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

hide menu

misterbatman

Rank #3054 on Content
misterbatman Avatar Level 169 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Offline
Send mail to misterbatman Block misterbatman Invite misterbatman to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:11/15/2012
Last Login:12/19/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#3054
Comment Ranking:#15496
Highest Content Rank:#2088
Highest Comment Rank:#5827
Content Thumbs: 4354 total,  5093 ,  739
Comment Thumbs: 789 total,  1272 ,  483
Content Level Progress: 5% (5/100)
Level 140 Content: Faptastic → Level 141 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 50% (5/10)
Level 169 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 170 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:0
Content Views:192938
Times Content Favorited:212 times
Total Comments Made:403
FJ Points:4693
Favorite Tags: The Game (11) | Pokemon (3)

latest user's comments

#143 - Once again, there are ideological differences that we'll never…  [+] (7 new replies) 08/13/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#144 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
More like, everyone vs everything, but sure.
User avatar #145 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
What do you mean by that?
#146 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I want everyone to be happy, you just want a system where people can get everything.
User avatar #147 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
You're projecting (again). I just believe that satisfaction and happiness should come from self-actualization and self-reliance. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to make themselves happy, and if they don't take it, they don't deserve it.

Your ideal world would be populated with lazy, impotent leeches.
#150 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
It wouldn't let me reply to your most recent one.

I was merely remarking at the fact that you said they were impotent.

Here's the thing though, contraceptives are useful.

Also, a computer could run the government i'm suggesting, and computers can't be made corrupt if their software is open source.
#148 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I believe it is the governments job to protect the interests of all people, not some people.

So i'm fine with impotent leeches, considering they couldn't reproduce.
User avatar #149 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
Ahh, but that's the problem. History shows that it's always the leeches who do reproduce, and they only create more of a problem.

I believe the government should exist for only a few spare functions: to protect people from theft, to protect people from harm, and to build infrastructure. Pretty much everything else can be handled in the market. As an organic system, the free market self-regulates. If an entity is corrupt, the people can deny it service; if they choose to pay for its services anyway and it becomes progressively more decadent, it will eventually collapse. The market is economics' version of natural selection.
#140 - Also, I'd like to point out that every clean-energy venture ev…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/13/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#142 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
Because every country on the planet is capitalist.
#139 - The problem with communism is that it brings the top down inst…  [+] (9 new replies) 08/13/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#141 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I don't believe there are any wealthy people who earn their money.

I believe that every single one of them is either scum suckers, living off of eating at the bottom, or they simply got really lucky, and were born into it.

How does distributing the wealth from the top and giving it back to the bottom not help them?

Also, I don't believe in pure marxist communism, the variety i believe in actually does quite the opposite, by allowing ((almost)) any tools needed for any kind of creative expression through request, and if they are recyclable, putting them back into the system to be used once again.
User avatar #143 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
Once again, there are ideological differences that we'll never reconcile. You can keep your kumbaya, and I'll keep everything I can get.
#144 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
More like, everyone vs everything, but sure.
User avatar #145 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
What do you mean by that?
#146 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I want everyone to be happy, you just want a system where people can get everything.
User avatar #147 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
You're projecting (again). I just believe that satisfaction and happiness should come from self-actualization and self-reliance. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to make themselves happy, and if they don't take it, they don't deserve it.

Your ideal world would be populated with lazy, impotent leeches.
#150 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
It wouldn't let me reply to your most recent one.

I was merely remarking at the fact that you said they were impotent.

Here's the thing though, contraceptives are useful.

Also, a computer could run the government i'm suggesting, and computers can't be made corrupt if their software is open source.
#148 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I believe it is the governments job to protect the interests of all people, not some people.

So i'm fine with impotent leeches, considering they couldn't reproduce.
User avatar #149 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
Ahh, but that's the problem. History shows that it's always the leeches who do reproduce, and they only create more of a problem.

I believe the government should exist for only a few spare functions: to protect people from theft, to protect people from harm, and to build infrastructure. Pretty much everything else can be handled in the market. As an organic system, the free market self-regulates. If an entity is corrupt, the people can deny it service; if they choose to pay for its services anyway and it becomes progressively more decadent, it will eventually collapse. The market is economics' version of natural selection.
#17 - American libtards are leftwingers. They're all about personal …  [+] (8 new replies) 08/13/2014 on anon goes to the mall with... +7
#41 - anonymous (08/13/2014) [-]
It's so fun not being American and watching all these retarded liberals and conservatives go at each other. God I love not being American.
#35 - sexuality (08/13/2014) [-]
Liberals =/= "Libtards" the exact same way that Conservatives =/= "Teabaggers"

Don't clump us all together, I'm a straight white male liberal with a concealed carry license.
User avatar #52 - CallMeCrisco (08/13/2014) [-]
Sounds more libertarian.
#70 - sexuality (08/13/2014) [-]
Maybe to some, but I'm registered and vote Democrat.

