Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "Wisecrack" channel.

  1. Zarathustra "No, the ideology claims that the community does this through direct democracy where everyone dictates how the community should be ran without a centralised body of aggression." Now this is communism. Also direct democracy doesn't remove existance of government. IT would be non-sensical to have vote every day over how to run business X.
    1
  2. Zarathustra "It would be communism if the society was classless and money-less however that defies economic reality," Literally exactly the way you described socialism. "A government exists through a representative democracy not a direct democracy." False, seems like you're just a little kid who doesn't know jack shit. You know that Switzerland is direct democratic country? "I guess it would but then again I'm not a communist." Doesn't matter, socialism is as retarded as communism.
    1
  3. Juggernaut Dota Nah, I'm just an adult who realizes that insults have nothing to do with strenght of one's argument. Hence I can ignore insults done to me and focus on the arguments themselves. Something which you are unable to do.
    1
  4. Zarathustra "No I said socialism is where the workers control the means of production, communism is socialism in a money-less and classless society." Again that is communism. "No not completely, Switzerland holds local elections voting for representatives. What separates Switzerland from most western democracies is that people in Switzerland are obligated to vote on a policy but not create it. A direct democracy would have to remove the central body of authority so that the people can decide what policies they want to introduce" No that would be outright retarded on what you suggest. Again you would be forced to vote every single time someone even makes suggestion.
    1
  5. Zarathustra Again, in socialism it's government making the decision. Overhwelming majority of dictionaries state this .Whatever it's direct democracy or not. In communism everything is owned by workers. "That's why all western countries have a representative democracy because pure democracy cannot work." Expect it can. There is no reason to create new laws constantly.
    1
  6. Juggernaut Dota I'm calm. Only one raging here has been you. "You won't change anything with that attitude." Implying that you have moral dignity to even admit when you're wrong...
    1
  7. Hollis Awww did I hurt your feelings for pointing out historical facts about socialism? Did it hurt you deep when someone pointed out that it isn't the utopia you believed it woudl be? "Socialism is a economic and social system in which the workers (people) own the means of production, there is workplace democracy, democracy in the economy, no private property, and no capitalism." Provide sources for your claim. Oh wait you can't... Since it's all in your head.
    1
  8. Juggernaut Dota So it's always other reflecting themselves but never you? :D This is too fucking easy. Seriously why don't you just quit using internet? :D
    1
  9. Oh and for both of you idiots. Even your view of what socialism is, wouldn't work. ;)
    1
  10. Juggernaut Dota Clearly older than you since you still believe that socialism is good idea. 28. If you're still socialists during your 40 then you're qualified as an idiot.
    1
  11. Hollis I'm not even right wing, but I like how you attempt to discredit something with ad hominems. "I doubt you're 28 with the way you write and considering how pathetically ignorant you are on this subject. We're all laughing at you." You mean two of you who support socialism. You're idealogue there is no reason with people like you. Also wikipedia? You do realize that wikipedia can be manipulated by anyone to say anything? You're mixing democratic socialism here to socialism.
    1
  12. Juggernaut Dota  3 years difference is a lot when it comes to knowledge. Especially when dealing with idealogue as yourself who has very little knowledge over history of mankind and economics.
    1
  13. Hollis "What are you then? You hate leftism, so it's pretty reasonable to call you a rightist. Besides, you still refuse to understand leftism." Concept of left and right in political spectrum are retarded. Tell me, what does it tell about person that he is left or right? Does tell do they believe in god? What sort economic system etc? You see those two labels are trying to trow people into two categories based on few things they believe in. Anti-religion is usually connnected with left, but same time there are plenty in the left who defend Islam to their death, while mocking christianity. Some in left believe in capitalism. "who believes in leftism is laughing at you, simply because you're such an uneducated dumbass childish dickhead."! guess I were right. You're actually crying at your home now. How does it feel to be so angry? just look at you. Almost every second word you spew is attempt to insult. :D OH look at this. From the sources you copied and pasted without reading: "This term is harder to define, since socialists disagree among themselves about what socialism ‘really is.’" See :D "It would seem that everyone (socialists and nonsocialists alike) could at least agree that it is not a system in which there is widespread private ownership of the means of production" My point exactly. So no matter what you suggest, your system will fail because it's against private ownership of the means of production. Whetever it's democratic, or done by workers or by dictator. Results will be the same.
