Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

ewowo    

Rank #25798 on Subscribers
ewowo Avatar Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to ewowo Block ewowo Invite ewowo to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 21
Consoles Owned: NDSLite/PS2
Date Signed Up:5/25/2011
Last Login:4/01/2014
Location:Belgium
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 2543 total,  3212 ,  669
Comment Thumbs: 3707 total,  6483 ,  2776
Content Level Progress: 42% (42/100)
Level 125 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 126 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 46% (46/100)
Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:2
Content Views:145911
Times Content Favorited:58 times
Total Comments Made:3475
FJ Points:6383
Favorite Tags: magic the gather (9) | magic (5) | tcg (5) | channel (4) | MTG (4) | one (4) | the (4) | fucking (3) | Time (3) | metal (2) | Nothing (2) | octgn (2)

latest user's comments

#25 - Thanks, but I really wanna try it in real. 08/09/2012 on Level 1 Human +1
#35 - You could go for Dimir. Everyone will hate you and you STILL w…  [+] (5 new replies) 08/09/2012 on EDH/Commander 0
User avatar #36 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
I like Dimir, but I never really liked playing it to be honest.
User avatar #37 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
Last time I played against a dimir deck I won yu-gioh style.
User avatar #40 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
I hate playing blue players that are dicks about milling. I went mill against mill one time, managed to win, but barely. I prefer BUG when it comes to mill, because then there can be discard and the ramp designed to make it possible. Vulturous Zombie and Bloodchief Ascension with a few counters on it, enough to activate its ability. Then, proceed to fuck shit up even more by Traumatizing them. Be like, not only are you taking 80 something damage, but I also have a massive creature I can smack someone with and kill them. Its a nice edh combo if no one counters it.
User avatar #38 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
Top decking like a boss? I've had so many times where I got a card that wasn't necessary, and still won.
User avatar #39 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
Managed to draw borborygmos at the last possible moment. One turn later and my library would have been empty.
#58 - Check the channel. It involves octgn. octgn is is free. …  [+] (7 new replies) 08/09/2012 on Rumours! 0
User avatar #59 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
Then scour the channel, I will. Also, the released Jarad and the new Niv for preorder.
User avatar #60 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
Sweet, tell me when you get it!
octgn I mean
User avatar #61 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
I got octgn, but for some reason I can't download any of the sets. And I have a sweet edh deck I want to model after one I have.
User avatar #62 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
what's wrong withthe sets? torrent doesn't work?
User avatar #63 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
No, and I've never been good with torrents. I have no idea what went wrong.
User avatar #64 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
Well If I had your email or msn I could send you the individual sets.

msn would be better since it takes less work.
User avatar #65 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
I don't actually have an msn. The email is divineheretic9@aol.com
#324 - you're a stand-up chum. 08/09/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
#323 - I agree on what your saying about schools. I think indeed that… 08/09/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
#1 - Comment deleted 08/08/2012 on What the fuck is up with... 0
#188 - True, true. But such altruism would in the end lead to somethi…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
User avatar #192 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
True communism being anarchy, the final stage... I guess it would. What an interesting thought!
#160 - same here, and I'm glad you didn't start raging and thumb down…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
#205 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Good night! I came in just to check on this. Have some thumbs, I saw some asshole had gone through and thumbed down all of your shit.

I don't feel that raging accomplishes much. ;) It's more fun trying to actually express yourself without resorting to profanity. Besides, you don't really deserve to be called a cocksucking faggot even if I do disagree with you. Y'know, basic human respect and all of that jazz!
User avatar #324 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
you're a stand-up chum.
#157 - Yes, yes, but that is FAR from my original point. I am arg…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
User avatar #182 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
No, it's necessary to define whether your original point of whether an altruistic communist society would or wouldn't work.

But surely any system would work if we gave our all for the common cause of the system itself, and were in this way altruistic to our fellow man? From top to bottom?
User avatar #188 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
True, true. But such altruism would in the end lead to something very closely resembling communism, would it not?
User avatar #192 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
True communism being anarchy, the final stage... I guess it would. What an interesting thought!
#154 - Where would he get insurance? Money would stay with the rich, …  [+] (4 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
#158 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
All I can say is: I disagree with your philosophy, your beliefs about humanity and I believe that your examples are flawed and incomplete.

However, I sadly don't have time to continue arguing, fun as it has been. Good night, it honestly was a pleasure talking to you! :)
User avatar #160 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
same here, and I'm glad you didn't start raging and thumb down every single one of my comments.
Have some thumbs for not being a whiny bitch faggot :D
#205 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Good night! I came in just to check on this. Have some thumbs, I saw some asshole had gone through and thumbed down all of your shit.

I don't feel that raging accomplishes much. ;) It's more fun trying to actually express yourself without resorting to profanity. Besides, you don't really deserve to be called a cocksucking faggot even if I do disagree with you. Y'know, basic human respect and all of that jazz!
User avatar #324 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
you're a stand-up chum.
#145 - Just the communism, non-specific. No application of commun…  [+] (5 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
User avatar #149 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
But communism is a spectrum. Marx didn't write very well, in that he lacked total clarity. Therefore Lenin came along and said "the workers need to take direct dictatorial control" and then Mao came along and said "the peasants, not the workers, are the basis of the revolution" and meanwhile some socialists were saying "Social Democracy is the only way to achieve communism." These Social Democrats were completely opposed to "putting ridiculous amounts of power in the states hands"

So it's very hard to label "communism" as one ideology.
User avatar #157 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Yes, yes, but that is FAR from my original point.
I am arguing a form of communism unlike any of these, so I can't give it one of these names.
User avatar #182 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
No, it's necessary to define whether your original point of whether an altruistic communist society would or wouldn't work.

But surely any system would work if we gave our all for the common cause of the system itself, and were in this way altruistic to our fellow man? From top to bottom?
User avatar #188 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
True, true. But such altruism would in the end lead to something very closely resembling communism, would it not?
User avatar #192 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
True communism being anarchy, the final stage... I guess it would. What an interesting thought!
#143 - Yes. I love it that all rich people everywhere just happen to … 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
#142 - Again, you're taking what I say and turning it around. …  [+] (6 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
#148 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Again, you didn't define capitalism (it's a term that seems to have, an infinite amount of meanings depending on who you ask), so I have trouble responding to you.

Social security is not bullshit, MANDATORY social security is. This hypothetical man of yours should (and most likely does) have a nice insurance. This would give him at least some money to get by with for a while. This man probably has a family, and friends. Starting up funding for him to get by is not a hard thing, people have done this on Kickstarter even. If you feel so bad for this man, you would donate to an organization which would help him even if the state didn't point a gun to your head if you didn't, correct?

What do you mean by "hold on to their wealth"? You mean that they have a lot of money because they have people working for them? I just fail to understand how that is wrong. If they have created something successful, of course they should have something to show for it. That's none of your business, that's HIS business. Quite literally, even.

Of course people won't always get rich, that's not how work... works. People pay you as much as they feel your service helps them. This is why soccer players get multimillion dollar wages: someone wants to see them play, and is willing to give them this money if they do it. Wonderful, the guy's made a fantastic living running after a ball once every week!

