|
On May 15 2012 08:41 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2012 08:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2012 08:13 DeliCiousVP wrote:
Money creation has zero to do with the national debt.
What if the nation must borrow the money from the bank in order to create it? at an intrest see you are clueless. watch the material. I did watch it. The Federal Government does NOT borrow from the Federal Reserve. When the Fed creates money it buys existing debt and interest payments pass through it and go straight to the US Treasury. This effectively makes US debt held at the Fed have an interest rate of zero. So, if the Federal Government wanted to create money without going into further debt it could just have the Fed buy all its bonds and remit the interest to the Treasury. Or the Fed could just buy bonds that have not been issued by the Federal Government (other central banks do this.) No and remember the Federal reserve is a private company. There is always a catch a quid pro quo to every arrangement. "Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws.” Baron M.A. Rothschild And also watch the material and bring up points from what you belive to be incorrect,false,biased and ludicrius
Lol. The Federal Reserve is a private company?
If you believe so much the system is bound to work, please tell me how an average person will spend his day.
|
None of this is relevant. Money, a credit system, which replaced barter, an exchange system, was as significant an advancement as the wheel or fire. There is absolutely nothing to debate here.
The current economic system and the state of the world economy have absolutely nothing to do with money, and that is what you are all talking about.
This is like blaming the invention of the wheel for the latest F1 scandal, it's completely unrelated and nonsensical.
If you want a world without F1 scandals, fine, don't go around trash talking the wheel though. Me and the wheel are tight.
|
In other news, if you do not have the exact same opinion as I do, it is clearly because you havent watched enough videos !
Fed being a private company was real good though, come on people, open your eyes, its obvious its private if you watch enough videos !
|
|
|
On May 16 2012 05:45 Reason wrote:
None of this is relevant. Money, a credit system, which replaced barter, an exchange system, was as significant an advancement as the wheel or fire. There is absolutely nothing to debate here.
The current economic system and the state of the world economy have absolutely nothing to do with money, and that is what you are all talking about.
All of this is highly debatable and the highlighted parts are most likely completely wrong and I can only advise everybody to read David Graeber's Debt to learn something about the emergence of money. One of his thesis being that a barter system never actually existed (unless in societies where a money system had collapsed) and credit systems predate money systems.
Now I know given Graeber's activism many people will dismiss him outright and I cannot stop you but if you want to be a shining example against confirmation bias I really urge you to read the book, it will be worth your time even if you disagree with all of his opinions.
|
The Free World Charter is infeasible. They can dream all they want but it will never happen.
|
|
|
On May 16 2012 06:05 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 05:45 Reason wrote:
None of this is relevant. Money, a credit system, which replaced barter, an exchange system, was as significant an advancement as the wheel or fire. There is absolutely nothing to debate here.
The current economic system and the state of the world economy have absolutely nothing to do with money, and that is what you are all talking about.
All of this is highly debatable and the highlighted parts are most likely completely wrong and I can only advise everybody to read David Graeber's Debt to learn something about the emergence of money. One of his thesis being that a barter system never actually existed (unless in societies where a money system had collapsed) and credit systems predate money systems. Now I know given Graeber's activism many people will dismiss him outright and I cannot stop you but if you want to be a shining example against confirmation bias I really urge you to read the book, it will be worth your time even if you disagree with all of his opinions.
No, no, no.
What you are talking about is highly debatable, yes.
The charter proposes a world without money, without a credit system. That is impractical, counterproductive and virtually impossible. That is why there is nothing to debate.
Ranting about the current economic system and the state of the world economy is frankly off topic and boring as hell.
Money is not economics, politics or sociology. It is a phsyical manifestation of what you yourself are claiming to be an extremely ancient invention, the credit system.
The notion that people invented currency and a credit system before they traded goods and services is stupid as far as I'm concerned.
Even if I'm wrong, which I doubt very very very strongly, and it was actually true it's completely irrelevant and doesn't even begin to argue that money is bad or needs removing, if anything in fact it argues in favour of what I'm saying.
Also it's a moot point really, I only used the example of progression from barter/exchange to money/credit to explain clearly what I meant when I described money as a credit system.