    1
  14. Hollis Oh and btw.. Sargon is left winger and he is socialist.. Just saying...
    1
  15. Hollis You mean the same thrash which pointed out that even your sources were disagreeing with you? :D This is too easy. You're so butthurt, and it seems that you're subscribed to SJW line of thinking.
    1
  16. Juggernaut Dota So you admit I were right?
    1
  17. Hollis "Half of the shit you just posted is too hard to understand considering you're a dumbass and can't write in English, but I'll try to respond." Not my fault that you're literally too stupid to connect the dots for not having perfect grammar. Points are obvious for those who have even half of their brains left. "Leftism includes Social Democrats, Socialists, Syndicalists, Communists, and Anarchists." Actually there are anarchists in the right as well, and some right wingers support some socialist policies. "Each of these has some basis on the idea of equality (including equal opportunity)," It's no longer equality when you're giving special priviledges to some and taking from others. In fact it has been long time right wing view to have liberty and equality to all. Historically it has always been right wingers who fought for individuals freedom. For example republicans were the ones who abolished slavery in USA and fought for rights of the black people. While democrats in both cases were against of this. "Capitalism is a Rightist ideology." And capitalism is based on idea of equality and freedom of each individual. "How am I angry? I'm angry because you're a dumbass? Nah, that doesn't make sense. Oh wait, you're just a shitty troll. Oh, okay." The fact that you feel like insulting in almost every sentence you make, proves that you're angry. "Libertarian (meaning less state or no state)" Did you just say that libertarians are left wing? You do realize that all libertarians are for capitalism? Holy shit you don't even know history of libertarianism and what liberalism original was. Left as you think of it, stands against everything you claimed. "Yes, Leftists dislike private property. Your opinion doesn't mean shit. You're a pathetic sad loser who argues with or trolls people consistently on the internet. What a joke." How about you send your computer to africa since you don't like to own private stuff.
    1
  18. Hollis  SJW is reference to a stupid person who thinks that he is fighting for social justice even though everything they do is actually the opposite. Also putting radical like Malcolm X into that group is just outright retarded. He was total opposite of Martin Luther king.
    1
  19. Fun interesting thing though. Quantum theory. It could hypothetically save some energy to process things. Though I agree with you. Burden of proof also works as counter to this claim.
    1
  20. midnight15086 Then those chimps who are capable of communicating and have higher IQ than some humans should have rights. Simple as that. Nothing paradoxical or speciesist there. However if "ability to suffer" is used as reasoning here. Then humans who can't neither physical nor emotional pain shouldn't have any rights. So back to the square one. The thing is, world is a cruel place and other animals doesn't give a shit do you have right or not. So far humans are only specie on this planet which can ensure survival of most species in future. This planet of ours won't last forever and neither will the sun. We are this planet's life only bet to spread out further.
    1
  21. midnight15086 So far what we have seen, we are only specie of this planet that ever has been capable of space traveling. Hence evolutionary trend holds no argument in here.  " Idk if I would describe the natural world as cruel though" You should watch real documentaries and studies instead of disney movies. " A lion rips apart a gazelle to eat, and that seems cruel to the gazelle but the lion does not do it out of malice" Lion only eats while the gazelle is still alive. Some cat specie kill for fun not for survival. "But what is a human being who can't feel emotional or physical pain? " There are people who don't have emotions and there are people who don't feel pain. You don't need to be vegatable in order to be in that state. " Or an extreme sociopath with CIPA?  An existence like that IS utterly pointless.    " I'm not arguing it's existence. I'm arguing that your argument holds no good reasoning if only suffering is the reasoning behind this. With your very own logic we shouldn't allow those people to have no rights.
