Who in the end puts order in society?

Woodznutz · Mar 31, 2022

AlexandrosTsolis said:
... if one goes back on this thread idiot, one can read over and over and over you...spending over and over and over time and effort on my thread idiot...and that idiot...meaning specifically in case you already forgot idiot...

someone spending over and over time and effort on a thread that is nonsense to that someone, only and idiot over and over does...

...I didn't do that idiot...guess who did that idiot, or did you forget whose thread this is idiot? ...oh...and idiot...did that help you understand a bit idiot?

so... You are STILL reading and replying here?!
And yet you idiot pretend like you don't understand idiot...
...and what is it that you are doing spending your time and effort idiot helping ?!

How about you try the subject below idiot...

Stay on the subject or get lost clown...if you "don't understand"...do you understand that idiot?

But what is the subject?

When you have a group of people and you give them money, but also it happens that there are no laws that this group of people follows specifying how violence plays out, so that violence isn't the law in the group, then people in the group follow violence, and whoever masters violence, this one in the group people follow and then people built an economy around this one, regardless who you want to give money to, but regardless how violence in the group plays out, and...

regardless of the time...people in the group want to play and have fun in their lives from their nature, or when people in the group don't want to have fun in their lives, then their lives are not fun, and then their lives are meaningless to them in reality, as nature doesn't seem to have a reason to make a not fun life meaningful over and over...and over in time...as it wouldn't be really funny for the one living such a life, would it really?

At the moment of birth of one of the people in the group, another one from the group has to be there, meaning another one has to be there to give birth to one, and another one is free after giving birth to kill one, but that doesn't make sense for another one to do at that moment, as the nature of another one is to want to raise one, and one has to understand, that regardless the nature of another one, nature's law is another one is really free to kill one, at the moment of birth.

When you have a group of people where violence is the law, over and over and over in time, in order for this group to sustain all the violence in reality, some are needed to give birth to the ones to commit violence from their nature, and some are needed to do that so that there are some still left, after all the violence is committed, and that is by some deciding together who is not fun in the group, so that the rest in the group show to the ones who commit violence against the will of the ones who can give birth from their nature how...

...MAMA in the end puts order.

I'll leave you and your goofy thread in peace. Chow, brother.

BackAgain · Mar 31, 2022

AlexandrosTsolis said:
How about you try the subject below idiot...this time try to argue your conclusions...or else it becomes harder for you to make sense to others idiot...

Stay on the subject or get lost clown...if you "don't understand"...do you understand that idiot?

But what is the subject?

When you have a group of people and you give them money, but also it happens that there are no laws that this group of people follows specifying how violence plays out, so that violence isn't the law in the group, then people in the group follow violence, and whoever masters violence, this one in the group people follow and then people built an economy around this one, regardless who you want to give money to, but regardless how violence in the group plays out, and...

regardless of the time...people in the group want to play and have fun in their lives from their nature, or when people in the group don't want to have fun in their lives, then their lives are not fun, and then their lives are meaningless to them in reality, as nature doesn't seem to have a reason to make a not fun life meaningful over and over...and over in time...as it wouldn't be really funny for the one living such a life, would it really?

At the moment of birth of one of the people in the group, another one from the group has to be there, meaning another one has to be there to give birth to one, and another one is free after giving birth to kill one, but that doesn't make sense for another one to do at that moment, as the nature of another one is to want to raise one, and one has to understand, that regardless the nature of another one, nature's law is another one is really free to kill one, at the moment of birth.

When you have a group of people where violence is the law, over and over and over in time, in order for this group to sustain all the violence in reality, some are needed to give birth to the ones to commit violence from their nature, and some are needed to do that so that there are some still left, after all the violence is committed, and that is by some deciding together who is not fun in the group, so that the rest in the group show to the ones who commit violence against the will of the ones who can give birth from their nature how...

...MAMA in the end puts order.

You may be an imbecile comrade, but at least you’re verbose. You have nothing intelligent to offer and you spend way too many words getting it said.

Who puts the “order” in a society depends on the society. It also depends on what YOU intend by use of the word “order.”

BackAgain · Mar 31, 2022

Slightly off topic:

This highly important thread of major sociological import has drawn the attention of boredtoseeya. Here is a screen grab of 5 of her recent 6 reactions to my posts: