Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

All Credit to the Workers!

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 1:12:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Recently in an exchange with someone on the moral deficiency and hazards of capitalism I was chided for being too severely critical of the capitalist class. Chided on the grounds that capitalists are the ones who turn their ingenious ideas and visionary dreams into business enterprises that produce goods and services that improve our lives, that generate the wealth and bountifulness that raises everyone's material standard of living, and that stimulate innovation and progress.

You know what I'm talking about, the old pro-capitalist canard that without our brilliant and beautiful capitalist overlords we'd all be jobless, prospectless, backward, and barbarous creatures leading a stagnant existence. That it's the moguls of the moneyocracy who make things, who make beneficial things happen for the rest of us; who make the economic machine that turns out all of the modern conveniences that make modernity the wonderful thing it is; who make the institutions of society; who make society as we know it in the rich and free West a viable proposition.

According to this load of pro-capitalist humbug, the common working man and woman should be grovelingly grateful to be along for the ride, and content to leave capitalists in the driver's seat of society. Workers are de-dignified into mere drones, taking their cues from the managers, magnates, and moneyed masters of the system, without whom they'd be nothing. Capitalist owners are the stars, and the people they employ are just expendable bit players, or extras. And of course without the stars there'd be no show at all. Why what would we all do without the shining stars of capitalism, in whose reflected glory we mediocre wage slaves live our comfortable lives? What engine would keep civilization's forward momentum into a better and brighter future going? There would be no such engine, and civilization would be stalled in a dark age.

I beg to disagree. No, it's not capitalists and their initiative & inventiveness that makes our society affluent and flourishing, it's the low men and women on the socioeconomic totem pole doing the actual work. It's working-class people and their energy, their strength of character, their work ethic, their ability to creatively implement the will of their employer, and their labors & toil that makes business enterprises successful and a force for society's well-being and progress. I repeat, it's these virtues and contributions of workingpeople, not the much overrated virtues and contributions of their high-powered capitalist honchos, that makes for viable and prospering businesses and societies.

Indeed, instead of 99% of the credit going to bourgeois bosses and bloodsucking businessmen, with only 1% of the appreciation going to struggling, sweating, and striving blue-collar guys and gals, it should be quite the reverse – virtually all of the credit should go to the systematically exploited and preyed-upon proletariat, for that's where the credit is genuinely due. All credit and power to the workers!!!

As for what engine of change and growth will power and drive forth an economic system that abolishes the parasitical capitalist class, how about the above mentioned energy, character, cleverness, and creativity of ordinary working-class men and women. I would have to ask anyone who finds this difficult to believe, Are you some kind of elitist who believes that only an aristocratic elite of capitalist movers & shakers can run a successful economy, and that this therefore entitles them to the exploitative share of society's wealth they expropriate for themselves (talk about a dangerous sense of entitlement, the sense of entitlement of capitalists is incomparably more outrageous than that of welfare recipients)?

Alas though, the capitalist system is philosophically predicated precisely upon this classist assumption, that capitalists are the great paternalistic and benevolent benefactors of society, and therefore have a right to a dangerous and controlling portion of society's economic wealth and political power. This is an assumption that we're of course socio-culturally brainwashed to unquestioningly, naively, and dogmatically accept, which is why there are so many people who may not be filthy rich but who nonetheless identify and side with the economic elite and believe wholeheartedly in a socioeconomic system, i.e. capitalism, that is structurally designed to victimize the majority of those who live under it.

I'm sorry and sincerely don't wish to be ad hominem in regard to such people, but I really do have to say that boosters of the capitalist class really are just indoctrinees. Their thinking is no doubt so abysmally entrenched in the rationalizing ideology of capitalism that the above or any criticism of the "free market" (to use the popular doublespeak euphemism) will sound like absolute wrongheaded nonsense.

