg
Watching it at first, I never thought of this as "dumb Swede" per se. But now in hindsight it's true that the two were repeatedly advised not to hitchhike due to the risk, even by American and Swedes alike, and they shrugged it off thinking they would be allright.
I wonder if UM did pander to that character stock template in the way they constructed and edited this segment, by focusing on the fact that they were Swedish and, thus, naive.
I used to love that show as a kid.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 01:20:52 PM
I used to love that show as a kid.
Knock yourself out, there are plenty of segments on Youtube. :cool:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 01:19:44 PM
Well they did come across the ocean from Sweden and settle in Minnesota.
It's pure coincidence: Minnesota is actually in Dakota language, not a transfiguration of "Sweet Memories" in Swedish.
Quote from: Siege on August 04, 2011, 12:25:12 PM
I think that if there is a billion people too many in this planet, and this billion need to go, it is better if they are from the 3rd world.
3rd world people are not as self-aware as we are. Very few of them read books, create art, new technologies, etc.
If it weren't from the West they would still eating each other waiting for their Rennaisssance Event to occur.
If a billion people have to starve, let them be the uncivilized ones that aport very little to human advancement and our ultimate goal of Reaching For The Stars becoming a Galactic Civilization.
There are actually about six-and-a-half billion too many. Some First-Worlders are going to have to go too, and what was the Second World and the Third World should both be almost entirely depopulated.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 01:19:44 PM
Well they did come across the ocean from Sweden and settle in Minnesota.
Garrison Keiler explaied that (in the case of Norwegians, but the story would be the same for Swedes) along the lines of "they settled in Minnesota because the soil and climate reminded them of Norway, forgetting that it was the climate and soil of Norway that had driven them to America in the first place."
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2011, 01:33:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 01:19:44 PM
Well they did come across the ocean from Sweden and settle in Minnesota.
Garrison Keiler explaied that (in the case of Norwegians, but the story would be the same for Swedes) along the lines of "they settled in Minnesota because the soil and climate reminded them of Norway, forgetting that it was the climate and soil of Norway that had driven them to America in the first place."
:huh:
Overpopulation, famine and poverty drove them from Scandinavia, certainly not the
climate.
What a preposterous notion. :huh:
Oh, I see. He's a comedian. Nevermind then. :D
Really? Norway is a bigger country then say Poland yet there are many more Poles then there are people in Norway. Why?
Riddle me this, you obtuse little cunt: Sweden has the exact (well, more or less) same climate and soil conditions as Norway does yet is able to sustain a far larger population. Why is that?
Maybe the Climate and the Soil aren't quite exactly the same?
Sweden: 6,894,100 acres of arable land.
Norway: 2,229,000 acres of arable land.
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Norway-AGRICULTURE.html
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Sweden-AGRICULTURE.html
What does the climate and soil type have to do with the amount of arable land?
Nice try, Slargos, but "Dumb Swede" is still just a myth.
Quote from: Slargos on August 04, 2011, 02:02:39 PM
What does the climate and soil type have to do with the amount of arable land?
Can't grow crops on bad land. Arable land is a major factor in historical population growth. The more land that is useful for farming(the soil and the climate), the higher your historical populations will be since historically population has been limited by food production. There are exceptions of course, but generally that's the way it goes.
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 02:04:12 PM
Nice try, Slargos, but "Dumb Swede" is still just a myth.
Some of our own resident foumites do try their best to give that stereotype legs, though ... :hmm:
;)
Le sigh.
What causes Norway to have relatively less arable land than Sweden is the rather higher percentage of naked bedrock. IE mountains.
The other differences in top soil are marginal. In fact, some of the most arable land in Scandinavia is in Norway.
Arguing that "the climate" or "the soil" are the reasons why Norwegians left Norway for the Americas is obtuse beyond belief.
By the same token, the reason Norwegians left Norway is actually the Big Bang.
How curious to believe that it was the climate which drove people from Scandinavia.
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 02:04:12 PM
Nice try, Slargos, but "Dumb Swede" is still just a myth.
:rolleyes:
How fucking ironic.
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 11:04:18 AM
And I never understood the logic you employ. Both Moore and Buffett are making arguments about how a system should be set up, not about what people should do voluntarily. Systems require coercion. Your argument is pretty much the same as the argument that goes like "Think taxes should be higher? Why don't you donate to the Treasury?"
