Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

[occupied]

Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

Fuck no!

It should be the national pass-time.

No, it really shouldn't - people criticizing the rich should be shot.

Critiizing human behaviors such as "greed", "miserliness" is one thing, but in practice no one believes that "wealth" automatically equates to these things to begin with, as evidenced by their own miserly behaviors and unwillingness to part with their wealth and socioeconomic status of a 1st world country, which is "wealthy" compared to most of the 3rd world countries.

So idiots criticizing "the rich", (usually rich pedogogues) themselves as a stereotyped "demographic" and trying to drum up anarchy and "class warfare" should simply be shot.

The powerful should be shot as soon as they think they are above reproach by the common rabble. How do you like that you fucking loon?

Corruption is corruption, has nothing inherently to do with arbitrary or imaginary "power" relations, which even Saul Alinsky himself said is all an illusion, not all "power", imaginary as it is being equal or equally desirable to begin with.

A billion dollars, of course has less "power" than a knife or a gun in the event one was mugged, its power or what people imagine its power to be is meaningless outside of whatever arbitrary "faith" one puts in it to begin with.

Corrupt people should be prevented from being in power to begin with, but of course the reality is that most anti-intellectual media is simply preying on misinformation via class warfare sentiments, and preying on the immoral ways of man. Immoral people living materialistically and selfishly, impoverished as a result of their own consumerism shouldn't have any say in regards to serious men and women in business, law, society, or life in general.

You call yourself the "Questioner" but you kind of suck at asking questions. What do you really want to know?

 

[Crepitus]

Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

Fuck no!

It should be the national pass-time.

No, it really shouldn't - people criticizing the rich should be shot.

Critiizing human behaviors such as "greed", "miserliness" is one thing, but in practice no one believes that "wealth" automatically equates to these things to begin with, as evidenced by their own miserly behaviors and unwillingness to part with their wealth and socioeconomic status of a 1st world country, which is "wealthy" compared to most of the 3rd world countries.

So idiots criticizing "the rich", (usually rich pedogogues) themselves as a stereotyped "demographic" and trying to drum up anarchy and "class warfare" should simply be shot.

The powerful should be shot as soon as they think they are above reproach by the common rabble. How do you like that you fucking loon?

Corruption is corruption, has nothing inherently to do with arbitrary or imaginary "power" relations, which even Saul Alinsky himself said is all an illusion, not all "power", imaginary as it is being equal or equally desirable to begin with.

A billion dollars, of course has less "power" than a knife or a gun in the event one was mugged, its power or what people imagine its power to be is meaningless outside of whatever arbitrary "faith" one puts in it to begin with.

Corrupt people should be prevented from being in power to begin with, but of course the reality is that most anti-intellectual media is simply preying on misinformation via class warfare sentiments, and preying on the immoral ways of man. Immoral people living materialistically and selfishly, impoverished as a result of their own consumerism shouldn't have any say in regards to serious men and women in business, law, society, or life in general.

You call yourself the "Questioner" but you kind of suck at asking questions. What do you really want to know?

He doesn't, he wants to fight and/or push his crazy agenda.

 

[Questioner]

Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

Fuck no!

It should be the national pass-time.

No, it really shouldn't - people criticizing the rich should be shot.

Critiizing human behaviors such as "greed", "miserliness" is one thing, but in practice no one believes that "wealth" automatically equates to these things to begin with, as evidenced by their own miserly behaviors and unwillingness to part with their wealth and socioeconomic status of a 1st world country, which is "wealthy" compared to most of the 3rd world countries.

So idiots criticizing "the rich", (usually rich pedogogues) themselves as a stereotyped "demographic" and trying to drum up anarchy and "class warfare" should simply be shot.

The powerful should be shot as soon as they think they are above reproach by the common rabble. How do you like that you fucking loon?

Corruption is corruption, has nothing inherently to do with arbitrary or imaginary "power" relations, which even Saul Alinsky himself said is all an illusion, not all "power", imaginary as it is being equal or equally desirable to begin with.

A billion dollars, of course has less "power" than a knife or a gun in the event one was mugged, its power or what people imagine its power to be is meaningless outside of whatever arbitrary "faith" one puts in it to begin with.

