That doesn't make any sense. Right, because you're obviously "impaired" if you don't agree with a mono-directional authoritarian view of "progress" and the "global community" that comes with it. Are you really that incapable of recognizing or understanding your opposition? Are you so blinded by your beliefs that you can't fathom a rational, intelligent person having a different opinion? Well, those are rhetorical questions. Of course you are. What bewilders me is how you don't even see it.
Why do I hate the rich? I don't. I hate those like Kali and Shaw that are constantly riding the wealthy people's dicks to ensure that one day they have a 1% chance of making it big. Statements like the ones under this are disgusting and absolutely terrible. People that think like this are either socially impaired or simply have no concept of morality, although I think Kali has admitted as such in the past. It is this that drives me to hate all those who would be mindless slaves of the rich, and in fact often feel sorry for such twisted and disturbed human beings.
@Kali No bassically because you do not grasp the simple concept of empathy... You're just reinforcing my statements by not seeing the point and keep rambling about this one issue, whilst my question was about you general not your views on this specific topic. Furthermore I understand the rationale, but alas I have emotional capacity, espescially empathy, something wich you obviously lack, I hope this doesn't prove to be detrimental to your quality of life and it doesn't mean you harm society. (but i fear it will be so) As for the rules of rethorica, you are making statements and not basing them on anything, whereas i'm asking questions, the latter having more meaning than the former. And on the personal attacks, I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm saying that to come to such a conclusion your perspective is... diffrent to start with, i was merely asking what it is what fundamentally makes you diffrent. I mean if you payed attention you would have seen that this isn't the first time I've bassically said, that rationally you might be correct, but that you seem to be missing something, I was wondering if it was, Malicious intent, Mental incapability, Lack of emotion, or Lack of (caring for) modals (Being a troll, Retard, a sad man, or just evil).
That would be explotation. Try again. You have absolutely no idea what he suggesting with that sentence.
` I seriously doubt Kali means to uplift these people into a higher state of living and educate them, but yes that would be a better solution...
That's exactly what he is suggesting. Rather than leaching the upper class to death, remove the human element from the working class.
Hitler never said he was going to exterminate the jews before he got to power, he just agressively poin ted out 'the problem' (please do not make a fool of yourself by taking this seriously)
Well it is, taking more for yourself then the bare minimum is greed. This: is called ruthlessness. Now I ask you; upon accepting this as the definition of greed, do you still consider it inhuman? Come the fuck on man.
Well no but wanting more cake is not universal alot of people are happy with the cake they have. Wanting more cake is not inhumane but its not universal. and hurting people to obtain cake is the problem. And i must add that its a dick move to force a yes out of me by changing the definition. However if you take punching the guy who has more cake to get it. as the base definition off greed would you think its inhumane? N.R out peace
Wanting more then the bare minimum is not only universal, but necessary for both long term survival and promoting the success of your offspring. I haven't changed the definition. You've provided the definitions exploitation and ruthlessness, but not greed. I abhor the ruthless. While I certainly won't go so far as to label it inhuman. I don't consider it civilized or dignified behavior.
Well, I wouldn't have used words such as "crush the festering underclass" to suggest we "uplift" them. In any case, he calls me idealistic.