This "capitalistic" system that you describe implies a state which mandates how wealth is distributed. This is wrong, in all forms. There should be NO distribution of wealth, there should be NO obligatory regulations for who gets what money and how. Without such control, even the poorest man can become rich by offering a service people are willing to pay him for.
User avatar #154 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Where would he get insurance? Money would stay with the rich, so even hard work would yield him little pay. This man, being a poor man, would probably have a poor family and poor friends who wouldn't be able to help him much either.
A lot of people will never donate to charity. That's impossible to deny. And having material wealth and power doesn't usually make people more generous. And if they do donate to charity. They won't donate to all charities, they'll donate to the ones which appeal to them most.

I'm also not saying that a man who has created a succesful business does not deserve material wealth. I am saying that if he gets lazy and chooses to no longer contribute to society, or if he leaves his money to his children, who choose not to contribute either, the wealth does stay with them, but they no longer deserve it. And of course i'm not denying the hard)wrrking man his pension, if he contributed for liong enough he should be able to enjoy his wealth even in his old age.

Without distribution of wealth, the paralysed man has a good chance of starving to death? not all rich people are benevolent.
If you take away state control now, rich people now would remain rich forever.
In a few centuries, their families will still be rich. No poor man but the extrmemly lucky will ever have the chance of becoming rich.
#158 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
All I can say is: I disagree with your philosophy, your beliefs about humanity and I believe that your examples are flawed and incomplete.

However, I sadly don't have time to continue arguing, fun as it has been. Good night, it honestly was a pleasure talking to you! :)
User avatar #160 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
same here, and I'm glad you didn't start raging and thumb down every single one of my comments.
Have some thumbs for not being a whiny bitch faggot :D
#205 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Good night! I came in just to check on this. Have some thumbs, I saw some asshole had gone through and thumbed down all of your shit.

I don't feel that raging accomplishes much. ;) It's more fun trying to actually express yourself without resorting to profanity. Besides, you don't really deserve to be called a cocksucking faggot even if I do disagree with you. Y'know, basic human respect and all of that jazz!
User avatar #324 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
you're a stand-up chum.
#136 - I'm arguin left-right balance some comments further down in th… 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist +1
#135 - See now you have to read what I'm saying. That rich p…  [+] (10 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
#138 - qwermy (08/08/2012) [-]
If I ever become obscenely rich, I will build a huge public park like the Dukes, DuPonts, and Vanderbilts did. I will also build homes for homeless, and do anything I can to dump my money into useful charities before I die. The alternative would be it being passed down (resulting in lazy descendants, who I'd rather have work their way to their own wealth), or giving it to the government, which would waste it on useless shit. In other words, I'd be like Bill Gates if I could, except I would spend the money in the US rather than Africa.
User avatar #143 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Yes. I love it that all rich people everywhere just happen to be like Bill Gates and work to make the world a better place all the time without thinking about themselves.

Selfish poor people would probably waste all that money on things like food.
#137 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Of course it's fair. I should be allowed to gift my money to whoever I want. :P Even if it's a hundred million euros. I honestly don't see the problem with actually controlling your own wealth. Society has shown that voluntary donation programs to spread education and medical service to Africa have worked out extremely well. The reason we don't see those programs for our own countries is because everyone seems to assume that the state is going to rob everyone either way! We don't NEED the state robbing us of our money, a lot of us would give it away either way because we're good people who support good causes.

Want an example of someone very rich doing this? Bill Motherfucking Gates.
User avatar #142 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Again, you're taking what I say and turning it around.

Let me get to another point because this is obviously going nowhere, since you think wealth should stay where it is forever and ever.
A person can work hard and become rich.
A person can be lazy and become rich.
A person can work hard and stay poor.
A person can be lazy and stay poor.
It's not as simple as this, of course hard-working people WILL earn more money. But they won't necessarily get rich.
If a capitalistic system however, makes sure that wealthy people can hold on to their wealth forever without any effort, poor people can never become rich, hard-working or not. Is this fair?
Let me add another example. A poor man can work hard for 10 years and then break his neck in a work-related accident. This man can never work again. Now since social security is bullshit according to you, this man should starve to death, right?
#148 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Again, you didn't define capitalism (it's a term that seems to have, an infinite amount of meanings depending on who you ask), so I have trouble responding to you.

Social security is not bullshit, MANDATORY social security is. This hypothetical man of yours should (and most likely does) have a nice insurance. This would give him at least some money to get by with for a while. This man probably has a family, and friends. Starting up funding for him to get by is not a hard thing, people have done this on Kickstarter even. If you feel so bad for this man, you would donate to an organization which would help him even if the state didn't point a gun to your head if you didn't, correct?

What do you mean by "hold on to their wealth"? You mean that they have a lot of money because they have people working for them? I just fail to understand how that is wrong. If they have created something successful, of course they should have something to show for it. That's none of your business, that's HIS business. Quite literally, even.

Of course people won't always get rich, that's not how work... works. People pay you as much as they feel your service helps them. This is why soccer players get multimillion dollar wages: someone wants to see them play, and is willing to give them this money if they do it. Wonderful, the guy's made a fantastic living running after a ball once every week!

This "capitalistic" system that you describe implies a state which mandates how wealth is distributed. This is wrong, in all forms. There should be NO distribution of wealth, there should be NO obligatory regulations for who gets what money and how. Without such control, even the poorest man can become rich by offering a service people are willing to pay him for.
User avatar #154 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Where would he get insurance? Money would stay with the rich, so even hard work would yield him little pay. This man, being a poor man, would probably have a poor family and poor friends who wouldn't be able to help him much either.
A lot of people will never donate to charity. That's impossible to deny. And having material wealth and power doesn't usually make people more generous. And if they do donate to charity. They won't donate to all charities, they'll donate to the ones which appeal to them most.

I'm also not saying that a man who has created a succesful business does not deserve material wealth. I am saying that if he gets lazy and chooses to no longer contribute to society, or if he leaves his money to his children, who choose not to contribute either, the wealth does stay with them, but they no longer deserve it. And of course i'm not denying the hard)wrrking man his pension, if he contributed for liong enough he should be able to enjoy his wealth even in his old age.

Without distribution of wealth, the paralysed man has a good chance of starving to death? not all rich people are benevolent.
If you take away state control now, rich people now would remain rich forever.
In a few centuries, their families will still be rich. No poor man but the extrmemly lucky will ever have the chance of becoming rich.
#158 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
All I can say is: I disagree with your philosophy, your beliefs about humanity and I believe that your examples are flawed and incomplete.

However, I sadly don't have time to continue arguing, fun as it has been. Good night, it honestly was a pleasure talking to you! :)
User avatar #160 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
same here, and I'm glad you didn't start raging and thumb down every single one of my comments.
Have some thumbs for not being a whiny bitch faggot :D
#205 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Good night! I came in just to check on this. Have some thumbs, I saw some asshole had gone through and thumbed down all of your shit.