Well, I say to them, to Mr. or Mrs. Pro-Capitalist, No doubt, like so many doctrinaire defenders of capitalism, you can cite to me off-the-cuff statistics galore about how the "free market" is improving everyone's life, but I defy you to go to some of the horrendously poor communities in the Third World, or even here at home, and tell the suffering human beings there that capitalism is a hunky-dory system doing lovely things for their lives. If they don't stone you to death with righteous indignation, or laugh you to scorn, they might just break down crying that anyone would have the ignorance and lack of human decency to suggest such a thing, to smugly apologize for an inherently callous and predaceous system like capitalism.

Mm-hmm, although the capitalist elite has been quite successful at programming our worldview in such a way as to cast themselves in a highly positive light, and to make us buy into a ridiculously rosy picture of self-regulating capitalism (i.e. the-fox-guarding-the-henhouse capitalism), the norm for large corporate entities, and many other employers in our system, is to behave toward the rank and file of the labor force, toward you and me and the communities we call home, in a somewhat less than philanthropic and civic-minded fashion. Rather than being a blessing to the little guy, big business is often his bane and bitter adversary. No, companies that treat the workfolk who are their lifeblood with all the respect accorded to menials and peons, that deny them their benefits and fair pay, that cheat longtime employees out of their pensions, that outsource their positions and leave them in the lurch of joblessness, that pollute the air and water of their communities with industrial waste, etc., such companies and the unwonderful capitalist wizes who run them certainly do not deserve the lionizing they often receive from their free-marketeer fans.

Most emphatically no, then, the working poor, the unemployed, and the underclass don't blissfully "surf" the creative "wake" of the capitalist elite, as someone once tried to tell me. Rather, the wake left by capitalist greed is often a wake of wrongs done to, want suffered by, and woe visited upon the economy's average Joes and Janes, a wake they drown in on a daily basis.

And yet, by dint of their own strengths and excellences, they survive and sometimes manage to thrive. Have no doubt about it, it's workers who better their own lot in this world, by being productive despite being exploited and abused by the corporate power structure; despite being thrust into recessions by the major players on Wall Street; despite the undermining of their unions by the clout of the companies they toil for; despite being systematically deprived of equality and justice in nations ruled by the plutocratic powers that be. It's workers who are the protagonists of the story of humanity's ever broadening horizons, workers who have a right to pride themselves on the accomplishments and abundance of their society, workers who have a right to be their own heroes.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 1:12:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

Let's then all begin to justly acknowledge the plain truth, that it's the individual industrial workers, and service industry workers, and IT workers down in the trenches of the economy, not the glory-stealing corporate generals directing it from their high-rise offices and penthouse apartments, who legitimately and richly deserve all the praise, veneration, and rewards for creating the lavish quality of life possible in the 21st century, and any real hope we have of a happy future for humankind.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 2:27:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I only read a few paragraphs and the conclusion because it's 2 a.m. here and I'm about to go to bed (I'll read the rest in the morning). Are you saying that the lower classes of economic society should be praised for doing jobs when the only reason they do those jobs is due to lack of viable alternatives? I know of very few janitors who jump at the opportunity to mop vomit because it will make the world a better place. Similarly, I would say that I feel sorry for mine workers but that doesn't mean that they deserve praise for agreeing to get paid for a service that sucks to perform.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 3:15:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm sorry and sincerely don't wish to be ad hominem in regard to such people
Your posts consist of no other support for your statements. Your strategy for dealing with anything that disagrees with you consists of "Assert the contrary and insult the opponent in as many words as possible. Never try to argue for your assertions though."

You could save a lot of time by just saying "Nuh-uh, pig lickers" in the place of every post you've made since your first.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 3:22:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 1:12:05 AM, charleslb wrote:
Recently in an exchange with someone on the moral deficiency and hazards of capitalism I was chided for being too severely critical of the capitalist class. Chided on the grounds that capitalists are the ones who turn their ingenious ideas and visionary dreams into business enterprises that produce goods and services that improve our lives, that generate the wealth and bountifulness that raises everyone's material standard of living, and that stimulate innovation and progress.

You know what I'm talking about, the old pro-capitalist canard that without our brilliant and beautiful capitalist overlords we'd all be jobless, prospectless, backward, and barbarous creatures leading a stagnant existence.

Not really. I'm personally open to the worker-owned business model, which has empirically demonstrated itself to be a rather successful model. In a free market, if this model produced better results than a traditional model, it would become the predominant method of organization. That's the beauty of competition.

That it's the moguls of the moneyocracy who make things, who make beneficial things happen for the rest of us; who make the economic machine that turns out all of the modern conveniences that make modernity the wonderful thing it is; who make the institutions of society; who make society as we know it in the rich and free West a viable proposition.

The West isn't really all that free, actually. Compared to dictatorship, perhaps, but the United States definitely isn't libertarian.

According to this load of pro-capitalist humbug, the common working man and woman should be grovelingly grateful to be along for the ride, and content to leave capitalists in the driver's seat of society. Workers are de-dignified into mere drones, taking their cues from the managers, magnates, and moneyed masters of the system, without whom they'd be nothing. Capitalist owners are the stars, and the people they employ are just expendable bit players, or extras.

Whether they're "expendable" depends, actually. Low-skill labor is extremely abundant in supply, which means that each worker becomes worth less on the market, but also that trying to A) become part of a higher-skill labor pool or B) increase productivity to distinguish oneself from other low-skill laborers is highly incentivized. If you have ten capital owners, 100 low-skill laborers, and 20 spots total (2 per capital owner), laborers don't have a great deal of market value because of their abundance. If you have 10 capitalists, 30 spots, and 20 laborers, however, you notice that the market value of each laborer skyrockets because demand can't be totally met (in other words, there's a supply deficiency).

And of course without the stars there'd be no show at all. Why what would we all do without the shining stars of capitalism, in whose reflected glory we mediocre wage slaves live our comfortable lives? What engine would keep civilization's forward momentum into a better and brighter future going? There would be no such engine, and civilization would be stalled in a dark age.

I beg to disagree. No, it's not capitalists and their initiative & inventiveness that makes our society affluent and flourishing, it's the low men and women on the socioeconomic totem pole doing the actual work. It's working-class people and their energy, their strength of character, their work ethic, their ability to creatively implement the will of their employer, and their labors & toil that makes business enterprises successful and a force for society's well-being and progress. I repeat, it's these virtues and contributions of workingpeople, not the much overrated virtues and contributions of their high-powered capitalist honchos, that makes for viable and prospering businesses and societies.

What is it that you think managers, company officers, executives, and so on do? Do you suppose they just sit around all day and make money? I would appreciate if you could, for example, make a list of the typical responsibilities of a CEO.

Indeed, instead of 99% of the credit going to bourgeois bosses and bloodsucking businessmen, with only 1% of the appreciation going to struggling, sweating, and striving blue-collar guys and gals, it should be quite the reverse – virtually all of the credit should go to the systematically exploited and preyed-upon proletariat, for that's where the credit is genuinely due. All credit and power to the workers!!!

The thing is, capitalists don't just provide capital to laborers. They also provide a valuable service to workers, which is the absorption of risk. When someone invests in starting a business--paying for the building, the equipment, the public exposure, etc.--he takes on basically all of the risk for the success or failure of his employees or business. If an employee loses his job, it's unfortunate, but his liability is extremely limited. The capital owner, on the other hand, loses everything if his business goes under. In other words, just pointing to the labor and demanding retribution doesn't tell the whole story--you have to factor in the entrepreneur's willingness to provide almost every one of his employees with essentially risk-free access to all necessary resources--building, computer, office equipment, project budgets, etc.) before trying to calculate the "proper" pay for each individual. In return for getting basically risk-free access to capital, employees get lower pay.

Plus, if the capitalist doesn't think he's going to get a return sufficient enough to assuage the risk and costs of both investment and doing business, he's not going to start a company, which kills potential access to capital that workers could have had if demanded salaries weren't so high. It's along the lines of the problems with the minimum wage.