My argument is the same as saying that if you think global warming is a problem you should be making efforts to reduce carbon emissions even if there are no government regulations in place.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 04, 2011, 02:29:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 11:04:18 AM
And I never understood the logic you employ. Both Moore and Buffett are making arguments about how a system should be set up, not about what people should do voluntarily. Systems require coercion. Your argument is pretty much the same as the argument that goes like "Think taxes should be higher? Why don't you donate to the Treasury?"
My argument is the same as saying that if you think global warming is a problem you should be making efforts to reduce carbon emissions even if there are no government regulations in place.
But if no one else is doing it, why should you inconvenience yourself? It wouldn't be
fair. :P
Quote from: Slargos on August 04, 2011, 02:18:16 PM
Le sigh.
What causes Norway to have relatively less arable land than Sweden is the rather higher percentage of naked bedrock. IE mountains.
The other differences in top soil are marginal. In fact, some of the most arable land in Scandinavia is in Norway.
Arguing that "the climate" or "the soil" are the reasons why Norwegians left Norway for the Americas is obtuse beyond belief.
By the same token, the reason Norwegians left Norway is actually the Big Bang.
I thought you wanted to know why there are more people in Sweden then Norway. Make up goddamn mind.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 02:32:59 PM
I thought you wanted to know why there are more people in Sweden then Norway. Make up goddamn mind.
It was a rhetorical question.
Quote from: Slargos on August 04, 2011, 02:33:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 02:32:59 PM
I thought you wanted to know why there are more people in Sweden then Norway. Make up goddamn mind.
It was a rhetorical question.
What was the point?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 02:35:22 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 04, 2011, 02:33:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 02:32:59 PM
I thought you wanted to know why there are more people in Sweden then Norway. Make up goddamn mind.
It was a rhetorical question.
What was the point?
Sometimes I wonder myself.
If some goddamned idiot believes "the climate" and "the soil" are sufficient reasons for the scandinavian migrations of the 19th century, they are clearly not salvagable.
Think about what you want to say before you say it. That might prevent instances like this.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 02:43:08 PM
Think about what you want to say before you say it. That might prevent instances like this.
Since the problem here is your immense capacity for stupidity, whatever I have to say is completely irrelevant and will neither prevent nor promote anything.
I feel bad for you. :console:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 04, 2011, 02:29:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 11:04:18 AM
And I never understood the logic you employ. Both Moore and Buffett are making arguments about how a system should be set up, not about what people should do voluntarily. Systems require coercion. Your argument is pretty much the same as the argument that goes like "Think taxes should be higher? Why don't you donate to the Treasury?"
My argument is the same as saying that if you think global warming is a problem you should be making efforts to reduce carbon emissions even if there are no government regulations in place.
But that doesn't make sense either. In a free market, voluntarily constraining yourself is self-defeating. Others will make you suffer competetively for it, and in the process they will undo most of the savings to the environment (or society in general).
Quote from: Slargos on August 04, 2011, 02:47:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 02:43:08 PM
Think about what you want to say before you say it. That might prevent instances like this.
Since the problem here is your immense capacity for stupidity, whatever I have to say is completely irrelevant and will neither prevent nor promote anything.
:unsure: I have to say that I have no fucking idea what point you're trying to make either.
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 03:03:11 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 04, 2011, 02:47:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 02:43:08 PM
Think about what you want to say before you say it. That might prevent instances like this.
Since the problem here is your immense capacity for stupidity, whatever I have to say is completely irrelevant and will neither prevent nor promote anything.
:unsure: I have to say that I have no fucking idea what point you're trying to make either.
Don't worry about it. If you are under the belief represented [I assume humorously] in grumbler's post, I doubt there's anything I could say that would help you.
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 03:01:54 PM
But that doesn't make sense either. In a free market, voluntarily constraining yourself is self-defeating. Others will make you suffer competetively for it, and in the process they will undo most of the savings to the environment (or society in general).
I'm not sure I follow. I'm not talking about the production and pricing of goods and services in the market, I'm talking about the use of disposable income. If Michael Moore buys health insurance for one person his propaganda films are not going to be undercut and driven out of the propaganda market by more cold-hearted producers of propaganda films.
Let's say you want to save the environment by cutting out your oil consumption. What would be the result of that?
The first result is that your quality of life would go down, or at least you're going to have to spend more on replacement goods (hopefully cleaner than oil). The second effect is that some of the savings of oil consumption from your personal refusal to use it would be negated by other people increasing their oil consumption, since oil is cheaper now.