I don't feel that raging accomplishes much. ;) It's more fun trying to actually express yourself without resorting to profanity. Besides, you don't really deserve to be called a cocksucking faggot even if I do disagree with you. Y'know, basic human respect and all of that jazz!
User avatar #324 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
you're a stand-up chum.
#131 - If people were altruistic, communism would WORK. Comm…  [+] (7 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
User avatar #141 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
What do you mean by Communism? Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Social Democratic transition?
User avatar #145 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Just the communism, non-specific.
No application of communism to an actual state has ever worked so they all got it wrong, pretty much.
Except Cuba. Cuba works... sort of. Not great, but it works.
User avatar #149 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
But communism is a spectrum. Marx didn't write very well, in that he lacked total clarity. Therefore Lenin came along and said "the workers need to take direct dictatorial control" and then Mao came along and said "the peasants, not the workers, are the basis of the revolution" and meanwhile some socialists were saying "Social Democracy is the only way to achieve communism." These Social Democrats were completely opposed to "putting ridiculous amounts of power in the states hands"

So it's very hard to label "communism" as one ideology.
User avatar #157 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Yes, yes, but that is FAR from my original point.
I am arguing a form of communism unlike any of these, so I can't give it one of these names.
User avatar #182 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
No, it's necessary to define whether your original point of whether an altruistic communist society would or wouldn't work.

But surely any system would work if we gave our all for the common cause of the system itself, and were in this way altruistic to our fellow man? From top to bottom?
User avatar #188 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
True, true. But such altruism would in the end lead to something very closely resembling communism, would it not?
User avatar #192 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
True communism being anarchy, the final stage... I guess it would. What an interesting thought!
#126 - Yeah I knew most of that, except the names never made sense to…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist +1
#134 - qwermy (08/08/2012) [-]
I know. That's the US political system for you. As for my opinion, I believe we need a balance between political left and right. It is ok to contribute to the system, as long as taxes aren't oppressively high (as in socialism). I really don't like hard-core liberals, though, because they are generally deceptive. Just as in this meme, they preach peace, then say conservatives do not deserve to live. They call for gun bans for all but police, under the guise of "gun control", and then call the police pigs. They call for taxes on the rich, then include the middle class as "rich". And worst of all, they demonize conservatives, calling them racists and sexists. American liberals control the media, so conservatives never get a word in.
User avatar #136 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
I'm arguin left-right balance some comments further down in this thread, lol.
#125 - A rational human being seeks the best balance between socialis…  [+] (12 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
#132 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Someone who's rich has gotten rich by contributing. If you don't believe that those who own large companies have to work for their fortunes, you are sorely mistaken. They made it all happen. They created a company which pleased a lot of people and allowed them to expand, creating a fantastic service which everyone obviously wanted. As such, they became rich.

They did NOT, however, become rich because some asshole was sitting on his couch all day watching TV and whining that the state won't give him free vacations on Ibiza.
User avatar #135 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
See now you have to read what I'm saying.

That rich person should be allowed to live life as a rich person.
But that rich person has a son. A rich, pretentious douchey son who will never have to work a day in his life. Is that fair?

Capitalism ensures that the money goes to those who work hard. And stays there forever. Even if they decide to stop working hard.
#138 - qwermy (08/08/2012) [-]
If I ever become obscenely rich, I will build a huge public park like the Dukes, DuPonts, and Vanderbilts did. I will also build homes for homeless, and do anything I can to dump my money into useful charities before I die. The alternative would be it being passed down (resulting in lazy descendants, who I'd rather have work their way to their own wealth), or giving it to the government, which would waste it on useless shit. In other words, I'd be like Bill Gates if I could, except I would spend the money in the US rather than Africa.
User avatar #143 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Yes. I love it that all rich people everywhere just happen to be like Bill Gates and work to make the world a better place all the time without thinking about themselves.

Selfish poor people would probably waste all that money on things like food.
#137 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Of course it's fair. I should be allowed to gift my money to whoever I want. :P Even if it's a hundred million euros. I honestly don't see the problem with actually controlling your own wealth. Society has shown that voluntary donation programs to spread education and medical service to Africa have worked out extremely well. The reason we don't see those programs for our own countries is because everyone seems to assume that the state is going to rob everyone either way! We don't NEED the state robbing us of our money, a lot of us would give it away either way because we're good people who support good causes.

Want an example of someone very rich doing this? Bill Motherfucking Gates.
User avatar #142 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Again, you're taking what I say and turning it around.

Let me get to another point because this is obviously going nowhere, since you think wealth should stay where it is forever and ever.
A person can work hard and become rich.
A person can be lazy and become rich.
A person can work hard and stay poor.
A person can be lazy and stay poor.
It's not as simple as this, of course hard-working people WILL earn more money. But they won't necessarily get rich.
If a capitalistic system however, makes sure that wealthy people can hold on to their wealth forever without any effort, poor people can never become rich, hard-working or not. Is this fair?
Let me add another example. A poor man can work hard for 10 years and then break his neck in a work-related accident. This man can never work again. Now since social security is bullshit according to you, this man should starve to death, right?
#148 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Again, you didn't define capitalism (it's a term that seems to have, an infinite amount of meanings depending on who you ask), so I have trouble responding to you.

Social security is not bullshit, MANDATORY social security is. This hypothetical man of yours should (and most likely does) have a nice insurance. This would give him at least some money to get by with for a while. This man probably has a family, and friends. Starting up funding for him to get by is not a hard thing, people have done this on Kickstarter even. If you feel so bad for this man, you would donate to an organization which would help him even if the state didn't point a gun to your head if you didn't, correct?

What do you mean by "hold on to their wealth"? You mean that they have a lot of money because they have people working for them? I just fail to understand how that is wrong. If they have created something successful, of course they should have something to show for it. That's none of your business, that's HIS business. Quite literally, even.

Of course people won't always get rich, that's not how work... works. People pay you as much as they feel your service helps them. This is why soccer players get multimillion dollar wages: someone wants to see them play, and is willing to give them this money if they do it. Wonderful, the guy's made a fantastic living running after a ball once every week!

This "capitalistic" system that you describe implies a state which mandates how wealth is distributed. This is wrong, in all forms. There should be NO distribution of wealth, there should be NO obligatory regulations for who gets what money and how. Without such control, even the poorest man can become rich by offering a service people are willing to pay him for.
User avatar #154 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Where would he get insurance? Money would stay with the rich, so even hard work would yield him little pay. This man, being a poor man, would probably have a poor family and poor friends who wouldn't be able to help him much either.
A lot of people will never donate to charity. That's impossible to deny. And having material wealth and power doesn't usually make people more generous. And if they do donate to charity. They won't donate to all charities, they'll donate to the ones which appeal to them most.

I'm also not saying that a man who has created a succesful business does not deserve material wealth. I am saying that if he gets lazy and chooses to no longer contribute to society, or if he leaves his money to his children, who choose not to contribute either, the wealth does stay with them, but they no longer deserve it. And of course i'm not denying the hard)wrrking man his pension, if he contributed for liong enough he should be able to enjoy his wealth even in his old age.

Without distribution of wealth, the paralysed man has a good chance of starving to death? not all rich people are benevolent.
If you take away state control now, rich people now would remain rich forever.
In a few centuries, their families will still be rich. No poor man but the extrmemly lucky will ever have the chance of becoming rich.
#158 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
All I can say is: I disagree with your philosophy, your beliefs about humanity and I believe that your examples are flawed and incomplete.

However, I sadly don't have time to continue arguing, fun as it has been. Good night, it honestly was a pleasure talking to you! :)
User avatar #160 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
same here, and I'm glad you didn't start raging and thumb down every single one of my comments.
Have some thumbs for not being a whiny bitch faggot :D
#205 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Good night! I came in just to check on this. Have some thumbs, I saw some asshole had gone through and thumbed down all of your shit.