As for what engine of change and growth will power and drive forth an economic system that abolishes the parasitical capitalist class, how about the above mentioned energy, character, cleverness, and creativity of ordinary working-class men and women. I would have to ask anyone who finds this difficult to believe, Are you some kind of elitist who believes that only an aristocratic elite of capitalist movers & shakers can run a successful economy, and that this therefore entitles them to the exploitative share of society's wealth they expropriate for themselves (talk about a dangerous sense of entitlement, the sense of entitlement of capitalists is incomparably more outrageous than that of welfare recipients)?

All I really have to say there is that workers are free to establish a worker-owned business if they want. They just have to be willing to put out to overcome barriers to entry (i.e. start-up costs), and to accept massive increases in risk as a corollary to higher returns on their labor.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 3:22:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 1:12:05 AM, charleslb wrote:
Alas though, the capitalist system is philosophically predicated precisely upon this classist assumption, that capitalists are the great paternalistic and benevolent benefactors of society, and therefore have a right to a dangerous and controlling portion of society's economic wealth and political power. This is an assumption that we're of course socio-culturally brainwashed to unquestioningly, naively, and dogmatically accept, which is why there are so many people who may not be filthy rich but who nonetheless identify and side with the economic elite and believe wholeheartedly in a socioeconomic system, i.e. capitalism, that is structurally designed to victimize the majority of those who live under it.

Actually, very few people are capitalists anymore. Most people are trained so thoroughly to trust in state intervention as a vehicle to their well-being that the notion of a totally free, unregulated market usually results in some kind of intellectual panic. Libertarians may be well-represented on this site, but we're a small minority in the real world. Of that minority, an even smaller fringe are anarcho-capitalists.

I'm sorry and sincerely don't wish to be ad hominem in regard to such people, but I really do have to say that boosters of the capitalist class really are just indoctrinees. Their thinking is no doubt so abysmally entrenched in the rationalizing ideology of capitalism that the above or any criticism of the "free market" (to use the popular doublespeak euphemism) will sound like absolute wrongheaded nonsense.

Like I said above, very few people actually believe in an entirely free market. Most are content with the false security of central planning.

Well, I say to them, to Mr. or Mrs. Pro-Capitalist, No doubt, like so many doctrinaire defenders of capitalism, you can cite to me off-the-cuff statistics galore about how the "free market" is improving everyone's life, but I defy you to go to some of the horrendously poor communities in the Third World, or even here at home, and tell the suffering human beings there that capitalism is a hunky-dory system doing lovely things for their lives. If they don't stone you to death with righteous indignation, or laugh you to scorn, they might just break down crying that anyone would have the ignorance and lack of human decency to suggest such a thing, to smugly apologize for an inherently callous and predaceous system like capitalism.

I wasn't aware that third world countries were capitalistic.

Mm-hmm, although the capitalist elite has been quite successful at programming our worldview in such a way as to cast themselves in a highly positive light, and to make us buy into a ridiculously rosy picture of self-regulating capitalism (i.e. the-fox-guarding-the-henhouse capitalism), the norm for large corporate entities, and many other employers in our system, is to behave toward the rank and file of the labor force, toward you and me and the communities we call home, in a somewhat less than philanthropic and civic-minded fashion. Rather than being a blessing to the little guy, big business is often his bane and bitter adversary.

Most people would agree with you on that. Big business tends to be persecuted for a lot of our problems. Any time there's economic trouble, the private sector is almost always the first to get the finger of blame pointed at it.

No, companies that treat the workfolk who are their lifeblood with all the respect accorded to menials and peons, that deny them their benefits and fair pay

"Fair pay" is subjective, and assumes some proper amount of pay which does not really exist. The fairest wage-setting mechanism is the market's pricing mechanism for labor. As far as benefits, these were actually the result of companies finding creative ways to pay their employees during government wage controls during WWII. Nowadays, increasing state intervention, whose consequence is economic distortion, is making it difficult--impossible, for some companies--to provide the same kinds of benefits to employees.

that cheat longtime employees out of their pensions

?

that outsource their positions and leave them in the lurch of joblessness

That just means that others can do the job more cheaply or efficiently. Generally speaking, others have the comparative advantage for whatever function is being outsourced. Even though it might be heartbreaking to watch a worker lose his job to outsourcing, forcing companies not to outsource doesn't help anybody: companies get by through economically intelligent decisions--not by allocating resources based on need. Furthermore, you can make domestic workers more competitive by killing the minimum wage, reducing intervention that worsens barriers to entry, and things like that. Free economies are much better to workers than state planning.

that pollute the air and water of their communities with industrial waste, etc. such companies and the unwonderful capitalist wizes who run them certainly do not deserve the lionizing they often receive from their free-marketeer fans.