I enjoy my concealed carry, but seeing those individuals in open carry states with rifles and shotguns strapped to their back make me cringe.
User avatar #51 - MrDeadiron (08/13/2014) [-]
That's exactly what liberals and conservatives are, they are almost the furthest left and right you can be without becoming a commie or a fascist.
#69 - sexuality (08/13/2014) [-]
Keyword being almost, you can be a liberal without being like the individuals mentioned by OP (or, tumblrfags) and you can be a conservative without being a member of the Tea Party (the extreme right).

That's all I'm saying.
#47 - apurpleliger (08/13/2014) [-]
Not much of a liberal, then, are you?
#46 - anonymous (08/13/2014) [-]
so you're a retard with a gun
#179 - Picture 08/13/2014 on facebook gold +1
#178 - Picture 08/13/2014 on facebook gold +3
#137 - I think you feel like the world owes you something, and it doe…  [+] (13 new replies) 08/13/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#138 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
But not everyone is in a civilized country.

And honestly, whats wrong with everyone as a whole making something versus one person making something? Whats wrong with having the world give you something, especially when it can actaully give you that thing at the opposite of a cost.

We're running out of resources on this planet because of that very system, and at the benefit of the planet, i support communism.
User avatar #140 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
Also, I'd like to point out that every clean-energy venture ever undertaken was undertaken by a capitalist. You can blame resource shortages on capitalists all you want, but they're the only ones doing anything about it.
#142 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
Because every country on the planet is capitalist.
User avatar #139 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
The problem with communism is that it brings the top down instead of bringing the bottom up; it also puts too much power in the hands of the government (which is never, ever a good thing). Marxist communism stifles people who are creative, competitive, and inventive. Once again, we have reached a point where your ideology is immutably different from mine. I believe a person only has value if they can lay claim to value. I believe in personal responsibility, independence, and self-reliance. You hold different views. That's all there is to it.
#141 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I don't believe there are any wealthy people who earn their money.

I believe that every single one of them is either scum suckers, living off of eating at the bottom, or they simply got really lucky, and were born into it.

How does distributing the wealth from the top and giving it back to the bottom not help them?

Also, I don't believe in pure marxist communism, the variety i believe in actually does quite the opposite, by allowing ((almost)) any tools needed for any kind of creative expression through request, and if they are recyclable, putting them back into the system to be used once again.
User avatar #143 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
Once again, there are ideological differences that we'll never reconcile. You can keep your kumbaya, and I'll keep everything I can get.
#144 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
More like, everyone vs everything, but sure.
User avatar #145 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
What do you mean by that?
#146 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I want everyone to be happy, you just want a system where people can get everything.
User avatar #147 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
You're projecting (again). I just believe that satisfaction and happiness should come from self-actualization and self-reliance. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to make themselves happy, and if they don't take it, they don't deserve it.

Your ideal world would be populated with lazy, impotent leeches.
#150 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
It wouldn't let me reply to your most recent one.

I was merely remarking at the fact that you said they were impotent.

Here's the thing though, contraceptives are useful.

Also, a computer could run the government i'm suggesting, and computers can't be made corrupt if their software is open source.
#148 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I believe it is the governments job to protect the interests of all people, not some people.

So i'm fine with impotent leeches, considering they couldn't reproduce.
User avatar #149 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
Ahh, but that's the problem. History shows that it's always the leeches who do reproduce, and they only create more of a problem.

I believe the government should exist for only a few spare functions: to protect people from theft, to protect people from harm, and to build infrastructure. Pretty much everything else can be handled in the market. As an organic system, the free market self-regulates. If an entity is corrupt, the people can deny it service; if they choose to pay for its services anyway and it becomes progressively more decadent, it will eventually collapse. The market is economics' version of natural selection.
#135 - He leaped at an opportunity and made money by being savvy in t…  [+] (15 new replies) 08/12/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#136 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I'm not complaining about my luck, i'm complaining about the luck of the populus as a whole, the gamble in life makes an unfair system, I understand that you don't care that the system is unfair but you should, even if you're not one of the ones currently getting screwed over.
User avatar #137 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
I think you feel like the world owes you something, and it doesn't. I grew up poor as shit, but I'm not complaining. Not everyone can make it to the million-dollar-mark, but anyone in a civilized country can make a decent living. Anyone.
#138 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
But not everyone is in a civilized country.

And honestly, whats wrong with everyone as a whole making something versus one person making something? Whats wrong with having the world give you something, especially when it can actaully give you that thing at the opposite of a cost.