If you have actually have something to say on topic that you can formulate yourself instead of quoting some book and just bolding sections of what I have said and calling it "most likely completely wrong" with absolutely zero basis for making this assessment.... well then I'll be interested to read and respond to your post.
Until then, I don't care how corrupt people are, I don't care how high the national debt is, I don't care how much the banks are screwing us or any of this bullshit it's absolutely nothing to do "money" and the non existant need for it's demise.
|
On May 16 2012 06:05 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 05:45 Reason wrote:
None of this is relevant. Money, a credit system, which replaced barter, an exchange system, was as significant an advancement as the wheel or fire. There is absolutely nothing to debate here.
The current economic system and the state of the world economy have absolutely nothing to do with money, and that is what you are all talking about.
All of this is highly debatable and the highlighted parts are most likely completely wrong and I can only advise everybody to read David Graeber's Debt to learn something about the emergence of money. One of his thesis being that a barter system never actually existed (unless in societies where a money system had collapsed) and credit systems predate money systems. Now I know given Graeber's activism many people will dismiss him outright and I cannot stop you but if you want to be a shining example against confirmation bias I really urge you to read the book, it will be worth your time even if you disagree with all of his opinions.
If you've read the book, then outline his evidence and arguments.
If you haven't read the book and are just linking it because this guy wrote this book that says X and I agree with X because X supports what I think, then no, no, no, non.
|
So basically... communism... lol
|
On May 16 2012 06:53 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 06:05 silynxer wrote:On May 16 2012 05:45 Reason wrote:
None of this is relevant. Money, a credit system, which replaced barter, an exchange system, was as significant an advancement as the wheel or fire. There is absolutely nothing to debate here.
The current economic system and the state of the world economy have absolutely nothing to do with money, and that is what you are all talking about.
All of this is highly debatable and the highlighted parts are most likely completely wrong and I can only advise everybody to read David Graeber's Debt to learn something about the emergence of money. One of his thesis being that a barter system never actually existed (unless in societies where a money system had collapsed) and credit systems predate money systems. Now I know given Graeber's activism many people will dismiss him outright and I cannot stop you but if you want to be a shining example against confirmation bias I really urge you to read the book, it will be worth your time even if you disagree with all of his opinions. No, no, no. What you are talking about is highly debatable, yes. The charter proposes a world without money, without a credit system. That is impractical, counterproductive and virtually impossible. That is why there is nothing to debate.
You are being unnecessary aggressive. I do understand that nobody is going to read a book just for the sake of fighting an internet argument and that my post might have come of similar to the "read this article on mises.org" crowd, though I don't see how I can change this.
I also agree that the charter is rubbish but probably for different reasons than you.
Ranting about the current economic system and the state of the world economy is frankly off topic and boring as hell.
Money is not economics, politics or sociology. It is a phsyical manifestation of what you yourself are claiming to be an extremely ancient invention, the credit system.
Money is both credit and actual physical thing (like gold) and to what degree it is what is important and has effects on the society using it. Furthermore it might be interesting to look at societies without money and how they organize, we might learn something from those "primitives", crazy I know.
And again, that money (especially in the current form) has nothing to do with the current economic system needs a lot more explaining on your part or is simply wrong.
The notion that people invented currency and a credit system before they traded goods and services is stupid as far as I'm concerned.
Which is not what I wrote, although you might be surprised what one could call a credit system in gift societies, where the notion of trade does not exist in the sense of today.
Even if I'm wrong, which I doubt very very very strongly, and it was actually true it's completely irrelevant and doesn't even begin to argue that money is bad or needs removing, if anything in fact it argues in favour of what I'm saying.
Also it's a moot point really, I only used the example of progression from barter/exchange to money/credit to explain clearly what I meant when I described money as a credit system.
If you have actually have something to say on topic that you can formulate yourself instead of quoting some book and just bolding sections of what I have said and calling it "most likely completely wrong" with absolutely zero basis for making this assessment.... well then I'll be interested to read and respond to your post.
The thing is that your assesment about how money emerged has also no basis. If you really want to argue this you could start to point to a single society that exercised barter in our modern sense (that was not using money beforehand) or any historical text suggesting such a thing. The problem is, I cannot prove the nonexistence since me finding no matter how many counterexamples would be meaningless (if you insist I could list some though).