    1
  22. midnight15086 " I'm not sure why evolution would be irrelevant just because we are capable of space travel. " I Did explain it already. You should learn to listen. "  The fact that we traveled to the moon in the 1960s and 1970s and have gone no where beyond that since then" Literally irrelevant. We have space tech, we just don't have reason to travel any further currently. "has not stopped natural selection or genetic drift." Expect we have gene engineer technology and our technology has already made sure that were no longer slaves of nature. " but I think it's more important to look at what we have accomplished in reality. " More than any specie has ever accomplished. "As of now we have zero capability of sending humans to even the nearest star besides the sun" Irrelevant. AS for now we are only creatures which are capable of doing so in future. Seems like you're not capable of thinking in future. "Also, the ability to travel into space is due to the accomplishments of the few best and brightest of the species- that is not representative of the level of an average human being's intelligence.  " And why should it? What I were pointing out that were the most important animal on this planet that currently exist. Because were only one who could achieve this. "I think that the worst, most extreme cruelties in life are committed by... human beings." Really, just stop watching disney. There are animals which have destroyed whole forests. Humans merely have better tools to do that if they so wish. " I misunderstood, I thought you were referring to someone who can feel neither, not someone who can't feel one or the other. " If we have people who can't feel other then we can easily have people who can't feel neither. They would be rare but it's within possibilities. And that is my point. You see feelings have nothing to do with being vegetable. But what do I expect from a delusional person who believes in disney stories. "I would argue that we are not, and that animals are just as capable of suffering as we are." And I would argue that rights don't exists. Human rights are merely rules of society which are good rules, but they don't exists objectively.
    1
  23. midnight15086 So far you haven't found any point to contradict the fact that we are only hope for this planet's other living beings. "You probably think we are the purpose and meaning that the universe revolves around. " Literally nothing to do what I think. I'm realistic. Not some idiot who thinks that world goes around us. I just can see that were currently only living being on this planet which can give hope for everything else.
    1
  24. BobWidlefish "Yes they do.  Don't have children." Actually in some older tribal society not having children would also fuck you up. Just saying.  "Well that's where this gets interesting, I think." No it's not. In society where people are limited with resources handicapped children could easily get whole tribe killed. Which is why they were always killed in old societies. Morality is something which changes according to the context. There is no divine ruler telling what is right and wrong. "Regarding decisions vs. selfishness, I don't understand the question." Because you don't think deep enough.
    1
  25. BobWidlefish "rue, of course.  My interest is in talking about the issue in the present day, and in the future." Expect you don't know are we already living in a world state where handicapped people could doom as us all. Nor do you know can that be the case in future. Hence it's relevant thing to point out. "I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean.  Systems of ethics are very complex, for sure." It means that something can be justified as morally good action thousand years ago, which today could be considered bad. For example being gay. In older days they didn't reproduce and introduced lot of disease (anal is good way to spread diseases) to the society. However in modern times we have overpopulation and condoms. Hence the disease and not having children makes it so that being gay is no longer morally bad choice. Same applies to killing. If situation demands that either one man has to die or 10 men. Then choosing one man to die is the morally right thing to do even though killing is considered by some as a ultimate act of evil. "I think it's far more interesting to look at morality and ethics in the abstract and talk about what is ideal" No it's not. In fact it's the opposite. In ideal world nothing bad would happen to anyone and everyone is happy. Morality always depends on the context hence disney world thinking that you're couraging doesn't work in the real world. " Said another way: I'm more interested in the principle than the history " Principles depend on history and context. " it's not a great guide to what's right, and I'm most interesting in what's right." Because right and wrong depends on context and history helps us to see it. You're basically making claim that absolute right and wrong exists and it's made by some divine judge. "Perhaps.  Can you clarify what was meant?" Farsight. Look further than just the first glance.