We're running out of resources on this planet because of that very system, and at the benefit of the planet, i support communism.
User avatar #140 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
Also, I'd like to point out that every clean-energy venture ever undertaken was undertaken by a capitalist. You can blame resource shortages on capitalists all you want, but they're the only ones doing anything about it.
#142 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
Because every country on the planet is capitalist.
User avatar #139 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
The problem with communism is that it brings the top down instead of bringing the bottom up; it also puts too much power in the hands of the government (which is never, ever a good thing). Marxist communism stifles people who are creative, competitive, and inventive. Once again, we have reached a point where your ideology is immutably different from mine. I believe a person only has value if they can lay claim to value. I believe in personal responsibility, independence, and self-reliance. You hold different views. That's all there is to it.
#141 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I don't believe there are any wealthy people who earn their money.

I believe that every single one of them is either scum suckers, living off of eating at the bottom, or they simply got really lucky, and were born into it.

How does distributing the wealth from the top and giving it back to the bottom not help them?

Also, I don't believe in pure marxist communism, the variety i believe in actually does quite the opposite, by allowing ((almost)) any tools needed for any kind of creative expression through request, and if they are recyclable, putting them back into the system to be used once again.
User avatar #143 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
Once again, there are ideological differences that we'll never reconcile. You can keep your kumbaya, and I'll keep everything I can get.
#144 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
More like, everyone vs everything, but sure.
User avatar #145 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
What do you mean by that?
#146 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I want everyone to be happy, you just want a system where people can get everything.
User avatar #147 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
You're projecting (again). I just believe that satisfaction and happiness should come from self-actualization and self-reliance. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to make themselves happy, and if they don't take it, they don't deserve it.

Your ideal world would be populated with lazy, impotent leeches.
#150 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
It wouldn't let me reply to your most recent one.

I was merely remarking at the fact that you said they were impotent.

Here's the thing though, contraceptives are useful.

Also, a computer could run the government i'm suggesting, and computers can't be made corrupt if their software is open source.
#148 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I believe it is the governments job to protect the interests of all people, not some people.

So i'm fine with impotent leeches, considering they couldn't reproduce.
User avatar #149 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
Ahh, but that's the problem. History shows that it's always the leeches who do reproduce, and they only create more of a problem.

I believe the government should exist for only a few spare functions: to protect people from theft, to protect people from harm, and to build infrastructure. Pretty much everything else can be handled in the market. As an organic system, the free market self-regulates. If an entity is corrupt, the people can deny it service; if they choose to pay for its services anyway and it becomes progressively more decadent, it will eventually collapse. The market is economics' version of natural selection.
#9479745 - **** Frampt and Kaathe. I'mma **** G… 08/12/2014 on autism autism autism autism +1
#133 - The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has nearly rid the entir…  [+] (17 new replies) 08/12/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#134 - thatonecommunist (08/12/2014) [-]
He actually didn't even make DOS, he bought it, and then sold it to IBM.

There was no earning involved.

And my problem with that is that he has a gigantic ass fucking mansion, nobody needs that shit, its not helping anybody, and it costed a lot of money, my problem with it is how wasteful it is, he's not special, he didn't do anything really great for humanity, sure there are worse people that could've had that much money, but there are plenty of people who would've done even more with it.

What makes bill gates deserving of riches?
User avatar #135 - misterbatman (08/12/2014) [-]
He leaped at an opportunity and made money by being savvy in the market. Since then he's spent a shit-ton of money as a humanitarian. He deserves riches because he took an opportunity that was available and did everything he could with it. Sure, he got lucky. So? Complaining about your luck in life accomplishes nothing.
#136 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I'm not complaining about my luck, i'm complaining about the luck of the populus as a whole, the gamble in life makes an unfair system, I understand that you don't care that the system is unfair but you should, even if you're not one of the ones currently getting screwed over.
User avatar #137 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
I think you feel like the world owes you something, and it doesn't. I grew up poor as shit, but I'm not complaining. Not everyone can make it to the million-dollar-mark, but anyone in a civilized country can make a decent living. Anyone.
#138 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
But not everyone is in a civilized country.

And honestly, whats wrong with everyone as a whole making something versus one person making something? Whats wrong with having the world give you something, especially when it can actaully give you that thing at the opposite of a cost.

We're running out of resources on this planet because of that very system, and at the benefit of the planet, i support communism.
User avatar #140 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
Also, I'd like to point out that every clean-energy venture ever undertaken was undertaken by a capitalist. You can blame resource shortages on capitalists all you want, but they're the only ones doing anything about it.
#142 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
Because every country on the planet is capitalist.
User avatar #139 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
The problem with communism is that it brings the top down instead of bringing the bottom up; it also puts too much power in the hands of the government (which is never, ever a good thing). Marxist communism stifles people who are creative, competitive, and inventive. Once again, we have reached a point where your ideology is immutably different from mine. I believe a person only has value if they can lay claim to value. I believe in personal responsibility, independence, and self-reliance. You hold different views. That's all there is to it.
#141 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I don't believe there are any wealthy people who earn their money.

I believe that every single one of them is either scum suckers, living off of eating at the bottom, or they simply got really lucky, and were born into it.

