Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

Profit is a measure of exploitation ...

Name: tinydropthestickgoodog 2012-09-04 0:12

oui au non :?

Name: tinydropthestickgoodog 2012-09-04 1:50

sacre bleu c'est  l'stampedé lol

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-04 6:30

I had to look up at the tab bar to make sure I hadn't accidentally clicked /lang/.

Name: tinyisnonplussedwithanonymous 2012-09-04 7:34

thanks for your contribution Mr ...Mr...???  Nobody ....

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-07 1:34

Profit is a measure of accumulated negotiating power in the economy.

Name: tinylikesbroccollisandwiches 2012-09-09 8:06

tinythinksthatsorwelliandoublespeak ha ha ha

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-09 18:06

>>6
Talk sense you fucking taffer.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-09 18:57

Yay, capitalism... utilitarianism... rationalism... people kill other people so that people may have a better life and more profit... blablabla...

It is kinda old school, though... like Kevin O'leary... there are actually people who think of ethics and the environment and stuff. And I like that. People can even make a profit without exploiting people, but people then have to use their brains... do people always use their brains??? NO.

So, it must all boil down to people's definition of profit, huh??? But, of course, profit is MONEY, MONEY, MONEY! Hah... It would be nice, though, if profit could be defined as our appreciation in life through other sources than money, for example the beautiful trees, the caring mum or the joy of learning and exploring. But, no. That's impossible... and if people would claim so, then those people's paradigms would be so screwed up that other people would probably call people insane. And make sure the people become isolated from the other people.

People are wired. On one hand, people appreciate rationalism to such a high degree, and people want other people to thing about people as very rational, emotionless... almost like übermench. ABER ("but"), in reality, that's just so irrational... and full of emotion and a biased ego... so who are the übermench? übermench can be wired, cause most people are, but those not admitting are not übermench. Those who cannot see themselves are not. People who thing other people are insane, while the people themselves are do not recognize their own insanity, are not übermench.

So, this übermench thingy is kinda a bit off-topic... no, not really. 'Cause übermench would not exploit as means of gaining profit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-10 13:02

>>8
I support all 3, capitalism, utilitarianism and rationalism. Perhaps these isms have been abused, as so many other isms have, but to a far less extent than others. They are definitely more effective at making someone act logically and ethically than for instance communism, which like utilitarianism attempts to look at society and scientifically determine how to improve it, but is simply far less effective due to logical fallacies and appeals to emotion.

So let's look at these briefly, I don't want to write much more than you have written in your post.

Capitalism
Capitalism has been turned into an ideology by some, however most people turn to capitalism out of necessity. Capitalism is the general absence of arbitrary government coercion in private economic affairs, one need only abide by safety regulations and laws intended to safeguard justice and order in order to import tires from Mexico for instance. Ideological capitalism is a moot minority, I'm talking about this necessary capitalism.

Money is spent by people who care about beautiful trees, caring for their family, learning and exploring. When a community votes to set up a park the capitalist price mechanism helps them decide where it should be best placed. Knocking down multi-billion dollar real estate to set up a park doesn't benefit society overall, those locations are central and the offices, businesses and shops will have to move somewhere else, spreading out all over the city making average travel distances larger increasing traffic. You build a park in a residential area, on cheap land that isn't being used for anything else. In this way capitalism is beneficial to society, even goody two-shoes hippy free love "collective" decision making processes.

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism isn't all that popular, few even know what it means. I've certainly never heard a famous politician or pundit use it, apart from John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, maybe some philosophers commented on it offhand, apparently Ayn Rand didn't like it.


people kill other people so that people may have a better life
People can even make a profit without exploiting people, but people then have to use their brains


I think this was in reference to utilitarianism. You are right, we shouldn't listen to the demagogues who keep demanding we bomb all our problems away and look for alternatives, however that isn't always the case. If a hostage taker is about to kill hostages and you are a sniper about to take the shot, how can you possible avoid this situation? There is only a 5% chance of successfully shooting the knife out of his hand. You can't go back in time an improve socio-economic conditions so the hostage taker doesn't descend into a life of crime, even if you did statistically some people will always slip through the net, no one is omnipotent and can perfectly govern everything.

So this really boils down to being rational, doing your best to avoid violence and corruption but being prepared to reach for the pitchfork if shit does go down. Talk softly and carry a big stick.