Until then, I don't care how corrupt people are, I don't care how high the national debt is, I don't care how much the banks are screwing us or any of this bullshit it's absolutely nothing to do "money" and the non existant need for it's demise.
I don't even understand how you can say this. Just look at societies with and without money and see for yourself the profound effect money has. Yeah the difference is not only money of course, but to state that the existence of money has no effect at all is quite a stretch, how do you get there?
|
On May 16 2012 07:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 06:05 silynxer wrote:On May 16 2012 05:45 Reason wrote:
None of this is relevant. Money, a credit system, which replaced barter, an exchange system, was as significant an advancement as the wheel or fire. There is absolutely nothing to debate here.
The current economic system and the state of the world economy have absolutely nothing to do with money, and that is what you are all talking about.
All of this is highly debatable and the highlighted parts are most likely completely wrong and I can only advise everybody to read David Graeber's Debt to learn something about the emergence of money. One of his thesis being that a barter system never actually existed (unless in societies where a money system had collapsed) and credit systems predate money systems. Now I know given Graeber's activism many people will dismiss him outright and I cannot stop you but if you want to be a shining example against confirmation bias I really urge you to read the book, it will be worth your time even if you disagree with all of his opinions. If you've read the book, then outline his evidence and arguments. If you haven't read the book and are just linking it because this guy wrote this book that says X and I agree with X because X supports what I think, then no, no, no, non.
Yes you are right I should have said a bit more on that matter. Like I said in the post above his argumentation against the existence of so called barter economies is the nonexistence of evidence for such economies (which you can easily disprove by providing evidence). It turns out that in societies where everybody knows everybody the social constructs of credit and debts take different forms than today, where trade is anonymized (for example by money), this seems rather compelling to me and he provides examples in his book.
Whether credit predates money is of course not provable but allegedly early writing (I think it was in Sumer but I would need to look this up) is concerned mainly with credit keeping (without using a common denominator).
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 16 2012 07:33 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 06:53 Reason wrote:On May 16 2012 06:05 silynxer wrote:On May 16 2012 05:45 Reason wrote:
None of this is relevant. Money, a credit system, which replaced barter, an exchange system, was as significant an advancement as the wheel or fire. There is absolutely nothing to debate here.
The current economic system and the state of the world economy have absolutely nothing to do with money, and that is what you are all talking about.
All of this is highly debatable and the highlighted parts are most likely completely wrong and I can only advise everybody to read David Graeber's Debt to learn something about the emergence of money. One of his thesis being that a barter system never actually existed (unless in societies where a money system had collapsed) and credit systems predate money systems. Now I know given Graeber's activism many people will dismiss him outright and I cannot stop you but if you want to be a shining example against confirmation bias I really urge you to read the book, it will be worth your time even if you disagree with all of his opinions. No, no, no. What you are talking about is highly debatable, yes. The charter proposes a world without money, without a credit system. That is impractical, counterproductive and virtually impossible. That is why there is nothing to debate. You are being unnecessary aggressive. I do understand that nobody is going to read a book just for the sake of fighting an internet argument and that my post might have come of similar to the "read this article on mises.org" crowd, though I don't see how I can change this. I also agree that the charter is rubbish but probably for different reasons than you. Show nested quote +
Ranting about the current economic system and the state of the world economy is frankly off topic and boring as hell.
Money is not economics, politics or sociology. It is a phsyical manifestation of what you yourself are claiming to be an extremely ancient invention, the credit system.
Money is both credit and actual physical thing (like gold) and to what degree it is what is important and has effects on the society using it. Furthermore it might be interesting to look at societies without money and how they organize, we might learn something from those "primitives", crazy I know. And again, that money (especially in the current form) has nothing to do with the current economic system needs a lot more explaining on your part or is simply wrong. Show nested quote +
The notion that people invented currency and a credit system before they traded goods and services is stupid as far as I'm concerned.
Which is not what I wrote, although you might be surprised what one could call a credit system in gift societies, where the notion of trade does not exist in the sense of today. Show nested quote +
Even if I'm wrong, which I doubt very very very strongly, and it was actually true it's completely irrelevant and doesn't even begin to argue that money is bad or needs removing, if anything in fact it argues in favour of what I'm saying.
