Topic: Contribute, or die. (Read 2231 times)

STUPID STUPID PERSON
You sound jealous to me
when a man or woman  works hard and has children they pass all that money on to there children
So when that child is growing up you give them the very very best you can afford in life because you love them so much YOU PEANUT
So what do you want them to do have all that money and let there own flesh and blood suffer .LIKE YOU IN YOUR SHITTY DEAD END JOB
I come from a poor background 1 thing never get jealous..PEOPLE STRIVE TO MAKE THERE CHILDREN LIVES HAPPY ..REMEBER RICH PEOPLE PAY TAXES ON THE GOODS THEY BUY

AND THIS IS HOW STUPID YOU ARE YOU DUMB SHIT..

If this was law then you be dead because as a child you don.t contributed fuck all your parents do they clothe and feed you
 you thick shit ..
YOU ARE JUST A JEALOUS PERSON ..IN A SHIT JOB..DAFT SHIT ..
Plus if your in a shit job like you are ..that coat she bought her daughter as created more jobs pay more tax on the coat..than your shitty dead end job would have pay in a months tax..

So there for she created more wealth for the public to spend on roads and lamp post and so on than you did..

So your more of a waste of space than she is..
PLUS TO SAY YOU WANT A CHILD TO DIE..
GO GET RUN OVER CUNT

Also how did trump get his money off DADDY 1 MILLION 40YEARS AGO LIKE GETING 4.5 MILLION IN THIS DAY AND AGE..
Now lets say trump got brought up in this day and age with crack head parents..
who will he get his 4.5 million loan off..THE BANK
yer i just walk into a bank and say i come from trailer trash..can i have a 4.5 million dollar loan please..also i work packing beans any chance..WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ANSWER WILL BE
So trump should be killed if he as a child come from trailer trash..

AS A CHILD WHEN YOUR BORN ITS LUCK AS A CHILD YOUR BORN INTO MONEY OR GOOD PARENTS..
So in this day and age don.t you think every child has the right to an education a roof over there heads and food on the table free of charge..
the play stations a tv playing golf a holiday and so on are not free..
Its just so that child has a chance in life if parents are not up to scratch..I.E got money..
there will always be rich and poor..
just not right to bring children up STARVING COLD AND NO EDUCATION..NOT IN MY WORLD

BUT YOU BASICALLY WOULD KILL ALMOST EVERYONE EVEN YOURSELF

Also house prices in the 1970s
lets say 1 million is like having 4.5 million..
buying a house in 1970s average 5632 pounds..so 1 million would buy you 178 properties..

4.5 million in this day and age average property in 2015 is 200k so 4.5 million would buy you 23 properties..
So because you lived in the 1970s you would own 155 more properties than what you could buy in this day and age..NO WONDER TRUMP IS DOING SO WELL : ..
and then how much did he get when his dad died..

so AS YOU CAN SEE LIFE IS BECOMING HARDER AND HARDER WITH LESS SPOILS AROUND ..
THEN ROBOTS ARE TO COME YET WOOOOOOOOOOOOOW
Also people can have problems in life then they turn to drink and drugs while the kids suffer..
loose loved ones turn to drink the kids suffer parent no jobs
So when bernie sanders goes on about socialist ..
HE CAN SEE THE FUTURE ..THE FEW WILL HAVE SO MUCH AND THE POOR WILL HAVE NO CHANCE..
BECAUSE THERE WONT BE A MIDDLE CLASS ..ROBOTS WILL DO ALL THE POOR JOBS
WHY PAY YOU OVER 10 YEARS 200K WHEN I BUY AN AZIMO 40K AND DO YOUR WORK FOR 50 YEARS AND FASTER
So be careful what you wish for..
And the reason for helping the poor is because even you can loose your job and become poor
I am all for getting rich but there is being greedy AND NOT LETTING ANYONE ELSE HAVE A CHANCE

Thread has already been there. TheGr33k didn't care. You didn't read the thread.


Right. The don't like it go live in the woods libertarian argument. Rather change the current system to be more fair. Instead of starting over.

Lets start to steal the lazy useless capitalistic bosses. Lets start to download copyrighted material from the internet.

Perceived value. Someone thinks she is worth it. If they didn't, she wouldn't get paid.