I don't feel that raging accomplishes much. ;) It's more fun trying to actually express yourself without resorting to profanity. Besides, you don't really deserve to be called a cocksucking faggot even if I do disagree with you. Y'know, basic human respect and all of that jazz!
User avatar #324 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
you're a stand-up chum.
#118 - You know another thing that's always bother me is 'democrats' …  [+] (4 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist +1
#124 - qwermy (08/08/2012) [-]
They are political parties. Yes, they effectively mean the same thing by definition, because whoever founded the parties wanted voters to think that THEIR party was the more patriotic. Democrats are more liberal (US definition; social/leftists), and Republicans are more conservative (US definition; free market/less government).
User avatar #126 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Yeah I knew most of that, except the names never made sense to me. Your explanation makes it seem more reasonable, but it still seems a little stupid.
#134 - qwermy (08/08/2012) [-]
I know. That's the US political system for you. As for my opinion, I believe we need a balance between political left and right. It is ok to contribute to the system, as long as taxes aren't oppressively high (as in socialism). I really don't like hard-core liberals, though, because they are generally deceptive. Just as in this meme, they preach peace, then say conservatives do not deserve to live. They call for gun bans for all but police, under the guise of "gun control", and then call the police pigs. They call for taxes on the rich, then include the middle class as "rich". And worst of all, they demonize conservatives, calling them racists and sexists. American liberals control the media, so conservatives never get a word in.
User avatar #136 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
I'm arguin left-right balance some comments further down in this thread, lol.
#115 - Your stereotypical rich person. Wants less taxes because he'll…  [+] (14 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
#116 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
So, a rational human being? Okay, good. I like your liberals.
User avatar #125 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
A rational human being seeks the best balance between socialism and capitalism, so nobody gets to be filthy rich without having to contribute to the system, and so the less fortunate are given aid without being allowed to parasite off of those who work hard.

Liberalism as it is here punishes the poor and rewards the rich. If that's how you think it should be, well then... you have your opinion and I have mine.
#132 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Someone who's rich has gotten rich by contributing. If you don't believe that those who own large companies have to work for their fortunes, you are sorely mistaken. They made it all happen. They created a company which pleased a lot of people and allowed them to expand, creating a fantastic service which everyone obviously wanted. As such, they became rich.

They did NOT, however, become rich because some asshole was sitting on his couch all day watching TV and whining that the state won't give him free vacations on Ibiza.
User avatar #135 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
See now you have to read what I'm saying.

That rich person should be allowed to live life as a rich person.
But that rich person has a son. A rich, pretentious douchey son who will never have to work a day in his life. Is that fair?

Capitalism ensures that the money goes to those who work hard. And stays there forever. Even if they decide to stop working hard.
#138 - qwermy (08/08/2012) [-]
If I ever become obscenely rich, I will build a huge public park like the Dukes, DuPonts, and Vanderbilts did. I will also build homes for homeless, and do anything I can to dump my money into useful charities before I die. The alternative would be it being passed down (resulting in lazy descendants, who I'd rather have work their way to their own wealth), or giving it to the government, which would waste it on useless shit. In other words, I'd be like Bill Gates if I could, except I would spend the money in the US rather than Africa.
User avatar #143 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Yes. I love it that all rich people everywhere just happen to be like Bill Gates and work to make the world a better place all the time without thinking about themselves.

Selfish poor people would probably waste all that money on things like food.
#137 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Of course it's fair. I should be allowed to gift my money to whoever I want. :P Even if it's a hundred million euros. I honestly don't see the problem with actually controlling your own wealth. Society has shown that voluntary donation programs to spread education and medical service to Africa have worked out extremely well. The reason we don't see those programs for our own countries is because everyone seems to assume that the state is going to rob everyone either way! We don't NEED the state robbing us of our money, a lot of us would give it away either way because we're good people who support good causes.

Want an example of someone very rich doing this? Bill Motherfucking Gates.
User avatar #142 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Again, you're taking what I say and turning it around.

Let me get to another point because this is obviously going nowhere, since you think wealth should stay where it is forever and ever.
A person can work hard and become rich.
A person can be lazy and become rich.
A person can work hard and stay poor.
A person can be lazy and stay poor.
It's not as simple as this, of course hard-working people WILL earn more money. But they won't necessarily get rich.
If a capitalistic system however, makes sure that wealthy people can hold on to their wealth forever without any effort, poor people can never become rich, hard-working or not. Is this fair?
Let me add another example. A poor man can work hard for 10 years and then break his neck in a work-related accident. This man can never work again. Now since social security is bullshit according to you, this man should starve to death, right?
#148 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Again, you didn't define capitalism (it's a term that seems to have, an infinite amount of meanings depending on who you ask), so I have trouble responding to you.

Social security is not bullshit, MANDATORY social security is. This hypothetical man of yours should (and most likely does) have a nice insurance. This would give him at least some money to get by with for a while. This man probably has a family, and friends. Starting up funding for him to get by is not a hard thing, people have done this on Kickstarter even. If you feel so bad for this man, you would donate to an organization which would help him even if the state didn't point a gun to your head if you didn't, correct?

What do you mean by "hold on to their wealth"? You mean that they have a lot of money because they have people working for them? I just fail to understand how that is wrong. If they have created something successful, of course they should have something to show for it. That's none of your business, that's HIS business. Quite literally, even.

Of course people won't always get rich, that's not how work... works. People pay you as much as they feel your service helps them. This is why soccer players get multimillion dollar wages: someone wants to see them play, and is willing to give them this money if they do it. Wonderful, the guy's made a fantastic living running after a ball once every week!

This "capitalistic" system that you describe implies a state which mandates how wealth is distributed. This is wrong, in all forms. There should be NO distribution of wealth, there should be NO obligatory regulations for who gets what money and how. Without such control, even the poorest man can become rich by offering a service people are willing to pay him for.
User avatar #154 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Where would he get insurance? Money would stay with the rich, so even hard work would yield him little pay. This man, being a poor man, would probably have a poor family and poor friends who wouldn't be able to help him much either.
A lot of people will never donate to charity. That's impossible to deny. And having material wealth and power doesn't usually make people more generous. And if they do donate to charity. They won't donate to all charities, they'll donate to the ones which appeal to them most.

I'm also not saying that a man who has created a succesful business does not deserve material wealth. I am saying that if he gets lazy and chooses to no longer contribute to society, or if he leaves his money to his children, who choose not to contribute either, the wealth does stay with them, but they no longer deserve it. And of course i'm not denying the hard)wrrking man his pension, if he contributed for liong enough he should be able to enjoy his wealth even in his old age.

Without distribution of wealth, the paralysed man has a good chance of starving to death? not all rich people are benevolent.
If you take away state control now, rich people now would remain rich forever.
In a few centuries, their families will still be rich. No poor man but the extrmemly lucky will ever have the chance of becoming rich.
#158 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
All I can say is: I disagree with your philosophy, your beliefs about humanity and I believe that your examples are flawed and incomplete.

However, I sadly don't have time to continue arguing, fun as it has been. Good night, it honestly was a pleasure talking to you! :)
User avatar #160 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
same here, and I'm glad you didn't start raging and thumb down every single one of my comments.
Have some thumbs for not being a whiny bitch faggot :D
#205 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Good night! I came in just to check on this. Have some thumbs, I saw some asshole had gone through and thumbed down all of your shit.