How does distributing the wealth from the top and giving it back to the bottom not help them?

Also, I don't believe in pure marxist communism, the variety i believe in actually does quite the opposite, by allowing ((almost)) any tools needed for any kind of creative expression through request, and if they are recyclable, putting them back into the system to be used once again.
User avatar #143 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
Once again, there are ideological differences that we'll never reconcile. You can keep your kumbaya, and I'll keep everything I can get.
#144 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
More like, everyone vs everything, but sure.
User avatar #145 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
What do you mean by that?
#146 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I want everyone to be happy, you just want a system where people can get everything.
User avatar #147 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
You're projecting (again). I just believe that satisfaction and happiness should come from self-actualization and self-reliance. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to make themselves happy, and if they don't take it, they don't deserve it.

Your ideal world would be populated with lazy, impotent leeches.
#150 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
It wouldn't let me reply to your most recent one.

I was merely remarking at the fact that you said they were impotent.

Here's the thing though, contraceptives are useful.

Also, a computer could run the government i'm suggesting, and computers can't be made corrupt if their software is open source.
#148 - thatonecommunist (08/13/2014) [-]
I believe it is the governments job to protect the interests of all people, not some people.

So i'm fine with impotent leeches, considering they couldn't reproduce.
User avatar #149 - misterbatman (08/13/2014) [-]
Ahh, but that's the problem. History shows that it's always the leeches who do reproduce, and they only create more of a problem.

I believe the government should exist for only a few spare functions: to protect people from theft, to protect people from harm, and to build infrastructure. Pretty much everything else can be handled in the market. As an organic system, the free market self-regulates. If an entity is corrupt, the people can deny it service; if they choose to pay for its services anyway and it becomes progressively more decadent, it will eventually collapse. The market is economics' version of natural selection.
#132 - I disagree with socialism and communism purely on ethical prin… 08/12/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#131 - Saying "everyone should be everyone's family" is con… 08/12/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#130 - You clearly didn't have the gumption to log in and post, so ch… 08/12/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#228 - Liberals. 08/11/2014 on racist field trip 0
#60 - And that's sad, but it's a fact of life. We have to mourn for … 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#58 - You're ignoring the part where I highlighted the fact that the…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies +1
#59 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
The playing field will not be even for the americans, and it never will be.
Their entire culture has been destroyed and its never going to come back.

Sure they'll come back economically, but thats not the only thing that matters.
User avatar #60 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
And that's sad, but it's a fact of life. We have to mourn for what they lost and move on.
#56 - Saying that over the internet means absolutely nothing. The fa…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies +1
#57 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Saying that over the internet means absolutely nothing. The fact that you haven't yet done it and that we're able to have this conversation demonstrates that it's clearly not a life-shatteringly important problem for you.
>I am incapable of doing this in my current position.
If you mean what you say, call your ISP tomorrow, cancel your net connection, and then go sell your computer and send the money to a charity of your choice.
>as you do not understand my current position, you cannot assume that I am in power to do this, hence the specified date.
Otherwise, you're going to keep potential food from the mouths of starving children every day for the next 418 days.
>I'm not happy with me doing this.
You won't, though, because you are a human. You are selfish by your very nature. That is my point.
>I will prove you wrong in 418 days.
It is not evil to look out for yourself before others, so long as you don't hurt others in the process. I'm off to bed. Good night, and good luck. I mean it.
#54 - You're again assuming that only white men can benefit from cap…  [+] (4 new replies) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies +1
#55 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
You're again assuming that only white men can benefit from capitalism.
>They benefit the most from it, by quite a lot.

We currently have a black president. That's the highest station afforded to a human being in America, and many would consider that the highest position of power in the world.
>He doesn't fucking control the economy or anything, honestly thats not really a high position of power.

If a poor black kid can make it to the presidency, I think you need to reevaluate your stance on all this.
>hold on, when was obama poor?
Sure, the system is still largely controlled by old, fat white men, but they're all going to die off in the next few decades, and there will be a lot of positions open; when that happens, it won't be the color of your skin that determines who has the power, it will be your determination and your ruthlessness that gets you the big chair. Like you said, classism is the problem, not racism.
>classism is currently the problem, but the classes were decided by racism, the white man being the most beneficial race to be hands down, destroying the americans, destroying aztec culture, destroying anything in their path to achieve their militaristic greed.

Did you know the americans, when they went to war with eachother, wouldn't even kill eachother most of the time? Almost all of their warfare was based on proving what they could've done. Hence why their military might was so low, and why they were so easily ravaged by the white man.
User avatar #58 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You're ignoring the part where I highlighted the fact that the class borders are less and less defined by race and that in a few decades the playing field will be nearly completely even. Once again, racism does not make a sound argument against racism.
#59 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
The playing field will not be even for the americans, and it never will be.
Their entire culture has been destroyed and its never going to come back.