    1
  26. BobWidlefish That doesn't mean that morality exists. It's just matter of does the certain behavior lead to the results we want. If someone for some reason wants to destroy everything. Then by that person's perspective it would be evil to do deeds which help others.
    1
  27. midnight15086 "Are we the heroes if we just go around creating trash dumps out of every planet we land on?" Literally irrelevant point. So many fallacies in that one. Straw Man argument and red herring in the same. And who knows maybe the meaning of life is to create thrash dumps on every planet. "Do we even deserve to make it to another planet??? " there is no such thing as "deserve" in this universe. Again stop watching disney movies. "what if the planet we arrive at already has a full ecosystem, and we impose a burden on THEM? " And what if the planet we arrive in we actually revive their ecosystem from disaster that happened there? Stupid question is stupid. " And currently we do destroy more species than we save" Natural selection, and all of those species would die anyway if we wouldn't start space traveling in future. Hence your argument from extinction just makes you look even more foolish. ". And even if we engineer our own genes to be better, eventually there will be enough changes (over millions of years), that there will a different species from what you would describe now as a "human."  " And that is bad why? " according to the laws of physics, can travel faster than light, this species will need a wormhole or warp drive " You don't need any of those. Ever considered having a spaceship which simply travels slowly. It doesn't mean that our generation should reach there while living. " But I also think it's possible that humans will destroy the earth before any of this happens, with overpopulation and pollution." This proves that you don't actually know shit about this planet and science. Were not destroying this planet. Were merely destroying ourselves. We can destroy the environment where we can live. However that doesn't mean that other kind of animals can't survive in polluted world. Planet literally doesn't give a fuck unless you blow it apart. "animals that destroy whole forests?"  Yeah, that would be us." Actually there are other animals doing that. Some species of ants are known to scourge huge forests and cats been killing other birds to extinction just for fun of killing.  Goats eating all the plants from small islands etc...
    1
  28. midnight15086 It's irrelevant because it has nothing to do with it. Everyone can paint horror scenarios all over the place. Like what if you go outside and meteor will hit you for example.  " if you say that perhaps humanity is this planet's life's only bet to spread out further, and I say that perhaps we shouldn't do that" Yet you can't make any decent argument why we shouldn't do that. You're literally proposing that all life should be doomed on this planet simply because you fear that some person might cause problems somewhere. In otherwords you're dooming everyone simply because of one possible asshole. Good job on showing that you're one of those assholes. " I ask you, why SHOULD we?  Why is it so imperative that the human race lives on eternally?" Please provide quote where I said that human race should live on eternally. I merely pointed out that were only chance for every life form on this planet to make sure that they don't meet certain doom which you would love to see. "Because we're "the best?"  That may not be true, there could be life forms" Until you show me one of those life forms your argument is invalid. They could have as stupid people as you also thinking that they shouldn't do shit just because someone might be asshole hence dooming everyone. "I questioned, "what if the planet we arrive at already has a full ecosystem, and we impose a burden on THEM?"  And you didn't answer, " There was no reason to answer to it. Which is why I gave you example what if we actually save that planet. I thought you would've been smart enough to get my point but I was wrong. "Both scenarios are possible, so what is your answer to my question?  " My answer is that it doesn't matter. Because the scenario literally has no reason to stop anyone from space traveling. Again you are suggesting that everyone should be doomed because someone might make mistake somewhere. If that is the case then why haven't you killed yourself yet? "My argument from extinction makes me foolish?  You are arguing about hypothetical "someday" possibilities." Yes it's foolish especially since there has been even more animals gone extinction even before humans and more will go in future regardless do humans exists or not. It's called as natural selection. Deal with it. My hypothetical situation is based on the fact that were currently only living being capable of achieving this hence by all means our lives have more meaning than one rat's. Until you can prove that the rat can contribute more to the world than human potentially can. "There are biologists right now who write papers about how earth may be experiencing the 6th mass extinction because so many more species are dying out" Species which can't adapt will die. Nothing new here. More specialized they are the more likely they are to die. This is life and it has always been like this even before humans. Those animals who can adapt to the world where humans are dominant specie will survive. " never mean to imply that humans evolving (due to their own engineering) into a more advanced species is a bad thing at all.  