Nobody has to use the money system. People who don't like it and still use it are ignorant. If it wasn't a good system this way, people would stop using it. People are simply ignorant.

Learn how to ride the wave, and you won't want to stop the wave either.

Kim Kardashian has an income amounting to millions of USD per annum (from endorsements and fees), and she pays income tax to the United States. So I won't call her unproductive. But it is true that she is a degenerate and is having a wrongful influence in the society (especially among the teens). Can't compare this degenerate to all those lazy welfare rats.

Kim Kardashian isn't a welfare recipient. She produces nothing society needs. But is rich and can take care of her needs. And according to him she should die. And others like her too. According to you society can just ignore her. But like I said I don't believe that works. With the concentration of wealth as it is the rich have too much impact in society. Even if they don't contribute anything useful. Or if others could do better if given the chance. And they won't have it most of the time. Again 20 americans have the same wealth the bottom 50% of americans have. 20 to 170000000 or something. Who controls the politicians, laws that get passed, most candidates you can vote for, corporations, etc?

His whole point is the society thing. He is right. If someone is going to participate in a society that has welfare in it, he needs to contribute something that produces what society needs, or die out of the society.

The wealthy get their money to do what they do from the people who support them by buying their products and services, or by buying into their political ideals. If the people didn't do this, individually, perhaps out of stupidity, the rich would fade away... at least with regard to the people.

That wasn't an answer to anything you said. And your views and his aren't the same. If I understood him correctly. Though I disagree with you both. This is what TheGr33k said:



Then in response to my post:



That's why I said in that post "Or is it only when their money runs out and they need help from others? Can't be. Otherwise the rich never need to be useful to society like you want." And to answer your post your idea of contribute misses the effect the rich have in shaping society. In bribing politicians to get what they want. Like not pay their taxes like the rest have to. And the lack of opportunity the rest have. Want an education? Be prepared to be a debt slaved for the rest of your life. If your lucky. And then go work for those who were better at rigging the system in their favor. Or be homeless.

The point isn't "die." The point, even though it says "contribute or die" is "contribute." And the type of contribute isn't necessarily a socialistic one. "Contribute" in this sense is "contribute to your own upkeep."

"Die" in this sense isn't execution. "Die" is "Who cares what happens to you if you won't work for your own upkeep."

The point is, if it is your artistic value to run around naked in the Mohave Desert in winter, don't take it out on me because you are stupid. Don't steal what I work hard to produce, just to keep your stupid self from dying of exposure. Same with all the other useless occupations around. If you don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain and do something that produces food, clothing, and shelter for yourself, don't be upset when I cut off my funds to you because you are too stupid to go on living.

So kill artists too? If their work isn't immediately useful like graphic designers they should die? Many musicians are bad and almost no one knows them. They should die too? Their work isn't necessary either. And it's all subjective anyway. So why bother with it. What about people who do repetitive work that can be automated already? Like most services for example. Where most people work. Their work isn't needed anymore so if they don't find anything else they should all die? What about old people like ace45954 said? May have contributed all their lives to society. But if they stop at some point they must die? Or is it only when their money runs out and they need help from others? Can't be. Otherwise the rich never need to be useful to society like you want. You're making feudalism look good by comparison. Living in ant colonies isn't for humans.

all the people i know who get welfare have jobs. rent on a 2 bedroom apartment where i live in london is double the minimum wage. yes you did read that correctly, someone doing an ordinary job would have to work 80 hours a week and not eat, use gas or electricity, just to be able to pay their rent. a lot of the folks who qualify for food stamps in america have jobs. the problem is not laziness it is mass immigration driving down wages and forcing housing costs up so that people can't afford to survive.

ban non citizens from owning property, block unskilled third world immigration, expel non productive minorities and the situation will improve.

We live in a death row (for a crime we didn't commit), trying to entertain our selves while we wait for our turn. There is no point of life, regardless of whether you work or not.

FTFY.  It doesn't matter what reasons there are, you always need to hand over your money to the authorities.  

All the stupid capitalists must read this book: Paul Lafargue - The Right To Be Lazy (1883)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/

We weren't meant to make money. We were meant to live, plant some fruit and eat the fruit of our labor.