Companies which pollute and such are not only open to massive tort claims, but are almost always enabled by local governments. This happens via things like laws absolving corporations of responsibility, liability caps, etc.

Most emphatically no, then, the working poor, the unemployed, and the underclass don't blissfully "surf" the creative "wake" of the capitalist elite, as someone once tried to tell me. Rather, the wake left by capitalist greed is often a wake of wrongs done to, want suffered by, and woe visited upon the economy's average Joes and Janes, a wake they drown in on a daily basis.

Actually, most of the "poor" are a very wealthy poor. The majority have things like television, utilities, refrigerators, washers/dryers, cars, internet access, adequate to ample living space, etc. In other words, use of the term "poor" is often taken to denote abject poverty, when, realistically, this is only a non-representative subset of the "poor".

And yet, by dint of their own strengths and excellences, they survive and sometimes manage to thrive. Have no doubt about it, it's workers who better their own lot in this world, by being productive despite being exploited and abused by the corporate power structure; despite being thrust into recessions by the major players on Wall Street;

I just wanted to point out that, yes, Wall Street is a huge player in the recession, but they're more of a proximal cause, with their abilities to exploit the system being a consequence of the state playing around in the economy.

despite the undermining of their unions by the clout of the companies they toil for;

I would advise you to research the effect of unions on the auto industry as a paradigm case.

despite being systematically deprived of equality and justice in nations ruled by the plutocratic powers that be. It's workers who are the protagonists of the story of humanity's ever broadening horizons, workers who have a right to pride themselves on the accomplishments and abundance of their society, workers who have a right to be their own heroes.

I'll be honest: a lot of this sounds like communist rhetoric, rather than an actual argument. To be specific, it's just a lot of praise for laborers.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 3:26:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 1:12:44 AM, charleslb wrote:
Conclusion

Let's then all begin to justly acknowledge the plain truth, that it's the individual industrial workers, and service industry workers, and IT workers down in the trenches of the economy, not the glory-stealing corporate generals directing it from their high-rise offices and penthouse apartments, who legitimately and richly deserve all the praise, veneration, and rewards for creating the lavish quality of life possible in the 21st century, and any real hope we have of a happy future for humankind.

I think the fundamental problem with your argument is that you're presenting a false dichotomy wherein we must award all praise either to laborers or to capital owners, rather than acknowledging that both have important economic roles to fulfill which allow for the emergence of prosperity.
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 3:46:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 3:37:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 3:29:34 AM, Merda wrote:
I see Cody read this post. Care to summarize it in a less long way?

Just read it. It really doesn't take that long. Right now, I'm reading [https://pantherfile.uwm.edu...] and [http://cogprints.org...], [http://books.google.com...] online, and House and Philosophy, Chaos Theory, and Human Action on my Kindle. I think you can handle reading a post.

It's fvcking 5 in the morning man. BTW House and Philosophy is a pretty interesting read. Most books in the series are worth the time.
My manwich!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 3:50:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 3:46:03 AM, Merda wrote:
At 5/29/2011 3:37:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 3:29:34 AM, Merda wrote:
I see Cody read this post. Care to summarize it in a less long way?

Just read it. It really doesn't take that long. Right now, I'm reading [https://pantherfile.uwm.edu...] and [http://cogprints.org...], [http://books.google.com...] online, and House and Philosophy, Chaos Theory, and Human Action on my Kindle. I think you can handle reading a post.

It's fvcking 5 in the morning man. BTW House and Philosophy is a pretty interesting read. Most books in the series are worth the time.