Corrupt people should be prevented from being in power to begin with, but of course the reality is that most anti-intellectual media is simply preying on misinformation via class warfare sentiments, and preying on the immoral ways of man. Immoral people living materialistically and selfishly, impoverished as a result of their own consumerism shouldn't have any say in regards to serious men and women in business, law, society, or life in general.

You call yourself the "Questioner" but you kind of suck at asking questions. What do you really want to know?

I like to play devil's advocate.

 

[Mac1958]

I think we have more than enough authoritarians trying to control, punish and intimidate speech as it is.

Not all speech is created equal. I'm in the top 1 percentile in terms of language, why should my right to speech be "the same" as one who only speaks and reads at a 6th grade reading level and does nothing but regurgitate propaganda? That's not very meritocratic.

It's American. We already have more than enough narcissistic faux-elites shutting down, intimidating and punishing people who dare to express themselves.

Those people would probably be more comfy in a controlled environment like North Korea.
.

 

[there4eyeM]

These humor threads are really a hoot sometimes. Almost as good as the initial proposition are the seemingly sincere responses.
Ah, levity!

 

[rightwinger]

We have to understand that we depend on the rich to take care of us
We could not exist if not for all that the wealthy do for us

If we criticize rich people, it hurts their feelings. If they don’t think we appreciate them they will move to other countries and we will starve

If you don’t believe me.....

Read Atlas Shrugged

 

[candycorn]

We have a satire session for this type of thread

 

[Crepitus]

Fuck no!

It should be the national pass-time.

No, it really shouldn't - people criticizing the rich should be shot.

Critiizing human behaviors such as "greed", "miserliness" is one thing, but in practice no one believes that "wealth" automatically equates to these things to begin with, as evidenced by their own miserly behaviors and unwillingness to part with their wealth and socioeconomic status of a 1st world country, which is "wealthy" compared to most of the 3rd world countries.

So idiots criticizing "the rich", (usually rich pedogogues) themselves as a stereotyped "demographic" and trying to drum up anarchy and "class warfare" should simply be shot.

The powerful should be shot as soon as they think they are above reproach by the common rabble. How do you like that you fucking loon?

Corruption is corruption, has nothing inherently to do with arbitrary or imaginary "power" relations, which even Saul Alinsky himself said is all an illusion, not all "power", imaginary as it is being equal or equally desirable to begin with.

A billion dollars, of course has less "power" than a knife or a gun in the event one was mugged, its power or what people imagine its power to be is meaningless outside of whatever arbitrary "faith" one puts in it to begin with.

Corrupt people should be prevented from being in power to begin with, but of course the reality is that most anti-intellectual media is simply preying on misinformation via class warfare sentiments, and preying on the immoral ways of man. Immoral people living materialistically and selfishly, impoverished as a result of their own consumerism shouldn't have any say in regards to serious men and women in business, law, society, or life in general.

You call yourself the "Questioner" but you kind of suck at asking questions. What do you really want to know?

I like to play devil's advocate.

Then you should look up the definition, because that isn't what you're doing.

 

[dblack]

We have to understand that we depend on the rich to take care of us
We could not exist if not for all that the wealthy do for us

Fixed it for you:
"We have to understand that we depend on the government to take care of us. We could not exist if not for all that politicians do for us ..."

 

[rightwinger]

We have to understand that we depend on the rich to take care of us
We could not exist if not for all that the wealthy do for us

Fixed it for you:
"We have to understand that we depend on the government to take care of us. We could not exist if not for all that politicians do for us ..."

Agree

We have to fight the evil Gubmint who interfere with the rich making more money and help the poor people who are lazy and stupid

 

[rightwinger]

 

[dblack]

Agree

We have to fight the evil Gubmint who interfere with the rich making more money and help the poor people who are lazy and stupid

We have to fight the idiots who want government to run our lives (because they think we're too stupid and lazy to do it ourselves).

 

[playtime]

Fuck no!

It should be the national pass-time.

No, it really shouldn't - people criticizing the rich should be shot.

Critiizing human behaviors such as "greed", "miserliness" is one thing, but in practice no one believes that "wealth" automatically equates to these things to begin with, as evidenced by their own miserly behaviors and unwillingness to part with their wealth and socioeconomic status of a 1st world country, which is "wealthy" compared to most of the 3rd world countries.