Humans.... the only ones on earth who have to "pay" to live here. Well it won't be like that forever.

They call it "working" too.

All those who inherited wealth after some great grandma are also "working" by smoking cigars and talking about their estates. Are they more hard working people than some guy who gathers scrap metal to feed his family? On paper that gatherer is unemployed and does not pay taxes, but he's working 12 hours a day.

We dont need to work. We can steal, like the bankers. 

This is an idiotic argument. If you just want consumers, then why can't you import a few million people from Nigeria or Somalia? People who just consume without providing any use to the society only do more harm than good. If these sort of people are removed from the welfare system, then it might be possible to lower the tax rates.

Firstly, I should say that I believe that anyone who is capable of work, should work. Current levels of benefits in the UK make it uneconomic for claimants to work, and this is why so many immigrants are working in the UK.

Now about benefits claimants. They do have a useful function in society, they are consumers. Without their purchases the economy would shrink. They provide a more useful role than bankers pushing up house prices and other investments as a result of quamtitive easing.

Working is different than it used to be. It used to be, go out and get a job, or start a business. Taxes of all kinds make it impractical or impossible to do either.

Working has now become trying to beat the taxes and regulations. Because of this, more people are learning law. When it gets bad enough, the people will use law to change the government. It is happening now.

I don't want to murder all those lazy guys, who don't want to work. If they don't want to engage themselves in any productive activity, then it is fine. Just their headache. But in my opinion, the governments should not encourage this sort of behavior, by handing out benefits and freebies. If someone doesn't want to work, then let him starve to death.

Gonna be a cold winter before it is over this new year.

I agree. The capitalistic bosses are lazy, they dont work. We must send them to Siberia for euthanasia.

Well that's where our opinions differ I suppose.

I do too but only if they can be cured to get back on their feet to work to contribute positively to the rest of society.

I never said I was against voluntary euthanasia, I support it in fact. I do not however support viewing people as cogs who need to contribute with the alternative being death. I believe wholeheartedly that the paralyzed, sick, and weak ought to be taken care of if they wish to live.

It's about many things. Money, the ill, the paralyzed, the wounded, and the obsolete. I can try explaining myself in a different way.


People who are dealing with cancer are always on edge. Some of them are consistently in physical pain where they actually feel their body slowly shutting down. For some, it's more painful then having your legs sawed off slowly. I can't look at those people and say " It's gonna be okay". It won't be okay and in the meantime, things are gonna be painful. I will never know their pain and I refuse to look them in the eye and tell them they should fight to live if I know they're in pain and I know there's no hope for them to work the same way again. They won't be happy working. Cancer victims would eventually die. A miracle would have to happen for them to live and only a handful of miracles have happened when it comes to cancer survivors. For the ones that live, they will not work the same way again. We can't gamble when it comes to a person's physical and mental pain. I'd rather they die now than later and endure more months or years or however long they have until their scheduled death from cancer.

Permanently or temporarily? If temporarily, for how long?

So now it's about morality? I thought it was about not having to support all the "deadbeats". If that's the case why aren't you supporting greater funding for mental health and research into traumatic head injuries? These people aren't broken, they are ill, but they can be helped.

What if you're paralyzed?

...Except the difference between Hitler and I is I grew up in a loving family, and don't want people to suffer.

"We have no use for them anymore so kill them"
Literally Hitler. We clearly hold different moral standards so this discussion is pointless.
Guess the elderly should all be put down too then. Sorry Grandma.
Also, no one except the terminally ill and small number of suicidal are going to voluntarily check in to be killed. Go ask a homeless person if they want to be murdered and I'm guessing the vast majority will give an emphatic no.

Well, they use to be needed. Now they are not. Nothing lasts forever. We have no use for them anymore so they should be allowed to go to a hospital, and be gently and painlessly put to sleep. I see nothing wrong with that. To be honest, most homeless people probably wish they were dead because roaming the streets with no where to really go, digging in the trash cans for food and sleeping under benches is a whole lot more degrading than accepting the fact that you simply cannot meet the minimum requirements for any job anymore and should voluntarily check into a hospital to be euthanized.