I said it is fine" Then don't mention it because it's irrelevant. I figured that shit out on the elementary school already. You're not schooling anyone in here. ".  I was just trying to explain 1 reason why I thought " " "humans " " " won't be around when the sun burns out." I never said ""humans"" should live forever which is why I said that you committed a strawman argument. "Because it would be a different species that originated from humans.  It wouldn't be "us." " Yet they needed us in order to come to the world. Hence your doomsaying against humans is pointless. "hen how do we save all these animals if we can't transport anything from earth to somewhere else and have it still be alive when it reaches its destination?  Teleport them?" Is that only solution you can figure out? First of all you totally ignored the fact about building a space arc which could sustain life. You know like a moving planet. Not to mention you're not even considering thing called as Gene bank. "Do you really think that we are the only animals that can't survive in a polluted world?  What about all the marine animals that die from our oil spills? " I don't see how that would mean that whole world will be destroyed because of humans. Which was my whole point. Trying to move the goalpost isn't going to safe your face. "I'm not saying other animals can't destroy forests.  I'm saying we do too.  So how are we any better? " Yes we are because we can do potentially more than they do. And we have done more to other animals than any other animal specie has ever done to other one. In good and in bad. Don't judge whole specie simply because few rotten apples.
    1
  29. midnight15086 "I think you only prefer to look at the positives and ignore the negatives about humanity.  " Nope, I'm simply realistic. I look both of them and so far in realistic point of view mankind is the only choice for life on this planet ever to survive in long term. "Maybe we will be the saviors of our planet.  Or maybe we will go extinct like other species do.  So what.  People live, people die, species evolve, species go extinct." What rights you have to condemn to death all the people of future and other animals of future? It's them to decide do they want to live or not.  " Fantastic.   But instead of worrying about whether we'll save ourselves when the sun burns out (or the things that will come long after that, such as our galaxy colliding with Andromeda) we could focus our energies on solving our current problems" Actually according to your previous line of thinking we shouldn't. Since people who are pessimistic as you just wish that everyone would simply die. I have never implied or said that we shouldn't worry about current state. I have merely said that in current state of this planet. We are only living thing which can help everyone, and if we should die simply because you're pessimistic, you're then condemning all life to die. " If our species is so advanced, we ought to be able to solve our problems of crime, overpopulation, pollution, etc.  Shouldn't we?" That is a fallacy. First of all those are different fields of science how to solve them. Second of all, we already have solutions for many of them. Problems is that people like you tend to oppose them.
    1
  30. midnight15086 Semantics whatever you're pessimist or cynic. Your behavior and attitude is still a huge issue. "I just think that the average person does not follow those solutions, even when they are educated about them." Expect average IQ has been shown to be increased. Not to mention the fact that with Gene technology average person can also become highly intelligent one. Even without stopping being a human. " I want us to wake up to the mess we are in and solve it " then start solving it instead of being cynical and live in your cave. "You can't solve problems if you are simply satisfied with the status quo" You can. Nothing stops you from solving problems. Though are they even problems if you don't see them as problems? " I think we should strive for perfection" Yet you have suggested pretty much genocide of whole mankind simply because they might cause problems in another planet.
    1
  31. midnight15086 " Really?  Stick your head in the sand and all the problems go away?  " Literally nothing to do with my words. "I'm not suggesting "genocide" of whole mankind, genocide involves systematic killing. " Yet you cry that it would be better if we didn't exists. Ironic isn't it? "I agree.  If we can better our species by picking the best embryos or by "fixing" people's neurobiology, that's great." good.