So idiots criticizing "the rich", (usually rich pedogogues) themselves as a stereotyped "demographic" and trying to drum up anarchy and "class warfare" should simply be shot.

The powerful should be shot as soon as they think they are above reproach by the common rabble. How do you like that you fucking loon?

Corruption is corruption, has nothing inherently to do with arbitrary or imaginary "power" relations, which even Saul Alinsky himself said is all an illusion, not all "power", imaginary as it is being equal or equally desirable to begin with.

A billion dollars, of course has less "power" than a knife or a gun in the event one was mugged, its power or what people imagine its power to be is meaningless outside of whatever arbitrary "faith" one puts in it to begin with.

Corrupt people should be prevented from being in power to begin with, but of course the reality is that most anti-intellectual media is simply preying on misinformation via class warfare sentiments, and preying on the immoral ways of man. Immoral people living materialistically and selfishly, impoverished as a result of their own consumerism shouldn't have any say in regards to serious men and women in business, law, society, or life in general.

You call yourself the "Questioner" but you kind of suck at asking questions. What do you really want to know?

I like to play devil's advocate.

<pfffft>

you, sir...................

are no al pacino.

 

[rightwinger]

Agree

We have to fight the evil Gubmint who interfere with the rich making more money and help the poor people who are lazy and stupid

We have to fight the idiots who want government to run our lives (because they think we're too stupid and lazy to do it ourselves).

We can’t trust the Gubmint
We can only trust rich people and corporations to take care of us

 

[playtime]

Agree

We have to fight the evil Gubmint who interfere with the rich making more money and help the poor people who are lazy and stupid

We have to fight the idiots who want government to run our lives (because they think we're too stupid and lazy to do it ourselves).

We can’t trust the Gubmint
We can only trust rich people and corporations to take care of us

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

Criticizing any shitskins or 3rd worlders for any reason legitimatly or not will already get you a visit from the authorites in western europe..... at the least ....

Dont even joke

Or else

 

[daveman]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

I haven't read all of the threads you've started, but it seems like most of them can be answered "No."

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No. Hate speech shouldn't be illegal.

 

[Questioner]

We have to understand that we depend on the rich to take care of us
We could not exist if not for all that the wealthy do for us

If we criticize rich people, it hurts their feelings. If they don’t think we appreciate them they will move to other countries and we will starve

If you don’t believe me.....

Read Atlas Shrugged

I've neve bothered to read it, it's nonsense for the most part.

I prefer to read actual entrepreneurial minds, rather than some Russian Jew who was only known for writing and speculating about something rather than actually doing it, based on a bunch of silly and archaic mathematical approximations and axioms accepted a priori which could very easily be deconstructed as can any axiom ignorantly and sheepishly accepted and repeated by the otherwise ignorant, naïve, and uneducated.

I'd argue, a more correct definition is that people depend on higher values and qualities, not necessarily "rich" or "richness", especially when such a term is just ignorantly and tritely used to refer to an abstract amount "in a vacuum" solely in comparison to something else, not accounting for the actual means of acquisition to begin with, the actual living expenses or conditions which it relates to or correlates with (e.x. even the lower-middle class in America are "rich" compared to the third world).

Much as, for example, anyone remotely consistent with their philosophy wouldn't equate "wealth" produced by illicit means, such as aggression or apathy toward rights and values like "non aggression", or dealing in child pornography with more "legitimate" forms of wealth acquisition, nor would a person, for example who won the lottery, even if they of course have a right to said wealth, be compared or equated with an entrepreneurial mind.

Much as how very few who are genuinely successful at something would waste their time mindlessly and sychophanticly voyeurizing those who are in an inept way, as thought it's some surrogate for actually doing any of that stuff themselves, like an idiotic sports fan as opposed to an actual endurance athlete, as though the two are remotely comparable or equitable simply by childish virtue of being "on the same side or team".

Much as how the Titans in Greek mythology were just hidieous contrivances who ended up being thrown into Tartarus, no one but the superstitious, unlike Plato, Socrates, and the superior intellectual, mathematical, or moral minds of the day and age would have wasted one second, voyeurizing, or valuing like a mindless little heathen or primate, too devoid of the superior qualities to aspire to any less ugly and hideous use of their mental or moral faculalties to begin with.

 

[XponentialChaos]

This is what happens when you can't find a job because you majored in philosophy.