Sure they'll come back economically, but thats not the only thing that matters.
User avatar #60 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
And that's sad, but it's a fact of life. We have to mourn for what they lost and move on.
#52 - You're projecting a bit much there. I wasn't going to respond …  [+] (3 new replies) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies +1
#53 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
I don't spend money on shit, negro, and i do believe the last thing, hence why i am literally sending everything i can to africa, including myself, and i will be selling the very thing i write this on in exactly 418 days.
User avatar #56 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
Saying that over the internet means absolutely nothing. The fact that you haven't yet done it and that we're able to have this conversation demonstrates that it's clearly not a life-shatteringly important problem for you. If you mean what you say, call your ISP tomorrow, cancel your net connection, and then go sell your computer and send the money to a charity of your choice. Otherwise, you're going to keep potential food from the mouths of starving children every day for the next 418 days.

You won't, though, because you are a human. You are selfish by your very nature. That is my point. It is not evil to look out for yourself before others, so long as you don't hurt others in the process. I'm off to bed. Good night, and good luck. I mean it.
#57 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Saying that over the internet means absolutely nothing. The fact that you haven't yet done it and that we're able to have this conversation demonstrates that it's clearly not a life-shatteringly important problem for you.
>I am incapable of doing this in my current position.
If you mean what you say, call your ISP tomorrow, cancel your net connection, and then go sell your computer and send the money to a charity of your choice.
>as you do not understand my current position, you cannot assume that I am in power to do this, hence the specified date.
Otherwise, you're going to keep potential food from the mouths of starving children every day for the next 418 days.
>I'm not happy with me doing this.
You won't, though, because you are a human. You are selfish by your very nature. That is my point.
>I will prove you wrong in 418 days.
It is not evil to look out for yourself before others, so long as you don't hurt others in the process. I'm off to bed. Good night, and good luck. I mean it.
#50 - I actually mentioned that line as being the exception that pro…  [+] (6 new replies) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#51 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Nononnoo, hold the phone, white people did something fundamentally different with slavery, they imported another race.

When you decide an entire race is your slave, it makes escape impossible, you are forever branded as a slave, until the entire system is abolished.

That's my problem with white slavery.

The thing is white men still hold slaves, they just hold them for a little bit of money and call it capitalism.
User avatar #54 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You're again assuming that only white men can benefit from capitalism. We currently have a black president. That's the highest station afforded to a human being in America, and many would consider that the highest position of power in the world. If a poor black kid can make it to the presidency, I think you need to reevaluate your stance on all this. Sure, the system is still largely controlled by old, fat white men, but they're all going to die off in the next few decades, and there will be a lot of positions open; when that happens, it won't be the color of your skin that determines who has the power, it will be your determination and your ruthlessness that gets you the big chair. Like you said, classism is the problem, not racism.

Also, attacking racism with racism is bad form.
#55 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
You're again assuming that only white men can benefit from capitalism.
>They benefit the most from it, by quite a lot.

We currently have a black president. That's the highest station afforded to a human being in America, and many would consider that the highest position of power in the world.
>He doesn't fucking control the economy or anything, honestly thats not really a high position of power.

If a poor black kid can make it to the presidency, I think you need to reevaluate your stance on all this.
>hold on, when was obama poor?
Sure, the system is still largely controlled by old, fat white men, but they're all going to die off in the next few decades, and there will be a lot of positions open; when that happens, it won't be the color of your skin that determines who has the power, it will be your determination and your ruthlessness that gets you the big chair. Like you said, classism is the problem, not racism.
>classism is currently the problem, but the classes were decided by racism, the white man being the most beneficial race to be hands down, destroying the americans, destroying aztec culture, destroying anything in their path to achieve their militaristic greed.

Did you know the americans, when they went to war with eachother, wouldn't even kill eachother most of the time? Almost all of their warfare was based on proving what they could've done. Hence why their military might was so low, and why they were so easily ravaged by the white man.
User avatar #58 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You're ignoring the part where I highlighted the fact that the class borders are less and less defined by race and that in a few decades the playing field will be nearly completely even. Once again, racism does not make a sound argument against racism.
#59 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
The playing field will not be even for the americans, and it never will be.
Their entire culture has been destroyed and its never going to come back.

Sure they'll come back economically, but thats not the only thing that matters.
User avatar #60 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
And that's sad, but it's a fact of life. We have to mourn for what they lost and move on.
#48 - I'm getting tired, so I'm going to be brief, but I've certainl…  [+] (5 new replies) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#49 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Always with the fuckin' age card.

"i'm older so i must know more about society" is all you accomplished there, and the fact that you don't think a life is worth saving even if it can't do anything to benefit you is on the same level as serial killers.