Rationalism
I hear a lot of "post-modernists" say how much they hate rationalism. The only thing that's really wrong with rationalism are the mistakes used by people who use it, who then go on to proclaim they are absolutely right because they are the purveyors of reason. I have a special disliking for pseudo-intellectuals and argument from authority logical fallacies. I think it was either Einstein or Rutherford who said "if you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it yourself". All geniuses through history had a knack for putting things in layman's terms, all charlatans through history have claimed that their expertise is not accessible to the average person.

Apart from this though, I support rationalism, as long as you are rational enough to understand how irrational you are. In face Socrates said "I know that I know nothing".

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-10 23:11

>>9
I think it was either Einstein
Shalom!

The only thing that's really wrong with rationalism are the mistakes used by people who use it, who then go on to proclaim they are absolutely right because they are the purveyors of reason.
The only thing that's really wrong with Zionism are the mistakes used by Jews who cant genocide Palestinians quietly, who then go on to proclaim they are absolutely right because they are the purveyors of reason.

The only thing that's really wrong with Communism are the mistakes used by Jews who cant genocide goyim quietly, who then go on to proclaim they are absolutely right because they are the purveyors of reason.

Utilitarianism... Ayn Rand didn't like it.
Yay! If some kike dislikes antisemitic ideology, then ideology surely is wrong. Why cant we sent your Ayn Rand to a gas chamber so that everyone will be happy?

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-10 23:53

>>10
Why cant we sent your Ayn Rand to a gas chamber
'Cos she's already dead?

Shalom!
Oh... salam, tavarish.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-11 7:00

>>9
That scenario sounds more like an application of capitalistic consequences in lieu of another paradigm; however, the scenario is also quite realistic.

I think you'll find that utilitarianism is more exploitable than rationalism.  Utilitarianism is the best course of action is the one that benefits the most people; pure utilitarianism sometimes disregards a smaller group harmed by the utilitarian choice, though smart ones may then step down and work out the problem they've created and create a smaller subclass.  This is, in my opinion, degenerate.  While its goal are equitable results for the most people, it can lead down detestable roads and into pitfalls that only non-utilitarian thought processes can escape, though it might be possible to argue that not pursuing the train of thought is in the best interests of the largest denomination.  I find that when you've thought like that, you shouldn't have bothered in the first place, though.  Sensible generosity is important.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-11 9:07

>>12
pure utilitarianism sometimes disregards a smaller group harmed by the utilitarian choice
Why should we care about the "smaller group"? There is nothing wrong with harming criminals, who do not belong to our Nation, especially if you and your "smaller group" are yourself harmful to us. Are you?

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-11 18:13

>>13
You can't say that any minority of people from any group is comprised of criminals. That's incredibly dumb, even for you.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-11 20:41

>>14
Pay no mind.  The thread goes nowhere when you respond to him.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-11 21:15

>>14
If a minority is harmful to majority, then minority is criminal. In utilitarianism case troublesome minority protests against something that is good for majority.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-11 21:15

>>15
Shalom!

Name: 12 2012-09-11 22:10

>16
If a minority is harmful to majority
Never said that.  Read my post.  Shut up.  In that order.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-11 22:42

░░█░░██░░░░░░████░░░
░░█░░██░░░░░█░░███░░
░░█░░██░░░░░░░███░░░
░░█████░░░░░░██░░░░░
░░░░░██░░░░░███░░█░░
░░░░░██░░░░░██████░░
Buddha: If my mind is empty, it can't lose anything.
Abraham: Cut a piece of your son's dick off. It'll make God happy.
Mohammad: You can marry a 9 year old. But you can't ever have fun ever again or you don't get into heaven.
Jesus: Pretend you're eating my body and drinking my blood and I'll let you into heaven.
Crowley: "Do what you shall be the whole of the Law."
Joseph Smith: Wear magic underwear, and don't drink caffeine and one day you'll get to become a god.
Gnostics: Demiurgus created an imperfect universe and trapped you in it.
Scientology: This shit can be yours for fifty easy payments of $399.99
Doug Adams: Find a towel,take a hike and don't panic.
██████████░░██░░░██▒
███░░░░░░░░░██░░░██▒
███░░░░░░░░░██░░░██▒
░████░░░░░░░██░░░██▒
░░░░███░░░░░░██████▒
░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░██▒
█░░░░░██░░░░░░░░░██▓
███████░░░░░░░░░░███
Sorry for the inconveniences.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-11 22:45

>>18
You did. Your argument implies that minority and majority have incompatible goals, where the good of majority is bad for minority and vice versa. So yo achieve major good we have to eliminate annoying minority.