Now if only hospitals would allow that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
I get the impression you are young.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/29/traumatic-brain-injury-homelessness_n_5227637.html
Many homeless people have traumatic brain injuries. In addition many have preexisting mental illnesses. They can't suck it up and just get jobs. They can't have their daddy give them a "A Small Loan of a Million Dollars”.

You foolishly believe that everyone is in the situation they are in because they deserve it. It's an enticing position to hold. It's fun to be able to yell about how everyone just needs to work harder and suck up everything that comes their way. But it is a viewpoint that conflicts with reality.

http://www.veteransinc.org/about-us/statistics/
"Approx. 33% of homeless males in the U.S. are veterans."

You tell me. Are these veterans just lazy bums? Do you want them to die off because they no longer contribute?

I believe in the homeless supporting themselves. They need to get off the ground, suck it up and get a job to take care of themselves. People that don't even know the homeless personally shouldn't be working harder than the homeless are to fix their own problems. And if it's a situation where people just don't wanna hire somebody even though they comply with the minimum requirements, you can sue. I'm sure Trump will agree. Blessed be his name. Also, those two ladies do not contribute anything necessary. They're dead weight. If they died, nobody important would care. Trump certainly wouldn't. The only people that'd care would be the Instagram girls that copy the kardashians' every single move.

How do they not have the opportunity to work? Tell me please. Anyone can go out and get a job. Even if it's a minimum wage job, it's a job and you will be respected for contributing to society in a way that we need you to.

A lot of people however doesnt have the opportunity to work... I think you're being cruel to those people here 

Being TV celebrities. "Acting" and what not. That's why I asked how do you determine who is "contributing". You and I might agree that people like Kim and Snooki contribute nothing of value to society, but what right do you have to place lives and livelihoods on the line based on how you feel?

Part of living in a developed country is not having homeless people starving to death outside Walmart. Do you really not believe in society supporting the homeless?

Doing WHAT?

Snooki and Kim Kardashian are both employed.

By finding out who has a JOB.

Well, by now just about everything is a taxpayer-funded "right". I´m sure you have noticed that din. Total deadbeats must have their rights.

  And how exactly would we determine who is "contributing"?

No. Not at all.

What if... You put everyone into space launching programs. Some will build the rockets and the others get into them. That way you solve 2 thread problems at once.

Fine. Let me reword myself...


If you don't contribute positively to society, you should die.

You're right. Those views are disgusting. But shared by many people unfortunately. Would you have killed the child Helen Keller because she was handicapped for example? Was she useless? She was a socialist so maybe many of you would say yes. Despite all her work. Mentally or physically ill people aren't useless. They are people. They have families. Many can be productive in the right conditions. And illness can happen to anyone. Rich or poor. But the poor don't have the money for those conditions. And what if instead of blaming the poor and homeless for using social services you blamed the rich for hoarding all the wealth they can get? And bribing politicians so they can evade more taxes and get richer at the expense of the rest. What was it? The top 20 wealthiest people in america have the same wealth as the bottom 50% of americans? And getting worse each year. And the tendency is the same in many countries. Do you think that creates conditions for a stable society? For people to have fair access to education and be productive in their lives?

Dear Diary,

His threads have hit new, unspeakable lows; like the angry ramblings of a retarded monster. I find myself wondering: should I say something?

Also, Jimmy was so hot today. I totally want to do him.

There is a common rule that 20% of people contributes 80% of all commonwealth. But if another 80% will be "killed" don't you think that you won't be in that "best" 20% ?

I am probably going to get a lot of disgust for this. For that I do not care.




What is the point of forcing people who don't work to live? Same goes for people that simply do not want to work but want to ride government issued services. We hard working taxpayers are forced to pay our money to the homeless that sit around wanting people to take care of them. Half of them use these services for drugs. They are dead weight and do not need to be alive. The same can be said for people who work but do not contribute anything useful or positive to society like Kim Kardashian. At least her husband runs many charitable organizations, won more than ten Grammy awards and has indeed proven himself to be a noble asset to society. I work. I contribute and I still struggle for my living while other people's livings are being handed to them. I don't know what Trump's demands are as president but if he wins, I hope he puts everyone that doesn't want to work and everyone that's not positive aid to society to sleep. They are useless to us. When people like Snooki are dead, we can rejoice.