BF2S Forums Would you give up your luxuries so all....

THIS IS NOT COMMUNISM!

baah!  Communism is when everything is public property, you can't have religion, it doesn't work.

This is called human kindness.  America is a place where there are ridiculously wealthy and very very dirt poor people.  No one needs 40 billion dollars to themselves, thats selfishness beyond definition.  But this isn't about america, i'm talking about the ENTIRE world.  Africa, many places in south america, all around the world people live in poverty that is unheard of in america.  I"m talking about Americans giving up their 40 billion dollar bank accounts (one in particular i guess) their ferarries and lamborghinis and other not needed items to help the people that live in this poverty to live in a mediocre world...

i'm surprised that so many answered no, hopefully you just didnt understand the question.  Otherwise, your parents didnt do a very good job explaining what sharing means...

power9787 wrote:

i want my luxury and more people should die so the world would be a better place like the poors dying or bums
death to starving poor people and bums or even just people who are suffering
there should only be 2-3 billion people exist rest of them should just die or everyone have birthcontrol for 30 years until there is 2-3 billion people left

power9787 wrote:

it makes a better world when less people exist, because more money and more space plus less criminals or stupid or poor people

that might actually be the sickest thing i have ever heard.  Some of you people are such selfish sons of bitches. That actually really makes me angry...

"i want my luxury and more people should die" that is the most fucked up ideology i have seen in my entire life...

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

When I say this I don't mean it in a hostile way, this has been a very amicable exchange, however,  you are so fulla shit it is coming out of your eyes.

You are actually saying the richest woman in England is "middle class at best"...... I defy you to find 1 shred of internet to back that up.

In that case you won't think it hostile when I say you're so full of shit that it's coming out of your eyes.

And I defy you to find one shred of any evidence anywhere to back up your claims.

Actually, I am not going to do that

YOU are are the one that makes the ludicrous claim that the most wealthy woman in England is nothing more than a middle class citizen.

I know you don't beleive that, you just can't say it without conceding your argument that social class has nothing to do with wealth.

from dictionary.com
upper class 

a class of people above the middle class, having the highest social rank or standing based on WEALTH, family connections, and the like. 


middle class 

1. a class of people intermediate between the classes of higher and lower social rank or standing; the social, ECONOMIC, cultural class, having approximately average status, INCOME, education, tastes, and the like. 


1. a class of people below the middle class, having the lowest social rank or standing due to LOW INCOME, lack of skills or education, and the like. 

funny POWER isn't meantioned in any one of them.................the end.

Then dictionary.com has a very americo-centric view of class.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

THIS IS NOT COMMUNISM!

Some people don't understand what communism is, let alone what it isn't.

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Scorpion... you are one thick dude... lol...   JK Rowling is rich and powerful now... when she was middle class
she was poor and powerless... and through her creativity and capitalism she became rich and powerful... Get it... lol

She may be rich, that doesn't necessarily mean she's has any power what-so-ever, nor does it stop her being middle class.

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

It upsets me to think there are people living in poverty but if the people that run businesses and people who are innovators had to give away the monetary fruits of their labor?... I doubt any would bother trying to be or do anything if that was the case.

What, like Bill Gates?

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-11-10 21:41:43)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

In that case you won't think it hostile when I say you're so full of shit that it's coming out of your eyes.

And I defy you to find one shred of any evidence anywhere to back up your claims.

Actually, I am not going to do that

YOU are are the one that makes the ludicrous claim that the most wealthy woman in England is nothing more than a middle class citizen.

I know you don't beleive that, you just can't say it without conceding your argument that social class has nothing to do with wealth.

from dictionary.com
upper class 

a class of people above the middle class, having the highest social rank or standing based on WEALTH, family connections, and the like. 


middle class 

1. a class of people intermediate between the classes of higher and lower social rank or standing; the social, ECONOMIC, cultural class, having approximately average status, INCOME, education, tastes, and the like. 


1. a class of people below the middle class, having the lowest social rank or standing due to LOW INCOME, lack of skills or education, and the like. 

funny POWER isn't meantioned in any one of them.................the end.

Then dictionary.com has a very americo-centric view of class.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

THIS IS NOT COMMUNISM!

Some people don't understand what communism is, let alone what it isn't.

Scorpion... you are one thick dude... lol...   JK Rowling is rich and powerful now... when she was middle class
she was poor and powerless... and through her creativity and capitalism she became rich and powerful... Get it... lol

She may be rich, that doesn't necessarily mean she's has any power what-so-ever, nor does it stop her being middle class.