You're personally subscribing to murder.
User avatar #52 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You're projecting a bit much there. I wasn't going to respond again, but you upset me by resorting to a blatant strawman fallacy as well as a reduction of my argument to something that it was not. I did not say I knew more because I was older. Your right to your opinion is just as valid as mine. Mine just happens to be different, and that's largely due to my age and the fact that I've had more time to watch nature in action. Your beliefs are just as valid as mine, they just have different influences. Your strawman fallacy is repugnant. I never said a person's value came from how much they could do for me, I said your value came from how much you could do for yourself. I don't want or need anything from anyone else, and that's how it should be. Saying I'm personally subscribing to murder is just hilarious. How about this: the fact that you spend money on an internet connection instead of sending that money to feed starving kids in Africa means you're directly responsible for children dying of starvation. Do you see how silly that sounds?
#53 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
I don't spend money on shit, negro, and i do believe the last thing, hence why i am literally sending everything i can to africa, including myself, and i will be selling the very thing i write this on in exactly 418 days.
User avatar #56 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
Saying that over the internet means absolutely nothing. The fact that you haven't yet done it and that we're able to have this conversation demonstrates that it's clearly not a life-shatteringly important problem for you. If you mean what you say, call your ISP tomorrow, cancel your net connection, and then go sell your computer and send the money to a charity of your choice. Otherwise, you're going to keep potential food from the mouths of starving children every day for the next 418 days.

You won't, though, because you are a human. You are selfish by your very nature. That is my point. It is not evil to look out for yourself before others, so long as you don't hurt others in the process. I'm off to bed. Good night, and good luck. I mean it.
#57 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Saying that over the internet means absolutely nothing. The fact that you haven't yet done it and that we're able to have this conversation demonstrates that it's clearly not a life-shatteringly important problem for you.
>I am incapable of doing this in my current position.
If you mean what you say, call your ISP tomorrow, cancel your net connection, and then go sell your computer and send the money to a charity of your choice.
>as you do not understand my current position, you cannot assume that I am in power to do this, hence the specified date.
Otherwise, you're going to keep potential food from the mouths of starving children every day for the next 418 days.
>I'm not happy with me doing this.
You won't, though, because you are a human. You are selfish by your very nature. That is my point.
>I will prove you wrong in 418 days.
It is not evil to look out for yourself before others, so long as you don't hurt others in the process. I'm off to bed. Good night, and good luck. I mean it.
#45 - No, I expect parents not to bring children into a world when t… 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies +1
#43 - Living off the land is never, ever unavailable. Anyone who can…  [+] (6 new replies) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#106 - anonymous (08/11/2014) [-]
I think it's really funny that one of your main arguments is WE'LL NEVER HAVE EQUALITY, SO STOP TRYING.

IT'S HUMAN NATURE TO WANT TO PROVIDE FOR YOUR CHILDREN- yeah, so why do you think these people want the obscenely wealthy to spread out the obscene wealth a little more?

God, you're so fucking dense. Don't delude yourself into believing that most people can get immensely rich by being fair, or kind, or decent. The vast majority got their money by being assholes, by being cruel, by stepping on whoever they had to to get their own way- see Steve Jobs, most bankers, land developers who destroy natural land, the people cutting down ancient forests, the people selling ivory from endangered rhinos, any company that uses child labour like Nike.

Why shouldn't the people they exploit demand part of the money they've leeched? I know I'll never be rich because I don't want to make children work twelve hours a day for a buck per hour making football shirts that I'll sell for eighty bucks.
User avatar #130 - misterbatman (08/12/2014) [-]
You clearly didn't have the gumption to log in and post, so chances are you'll never see this; I'll respond anyway.

Nature does not want equality. Period. The strong eat the weak, and that's the way it is. Now, as evolved creatures, we have the capacity to grow and increase our status without hurting others. That, I think, is the middle ground we have to find. As I've said before, I believe in giving everyone equal footing, and then seeing who the most capable and intelligent people are. That's my ideal world.

Also, you obviously haven't read most of the rest of this discussion or you'd already know how I feel about people being "exploited." In a capitalist system, the majority of the people have the majority of the power (even if the wealthy minority try to convince them otherwise). If everyone refused to work in sweatshops, the sweatshops would close and the company selling football t-shirts would go out of business. If everyone chose not to buy from a certain company, they'd go bankrupt. If we decide we don't want to spend another dime with Nike, Nike will never sell another shoe. The problem is not that the business owners are cruel (yes, they are cruel, but that's not the problem). The problem is that the currently poor people are unwilling to do without in order to fight tyranny. You don't need Nikes. You don't need football shirts. If you have a problem with the system, either change the system or use the system in your favor. Redistribution of wealth is a shitty concept because it glorifies the weak-willed and the weak-minded who either don't jump at opportunities or are incapable of seeing them.