Also it's a moot point really, I only used the example of progression from barter/exchange to money/credit to explain clearly what I meant when I described money as a credit system.
If you have actually have something to say on topic that you can formulate yourself instead of quoting some book and just bolding sections of what I have said and calling it "most likely completely wrong" with absolutely zero basis for making this assessment.... well then I'll be interested to read and respond to your post.
The thing is that your assesment about how money emerged has also no basis. If you really want to argue this you could start to point to a single society that exercised barter in our modern sense (that was not using money beforehand) or any historical text suggesting such a thing. The problem is, I cannot prove the nonexistence since me finding no matter how many counterexamples would be meaningless (if you insist I could list some though). Show nested quote +
Until then, I don't care how corrupt people are, I don't care how high the national debt is, I don't care how much the banks are screwing us or any of this bullshit it's absolutely nothing to do "money" and the non existant need for it's demise.
I don't even understand how you can say this. Just look at societies with and without money and see for yourself the profound effect money has. Yeah the difference is not only money of course, but to state that the existence of money has no effect at all is quite a stretch, how do you get there?
I'm really struggling to find any coherent points here.
What effects does money have on society using it? That's like asking what effects does that wheel have?
It allows things to roll. That's what the wheel does.
What does money do?
It allows you to buy and sell instead of having to exchange.
That's all it does.
The charter isn't rubbish, the values it holds dear and the world it describes are admirable and I can only dream of living in such a world. As I explained previously, the proposed methodology behind the charter is the problem. It proposes the removal of money, in essence the removal of a credit system.
Try to make any serious arguments in favour of a different way of exchanging goods and services and you will quickly realise they are invalid.
I repeat this is impractical, counterproductive and virtually impossible. That is why there is nothing to debate.
You are suggesting we look at societies without money? To try to learn something from them?
You find me one country in the world that has transport infrastructure, health care, an education system etc that doesn't use money and perhaps you will have a basis for making this suggestion. Until then "primitive" is a good way to describe a society without money and primitive is nothing you should be aspiring to. To live in a better world we need to progress, not regress.
Sure there may be some social or cultural lessons we could learn from primitive societies... but what has that got to do with anything?
As I have already said, how money emerged is a moot point. This means it is irrelevant and off topic and has nothing to do with what is being discussed and bringing this up again serves no purpose. The fact is that money is a credit system as opposed to a bartering or exchange system. I seriously couldn't care less how it came about or which came first. The reason we use this system is because it is better. That is all that matters here.
As far as I am aware it is generally understood that people were exchanging goods and services long before they decided to invent a uniform currency to facilitate the exchange of these goods and services. If I am wrong about this, it doesn't matter, it is still irrelevant.
Look at societies with and without money and look at the differences? See the profound effect money has? Yeah so like you mean that every wealthy country has a higher quality of life in almost every conceivable way to countries that don't have lots of money?
You are basically arguing that more money = good and less money = bad, which further solidifies what you seem to think I am saying, but actually I am not.
You are confusing wealth with money. Wealth is an accumulation of credit. You hear of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? That is an unfair distribution of wealth, in an increasing trend.
I have already clearly explained that the uneven and unfair distribution of wealth is the problem we have in today's world. We do not have a well established, fair and integrated global society. People live in mansions and have huge estates and lands while children starve and dehydrate in poor countries all around the world.
This is because of society, politics, economics etc
Not. Money.
Money is a credit system. Money is good. It is an ancient invention that is simply the preferable alternative to a more direct method of exchange or bartering.
I don't know how to say this any simpler.
This simple tool of exchange is not responsible for the state of affairs we have in the world. Greed, corruption, dishonesty, exploitation etc etc cannot in any way be attributed to such a simple and innocent improvement in the method of exchange of goods and services between human beings.
If you want to make such a wild claim the burden of proof is on you, not on me.
|
On May 16 2012 07:52 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 07:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 16 2012 06:05 silynxer wrote:On May 16 2012 05:45 Reason wrote:
None of this is relevant. Money, a credit system, which replaced barter, an exchange system, was as significant an advancement as the wheel or fire. There is absolutely nothing to debate here.
The current economic system and the state of the world economy have absolutely nothing to do with money, and that is what you are all talking about.