Name: 12,18 2012-09-11 23:10

>>20
Well, there's the problem.  My argument is against purely utilitarian principles.  If the answer is insufficient to the point of unintentional harm, and the minority has no say, then the whole should not be bound by it except through incorporation by individual choice (if the said "whole" or an individual of the "whole" is incapable of making a choice, for lack of sentience, then this obviously does not apply).  That is the definition of cruelty.  Dissent is a matter of debate; concern of harm and consequence is a matter of debate.

If the point is intentional cruelty, then there are bigger problems with this hypothetical system.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-12 0:29

>>21
If the answer is insufficient to the point of unintentional harm, and the minority has no say
The minority is just a nuisance to the majority. Minority is fertile soil for the traitors and criminal of various kinds. If a minority isn't a part of our Nation, then nothing will stop minority from backstabbing us. We must act first.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-12 6:51

>>22
I think your argument has completely detached itself from the reality of this thread.  I frankly don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-12 7:54

>>23
imagining something? cant help you.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-13 12:01

>>23
Yeah, his writings are so detached from each other I don't think even he himself can keep track of it all! There should be some kind of long-term study on the poor guy. It would be quite interesting.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 6:48

>>10
Shalom!
wut.


>Nationalism
Like other isms, nationalism has been abused. Nationalism ideally is defensive in nature, defending your country from foreign intruders who want to cause harm, this does not cover internal threats however, people who want to rule tyrannically over their fellow countrymen.


Zionism
Israel can never be truly healed unless they reveal exactly what happened and admit that it was unjustified. They currently have universal suffrage and even affirmative action for Israeli Muslims but this problem isn't going to go away that easily unless the majority of the population accept that evicting Palestinians from their homes and land was unjustified.

>Ayn Rand
I'm not clear about what you are saying here. Ayn Rand didn't dislike Utilitarianism because she thought it was anti-semitic, she disliked it because it implied you had to be altruistic towards other people, which is wrong, utilitarianism says that you are just as important as other people because you are also sapient. Utilitarianism is neither anti-semitic or pro-semitic, it is impartial in ethnic matters.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 7:29

>>26
Nationalism ideally is defensive in nature, defending your country from foreign intruders
So you agree that Holocaust was a defense, Mr. Hitler?

Israel can never be truly healed unless they reveal exactly what happened and admit that it was unjustified.
Life is unfair. Admitting anything wont make them any profit, so they wont. They shouldnt have left their land in the first place.

Ayn Rand didn't dislike Utilitarianism because she thought it was anti-semitic
But she did. Rand defended the Jewish right to unchecked plutocracy in the first place. She was afraid that some goyim will come and expropriate Jewish wealth.

she disliked it because it implied you had to be altruistic towards other people
Aint the Jews altruistic towards each other? Who gave Ayn Rand her job at Hollywood? Who helped publishing her books? Rand is a little hypocritical.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

Rand was Zionist.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 7:38

>>12
in lieu of another paradigm
Which paradigm do you speak of?


though smart ones may then step down and work out the problem they've created and create a smaller subclass.  This is, in my opinion, degenerate.
Sometimes it's justified for the majority to respect the minority's wishes, sometimes it's unjustified for the majority to have to bend over backwards for a minority.

For instance disabled parking spaces are justified, the inconvenience caused to the able-bodied is negligible while the benefit to the disabled is great.

On the other hand demanding an entire neighborhood tolerate loud music in the middle of the night just so a dozen people can party is not justified.

Utilitarianism is a far more logical way of tackling this problem than say a political party that is utterly dedicated towards minority rights which is inclined to push for unjustified demands on the majority.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 12:24

Which paradigm do you speak of?
The phrase "means to an end" is what I was thinking of.

This is, in my opinion, degenerate.
I need to explain what I meant.  I was not referring to the benevolence of the approach but rather the endlessness of it since it does not offer any guarantees that the "upper group" or the "subclassed group" are ever going to have their problem resolved accurately.  There's no hindrance to creating an endless stream of problems from the attempting to solve a different problem.  To a respect, that's the approach the current political system supports, the solving of problems using at worst half-solutions.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-18 14:24

>>27
A negligible number of holocaust victims were a threat to Germany, if any were a threat they were certainly less of a threat than Hitler.

Israel will profit as a whole by solving this problem as it will allow people's minds to turn to more practical issues.