Also, anyone with half a brain can become reasonably wealthy. If you get a STEM degree or a tradesman's certification, you can easily find a job making between $50,000 and $100,000 per year anywhere in the states. That's more than enough to live affluently and retire on.
#47 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Living off the land is never, ever unavailable. Anyone who can walk can pull berries off a bush or make a spear from green wood to kill a deer. It's hard, but not impossible. That's the part you're not grasping. As for the disabled, they have to rely on their family and friends to care for them. If they cannot or will not, they will die. That is how the world works. It's sad, and I hate it every time I hear about a neglected child with a mental deficiency or a wounded veteran who can't work, but I recognize that these are unfortunate facts of life. If I could aid them, I would, but I will never force another person to give up what they've worked for to support the things that I personally pity.
>in the desert it is not feasable, and you can't assume that all people are in the same situation physically, you say they should rely on their family, and if they have none, screw them, thats wrong, everybody should be everybodys family, everyone should seek to help those who are in a situation like that, and that is my problem with the billionaires.
As a collective, yes, people can go "Screw it". That's called a revolution, and they have happened thousands of times in human history, usually for the betterment of the common folk.
>I'm aware, but it doesn't happen with small groups, and it definitely doesn't happen when the poor are completely weaponless and incapable of fighting.
If you leave die off the plantation and you left because you felt like you were being mistreated, then you died with dignity. There are few more admirable things than to die for your beliefs.
>oh you're dead but atleast you died with the right spirit in mind, man. Yeah most people don't want to die is the thing, so they'll keep working, and keep getting fucked.
"Yeah, and if you break your leg work twice as hard with the other one."
Now you're getting it.
>thats stupid as fuck, and there's nothing else to say about it.
User avatar #131 - misterbatman (08/12/2014) [-]
Saying "everyone should be everyone's family" is contrary to human instincts. We prefer our own genetics and want them to spread. That's how human evolution works and that's how it has always worked. It's also naive.

You're right, it's hard to survive in the desert. So saddle up your camel and go forth; or, alternatively, find something worth trading for food. Bartering for food is the oldest economic trick in the book.

Yes, revolutions don't always work. That's shitty, but it's life. You have to try anyway. If you're not willing to pay the ultimate price for your beliefs, you don't believe in them enough. If you don't like your station, change it; if you die, you're a martyr for your own personal cause. If you don't like your station but you're not willing to change it, at least do yourself a favor and don't have children who will be born to a life of suffering. Eventually, the oppressive system will crumble because there will be no one left to exploit. We've seen that happen numerous times in history.

Attacking an idea by saying "that's stupid as fuck" doesn't refute the idea, it insults the person behind it (which is an ad hominem). I suggest you Google the words "logical fallacies" and familiarize yourself with how logic and argumentation work before you take a high-and-mighty position behind your keyboard again. You may find yourself in another argument in the future and there's nothing like logic to help win an argument.

The biggest problem with your ideology is that you write off humanity's innate desire to elevate our status beyond that of our peers. If you've ever felt jealousy towards a person for their belongings or if you've ever worn nice clothes just to make yourself feel liked, you have felt what I'm talking about. No matter how many revolutions we fight, if there are humans, there will be those who are more powerful than others. That is nature. It doesn't mean they have to trample everyone else, but true equality is a lie.
#69 - captnnorway (08/11/2014) [-]
Honestly I'm usually left wing here in Norway, which probably is borderline communisim from american eyes. I believe the state is there to support the people, make sure those who can't support them self can get help, that sort of stuff. But I've never ever believed that just because you're rich, you owe the world something. If you make it to the top, good for you. If you get there by abusing people, the government should be there to stop that. But being rich in itself is not a sin.

Also, if you honestly believe the world owe you something, and that everyone who has it better than you should help you, then I got nothing more to say here. I don't argue with idiots.
User avatar #132 - misterbatman (08/12/2014) [-]
I disagree with socialism and communism purely on ethical principle, but the people of Norweigh have made it work. I wouldn't choose to live there, but I have nothing but respect for the people who crafted your system.

Also, thatonecommunist, Norweigh is a perfect example of one of my other points: a small, homogeneous population is required for socialism to work, because the people are willing to help others. That's because they see a population filled with other people with similar heritage and genetics. Such a system will not work in America and it certainly won't work on a global scale.
#41 - If you're starving to death, either learn to feed yourself, or…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies 0
#42 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
21,000 children die every day.