I don't feel that raging accomplishes much. ;) It's more fun trying to actually express yourself without resorting to profanity. Besides, you don't really deserve to be called a cocksucking faggot even if I do disagree with you. Y'know, basic human respect and all of that jazz!
User avatar #324 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
you're a stand-up chum.
#107 - No liberals here are very right-wing and capitalistic. Rich ba…  [+] (17 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist 0
User avatar #111 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
This is Classical Liberalism of the early enlightenment. Liberal basically to the Americans means Socialist/ vaguely leftist. It's a scare term without any fundamental political background now.
#110 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Define capitalistic. That's an important one, because otherwise I won't be able to properly respond. xD
User avatar #115 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Your stereotypical rich person. Wants less taxes because he'll get to keep more money, wants less government involvement into economy so he can make more money. Cringes when hearing 'social security' because it'll cost him money.
#116 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
So, a rational human being? Okay, good. I like your liberals.
User avatar #125 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
A rational human being seeks the best balance between socialism and capitalism, so nobody gets to be filthy rich without having to contribute to the system, and so the less fortunate are given aid without being allowed to parasite off of those who work hard.

Liberalism as it is here punishes the poor and rewards the rich. If that's how you think it should be, well then... you have your opinion and I have mine.
#132 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Someone who's rich has gotten rich by contributing. If you don't believe that those who own large companies have to work for their fortunes, you are sorely mistaken. They made it all happen. They created a company which pleased a lot of people and allowed them to expand, creating a fantastic service which everyone obviously wanted. As such, they became rich.

They did NOT, however, become rich because some asshole was sitting on his couch all day watching TV and whining that the state won't give him free vacations on Ibiza.
User avatar #135 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
See now you have to read what I'm saying.

That rich person should be allowed to live life as a rich person.
But that rich person has a son. A rich, pretentious douchey son who will never have to work a day in his life. Is that fair?

Capitalism ensures that the money goes to those who work hard. And stays there forever. Even if they decide to stop working hard.
#138 - qwermy (08/08/2012) [-]
If I ever become obscenely rich, I will build a huge public park like the Dukes, DuPonts, and Vanderbilts did. I will also build homes for homeless, and do anything I can to dump my money into useful charities before I die. The alternative would be it being passed down (resulting in lazy descendants, who I'd rather have work their way to their own wealth), or giving it to the government, which would waste it on useless shit. In other words, I'd be like Bill Gates if I could, except I would spend the money in the US rather than Africa.
User avatar #143 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Yes. I love it that all rich people everywhere just happen to be like Bill Gates and work to make the world a better place all the time without thinking about themselves.

Selfish poor people would probably waste all that money on things like food.
#137 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Of course it's fair. I should be allowed to gift my money to whoever I want. :P Even if it's a hundred million euros. I honestly don't see the problem with actually controlling your own wealth. Society has shown that voluntary donation programs to spread education and medical service to Africa have worked out extremely well. The reason we don't see those programs for our own countries is because everyone seems to assume that the state is going to rob everyone either way! We don't NEED the state robbing us of our money, a lot of us would give it away either way because we're good people who support good causes.

Want an example of someone very rich doing this? Bill Motherfucking Gates.
User avatar #142 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Again, you're taking what I say and turning it around.

Let me get to another point because this is obviously going nowhere, since you think wealth should stay where it is forever and ever.
A person can work hard and become rich.
A person can be lazy and become rich.
A person can work hard and stay poor.
A person can be lazy and stay poor.
It's not as simple as this, of course hard-working people WILL earn more money. But they won't necessarily get rich.
If a capitalistic system however, makes sure that wealthy people can hold on to their wealth forever without any effort, poor people can never become rich, hard-working or not. Is this fair?
Let me add another example. A poor man can work hard for 10 years and then break his neck in a work-related accident. This man can never work again. Now since social security is bullshit according to you, this man should starve to death, right?
#148 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Again, you didn't define capitalism (it's a term that seems to have, an infinite amount of meanings depending on who you ask), so I have trouble responding to you.

Social security is not bullshit, MANDATORY social security is. This hypothetical man of yours should (and most likely does) have a nice insurance. This would give him at least some money to get by with for a while. This man probably has a family, and friends. Starting up funding for him to get by is not a hard thing, people have done this on Kickstarter even. If you feel so bad for this man, you would donate to an organization which would help him even if the state didn't point a gun to your head if you didn't, correct?

What do you mean by "hold on to their wealth"? You mean that they have a lot of money because they have people working for them? I just fail to understand how that is wrong. If they have created something successful, of course they should have something to show for it. That's none of your business, that's HIS business. Quite literally, even.

Of course people won't always get rich, that's not how work... works. People pay you as much as they feel your service helps them. This is why soccer players get multimillion dollar wages: someone wants to see them play, and is willing to give them this money if they do it. Wonderful, the guy's made a fantastic living running after a ball once every week!

This "capitalistic" system that you describe implies a state which mandates how wealth is distributed. This is wrong, in all forms. There should be NO distribution of wealth, there should be NO obligatory regulations for who gets what money and how. Without such control, even the poorest man can become rich by offering a service people are willing to pay him for.
User avatar #154 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Where would he get insurance? Money would stay with the rich, so even hard work would yield him little pay. This man, being a poor man, would probably have a poor family and poor friends who wouldn't be able to help him much either.
A lot of people will never donate to charity. That's impossible to deny. And having material wealth and power doesn't usually make people more generous. And if they do donate to charity. They won't donate to all charities, they'll donate to the ones which appeal to them most.

I'm also not saying that a man who has created a succesful business does not deserve material wealth. I am saying that if he gets lazy and chooses to no longer contribute to society, or if he leaves his money to his children, who choose not to contribute either, the wealth does stay with them, but they no longer deserve it. And of course i'm not denying the hard)wrrking man his pension, if he contributed for liong enough he should be able to enjoy his wealth even in his old age.

Without distribution of wealth, the paralysed man has a good chance of starving to death? not all rich people are benevolent.
If you take away state control now, rich people now would remain rich forever.
In a few centuries, their families will still be rich. No poor man but the extrmemly lucky will ever have the chance of becoming rich.
#158 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
All I can say is: I disagree with your philosophy, your beliefs about humanity and I believe that your examples are flawed and incomplete.

However, I sadly don't have time to continue arguing, fun as it has been. Good night, it honestly was a pleasure talking to you! :)
User avatar #160 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
same here, and I'm glad you didn't start raging and thumb down every single one of my comments.
Have some thumbs for not being a whiny bitch faggot :D
#205 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Good night! I came in just to check on this. Have some thumbs, I saw some asshole had gone through and thumbed down all of your shit.

I don't feel that raging accomplishes much. ;) It's more fun trying to actually express yourself without resorting to profanity. Besides, you don't really deserve to be called a cocksucking faggot even if I do disagree with you. Y'know, basic human respect and all of that jazz!
User avatar #324 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
you're a stand-up chum.
#101 - Can somebody explain liberalism to me? I'm belgian and Liberal…  [+] (45 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Typical Feminist +9
#112 - qwermy (08/08/2012) [-]
American liberals want more government social programs. It is akin to what European left-wing and socialist parties want, but not within the actual definition of socialism. Liberals interpret the US Constitution, the framework of US Government, more broadly, to allow for more social programs never intended by the Constitution's writers.