Your savings won't be completely negated, unless the oil supply curve is perfectly inelastic, but it would be negated to a significant degree.
By the same spineless reasoning, you should cheat on your taxes, lie and steal when you can get away with it, and by all means you certainly shouldn't intervene if you see a crime being committed.
There lies the way to madness.
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 03:27:38 PM
Let's say you want to save the environment by cutting out your oil consumption. What would be the result of that?
The first result is that your quality of life would go down, or at least you're going to have to spend more on replacement goods (hopefully cleaner than oil). The second effect is that some of the savings of oil consumption from your personal refusal to use it would be negated by other people increasing their oil consumption, since oil is cheaper now.
Your savings won't be completely negated, unless the oil supply curve is perfectly inelastic, but it would be negated to a significant degree.
Of course your quality of life is going to decline. I'm talking specifically about people who say they would like their quality of life to decline to further a desireable goal.
Point granted about the price feedback loop on fossil fuels. Now see if you can construct a similar argument for why Michael Moore shouldn't buy someone health insurance and why Pat shouldn't send his income to Somalia.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 02:01:39 PM
Maybe the Climate and the Soil aren't quite exactly the same?
Sweden: 6,894,100 acres of arable land.
Norway: 2,229,000 acres of arable land.
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Norway-AGRICULTURE.html
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Sweden-AGRICULTURE.html
Interesting.
So, if nations starve when they surpass the pop-to=arable land ratio, will the world starve when the same happens on a global scale?
And when will this happen?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 04, 2011, 03:33:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 03:27:38 PM
Let's say you want to save the environment by cutting out your oil consumption. What would be the result of that?
The first result is that your quality of life would go down, or at least you're going to have to spend more on replacement goods (hopefully cleaner than oil). The second effect is that some of the savings of oil consumption from your personal refusal to use it would be negated by other people increasing their oil consumption, since oil is cheaper now.
Your savings won't be completely negated, unless the oil supply curve is perfectly inelastic, but it would be negated to a significant degree.
Of course your quality of life is going to decline. I'm talking specifically about people who say they would like their quality of life to decline to further a desireable goal.
Point granted about the price feedback loop on fossil fuels. Now see if you can construct a similar argument for why Michael Moore shouldn't buy someone health insurance and why Pat shouldn't send his income to Somalia.
I don't have to construct such an argument, because I don't see any valid argument to disprove. I don't see any logic in requiring people who advocate change to society's priorities go above and beyond in unilaterally contributing their own resources. That seems like a fallacy of status quo to me.
Er, it doesn't work like that any more, Siege. Modern agriculture creates massive surpluses. In the past, not as much. It is useful as a rule of thumb in pre-modern societies, and can explain some facts of demographics like why there are so many Chinese.
Quote from: Siege on August 04, 2011, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 02:01:39 PM
Maybe the Climate and the Soil aren't quite exactly the same?
Sweden: 6,894,100 acres of arable land.
Norway: 2,229,000 acres of arable land.
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Norway-AGRICULTURE.html (http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Norway-AGRICULTURE.html)
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Sweden-AGRICULTURE.html (http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Sweden-AGRICULTURE.html)
Interesting.
So, if nations starve when they surpass the pop-to=arable land ratio, will the world starve when the same happens on a global scale?
And when will this happen?
They don't, necessarily. The famine was a result of large scale crop failure, not overpopulation (even if in the strictest sense, if one wants to RazGuller it, the crop failures by definition lead to overpopulation if one defines overpopulation by currently available food production to population ratio).
As technology improves, so does the efficiency of production both by acerage and workload so obviously there's a roof somewhere, where the increasing demand for food simply cannot be met unless that roof is also broken by for instance a limitless source of energy and some sort of nano-assembly production.
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 03:45:03 PM
I don't have to construct such an argument, because I don't see any valid argument to disprove. I don't see any logic in requiring people who advocate change to society's priorities go above and beyond in unilaterally contributing their own resources. That seems like a fallacy of status quo to me.
:huh: I used the advice of that excellent poster grumbler to look up fallacy of status quo, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 04, 2011, 02:29:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 11:04:18 AM
And I never understood the logic you employ. Both Moore and Buffett are making arguments about how a system should be set up, not about what people should do voluntarily. Systems require coercion. Your argument is pretty much the same as the argument that goes like "Think taxes should be higher? Why don't you donate to the Treasury?"