It's 4 in the morning for me, and I'm just fine. Don't be such a b*tch, bro. ;)
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 4:05:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 3:50:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 3:46:03 AM, Merda wrote:
At 5/29/2011 3:37:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 3:29:34 AM, Merda wrote:
I see Cody read this post. Care to summarize it in a less long way?

Just read it. It really doesn't take that long. Right now, I'm reading [https://pantherfile.uwm.edu...] and [http://cogprints.org...], [http://books.google.com...] online, and House and Philosophy, Chaos Theory, and Human Action on my Kindle. I think you can handle reading a post.

It's fvcking 5 in the morning man. BTW House and Philosophy is a pretty interesting read. Most books in the series are worth the time.

It's 4 in the morning for me, and I'm just fine. Don't be such a b*tch, bro. ;)

Hey man I'm a fairy so I'm allowed to be a b1tch.
My manwich!
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 4:13:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 4:07:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:05:16 AM, Merda wrote:
Hey man I'm a fairy so I'm allowed to be a b1tch.

Only if you're on bottom.

Nothing gay about giving it right?
My manwich!
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 4:33:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 4:15:14 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:13:44 AM, Merda wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:07:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:05:16 AM, Merda wrote:
Hey man I'm a fairy so I'm allowed to be a b1tch.

Only if you're on bottom.

Nothing gay about giving it right?

Balls can't touch. And no eye contact.

If you could have sex with Angelina Jolie, but you had to have sex with Cleveland first would you do it? Missionary and eye contact the whole way through though.
My manwich!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 4:41:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 4:33:31 AM, Merda wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:15:14 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:13:44 AM, Merda wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:07:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:05:16 AM, Merda wrote:
Hey man I'm a fairy so I'm allowed to be a b1tch.

Only if you're on bottom.

Nothing gay about giving it right?

Balls can't touch. And no eye contact.

If you could have sex with Angelina Jolie, but you had to have sex with Cleveland first would you do it? Missionary and eye contact the whole way through though.

No.
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 6:58:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 4:41:52 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:33:31 AM, Merda wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:15:14 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:13:44 AM, Merda wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:07:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:05:16 AM, Merda wrote:
Hey man I'm a fairy so I'm allowed to be a b1tch.

Only if you're on bottom.

Nothing gay about giving it right?

Balls can't touch. And no eye contact.

If you could have sex with Angelina Jolie, but you had to have sex with Cleveland first would you do it? Missionary and eye contact the whole way through though.

No.

Pu$$y.
My manwich!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 7:04:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 6:58:35 AM, Merda wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:41:52 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:33:31 AM, Merda wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:15:14 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:13:44 AM, Merda wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:07:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:05:16 AM, Merda wrote:
Hey man I'm a fairy so I'm allowed to be a b1tch.

Only if you're on bottom.

Nothing gay about giving it right?

Balls can't touch. And no eye contact.

If you could have sex with Angelina Jolie, but you had to have sex with Cleveland first would you do it? Missionary and eye contact the whole way through though.

No.

Pu$$y.

Why?
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 7:09:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 7:04:53 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 6:58:35 AM, Merda wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:41:52 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:33:31 AM, Merda wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:15:14 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:13:44 AM, Merda wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:07:28 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:05:16 AM, Merda wrote:
Hey man I'm a fairy so I'm allowed to be a b1tch.

Only if you're on bottom.

Nothing gay about giving it right?

Balls can't touch. And no eye contact.

If you could have sex with Angelina Jolie, but you had to have sex with Cleveland first would you do it? Missionary and eye contact the whole way through though.

No.

Pu$$y.

Why?

Only a pu$$y would pass up the chance to fvck some old black guy missionary position with a sh1t load of eye contact when all they would have to do in return is fvck Angelina Jolie.
My manwich!
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 7:45:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So, how does this have anything in the slightest to do with the topic? Enlighten me.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 7:48:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 7:45:24 AM, vardas0antras wrote:
So, how does this have anything in the slightest to do with the topic? Enlighten me.

