Upload
Login or register

Endofzeeworld

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:1/15/2010
Last Login:7/31/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#1062
Highest Content Rank:#5597
Highest Comment Rank:#793
Content Thumbs: 59 total,  92 ,  33
Comment Thumbs: 11542 total,  14534 ,  2992
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/5)
Level 1 Content: New Here → Level 2 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 14% (14/100)
Level 301 Comments: Lord Of Laughs → Level 302 Comments: Lord Of Laughs
Subscribers:1
Content Views:6470
Times Content Favorited:4 times
Total Comments Made:4504
FJ Points:10156

latest user's comments

#11 - >2014+2 >not thinking gondola is the best non-normie meme  [+] (2 new replies) 05/28/2016 on Anon Reflects On His Life... +27
#48 - benadryl (05/28/2016) [-]
#76 - hxhmaniac (05/28/2016) [-]
#21 - Interesting. Do you have a source? I'd like to read more on this.  [+] (1 new reply) 05/27/2016 on cap -1
User avatar
#22 - SethDaKiDIIx (05/27/2016) [-]
I couldnt find the actual source I had. I wrote an essay on human trafficking for my senior exit in highschool but heres somewhat of a source, I could try to find the book I read if youd want orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/
#13 - >being against legalized prostitution you're one of tho…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/27/2016 on cap +7
#23 - anon (05/27/2016) [-]
Good to know you are so enlightend
User avatar
#20 - SethDaKiDIIx (05/27/2016) [-]
The legalization of prostitution actually brings in more sex traffickers into the country its legalized in. It makes it harder whos doing because they like to or who is being forced to.
User avatar
#21 - Endofzeeworld (05/27/2016) [-]
Interesting. Do you have a source? I'd like to read more on this.
User avatar
#22 - SethDaKiDIIx (05/27/2016) [-]
I couldnt find the actual source I had. I wrote an essay on human trafficking for my senior exit in highschool but heres somewhat of a source, I could try to find the book I read if youd want orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/
#27 - Picture 05/27/2016 on horny 0
#24 - Is there a source on this and the image above? I see the secon…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/27/2016 on horny 0
#28 - mintea (05/27/2016) [-]
First is from the Berserk Manga (I think)
2nd is from this comic. As far as I know this is all there is of the comic, and I could be wrong, but I think it was parodying this horse part of Berserk.
User avatar
#30 - atomschlumpf (05/27/2016) [-]
>>#24, original is indeed from the Berserk manga where a demon possesses a horse and tries to rape some chick, I think the second was made as a parody of that and is just those 5 panels
#26 - inergio (05/27/2016) [-]
Fucking Griffith fag.
#27 - Endofzeeworld (05/27/2016) [-]
#44 - I believe this just comes down to philosophical difference of …  [+] (1 new reply) 05/26/2016 on Walking the walk +3
#48 - migueldecervantes (05/26/2016) [-]
Well...

I would really want everyone to give money to poor people to help them out. Unfortunately this belief (or desire rather) conflicts with my aversion to coercion. If I have to choose between freedom or some measure of coercion, I'll always choose freedom.
#40 - Some rich people have built themselves up by being superior to…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/26/2016 on Walking the walk -1
#42 - migueldecervantes (05/26/2016) [-]
"but not all"

Capitalism can never be 100% meritocratic, since nothing can without coercion. It sure as hell is more meritocratic than any form of socialism.

"ought to be left to die"

Many would agree with you (myself included), but a minute few would disagree. I am simply of the opinion that people ought not be economically coerced into doing unwillful transactions. The only cases I agree to are administrative taxes (courts, police, military, firemen).

I have good money and so I give to many charities. I do this because I value human life and I know how unfortunate others can be sometimes. Still, I wouldn't want to coerce someone to redistribute their wealth.

"If that means the rich must surrender some of their wealth, then so be it."

Yes, but you won't be deciding that. They will.
User avatar
#44 - Endofzeeworld (05/26/2016) [-]
I believe this just comes down to philosophical difference of opinion. I believe in minor wealth redistribution, you do not.
#48 - migueldecervantes (05/26/2016) [-]
Well...