American conservatives want less government programs and regulation, either for the reason that they were not intended in the Constitution, or that they cost too much. Many conservatives also want to promote or protect their religious views, though that is NOT, contrary to liberals' claims, an essential part of conservatism.

In relation to Europe, US definitions of the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are somewhat backwards. On behalf of the US populace, I apologize for the confusion.
User avatar #118 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
You know another thing that's always bother me is 'democrats' and 'republicans'.

Isn't America a democracy AND a republic? What the hell do those names mean?
#124 - qwermy (08/08/2012) [-]
They are political parties. Yes, they effectively mean the same thing by definition, because whoever founded the parties wanted voters to think that THEIR party was the more patriotic. Democrats are more liberal (US definition; social/leftists), and Republicans are more conservative (US definition; free market/less government).
User avatar #126 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Yeah I knew most of that, except the names never made sense to me. Your explanation makes it seem more reasonable, but it still seems a little stupid.
#134 - qwermy (08/08/2012) [-]
I know. That's the US political system for you. As for my opinion, I believe we need a balance between political left and right. It is ok to contribute to the system, as long as taxes aren't oppressively high (as in socialism). I really don't like hard-core liberals, though, because they are generally deceptive. Just as in this meme, they preach peace, then say conservatives do not deserve to live. They call for gun bans for all but police, under the guise of "gun control", and then call the police pigs. They call for taxes on the rich, then include the middle class as "rich". And worst of all, they demonize conservatives, calling them racists and sexists. American liberals control the media, so conservatives never get a word in.
User avatar #136 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
I'm arguin left-right balance some comments further down in this thread, lol.
#105 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Liberal in USA is used to refer to what I think you'd call social democracy (although not as bad as in any European country, such as Sweden or Denmark that are horrible socialist nests). The Liberal you're thinking of is probably referring to what is more commonly known as libertarianism, a minarchistic/anarcho-capitalistic political stance.

Swedefag helping out. <3
User avatar #109 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
Hey it's a guy on funny junk that knows about politics. Hi.
#114 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Hello! I try to keep myself updated on the world's ideas, even though they are all based on the idae of a state (which I somewhat despise). Oh well, understanding your enemy is a good way to beat it. :)
User avatar #120 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
Well, very admirable indeed! If only more of our fellow human's took your approach.

Yes, I thought about the idea of statelessness, but it occurred to me that it is impractical, because of the low levels of education and altruism on earth today.
User avatar #131 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
If people were altruistic, communism would WORK.

Communism could still work if the system could be made to reward hard work without favouritism and to punish the lazy without cruelty.

Or if it didn't put such a ridiculous amount of power into the state's hands.
User avatar #141 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
What do you mean by Communism? Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Social Democratic transition?
User avatar #145 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Just the communism, non-specific.
No application of communism to an actual state has ever worked so they all got it wrong, pretty much.
Except Cuba. Cuba works... sort of. Not great, but it works.
User avatar #149 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
But communism is a spectrum. Marx didn't write very well, in that he lacked total clarity. Therefore Lenin came along and said "the workers need to take direct dictatorial control" and then Mao came along and said "the peasants, not the workers, are the basis of the revolution" and meanwhile some socialists were saying "Social Democracy is the only way to achieve communism." These Social Democrats were completely opposed to "putting ridiculous amounts of power in the states hands"

So it's very hard to label "communism" as one ideology.
User avatar #157 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Yes, yes, but that is FAR from my original point.
I am arguing a form of communism unlike any of these, so I can't give it one of these names.
User avatar #182 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
No, it's necessary to define whether your original point of whether an altruistic communist society would or wouldn't work.

But surely any system would work if we gave our all for the common cause of the system itself, and were in this way altruistic to our fellow man? From top to bottom?
User avatar #188 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
True, true. But such altruism would in the end lead to something very closely resembling communism, would it not?
User avatar #192 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
True communism being anarchy, the final stage... I guess it would. What an interesting thought!
#127 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
I strongly believe that a school not forced to work by the idiotic laws and standards most states have would teach a group of people far better. Not only because they actually get to earn money to use on equipment, but because schools competing for funds are going to hold a higher standard in order to win sponsorships and students. :D

However, the altruism point might stand true. The strange thing is that most people when questioned only seem to care for themselves, until you bring their statements into the wide perspective, at which point they completely turn around and defend whatever state they rule under. Odd indeed.

What worries me most is the pacifism of most of the world's population, created by the fact that despite our best efforts, the state will ALWAYS do exactly what it wants. Fine modern examples: Julian Assange. Pirate Bay trials. CISPA. ACTA. The list goes on, and it's terrible. There have been enormous protests worldwide for so many things, yet as soon as they get ignored and the shit passes anyway, everyone just seems to shrug and go "OKAY GUESS WE FAILED".

Democracy in action?
User avatar #323 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
I agree on what your saying about schools. I think indeed that if schools were independent from the state as private enterprises, their level of education could be improved/specified further. However, there's a catch. It probably won'ty be accesible for everyone anymore.
User avatar #147 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
Well while it is idealistically the aim of most thinkers, surely the practical enactment of it at the beginning would have the education levels of pre-anarchic society? This even in the most developed countries is very low. I could not name 10 people that could adequately describe what anarchy, communism, or social democracy entails, and I live in a city built on education.

Also the state is a necessary evil, I think, to prevent the build up of power external to it. For instance it checks the army, the judiciary, the economy (ha) and to redistribute wealth in the form of welfare. However in recent years this has nigh on crumbled.

Think of the immediate transition to anarchy. The state is destroyed. It no longer exists. Yet do other institutions, that the state previously held on a leash? The army? The corporations? What is there to moderate these? It is not practical yet.

Also there is the problem of whether the state is a social contract. You've got to remember that people are entitled to choose to forgo their total (anarchic) liberty in return for safety, which prevents the mob rule or random unjustified killings and so on.
#152 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
The social contract is a ridiculous concept and I do not agree with it anywhere. It's created ONLY to justify the state's continued power over people it has not ever dealt with previously. Sickening.

An immediate transition to anarchy would be devestating, yes. However, such devestation MAY be necessary, I don't know. I don't know any practical way to create it without killing many, many people, and somewhere in my mind that just doesn't sit right. Maybe I should contact Anders Breivik. >_>

I don't believe in necessary evils. The control the state has only serves to restrict the gains of people, it doesn't aid them. The laws and regulations created are only to serve the state's purposes, because if they wanted to help the citizens, there would be no regulations (as regulations STOP you from doing things).

The army is an interesting issue. I can't answer to what would most likely happen to it. Either people are peaceful and put down their guns like good people, or they try to take over and form their own regime. Yeah, doubt that. That's what makes it so hard to enforce: The state has enough power to reincarnate, only because they've developed a system in which they are so entangled that people will immdiately BELIEVE they're going to die if it goes away, even if it is not the case (hooray for indoctrination!).

Corporations do not need leashes. They need organizations to test and evaluate them, yes, but this could be done far more efficiently (and morally) without a state taking your money to do it. It is in the best interest of anyone hoping to earn money to do this, because refusal will obviously lead to these evaluation organizations to berate you and give you a very, very bad name. Customer awareness becomes a thing again.