Ayn Rand criticized rich people who exploited the poor, distinguishing them from people who became rich through innovation and entrepreneurship, she only supported Israel in that video because Israel had a higher level of development, she directly stated she opposed US foreign policy. If your conspiracy theories about the Jews are correct then it is more logical to assume that Ayn Rand was an ideological enemy of the Jews, considering how she is mocked by mainstream media.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-18 14:30

>>29
The problem of creating laws, which only cause more problems, then having to create more laws to cover them up, which only cause more problems and so forth is a bureaucratic error.

It does not defeat the basis of utilitarianism. One can simply hold the perspective that every law comes with a price tag and every bureaucracy has a limited capacity to implement these laws, and as such the quality and effectiveness of a law and the difficulty in enforcing it should be taken into account when deciding whether it should be passed or not.

In fact, just by thinking about utilitarianism you have come to the same conclusion.


To a respect, that's the approach the current political system supports, the solving of problems using at worst half-solutions.
And so it naturally follows that instead of passing tons of half-solutions we should look for more effective solutions.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-20 16:13

>>30
A negligible number of holocaust victims were a threat to Germany, if any were a threat they were certainly less of a threat than Hitler.
All Jews are a threat, because all Jew are harmful outsiders. Look how Jews raped Russia. As soon as real patriots come to power in Russia, we will avenge Jews for millions of Slav victims.

Israel will profit as a whole by solving this problem as it will allow people's minds to turn to more practical issues.
Israel can just deny, because denial is the foremost Jewish quality. Regarding "practical issues", it already solves them by genociding Palestinians and suppressing antisemitism.

Ayn Rand criticized rich people who exploited the poor
where?

distinguishing them from people who became rich through innovation and entrepreneurship
No Jew ever became rich through innovation and entrepreneurship. Same for Ayn Rand, who was talentless and got her Hollywood job through Zionist connections.

she only supported Israel in that video because Israel had a higher level of development
To be exact, Ayn Rand said “If you mean whose side one should be on, Israel or the Arabs, I would certainly say Israel because it's the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages who have not changed for years and who are racist and who resent Israel because it's bringing industry, intelligence, and modern technology into their stagnation.”  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU)

Translated to simple English "I hate goyim animals and I believe we, Jews, are godchosen, civilized and intelligent, so we have right to genocide Arabs and take their land"

If your conspiracy theories about the Jews are correct then it is more logical to assume that Ayn Rand was an ideological enemy of the Jews, considering how she is mocked by mainstream media.
But she was not! Rand was advertised as a great thinker, the next Einstein, by Jewish media.

Name: cheap gw2 gold 2012-09-21 3:03


The philosophy of Guild Wars 2 game designers is to encourage each gamers to stand together to face the brutal world. The players on the same team is really on the same team. Cooperation is vital. Every player should be united to face up with difficulties in the unknown dangerous world, especially farming GW2 gold and doing quests. And reward systems have attractive content for teamwork.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-21 3:40

>>33
Guild Wars 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2
Writer(s) Jeff Grubb Bobby Stein
Stein is obvious, so is Grubb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Grubb
Spouse Kate Novak
Yay! No goyim here. "Novak" is Slavic for "Newman" (i.e. outsider).

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-21 6:37

>>34
This gets brought up quite a number of times that it bears asking: you rat on a lot of Russian names for "not really being Russian, but Jewish," so what exactly is a legitimate Russian or Slavic name?

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-21 8:38

>>35
Sounds like Slavs don't even have their own names?
No wonder Comrade Shalom sounds so butthurt.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-21 9:21

>>35
Russian names end in -o, -ov and -ev, rarely have -in ending and almost never "-sky". Only Russian nobility had "-sky" surnames, but nobility was genocided. Slavs almost never have "Nov-" in their names, so Novak, Novsky, Novitsky, Novodvorsky would be Jewish surnames, especially if their bearers reside New York and have Jewish faces.

Czechs and Poles do have -ch and -sky surnames, but your rarely find a Pole in U.S., especially at MIT, so Chomsky and Minsky are not Poles.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-21 9:23

>>36
Sounds like Slavs almost never visit U.S., because Slavs have no reason to.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-21 13:48

>>37
Russian names end in -o, -ov and -ev, rarely have -in ending
So Putin and Medvedev are pure Slavs, then?