Ya know, there is a time to concede an argument. I don't care if you concede this one or not, but you are really walking a fine line of desperation by trying to defend your position about class labeling. Almost to the point of rediculous.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

to the post above^^ i'm confused who's arguing what, but i think money has everything to do with power.  One example, when was the last time you saw anyone from the lowest class run for any political office (power..).

to claify your confusion,   you are siding with me.

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Actually, I am not going to do that

YOU are are the one that makes the ludicrous claim that the most wealthy woman in England is nothing more than a middle class citizen.

I know you don't beleive that, you just can't say it without conceding your argument that social class has nothing to do with wealth.

from dictionary.com
upper class 

a class of people above the middle class, having the highest social rank or standing based on WEALTH, family connections, and the like. 


middle class 

1. a class of people intermediate between the classes of higher and lower social rank or standing; the social, ECONOMIC, cultural class, having approximately average status, INCOME, education, tastes, and the like. 


1. a class of people below the middle class, having the lowest social rank or standing due to LOW INCOME, lack of skills or education, and the like. 

funny POWER isn't meantioned in any one of them.................the end.

Then dictionary.com has a very americo-centric view of class.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

THIS IS NOT COMMUNISM!

Some people don't understand what communism is, let alone what it isn't.

Scorpion... you are one thick dude... lol...   JK Rowling is rich and powerful now... when she was middle class
she was poor and powerless... and through her creativity and capitalism she became rich and powerful... Get it... lol

She may be rich, that doesn't necessarily mean she's has any power what-so-ever, nor does it stop her being middle class.

Ya know, there is a time to concede an argument. I don't care if you concede this one or not, but you are really walking a fine line of desperation by trying to defend your position about class labeling. Almost to the point of rediculous.

You're the one that needs to concede the argument.

You present a very American view of class, which I can only assume is because you live in America and America is a country where wealth is everything.

I live in a country where wealth means nothing more than what brand of soap you buy.

And, you know what, we've had a class system for far longer than modern america has even existed.

You're the one with a distorted view of class labeling, not me.

But then, if you are american, that's not your fault...

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-11-10 21:55:36)

lowing wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

to the post above^^ i'm confused who's arguing what, but i think money has everything to do with power.  One example, when was the last time you saw anyone from the lowest class run for any political office (power..).

to claify your confusion,   you are siding with me.

But also siding with me in saying that this poll has nothing to do with Communism.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

i can't believe i'm siding with lowing, its a first... lol

Don't worry, I'll get you to change your mind...

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-11-10 22:00:27)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

i can't believe i'm siding with lowing, its a first... lol

Don't worry, I'll get you to change your mind...

i've never been to the UK and i'm not familiar with the politics there.  But in the US, Money is power...

CommieChipmunk wrote:

It's a fairly simple poll.  If the option was presented to you, would you decline, leaving the millions around the world still starving or accept so that everyone would live in mediocrity? 

It's not quite as black and white as that but you know what I mean.

Null vote. By the semantics of your post, you're not asking anything. Simplified, it boils down to, 'if the option was presented to you, would you decline or accept?' The poll's question is, 'of the world could live decently?' I don't know about everyone else here, but that makes no grammatical sense.

However, I am going to exercises human intuition in assuming that you mean a global state of communism. If so, than no, as governments who claim communism are still spoiled by the 'evil class system,' only those few who rule over the 'peoples' do so with an even more gargantuan iron fist than otherwise.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-10 22:28:21)

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Would you give up your luxuries so all.... (name of the post)

of the world could live decently?  (continued into post)  it all wouldnt fit.

No it is not communism.  It's fairness, the simple thing called "sharing" that we were taught at a young age.  Thats what it boils down to.

What this poll proves, on the other hand, is the selfishness of human nature..

Then sell your computer and BF2 for charity money, only keep three sets of clothes, and live in the cheapest place you can manage. And next time you make a poll, clarify what you're asking.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-10 22:48:40)

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Sooooorry, sheesh

everyone else found it fairly self explanatory..

CommieChipmunk wrote:

It's a fairly simple poll.  If the option was presented to you, would you decline, leaving the millions around the world still starving or accept so that everyone would live in mediocrity? 

It's not quite as black and white as that but you know what I mean.

It's a fairly simple task to decipher what you really meant, but you really should've written it better. It was presented as a 'fill in the blank' question, without the blank.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-10 22:53:08)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Sooooorry, sheesh

everyone else found it fairly self explanatory..

CommieChipmunk wrote:

It's a fairly simple poll.  If the option was presented to you, would you decline, leaving the millions around the world still starving or accept so that everyone would live in mediocrity? 

It's not quite as black and white as that but you know what I mean.

It's a fairly simple task to decipher what you really meant, but you really should've written it better. It was presented as a 'fill in the blank' question, without the blank.

sorry