    1
  32. ***** " It is a SIMPLE fact that in general the ENTIRE PLANET would be better off without humanity regardless of beliefs mankind DOES actively harm the planet and ALL of its inhabitants including itself." I want to see you say that when sun literally has grown too big and will burn everything on this planet. "We have wiped out SEVERAL entire species " So have many other animals done the same. Cats are good example of that. What is more hilarious that cats do it for fun. "Hell even for people who are religious(Unlike myself) should know this because the ENTIRE basis of the bible is that mankind is almost fundamentally irredeemable " Any facts to back this up? IF this would be the case you wouldn't be blaming mankind here but polluting the earth just for fun. "So on that one subject. YES the world WOULD be a better place if we didn't exist." Not in long term, and it's sad that you cannot think into the future. Really are you teenager or something?
    1
  33. ***** Actually CATS HAVE DONE THAT. Google it out. Cat's have killed bird species to extinction. ". As for the sun thing actually no it hasn't it WILL in the future because its going to eventually supernova but we are the ones weakening our own atmosphere." You do fucking realize that before exploding it will become larger? Hence making living on earth a lot hotter.  Human beings are literally only fucking living things on this planet currently which can make sure that not all life should be doomed just because idiots like you decide to blame mankind over every fucking issue that happens in nature naturally. "As for the bible bit yes, Adam and Eve with the apple of Eden was the base thing and to be redeemed according to the bible Jesus Christ had to die " What the fuck bible has to do with this? Bible literally carries no value in this conversation unless you can prove it true. It's just a fucking story book. ", but we have not actually STOPPED doing so we have SLOWED those processes." HAHAHAHAH oh doge you're so misinformed. Ever heard about ozone layer? Yeah that thing got better. But hey since when news media posts anything positive.
    1
  34. BobWidlefish " To suggest morality doesn't exist is to suggest that what we value and believe is not helpful for guiding outcomes" Some people find believing into god as helpful and guiding outcomes. Does that mean that we should accept it as evidence that god exists? Something being useful doesn't mean that it exists. "  I observe that the vast majority of living things demonstrate a desire to live. " Whole desire is based on evolution. If they wouldn't want to survive they wouldn't even exists in the first place. They would've died out long time ago. With your reasoning virus or bacteria has a desire to live. Also morality isn't based on desires. If you're going to make that argument you would be justifying all the psychopaths who enjoy hurting others. "What you've described is the reality that everyone can have an opinion on anything." Literally nothing to do with my comment. Everyone can have opinion on anything. That doesn't make it into a fact nor truth. I never said that everyone's point of view is equally valid. Simply pointed out problems of your argument. Also after reading the conversation again to refresh my memory. It's pretty clear that you're attempting to side track from the main issue. You pretty much changed your whole argument's position without realizing that it matches the thing I were saying since beginning while you forgot your initial purpose. Where you totally didn't give a fuck about context of an action. Where you thought that morals are absolute and context doesn't matter. Where you tried to make human life equal to another animals. 
    1
  35. BobWidlefish "This is incorrect.  I pointed out that a fully worked system of ethics could work in all contexts.  What you referred to as "different" ethics could just be different branches on a single fully worked system of ethics." No you didn't. You see the originally your comment to other person, you disregarded the fact that morality isn't that simple. You made it moral absolute that in no situation killing a child would be moral. Until I made comment pointing out that killing a child can be moral act. "This is incorrect.  I use various comparison to animals to try and get others to check their assumptions about what makes humans special." Pretty much same as trying to make them look like equal.  " Early in this thread I said that I think what makes humans different has something to do with our ability to experience things, our consciousness." Literally no evidence existing that humans experience things differently. " I believe moral weight is a continuum according to consciousness, not a binary thing that clearly divides humans from non-humans." What you define as consciousness? Since it's very relative term.