The point is: In a system without a state, we give others just as much power over us as we want. You can choose to adhere to the rules of anyone, but no one can choose the rules you adhere to.

That's the basic philosophy of it.
User avatar #175 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
Someone can, and will, choose the rules you adhere to the moment it occurs.

With a gun.

While I'm not against Anarchy per se, and find it very interesting and utopic, I think it currently unachievable, and you are right.
The state will re-emerge. It is a natural tendency unfortunately. I suggest reading (politely, not condescendingly, and only for intellectual benefit) Francis Fukuyama's book 'the origins of political order'. This book explains, through anthropology, evolutionary biology, and analysis of history & politics, why humans have created the political institutions that exist today, most importantly the state.

For this reason, if humans will simply create a new and more despotic, tyrannical state, I am against the implementation of anarchy now, because it will not achieve what you say; "You can choose to adhere to the rules of anyone, but no one can choose the rules you adhere to. "

I want that, but I don't want the destruction of the state and re-emergence of a tyranny.
User avatar #180 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
Looking at this I don't really know what we're discussing, I think we have the same viewpoint.

Also why has someone down-voted every comment?
#203 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
I'm here for a minute, I don't have time to respond to your whole post (very tired ._.). Yeah, I think we share a few opinions, I guess I'm just more actively engaged in my interest to liberate myself from the state or some shit like that.

Also, FunnyJunk is a place where big words = bad words. Hence, thumbdowning (that is a word).
User avatar #211 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
Yeah I suppose you are. Maybe in that way you're more optimistic. But I'm quite optimistic about my life, the state isn't exactly totalitarian and allows me to think for myself, so I'm chill.

Nice to have a conversation with a knowledgeable person, on the internet, and on funnyjunk no less!
User avatar #107 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
No liberals here are very right-wing and capitalistic. Rich bankers etc.
User avatar #111 - teevanator (08/08/2012) [-]
This is Classical Liberalism of the early enlightenment. Liberal basically to the Americans means Socialist/ vaguely leftist. It's a scare term without any fundamental political background now.
#110 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Define capitalistic. That's an important one, because otherwise I won't be able to properly respond. xD
User avatar #115 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Your stereotypical rich person. Wants less taxes because he'll get to keep more money, wants less government involvement into economy so he can make more money. Cringes when hearing 'social security' because it'll cost him money.
#116 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
So, a rational human being? Okay, good. I like your liberals.
User avatar #125 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
A rational human being seeks the best balance between socialism and capitalism, so nobody gets to be filthy rich without having to contribute to the system, and so the less fortunate are given aid without being allowed to parasite off of those who work hard.

Liberalism as it is here punishes the poor and rewards the rich. If that's how you think it should be, well then... you have your opinion and I have mine.
#132 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Someone who's rich has gotten rich by contributing. If you don't believe that those who own large companies have to work for their fortunes, you are sorely mistaken. They made it all happen. They created a company which pleased a lot of people and allowed them to expand, creating a fantastic service which everyone obviously wanted. As such, they became rich.

They did NOT, however, become rich because some asshole was sitting on his couch all day watching TV and whining that the state won't give him free vacations on Ibiza.
User avatar #135 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
See now you have to read what I'm saying.

That rich person should be allowed to live life as a rich person.
But that rich person has a son. A rich, pretentious douchey son who will never have to work a day in his life. Is that fair?

Capitalism ensures that the money goes to those who work hard. And stays there forever. Even if they decide to stop working hard.
#138 - qwermy (08/08/2012) [-]
If I ever become obscenely rich, I will build a huge public park like the Dukes, DuPonts, and Vanderbilts did. I will also build homes for homeless, and do anything I can to dump my money into useful charities before I die. The alternative would be it being passed down (resulting in lazy descendants, who I'd rather have work their way to their own wealth), or giving it to the government, which would waste it on useless shit. In other words, I'd be like Bill Gates if I could, except I would spend the money in the US rather than Africa.
User avatar #143 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Yes. I love it that all rich people everywhere just happen to be like Bill Gates and work to make the world a better place all the time without thinking about themselves.

Selfish poor people would probably waste all that money on things like food.
#137 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Of course it's fair. I should be allowed to gift my money to whoever I want. :P Even if it's a hundred million euros. I honestly don't see the problem with actually controlling your own wealth. Society has shown that voluntary donation programs to spread education and medical service to Africa have worked out extremely well. The reason we don't see those programs for our own countries is because everyone seems to assume that the state is going to rob everyone either way! We don't NEED the state robbing us of our money, a lot of us would give it away either way because we're good people who support good causes.

Want an example of someone very rich doing this? Bill Motherfucking Gates.
User avatar #142 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Again, you're taking what I say and turning it around.

Let me get to another point because this is obviously going nowhere, since you think wealth should stay where it is forever and ever.
A person can work hard and become rich.
A person can be lazy and become rich.
A person can work hard and stay poor.
A person can be lazy and stay poor.
It's not as simple as this, of course hard-working people WILL earn more money. But they won't necessarily get rich.
If a capitalistic system however, makes sure that wealthy people can hold on to their wealth forever without any effort, poor people can never become rich, hard-working or not. Is this fair?
Let me add another example. A poor man can work hard for 10 years and then break his neck in a work-related accident. This man can never work again. Now since social security is bullshit according to you, this man should starve to death, right?
#148 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Again, you didn't define capitalism (it's a term that seems to have, an infinite amount of meanings depending on who you ask), so I have trouble responding to you.

Social security is not bullshit, MANDATORY social security is. This hypothetical man of yours should (and most likely does) have a nice insurance. This would give him at least some money to get by with for a while. This man probably has a family, and friends. Starting up funding for him to get by is not a hard thing, people have done this on Kickstarter even. If you feel so bad for this man, you would donate to an organization which would help him even if the state didn't point a gun to your head if you didn't, correct?

What do you mean by "hold on to their wealth"? You mean that they have a lot of money because they have people working for them? I just fail to understand how that is wrong. If they have created something successful, of course they should have something to show for it. That's none of your business, that's HIS business. Quite literally, even.

Of course people won't always get rich, that's not how work... works. People pay you as much as they feel your service helps them. This is why soccer players get multimillion dollar wages: someone wants to see them play, and is willing to give them this money if they do it. Wonderful, the guy's made a fantastic living running after a ball once every week!

This "capitalistic" system that you describe implies a state which mandates how wealth is distributed. This is wrong, in all forms. There should be NO distribution of wealth, there should be NO obligatory regulations for who gets what money and how. Without such control, even the poorest man can become rich by offering a service people are willing to pay him for.
User avatar #154 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
Where would he get insurance? Money would stay with the rich, so even hard work would yield him little pay. This man, being a poor man, would probably have a poor family and poor friends who wouldn't be able to help him much either.
A lot of people will never donate to charity. That's impossible to deny. And having material wealth and power doesn't usually make people more generous. And if they do donate to charity. They won't donate to all charities, they'll donate to the ones which appeal to them most.

I'm also not saying that a man who has created a succesful business does not deserve material wealth. I am saying that if he gets lazy and chooses to no longer contribute to society, or if he leaves his money to his children, who choose not to contribute either, the wealth does stay with them, but they no longer deserve it. And of course i'm not denying the hard)wrrking man his pension, if he contributed for liong enough he should be able to enjoy his wealth even in his old age.