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-21 14:34

>>39
Both are 1/2 Jewish. It easy to see that Medvedev isn't Slavic, even Wikipedia article points that he has Jewish ancestors. Yeltsin was the last Slavic leader after Khrushchev, but Yeltsin was an idiot and had Jewish wife.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-21 19:26

>>40
You just said that names ending in -ev were Russian. You made an absolute rule and then broke it in the next post.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-22 2:18

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-22 3:16

>>41
Most Russian Jews changed surnames to avoid problems with antisemites. It's much easier to rally Slavs against Mordko Judkowsky, than against Michail Judkov.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-22 12:45

>>43
So the rule is generally inapplicable?

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-22 12:59

>>43
So basically names are meaningless because all names are Jewish names when a majority change their names.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-22 13:06

>>44>>45
There are no real Slavs in U.S. or Canada, so any person with a Slavic surname would be Jewish and can be freely bullied.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-22 16:09

>>46
We're talking about Russia. Not Northern America.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-22 16:10

Also, bullied? Are you in highschool? Are you going to give them a wedgie? It would explain so much.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-22 16:40

>>48
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_bullying

>>47
Jews like Berezovsky and Abramovich for some reason kept their surnames.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-22 17:07

>>46
>>49
Shalom!

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-23 4:45

>>50
Insulting me is pointless.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-24 14:54

>>51
Insult? But you must have some jew in you if you're capable of being a sociopath.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-24 18:13

>>52
How I'm a "sociopath"?

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-24 18:33

>>53
Sounds like Comrade Shalom's got to the letter S in his dictionary...

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-25 3:59

>>53
You said you enjoyed bullying. Seems pretty sociopathic to me.

We goyim are not naturally disposed to bullying, you force our hands.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-25 4:55

>>55
What is wrong with bullying the Jewish parasites?

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-25 4:59

>>54
Here is one trivia for you, Hymie: goyim almost never use sarcasm and other Jewish rhetoric devices, Russians just don't use sarcasm at all, because it is dirty.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-25 6:59

>>57
Sarcasm comes from a Greek word.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-25 7:12

>>58
Greece had enormous Jewish population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews
Autosomal studies, discussed below, have more recently compared Ashkenazi to Italians and Greeks and found them to be genetically close.

i.e. original Greeks became heavily intermixed with kikes and don't exist anymore.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-25 7:13

>>59
Also, Greece was a cradle of Christianity. So anything coming from Greece should be seen with suspicion and enmity.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-25 10:03

>>60
Like Christianity. Especially Greek-Orthodox Christianity, and its close relative, the Russian-Orthodox Christianity.

Btw, that also goes for the Cyrillic alphabet, which is based on the Greek.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-25 16:18

Essen Sie die Volk, Ritter.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-26 6:39

The thing which bothers me most is how much these threads remind me of a theological argument.  Not in topic, for, if anything, religion is dead to these topics, but how, thanks to counterargument, the conflict becomes a creep that absorbs anything it touches.  Having followed to this point as best as possible, I fail to even see what the antisemitic proponents consider sacrosanct.  It does not appear like there is any country, topic, concept, or so forth, that has not been irrevocably compromised at its foundation, from which there would be nothing but an unfillable void were it all wiped away.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-26 6:48

>>63
I fail to even see what the antisemitic proponents consider sacrosanct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes. It may be used in an indirect manner, and have the form of irony, as in "What a fine musician you turned out to be!", "It's like you're a whole different person now...", and "Oh... Well then thanks for all the first aid over the years!" or it may be used in the form of a direct statement, "You couldn't play one piece correctly if you had two assistants." The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal intonation ...

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-26 20:35

>>64
I'm not certain if you are referring to earlier mentions of "sarcasm" in the thread, in which case you may have to empahsize your point better, or if you thought my statement was meant sarcastically, in which case you are wrong.  I ask that very seriously and use that word non-religiously.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-28 23:01

>>65
Shalom, Mr. Jew!

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-29 0:15

>>66
Guten tag, Mr. Judgmental Idiot!

I still await an answer to my question: what aspect of human life as it exists today is not subject to the creep of your ever-ready "the Jewish corrupted it?"

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-29 8:18

>>67
I still await an answer to my question: what aspect of human life as it exists today is not subject to the creep of your ever-ready "the Jewish corrupted it?"
I'm afraid Jews managed to corrupt even antisemitism. This world is in dire need of a big cleansing, Mr. Jew.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-29 8:56

>>68
If you cleanse yourself first, we'll follow. Pinky promise.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-29 9:03

>>68
I'm afraid Jews managed to corrupt even antisemitism
That would explain so many of the «shalom» posts lately!

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-29 12:34

Now I really feel like I'm playing Paranoia.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-30 4:46

>>71
Shalom!

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List