Are all Jews "rich capitalist bastards"?

calinis wrote:

Did you even vote in my poll?

In which?

calinis wrote:

Why does it not make you look silly when you call your opponent "little immature child" but if I do the same thing it makes me look silly?

1. You're a 13 year old kid adressing a 20 year old.
2. Your arguements are overall weak.
3. You're copying my sintaxis like if it was some sort of offense.

Let me give you this calinis:

If their are three Christians stranded in the desert with one bottle of water, then they all share the water.

If their are three Muslims stranded in the desert with one bottle of water, they give it to the oldest.

If their are three Jews stranded in the desert, they all argue because each man thinks he is more deserving than the other.


A Rabbi told this to my friend....

This one, dumbass.

My arguements are weak clearly only because they oppose yours. Sorry for opposing you, oh great master Zealot! I will stay faithful to you, oh-superior one. Your 7 years of additional life clearly indicate your authority.
Sieg Heil!!!!!!

Liche wrote:

Let me give you this calinis:

If their are three Christians stranded in the desert with one bottle of water, then they all share the water.

If their are three Muslims stranded in the desert with one bottle of water, they give it to the oldest.

If their are three Jews stranded in the desert, they all argue because each man thinks he is more deserving than the other.


A Rabbi told this to my friend....

I think thats a rlly dumb statemant from that Rabbi, but whatever his opnion.
But honestly if there are 3 athiest with one bottle of water they share it to.

Liche

A rabbi gave that to your friend? It totally mocks Jews, does it not?

The Rabbis point was that Jews are taught that they are deserving....

....not that they are greedy

You basically say they are deserving your self...No?

They are not anymore deserving than others, but they should be treated equally.

calinis wrote:

This one, dumbass.

Then say that, there are like 5 polls of yours. And the answer is no.

calinis wrote:

My arguements are weak clearly only because they oppose yours. Sorry for opposing you, oh great master Zealot! I will stay faithful to you, oh-superior one. Your 7 years of additional life clearly indicate your authority.

Ad baculum.
They're weak because they lack foundations, and that's obvious.

I never said being older than you gives me authority I explained to you why it makes you look silly.

calinis wrote:

Sieg Heil!!!!!!

Slader.

In a topic devoted to one particular poll, it makes logical sense that the poll I am refering to is not that one.

Why didn't you vote?

Your arguements are weak because they deny history, human nature, and you do not understand economics.

Of course not.

calinis wrote:

In a topic devoted to one particular poll, it makes logical sense that the poll I am refering to is not that one.

What you said doesn't even make sense.

calinis wrote:

Why didn't you vote?

Didn't feel like to.

calinis wrote:

Your arguements are weak because they deny history, human nature, and you do not understand economics.

No, they don't and there's enough evidence to that.
Economics are not dogmatic.
The concept of human nature you employ contradicts itself. You argue that humans can deny human nature while it would be impossible.

calinis wrote:

Of course not.

Whatever, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Shows your hatred towards Jews then, dumbass.

You deny the many attempts to create communism. People aren't utopian citizens, afterall.

I'm talking about capitalist economics, which is the only way the economy can work effectively.

The fact taht people are overall greedy, selfish and need incentive are arguements against communism and how it cant work.

I wonder how far can you go as to seem stupid...

calinis wrote:

Shows your hatred towards Jews then, dumbass.

Not at all.

calinis wrote:

You deny the many attempts to create communism. People aren't utopian citizens, afterall.

No, I don't. The fact that those so called "communisms" employed a capitalist and clasicist system proves that they weren't real attempts at building communism.

calinis wrote:

I'm talking about capitalist economics, which is the only way the economy can work effectively.

Not really. And you can't state that for you haven't seen any other kind of economy being tried.

calinis wrote:

The fact taht people are overall greedy, selfish and need incentive are arguements against communism and how it cant work.