Do you expect children to just miraculously learn to feed themselves when they have no one to protect them, no system in place to help them? no safety net of any sort?
User avatar #45 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
No, I expect parents not to bring children into a world when they can't provide for them. I have nothing in my heart but pity and love for children who never have the chance to fend for themselves. I believe everyone should have equal footing until they're old enough to take care of themselves, then, like a young bird, they should be pushed out of the nest and told "fly or die".
#40 - "There is, the rich white man just won't allow it, you sa…  [+] (7 new replies) 08/11/2014 on kicking puppies +1
#44 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
"There is, the rich white man just won't allow it, you say that there's things you know now through experience, what experience could've taught you about politics that have never been tried before?"
I was born to an exceptionally poor family and I've struggled my entire life to make a living, and in my experience equality is a myth. In an ideal system, everyone would have equal opportunities until adulthood (food, shelter, and schooling), and then they'd be cut loose and told to sink or swim.
>Yeah, i believe human life is inherently valuable, and even the disabled, should have the right to live, y'know, the ones that literally can't do anything?
Also, with the amount of resources we have, we could support all life on the planet quite easily, why not a baseline wage just for survival, even if you don't want to abolish currency.
If a person is not skilled, talented, or dedicated enough to make a living, they should be allowed to fail.
>these aren't the only factors that go into failure, luck is an important aspect, and thats the problem with this system as a whole.
I refuse to carry someone else's dead weight, and I abhor laziness.
>So, because you're selfish, we should have a selfish society?
Communism, and even socialism to a lesser extent, attempt to equalize unequal people, and that is not what nature desires.
>Why does nature play a part in whether or not billie no-arms gets to live when we have the resources to allow him to live a plentiful life.
You can preach all you want about equality and peace, but if you design a system that contradicts the natural order, your system will fail
>The current capitalistic system is going to fail eventually due to its misuse of resources and general mistreatment of the planet, it seems like your system is the one that is destined to fail.
--from within. Every communist government ever designed has failed.
>because these were fascist systems that looked over dictators, not actual communism.
User avatar #48 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
I'm getting tired, so I'm going to be brief, but I've certainly enjoyed this dialogue. It's nice to talk to someone intelligent every once in a while.

There is a dichotomy in our understanding of what it means to live. You believe that by merely existing you have worth and you have the right to a life of plenty. I believe that you are only worth what you can personally contribute. You and I will never see eye to eye on this because you are too idealistic and I have been around for too long. There's a saying I heard a few months ago that goes something like this: "If you're under 30 and a conservative, you have no heart; if you're over 30 and a liberal, you have no brain." I'm inclined to think that's about right. I think your heart is in the right place (for the most part, you strike me as a bit of a racist, but I'll forgive that). Keep fighting the good fight.
#49 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Always with the fuckin' age card.

"i'm older so i must know more about society" is all you accomplished there, and the fact that you don't think a life is worth saving even if it can't do anything to benefit you is on the same level as serial killers.

You're personally subscribing to murder.
User avatar #52 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
You're projecting a bit much there. I wasn't going to respond again, but you upset me by resorting to a blatant strawman fallacy as well as a reduction of my argument to something that it was not. I did not say I knew more because I was older. Your right to your opinion is just as valid as mine. Mine just happens to be different, and that's largely due to my age and the fact that I've had more time to watch nature in action. Your beliefs are just as valid as mine, they just have different influences. Your strawman fallacy is repugnant. I never said a person's value came from how much they could do for me, I said your value came from how much you could do for yourself. I don't want or need anything from anyone else, and that's how it should be. Saying I'm personally subscribing to murder is just hilarious. How about this: the fact that you spend money on an internet connection instead of sending that money to feed starving kids in Africa means you're directly responsible for children dying of starvation. Do you see how silly that sounds?
#53 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
I don't spend money on shit, negro, and i do believe the last thing, hence why i am literally sending everything i can to africa, including myself, and i will be selling the very thing i write this on in exactly 418 days.
User avatar #56 - misterbatman (08/11/2014) [-]
Saying that over the internet means absolutely nothing. The fact that you haven't yet done it and that we're able to have this conversation demonstrates that it's clearly not a life-shatteringly important problem for you. If you mean what you say, call your ISP tomorrow, cancel your net connection, and then go sell your computer and send the money to a charity of your choice. Otherwise, you're going to keep potential food from the mouths of starving children every day for the next 418 days.

You won't, though, because you are a human. You are selfish by your very nature. That is my point. It is not evil to look out for yourself before others, so long as you don't hurt others in the process. I'm off to bed. Good night, and good luck. I mean it.
#57 - thatonecommunist (08/11/2014) [-]
Saying that over the internet means absolutely nothing. The fact that you haven't yet done it and that we're able to have this conversation demonstrates that it's clearly not a life-shatteringly important problem for you.
>I am incapable of doing this in my current position.
If you mean what you say, call your ISP tomorrow, cancel your net connection, and then go sell your computer and send the money to a charity of your choice.
>as you do not understand my current position, you cannot assume that I am in power to do this, hence the specified date.
Otherwise, you're going to keep potential food from the mouths of starving children every day for the next 418 days.
>I'm not happy with me doing this.
You won't, though, because you are a human. You are selfish by your very nature. That is my point.
>I will prove you wrong in 418 days.
It is not evil to look out for yourself before others, so long as you don't hurt others in the process. I'm off to bed. Good night, and good luck. I mean it.

Comments(9):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)