It's entirely irrelevant, and I never claimed otherwise. I've already given a lengthy and detailed analysis in response to charles' opening post, and am meanwhile entertaining myself. If you have a problem with that, you can either engage my post yourself, or shut up. :P
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 8:47:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 3:50:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It's 4 in the morning for me, and I'm just fine. Don't be such a b*tch, bro. ;)

O.o why are you guys up at 4 and 5 in the morning?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 9:03:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You know what I'm talking about, the old pro-capitalist canard that without our brilliant and beautiful capitalist overlords we'd all be jobless, prospectless, backward, and barbarous creatures leading a stagnant existence.:

Instead of using so much hyperbole in one, biased rant, why can't you just look at it realistically? The employee/employer relationship is a symbiotic and reciprocal relationship, as they need one another to accomplish their goals. It's a VOLUNTARY exchange of time for money. And you would replace this with what, forced concentration camps? Or do you really fall for the tired, old canard that people would work for the benefit of every one else?

"The Workers" don't work so everyone can benefit though, comrade. They work for the same reason hunters and gatherers hunted and gathered -- for survival.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 9:03:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 8:47:40 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/29/2011 3:50:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It's 4 in the morning for me, and I'm just fine. Don't be such a b*tch, bro. ;)

O.o why are you guys up at 4 and 5 in the morning?

I'm always up during the night. I'm a bizarre individual, if you haven't noticed.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 9:53:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 9:03:49 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'm always up during the night. I'm a bizarre individual, if you haven't noticed.

How much sleep do you usually get? And, normality is a delusion; everyone is bizarre in some sense or another.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 9:54:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 9:53:04 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/29/2011 9:03:49 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'm always up during the night. I'm a bizarre individual, if you haven't noticed.

How much sleep do you usually get?

Oh, that varies.

And, normality is a delusion; everyone is bizarre in some sense or another.

If everyone is bizarre, then bizarreness is normality, and is therefore not bizarre at all. :P
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 9:59:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 9:54:38 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 9:53:04 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/29/2011 9:03:49 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'm always up during the night. I'm a bizarre individual, if you haven't noticed.

How much sleep do you usually get?

Oh, that varies.

I need 8 hours every night just to function. I can't imagine having a weird pattern like you. O.o

And, normality is a delusion; everyone is bizarre in some sense or another.

If everyone is bizarre, then bizarreness is normality, and is therefore not bizarre at all. :P

That would be a great debate. ^^
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 10:11:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 9:59:18 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/29/2011 9:54:38 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 9:53:04 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/29/2011 9:03:49 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I'm always up during the night. I'm a bizarre individual, if you haven't noticed.

How much sleep do you usually get?

Oh, that varies.

I need 8 hours every night just to function. I can't imagine having a weird pattern like you. O.o

Oh, I don't function particularly well most of the time. If I had to estimate, I'm hitting about 30% right now.

And, normality is a delusion; everyone is bizarre in some sense or another.

If everyone is bizarre, then bizarreness is normality, and is therefore not bizarre at all. :P

That would be a great debate. ^^

Well, if you define "bizarre" as radically departing from the norm, then I guess it's technically impossible to have a norm of departure from the norm. With respect to the referents, however, I would argue that a norm based on actions ordinarily characterized as bizarre would in fact not be bizarre except from the perspective of an individual within a norm which doesn't exist by virtue of the object of observation itself belonging to the norm. In other words, the "normal" observer is actually a bizarre outlier. It's a problem of comparative worlds, I guess.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 10:26:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 10:11:59 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Well, if you define "bizarre" as radically departing from the norm, then I guess it's technically impossible to have a norm of departure from the norm.

Indeed.

With respect to the referents, however, I would argue that a norm based on actions ordinarily characterized as bizarre would in fact not be bizarre except from the perspective of an individual within a norm which doesn't exist by virtue of the object of observation itself belonging to the norm. In other words, the "normal" observer is actually a bizarre outlier. It's a problem of comparative worlds, I guess.

Uh, so normality is relative to the observer? I'm going to be honest, you kinda lost me there.