Those are traits characteristic of immature, insecure idividuals with complexes of inferiority, in the case of greed and selfishness. In the case of incentive, incentives are pretty broad. Money is not the only incentive since most see it actually as a tool. If the system allowed inividuals to accomplish objectives without the use of money, money would be absolutely useless.

Then what was the intention? To build state capitalism?

There are other types of economic systems and all of them failed.

What incentive is there in a communist state, then? The only logical thing you could do is shoot those who dont work hard enough. that will keep them in line.

calinis wrote:

Then what was the intention? To build state capitalism?

There are other types of economic systems and all of them failed.

What incentive is there in a communist state, then? The only logical thing you could do is shoot those who dont work hard enough. that will keep them in line.

w00t PWNAGE!

calinis wrote:

Then what was the intention? To build state capitalism?

The stated intention is irrelevant when the facts show otherwise.

calinis wrote:

There are other types of economic systems and all of them failed.

So far, at least for the few past centuries there has been a single system: capitalism with some variations.

calinis wrote:

What incentive is there in a communist state, then? The only logical thing you could do is shoot those who dont work hard enough. that will keep them in line.

1. Work to acquire your rights.
2. Work for your own benefit and others' benefit.
3. Love to work, to your nation, yourself, family and community.
4. Avoid being considered a criminal within society.

CoolKidX wrote:

w00t PWNAGE!

Are you and calinis engaged in a competition? That comment is uncontextual unless the arguement is over.

OKay srry you can go ahead and delted that one , i was in a happy mood.
But i dont think if anyone rlly choses to work if they don't need to.

CoolKidX wrote:

OKay srry you can go ahead and delted that one , i was in a happy mood.
But i dont think if anyone rlly choses to work if they don't need to.

You need to anyway because it's the only way to acquire rights.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

OKay srry you can go ahead and delted that one , i was in a happy mood.
But i dont think if anyone rlly choses to work if they don't need to.

You need to anyway because it's the only way to acquire rights.

Like you have to earn the right by working?

Not all of the economic systems that have been used are based on capitalism. Like feudalism, that is completely different. Market socialist economies have also failed.

People dont want to work for other's benefits. They want a reason to work, they want some motivation. They want a benefit to working that improves themselves and generally by material goods. There is no reason why one would spend hours and hours slaving away when they dont get anything in return.

calinis wrote:

Not all of the economic systems that have been used are based on capitalism. Like feudalism, that is completely different. Market socialist economies have also failed.

Usage of money=existance of capital=capitalism.

calinis wrote:

People dont want to work for other's benefits.

Yeah, families do not exist.

calinis wrote:

They want a reason to work, they want some motivation. They want a benefit to working that improves themselves and generally by material goods.

In communism material goods are a right acquirable through work.

calinis wrote:

There is no reason why one would spend hours and hours slaving away when they dont get anything in return.

Already replied.

I dont want to work for your benefit or anyone else's, for that matter, when I should profit from my labour, and not be rationed according to everyone else's needs.

Again, how can you tell how much someone needs? Do people not have the right to own TVs and computers because it's a want, not a need?

calinis wrote:

I dont want to work for your benefit or anyone else's, for that matter, when I should profit from my labour, and not be rationed according to everyone else's needs.

And I don't care about people like you, you can really rot in hell, I don't care.

calinis wrote:

Again, how can you tell how much someone needs? Do people not have the right to own TVs and computers because it's a want, not a need?

Did I say that? No. You don't need 3 computers, you need one, you get one. You don't need 7 TVs, you need one you get one. You don't need 5kg of cheese daily you get 500g.

So the ppl must fil in a form to reqeust a TV or computer?
ow and in capatalism you can buy so many as you want, its more freedom then you can only have 1.

I'm pretty sure alot of people agree with me that they would like to profit fully from their labour.

How can you determine the basis of people's needs? What if I would like to have 2 computers? What kind of car will I get? Can I get a nice sports car? How do people get these goods? Do I go up to the planning commitee and say what I "need"? Otherwise how would they know what tpeople need?

Is it a bereucratic system reqesyt evrything u want?