I would really want everyone to give money to poor people to help them out. Unfortunately this belief (or desire rather) conflicts with my aversion to coercion. If I have to choose between freedom or some measure of coercion, I'll always choose freedom.
#21 - Well I'll be damned. So I am.  [+] (1 new reply) 05/26/2016 on /biz/nessmen demonstrate... +1
#22 - migueldecervantes (05/26/2016) [-]
Oym woyting foyr yoyr royply.
#19 - Ah. Thank you for the clarification.  [+] (3 new replies) 05/26/2016 on /biz/nessmen demonstrate... +1
#20 - migueldecervantes (05/26/2016) [-]
No problem, buddy. Aren't you that same guy with whom I'm discussing whether rich people ought to pay for the poor or not?
User avatar
#21 - Endofzeeworld (05/26/2016) [-]
Well I'll be damned. So I am.
#22 - migueldecervantes (05/26/2016) [-]
Oym woyting foyr yoyr royply.
#37 - No its not. It is the duty of those who can produce more than …  [+] (8 new replies) 05/26/2016 on Walking the walk +1
#115 - anon (05/26/2016) [-]
Define need.
#38 - migueldecervantes (05/26/2016) [-]
That's your opinion, and I think that the rich man (who built himself all from nothing by making efforts which many poor people are simply unwilling to put in) will be very happy to know that he can form his own, and make his own decisions.
#180 - anon (05/27/2016) [-]
Not many rich men build themselves up from nothing nowadays. Many belong to families who have been either middle class or upper class for generations now. Not exactly a fair playing field when you may be poor due to a vicious cycle going on for hundreds of years.
User avatar
#82 - abesimpson (05/26/2016) [-]
While I'm not saying that many rich people didn't earn their wealth, it bothers me that you correlate wealth with effort.

What about con artists? Trust fund kids? Etc.

There are people who break their backs working their hole lives but will never be wealthy because of circumstances of life. Sometimes being wealthy is just a matter of luck too.

It's not right to just give our wealth to others, but we do have a moral obligation to give decent living conditions to those who earn it but can't afford it. Privilege is a thing (I'm talking about social privilege, not that bullshit white privilege. Such as the fact of being raised in a stable family with a decent income that can afford a good education and so the cycle continues)

Some people hate socialism and don't realize that socialism is what made society thrive. If we were to compare today's society with feudalism in the middle ages or during the industrial revolution, it is clear that modern society would be considered socialist (yet life is better than it always been). But of course the class that is already comfortable opposed back then too, for fear of losing their comfort.

Socialism shouldn't be embraced as a whole, but it shouldn't be rejected either. If we understand it as a philosophy that one can be inspired by and not just some "political ideology" that would be great.
User avatar
#40 - Endofzeeworld (05/26/2016) [-]
Some rich people have built themselves up by being superior to others, sure, but not all. Many got lucky, either through everyday happenstance (My father won the lotto, for example) or through inheritance. But I do not believe that the unlucky or "inferior" ought to be left to die. They should be helped along and given the tools and resources they need to strengthen their position, so that all of society may benefit. If that means the rich must surrender some of their wealth, then so be it.
#42 - migueldecervantes (05/26/2016) [-]
"but not all"

Capitalism can never be 100% meritocratic, since nothing can without coercion. It sure as hell is more meritocratic than any form of socialism.

"ought to be left to die"

Many would agree with you (myself included), but a minute few would disagree. I am simply of the opinion that people ought not be economically coerced into doing unwillful transactions. The only cases I agree to are administrative taxes (courts, police, military, firemen).

I have good money and so I give to many charities. I do this because I value human life and I know how unfortunate others can be sometimes. Still, I wouldn't want to coerce someone to redistribute their wealth.

"If that means the rich must surrender some of their wealth, then so be it."

Yes, but you won't be deciding that. They will.
User avatar
#44 - Endofzeeworld (05/26/2016) [-]
I believe this just comes down to philosophical difference of opinion. I believe in minor wealth redistribution, you do not.
#48 - migueldecervantes (05/26/2016) [-]
Well...

I would really want everyone to give money to poor people to help them out. Unfortunately this belief (or desire rather) conflicts with my aversion to coercion. If I have to choose between freedom or some measure of coercion, I'll always choose freedom.