All of this is highly debatable and the highlighted parts are most likely completely wrong and I can only advise everybody to read David Graeber's Debt to learn something about the emergence of money. One of his thesis being that a barter system never actually existed (unless in societies where a money system had collapsed) and credit systems predate money systems. Now I know given Graeber's activism many people will dismiss him outright and I cannot stop you but if you want to be a shining example against confirmation bias I really urge you to read the book, it will be worth your time even if you disagree with all of his opinions. If you've read the book, then outline his evidence and arguments. If you haven't read the book and are just linking it because this guy wrote this book that says X and I agree with X because X supports what I think, then no, no, no, non. Yes you are right I should have said a bit more on that matter. Like I said in the post above his argumentation against the existence of so called barter economies is the nonexistence of evidence for such economies (which you can easily disprove by providing evidence). It turns out that in societies where everybody knows everybody the social constructs of credit and debts take different forms than today, where trade is anonymized (for example by money), this seems rather compelling to me and he provides examples in his book. Whether credit predates money is of course not provable but allegedly early writing (I think it was in Sumer but I would need to look this up) is concerned mainly with credit keeping (without using a common denominator).
What does the historical existence or non existence of a barter system have to do with anything?
You really can't compare stone age to modern 2012...
|
Seriously what do you propose to stop that?
It is people, not the system that is hurting the environment. People want to play SC2 on their computer. They want nice houses. They want to drive cars. All the nice things in life take resources - which cause pollution. If you switch to "green" methods then you get less stuff because green is more expensive. People are only willing to do that to such an extent.
So what do you propose? We give the Free World Charter a large army so they can impose poverty on us? Because aside from you getting off your butt and helping that's your only option.
|
On May 16 2012 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Seriously what do you propose to stop that? It is people, not the system that is hurting the environment. People want to play SC2 on their computer. They want nice houses. They want to drive cars. All the nice things in life take resources - which cause pollution. If you switch to "green" methods then you get less stuff because green is more expensive. People are only willing to do that to such an extent. So what do you propose? We give the Free World Charter a large army so they can impose poverty on us? Because aside from you getting off your butt and helping that's your only option.
people make certain decisions based on the system they operate in. when companies' primary goal is to make profit, they will do so even if it means sacrificing the environment. this is what we mean when we say a 'value system disorder.'
we have plenty of life's luxuries and necessities. just look around stores/car dealers and you will see landfills of stuff sitting there waiting to be purchased - overproduction. we have enough to go around, but yes their means of production are still inefficient and unsustainable. there are countless alternatives such as solar/wave/wind/geothermal (ironically they all require oil right now but it would still make more sense to use it towards their creation as opposed to wasting it on things that will not give back), but once again the profit motive hinders a transition. the current infrastructure is powered by oil, and those who make their wealth obviously won't want to change. as mentioned before, sustainability and efficiency are enemies of profit. houses could be made self sustainable and off the grid through these various means but the companies who provide the energy will not let that happen.
the current system imposes poverty on 80% of the world's population. the FWC simply asks people to declare everything to be everyone's. how can a few people own oil, for example, which took millions of years to form? or how can someone own land? do you own the microbes and the lava and whatnot underneath? it's nonsense.
consequently, a RBE can emerge which would try to give every human being the necessities of life (40% of all food gets wasted currently) through the means of technology and thus eliminate poverty. after all, it is technology that created everything around us right now, not those who own it. they might have funded it, but it have been achieved regardless of their intervention.
I suggest reading this summary about the direction:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-walter-donovan/the-zeitgeist-movement-en_b_501517.html
|
the current system imposes poverty on 80% of the world's population.
as mentioned before, sustainability and efficiency are enemies of profit.
Do you actually believe stuff like this because you know the facts, or because you've been told that it's true?
Statements like the above really further destroy the very small amount of credibility you have.
the FWC simply asks people to declare everything to be everyone's. how can a few people own oil, for example, which took millions of years to form? or how can someone own land? do you own the microbes and the lava and whatnot underneath? it's nonsense.