My argument is the same as saying that if you think global warming is a problem you should be making efforts to reduce carbon emissions even if there are no government regulations in place.
Of course, the better argument is that no one except a pinhead thinks taxes should be higher,
a priori. Sane people may think that higher taxes are a worthwhile price to pay for X and Y, but only the most DGuller would argue that it is better to have Z and Y and higher taxes than X and Y and lower ones. :lol:
So, if X and Y are good for the state to do with taxes, why would they not be good things for an individual to do with private donations?
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2011, 03:52:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 04, 2011, 02:29:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 11:04:18 AM
And I never understood the logic you employ. Both Moore and Buffett are making arguments about how a system should be set up, not about what people should do voluntarily. Systems require coercion. Your argument is pretty much the same as the argument that goes like "Think taxes should be higher? Why don't you donate to the Treasury?"
My argument is the same as saying that if you think global warming is a problem you should be making efforts to reduce carbon emissions even if there are no government regulations in place.
Of course, the better argument is that no one except a pinhead thinks taxes should be higher, a priori. Sane people may think that higher taxes are a worthwhile price to pay for X and Y, but only the most DGuller would argue that it is better to have Z and Y and higher taxes than X and Y and lower ones. :lol:
So, if X and Y are good for the state to do with taxes, why would they not be goods things for an individual to do with private donations?
For the same reason that people get angry when someone passes them on the road. They're
cutting in line and it's
unfair.
It's a rather basic human emotional need to feel that you're being treated at least as well as everyone else.
Compare, for instance, the need to be a high earner in relative terms, rather than absolute.
Never cared for algebra.
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2011, 03:52:52 PM
Of course, the better argument is that no one except a pinhead thinks taxes should be higher, a priori. Sane people may think that higher taxes are a worthwhile price to pay for X and Y, but only the most DGuller would argue that it is better to have Z and Y and higher taxes than X and Y and lower ones. :lol:
So, if X and Y are good for the state to do with taxes, why would they not be good things for an individual to do with private donations?
:huh: If that's a better way of putting it, then I'd hate to see a worse way of putting it.
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 04:00:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2011, 03:52:52 PM
Of course, the better argument is that no one except a pinhead thinks taxes should be higher, a priori. Sane people may think that higher taxes are a worthwhile price to pay for X and Y, but only the most DGuller would argue that it is better to have Z and Y and higher taxes than X and Y and lower ones. :lol:
So, if X and Y are good for the state to do with taxes, why would they not be good things for an individual to do with private donations?
:huh: If that's a better way of putting it, then I'd hate to see a worse way of putting it.
I genuinely have no idea what's he's going on about.
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 04:00:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2011, 03:52:52 PM
Of course, the better argument is that no one except a pinhead thinks taxes should be higher, a priori. Sane people may think that higher taxes are a worthwhile price to pay for X and Y, but only the most DGuller would argue that it is better to have Z and Y and higher taxes than X and Y and lower ones. :lol:
So, if X and Y are good for the state to do with taxes, why would they not be good things for an individual to do with private donations?
:huh: If that's a better way of putting it, then I'd hate to see a worse way of putting it.
Don't look:
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 11:04:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 12:05:37 PM
I have never understood this logic. Michael Moore wants sick people to have cheap health care. Warren Buffet wants teachers to be paid more. Why don't they write a check? If the basic premise is correct, that these outcomes are morally superior, then why do they require the coerced participation of other people?
And I never understood the logic you employ. Both Moore and Buffett are making arguments about how a system should be set up, not about what people should do voluntarily. Systems require coercion. Your argument is pretty much the same as the argument that goes like "Think taxes should be higher? Why don't you donate to the Treasury?"
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 03:01:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 04, 2011, 02:29:27 PM
My argument is the same as saying that if you think global warming is a problem you should be making efforts to reduce carbon emissions even if there are no government regulations in place.
But that doesn't make sense either. In a free market, voluntarily constraining yourself is self-defeating. Others will make you suffer competetively for it, and in the process they will undo most of the savings to the environment (or society in general).
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 03:45:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 04, 2011, 03:33:40 PM
Of course your quality of life is going to decline. I'm talking specifically about people who say they would like their quality of life to decline to further a desireable goal.
Point granted about the price feedback loop on fossil fuels. Now see if you can construct a similar argument for why Michael Moore shouldn't buy someone health insurance and why Pat shouldn't send his income to Somalia.