Without distribution of wealth, the paralysed man has a good chance of starving to death? not all rich people are benevolent.
If you take away state control now, rich people now would remain rich forever.
In a few centuries, their families will still be rich. No poor man but the extrmemly lucky will ever have the chance of becoming rich.
#158 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
All I can say is: I disagree with your philosophy, your beliefs about humanity and I believe that your examples are flawed and incomplete.

However, I sadly don't have time to continue arguing, fun as it has been. Good night, it honestly was a pleasure talking to you! :)
User avatar #160 - ewowo (08/08/2012) [-]
same here, and I'm glad you didn't start raging and thumb down every single one of my comments.
Have some thumbs for not being a whiny bitch faggot :D
#205 - kraetyz (08/08/2012) [-]
Good night! I came in just to check on this. Have some thumbs, I saw some asshole had gone through and thumbed down all of your shit.

I don't feel that raging accomplishes much. ;) It's more fun trying to actually express yourself without resorting to profanity. Besides, you don't really deserve to be called a cocksucking faggot even if I do disagree with you. Y'know, basic human respect and all of that jazz!
User avatar #324 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
you're a stand-up chum.
User avatar #104 - facedodge (08/08/2012) [-]
American Progressives (Socialists) of the 1930's changed their names to Liberals because they want free stuff, but not freedom. We now have Libertarians who believe in free markets and small government which are true liberals by the Latin definition.
#235 - 19 year old who was born in '93 has noticed this too.  [+] (1 new reply) 08/08/2012 on 40 Things that will make... 0
User avatar #269 - ratf (08/08/2012) [-]
im 18 and ima 94
#31 - Well, if it's anything like ravnica, and if you can believe wh…  [+] (7 new replies) 08/08/2012 on EDH/Commander 0
User avatar #32 - deathskream (08/08/2012) [-]
Makes sense, since its Izzet vs. Golgari in the new duel decks. But I favor black in a deck, and usually red or green, since ramp can get stupid. I've never built Izzet, and people I know who have are the most dick people playing, only once have I ever won against an Izzet deck.
User avatar #35 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
You could go for Dimir. Everyone will hate you and you STILL won't win.
User avatar #36 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
I like Dimir, but I never really liked playing it to be honest.
User avatar #37 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
Last time I played against a dimir deck I won yu-gioh style.
User avatar #40 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
I hate playing blue players that are dicks about milling. I went mill against mill one time, managed to win, but barely. I prefer BUG when it comes to mill, because then there can be discard and the ramp designed to make it possible. Vulturous Zombie and Bloodchief Ascension with a few counters on it, enough to activate its ability. Then, proceed to fuck shit up even more by Traumatizing them. Be like, not only are you taking 80 something damage, but I also have a massive creature I can smack someone with and kill them. Its a nice edh combo if no one counters it.
User avatar #38 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
Top decking like a boss? I've had so many times where I got a card that wasn't necessary, and still won.
User avatar #39 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
Managed to draw borborygmos at the last possible moment. One turn later and my library would have been empty.
#55 - wanna play a game?  [+] (9 new replies) 08/08/2012 on Rumours! 0
User avatar #56 - deathskream (08/08/2012) [-]
Not sure how to really respond, because if it involves Duels of the Planeswalkers, I'm shit out of luck.
User avatar #58 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
Check the channel. It involves octgn. octgn is is free.

Duels is also free. Sometimes. If you know where to look. Yarrrrrr harrr harrrr harrrr.

but seriously now octgn is totally free, access to all cards ever, full art, multiplayer, sealed, and much more.
User avatar #59 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
Then scour the channel, I will. Also, the released Jarad and the new Niv for preorder.
User avatar #60 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
Sweet, tell me when you get it!
octgn I mean
User avatar #61 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
I got octgn, but for some reason I can't download any of the sets. And I have a sweet edh deck I want to model after one I have.
User avatar #62 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
what's wrong withthe sets? torrent doesn't work?
User avatar #63 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
No, and I've never been good with torrents. I have no idea what went wrong.
User avatar #64 - ewowo (08/09/2012) [-]
Well If I had your email or msn I could send you the individual sets.

msn would be better since it takes less work.
User avatar #65 - deathskream (08/09/2012) [-]
I don't actually have an msn. The email is divineheretic9@aol.com
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2200

Comments(101):

[ 101 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #102 - huehuehuepster (01/16/2014) [-]
it's the Netherlands, not Holland
User avatar #103 to #102 - ewowo (01/17/2014) [-]
Maybe it's Maybelline
User avatar #100 - dupu (04/19/2013) [-]
WHY IS EVERYONE COMMENTING "IT'S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME" ON YOUR PAGE?
That Gaius Baltar joke though. Honestly, bravo.
User avatar #101 to #100 - ewowo (04/19/2013) [-]
Someone rolled my username on a peanut butter jelly thread.
User avatar #92 - fayyzor (11/11/2012) [-]
Won't let me reply to you on there anymore.
And I've seen itttt c:
User avatar #93 to #92 - ewowo (11/11/2012) [-]
I'm European. I have to download it still.
User avatar #94 to #93 - fayyzor (11/11/2012) [-]
Oh D:
User avatar #95 to #94 - ewowo (11/11/2012) [-]
Indeed.
User avatar #96 to #95 - fayyzor (11/12/2012) [-]
Get it yet?! :D
User avatar #97 to #96 - ewowo (11/12/2012) [-]
Yes, but I decided to rewatch season 2 with my sister first. She hasn't seen it yet, and then we cans tart s3 together.
User avatar #98 to #97 - fayyzor (11/14/2012) [-]
B'aaaaaaw :3 cutie
User avatar #99 to #98 - ewowo (11/14/2012) [-]
Lol
#90 - anonymous (11/05/2012) [-]
white knight
you aint getting no kitty
with that attidude.
User avatar #91 to #90 - ewowo (11/05/2012) [-]
Dude, what the fuck? The girl wouldn't even see the damn comment. Also I'm not defending her. I don't give a shit about her. I'm just saying the guy's a douche.
#84 - kiwimidget (09/04/2012) [-]
ITS PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME BITCH
ITS PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME BITCH
#83 - xxfireflyxx (09/04/2012) [-]
IT'S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!
IT'S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!
User avatar #82 - impossiblemyazz (09/04/2012) [-]
its peanut butter jelly time
User avatar #79 - supamario (09/04/2012) [-]
IT"S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!
#78 - anonymous (09/04/2012) [-]
YOU'RE A NIGGER
User avatar #77 - solidsnakehomicide (09/04/2012) [-]
IT"S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!
#76 - eutherin (09/04/2012) [-]
IT'S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME
#75 - joshuamckane (09/04/2012) [-]
IT'S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME
IT'S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME
User avatar #73 - clockworkchaos (09/04/2012) [-]
IT'S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!
User avatar #72 - derrickrose **User deleted account** (09/04/2012) [-]
ITS PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!
#71 - lujan (09/04/2012) [-]
IT'S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!!!
#70 - undeadpyro (09/04/2012) [-]
PEANUT BUTTER DICK TIME
User avatar #69 - bloodbathmcbullet (09/04/2012) [-]
PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME
#68 - anonymous (09/04/2012) [-]
PEANUT BUTTER DICK TIME
#67 - xmegustax (09/04/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
[ 101 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)