    1
  36. BobWidlefish Please cut the bullshit and go straight to the point. I don't like to read wall of text which has very little insight hidden inside of it. It tells a lot what kind of a person you are and it's far from being honest and humble. "You claimed ethics changed by context, and I responded by pointing out that a single fully worked system of ethics could handle all contexts" this is where you changed whole thing. You try to make case that there is absolute rules like Killing is always wrong. You're trying to twist the meanings and the context to fit your agenda. This is why I despise people like you who make huge long wall of text while trying to hide their actual point. "Thought experiments are good for teasing out subtle differences in edge cases. " IT's not experiment when you claim something as absolute truth. You should've brought question forward if you want people to consider something, instead of saying "you're wrong and this what I just said is right". " Certainly there is.  Some animals are colorblind" And what that has to do anything with morality? You were perfectly aware of the context yet you decided to nitpick. Yet you wonder why I think you're dishonest person. Trying to quote mine sentence out of context is very shitty thing to do. Having different senses doesn't mean that they don't exists in same existence, hence experience the world around them. The world we all live in is the same objective experience. Even if you don't feel the pain you can still be cutted down.  " It's a suitcase term that refers to many different mental activities that don't have a single cause or origin." Then don't use it if you're not even capable of giving your own definition about it. "By this kind of definition consciousness is sentience, the capacity for subjective experience.  " Even a fucking tree has capacity to subject experience. It's different thing does it has it's mind of it's own. Your definition of consciousness is terrible.  Because it's too vague and broad. You're basically trying to make argument here that the being who has most sense and sensors in them is the most consciousness one. Which itself is fucking stupid idea. Even if you're capable of seeing everything that happens in the world. It doesn't mean that you're capable of understand it or understand yourself. In fact you might not even think at all.
    1
  37. BobWidlefish Not angry, just just prefer to cut the bullshit, but good to know that you weren't capable addressing my points.
    1
  38. BobWidlefish So far you haven proven the opposite of everything you say.
    1
  39. Suffering isn't the way to go. What if someone can't feel pain? With this reasoning humans who are unable to feel pain or emotional suffering should've no rights. Whole bullshit debunked this easily.
    1
  40. The original comic wasn't. It was just parody of superman. nothing to do with modern politics. Thanks for proving that your brain is very smooth.
    1
  41. anti-capitalists are known from lack of critical thinking. That's why they end up being flat earth creationists of the economics.
    1
  42. Better that than everyone being slave under socialism/communism.
    1
  43. Look slavery is wrong, but your video about it is full of crap. You don't destroy ideology by making a fictional movie about it. Meanwhile you try to compare this to western slavery, while ignoring the modern slavery that arabs still do.
    1
  44. Anyone ever remember wisecrack criticizing marxism/socialism/communism? Yeah, I guessed so... Like look at these people. They didn't even realize that spirit of capitalism is personal freedom. It has nothing to do with "if you work hard...". They are so biased politically that they have started to produce pure crap.
    1
  45. +Witche07 As a nihilist, I can tell you that you're full of shit. Capitalism doesn't deny nature of death, in fact the opposite. It actually takes it into account. It's only natural in almost every living specie, that parents try to gather as much resources that tehy can leave to their offsprings. Just because you will not get wealth with you to the "afterlife" it doesn't mean that it didn't fullfill a purpose. Of course if you're one of those idiots who opted out from genepool, then yeah for you it definatly never should matter will you live in a ditch or will you improve yourself and your condition so that you can help your children the most.
    1
  46. Wisecrack is far left outlet. Don't expect unbiased video from them. Most likely this is far left propaganda video.
    1
  47.  @jj-sz3xl  Then go ahead and google Sargon. It's in his latest video.
    1
  48.  @karmicobsession1636  Actually no... Most of the world in the west are more capitalistic than USA. Look it up, economic freedom index.
    1
  49.  @thotslayer9914  IF you can't even come back with decent comeback then why even bother? You're not achieving anything here. No one is going to change their mind by you trash talking.
    1
  50.  @thotslayer9914  It does if you have actually watched WiseCrack. They have been openly praising marxism.
    1