I don't have to construct such an argument, because I don't see any valid argument to disprove. I don't see any logic in requiring people who advocate change to society's priorities go above and beyond in unilaterally contributing their own resources. That seems like a fallacy of status quo to me.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 04:08:34 PM
I genuinely have no idea what's he's going on about.
Excellent! If you could understand it, it wouldn't be worth saying.
Why did you post all that if you don't want him to see it. :unsure:
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2011, 04:12:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 04, 2011, 04:08:34 PM
I genuinely have no idea what's he's going on about.
Excellent! If you could understand it, it wouldn't be worth saying.
If that's your post philosophy why not just post everything in French or something?
Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2011, 04:11:02 PM
Don't look:
:huh: Seems ok to me.
I have a math degree, and I still couldn't decipher your post. WTF are X, Y, Z supposed to be, how are they supposed to be related to each other? Is X supposed to be higher than Z, or lower? And what's the significance of Y appearing in both options?
I've seen actuarial exams written better than this.
:face:
Quote from: DGuller on August 04, 2011, 04:20:51 PM
I have a math degree, and I still couldn't decipher your post. WTF are X, Y, Z supposed to be, how are they supposed to be related to each other? Is X supposed to be higher than Z, or lower? And what's the significance of Y appearing in both options?
I've seen actuarial exams written better than this.
I see the problems, which are two. First, in English, X, Y, and Z are often used as "stand-ins." They don't mean anything themselves, but are supposed to represent unspecified other things. In fact, there is a famous case called "The XYZ Affair" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYZ_Affair where the X and Y and Z stood in for the names fo the supposed French agents.
There are no math terms in my post, so your degree doesn't help. X and Y and Z are not necessarily related at all.
Second, matters are worsened by my typo that used "Z and Y" rather than "X and Y" in "...it is better to have Z and Y and higher taxes..." Context may have helped some people see this as merely a typo (since I summarize talking about X and Y, and "X and Y" are commonly used in English) but I would not expect this of you, and apologize for the confusion my typo caused you.
Oh, and my use of "only a DGuller" was merely playful, as even you don't advocate that.
Gotcha. That does make much more sense now that I know that you meant X by Z, and that does remove the algebraic nature of your post.
Well well, this went in a totally original way... From puke Olsen to starving Somalians to starving Swedes to dumb Swedes to silly arguments about Scandinavian climate and algebra.
There must be a theme somewhere in there. :hmm:
Quote from: Drakken on August 04, 2011, 08:45:18 PM
Well well, this went in a totally original way... From puke Olsen to starving Somalians to starving Swedes to dumb Swedes to silly arguments about Scandinavian climate and algebra.
There must be a theme somewhere in there. :hmm:
Forget it Jake. It's Languishtown. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on August 04, 2011, 11:11:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2011, 05:20:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2011, 06:27:14 PM
They are likely equivalent, as both are probably dead by now.
I know this is Languish, but saying a dead child is equal to a dead bug is still pretty low, even for you, Raz.
Wow it warms my heart to see you coming out in favor of children Marty :cry:
I was actually coming out in favor of bugs. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on August 05, 2011, 08:49:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 04, 2011, 11:11:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2011, 05:20:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 28, 2011, 06:27:14 PM
They are likely equivalent, as both are probably dead by now.
I know this is Languish, but saying a dead child is equal to a dead bug is still pretty low, even for you, Raz.
Wow it warms my heart to see you coming out in favor of children Marty :cry:
I was actually coming out in favor of bugs. :huh:
You're calling somali children bugs now? CLASSY. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 04:52:36 PM
Ok, Yi. If your argument against helping this child:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegrio.com%2Fassets_c%2F2011%2F07%2Fstarving-somalian-thumb-400xauto-21952.jpg&hash=930aa77120769efa568f8b0281d5b6dee1a6c810)
is that it is unlikely to repay you back, then I really see no point discussing anything with you any further.
You know, this picture made me realize that I now trust the Somalis much more then I have in the past. I still only trust them about as far as I can throw one, but with the recent famine that's a much greater distance then it was before.
:pinch:
I thought you would like that one.
I have seen the light: http://www.morphthing.com/celebrity/14769003
You know Siege, I like you and all, but you can be really creepy sometimes.
Yep.
You know, Miley Cyrus is going to be incredibly fat when she gets older.
Quote from: Neil on August 07, 2011, 12:43:35 PM
Yep.
You know, Miley Cyrus is going to be incredibly fat when she gets older.
She is already starting to chunk up a bit.