Hint: the reason "a few people" can "own oil," or "land," is actually the same reason you think everything should be declared to be everyone's.
|
On May 16 2012 10:28 xeo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Seriously what do you propose to stop that? It is people, not the system that is hurting the environment. People want to play SC2 on their computer. They want nice houses. They want to drive cars. All the nice things in life take resources - which cause pollution. If you switch to "green" methods then you get less stuff because green is more expensive. People are only willing to do that to such an extent. So what do you propose? We give the Free World Charter a large army so they can impose poverty on us? Because aside from you getting off your butt and helping that's your only option. people make certain decisions based on the system they operate in. when companies' primary goal is to make profit, they will do so even if it means sacrificing the environment. this is what we mean when we say a 'value system disorder.' we have plenty of life's luxuries and necessities. just look around stores/car dealers and you will see landfills of stuff sitting there waiting to be purchased - overproduction. we have enough to go around, but yes their means of production are still inefficient and unsustainable. there are countless alternatives such as solar/wave/wind/geothermal (ironically they all require oil right now but it would still make more sense to use it towards their creation as opposed to wasting it on things that will not give back), but once again the profit motive hinders a transition. the current infrastructure is powered by oil, and those who make their wealth obviously won't want to change. as mentioned before, sustainability and efficiency are enemies of profit. houses could be made self sustainable and off the grid through these various means but the companies who provide the energy will not let that happen. the current system imposes poverty on 80% of the world's population. the FWC simply asks people to declare everything to be everyone's. how can a few people own oil, for example, which took millions of years to form? or how can someone own land? do you own the microbes and the lava and whatnot underneath? it's nonsense. consequently, a RBE can emerge which would try to give every human being the necessities of life (40% of all food gets wasted currently) through the means of technology and thus eliminate poverty. after all, it is technology that created everything around us right now, not those who own it. they might have funded it, but it have been achieved regardless of their intervention. I suggest reading this summary about the direction: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-walter-donovan/the-zeitgeist-movement-en_b_501517.html
Businesses care about the environment when their customers care. As people have demanded organic food businesses have responded by producing it. When people demand fuel efficient cars that's what the automakers make. If you want to impose a greener lifestyle on people good luck without an army.
For the majority of the economy profit comes from efficiency (exception in monopoly or oligopoly situations). When 40% of food is wasted it's because households throw out a lot (and will continue to do so in a RBE). When food is wasted before it reaches the customer it is because not wasting it would use more resources than you would save (spend $100 to save $90 makes no economic sense) which is inefficient.
There's not a lot of 'overproduction' sitting around - businesses have a huge profit incentive to keep inventory levels low. It is more profitable to produce to demand not to over produce and then try to find a customer for it. Overproduction (push systems) were more common when the West was still industrializing since there were huge economies of scale yet to be had. Since then we've moved to 'pull' systems whenever it is feasible.
Solar, wind, geothermal are NOT being blocked by some oil conspiracy. They are simply more expensive. As their cost is coming down more money is being put into alternatives. Right now solar and wind alternatives are one of the hot areas of business - but generally that's only because governments subsidize their use.
No one is imposing poverty on anyone else. 80% of the planet is NOT in poverty btw. Once 'poor' countries are now the fastest growing countries. You are holding on to a world view that was true a generation ago but is rapidly becoming obsolete. Countries today that are poor and not improving are in the situation because they are run by terrible governments. How do you plan to remove those? By war and force?
|
Do you actually believe stuff like this because you know the facts, or because you've been told that it's true?
Statements like the above really further destroy the very small amount of credibility you have.
Look why do you waste your time rhetoricly trying to convince everyone what a shitty idea it is ? there is 80% of you guys that totaly agree with you.
This is coming and its not a matter of if its a matter of when. And the longer the when takes the more people are gonna die and suffer and the more we will have wasted and polluted our planet.
Your opinion can save lives shorten suffering bring warmth and understanding to the world. Just like your opinion right now kills causes suffering starves people and breeds ignorance. This is not a game this is our world being pillaged and burned.
I urge all of you to watch the sources look at the videos, it is not a joke it is a matter of life and death.
|
Your opinion can save lives shorten suffering bring warmth and understanding to the world. Just like your opinion right now kills causes suffering starves people and breeds ignorance. This is not a game this is our world being pillaged and burned.
Even if we accept this emotional blackmailing nonsense as being okay to use in argument, less suffering, starvation, and true ignorance has been the result of the modern economic system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
