What if we said, fuck it.

Let's let poor people die, they fucking deserve it.


I don't understand this fucking shit. How can anyone vote democrat when they know it may result in people starving instead of dying.

Not everyone is people. As soon as you realize this the better off you are.

It's easy as fuck to eat. No one has the right to premium cell phone packages, hondas, and rims.

1/27/2008 10:34:31 PM

what the hell are you talking about

1/27/2008 10:42:15 PM

dude seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

1/27/2008 10:43:35 PM

dude, where's you car, dude?

1/27/2008 10:56:04 PM

Clearly I'm talking about this disgusting rhetoric.

Why is anyone seriously considering voting for Hillary?

I'd rather have a white black man like Obama run successfully than a ******lover like Hillary.

At least Obama already turned his back on his race.


McCain for president.

1/27/2008 10:57:37 PM

wat

1/27/2008 11:10:38 PM

Quote :

"Not everyone is people."

Ignoring the grammar of this... I would say that if you're a person, then you are people. To say that not all people are people is simply unamerican.

1/27/2008 11:12:51 PM

1/27/2008 11:21:57 PM

rallydurham should post in TSB more often... seriously.

1/28/2008 12:12:10 AM

It's totally fine.

1/28/2008 1:22:52 AM

. . .

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 1:44 AM. Reason : .]

1/28/2008 1:41:57 AM

Quote :

"Not everyone is people."

Soylent Green is people.

1/28/2008 1:43:32 AM

Do you honestly think if we left our poor alone, they'd die? They'd just become more of a problem.

The poor in the 3rd world survive on FAR, FAR less than our poor here.

Quote :

"No one has the right to premium cell phone packages, hondas, and rims."

If you genuinely think that image represents poor people, then you're not doing any more than perpetuating the idea of republicans as dumb entitled white people.

1/28/2008 1:46:16 AM

^^I love how all of your jokes are from another era.

Hell, half the eggs on TWW now don't even know who Charleton Heston is, let alone Soylent Green.

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 1:47 AM. Reason : 2]

1/28/2008 1:47:17 AM

and decrease the surplus population??

Seriously, this social darwinist perspective is wrong.

What really needs to be done is to artificially create a deferred gratification pattern into the poor people and enable them out of their self-perpetuating negative feedback loop.


Or maybe we could have our own Bastille Day and have a mass redistribution of wealth.

Vive la revolution.

1/28/2008 1:55:23 AM

^ That's not possible because there would just be more/new poor people to take their place.

Our society requires poor people otherwise it would throw off the balance of the value of money. How content these poor people are is the only thing we can actually manage.

1/28/2008 2:04:54 AM

^^^ Well, I'm from another era. Is that no longer allowed?

In any event, Soylent Green and many other iconic films, works of art, pieces of music, and forms of literature should be part of the tapestry of one's life--regardless of his or her "era," don't you think?

^^ You mean assist them in transitioning to the opportunity pool?

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 2:54 AM. Reason : .]

1/28/2008 2:51:58 AM

2 out of 3 captains agree...

1/28/2008 3:22:51 AM

i wish we could kill all the homeless bums

1/28/2008 5:57:05 AM

whos starving?

fast food is cheap.

1/28/2008 7:45:24 AM

poor people help me to not be at the bottom of the societal pyramid

1/28/2008 8:20:30 AM

its like having your own Uncle Ruckus

1/28/2008 9:14:23 AM

Lets do what they did in Brave New World.

1/28/2008 10:09:18 AM

about 3/4 of poor people are poor b.c they are lazy and/or drug addicts.

1/28/2008 10:14:39 AM

Quote :

"Our society requires poor people otherwise it would throw off the balance of the value of money."

Not true.

1/28/2008 10:18:42 AM

^ In any case, it's long past time we abandoned capitalism and embraced Technocracy.

Forget the dismal science. Equal energy credits for all.

1/28/2008 10:30:43 AM

^ hey competition helps me get the hot bitches

1/28/2008 10:36:18 AM

1/28/2008 10:47:40 AM

Wat?

1/28/2008 11:02:08 AM

i have no idea what's happening in here.

are we going to start serving poor people to other poor people in the form of wafers?

will we let them see footage of nature as they enjoy their last moments on earth before they themselves are recycled into wafers?


If so, I am all for it. I hear that poor people are really tasty due to their high level of fat intake.

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 11:20 AM. Reason : ell]

1/28/2008 11:07:05 AM

I think rallydurham got confused and lost on his way to a liberterian purestrain gold swap.

1/28/2008 11:10:37 AM

If some people have no intention and/or no willingness to work then let them starve. Natural Selection at work.

1/28/2008 11:57:50 AM

rally, i wish you hadn't made this thread. i was just starting to like you

1/28/2008 12:06:24 PM

Quote :

"The poor in the 3rd world survive on FAR, FAR less than our poor here."

1/28/2008 1:07:41 PM

Almost ironic is the fact that there is an inverse relationship between income and body weight.

Then you have to remember

- attractive thin women are more likely to marry on average a more "well-to-do" husband. Thus her genes pass to here children.
- whereas fatter and less attractive woman more likely on the average have to "settle" for a husband of lesser status. Thus they have kids to which they propragate whatever genes and/or lifestyle choices made them fat to their kids

- for guys often overweight is b.c they are too lazy to work out or not intelligent enough to have a balanced healthy diet. This lack of initiative is also what puts them in the $12/hr blue collar job instead of making $80,000 / year.

This is kinda of a reverse in trends much like skin tone. In pre-industrial revolution days tan skin meant you were a peasant laborer and had to spend all day in the sun. Whereas the aristocrats had fairer skin since they had the luxury of staying inside. Also, back in olden days fat men were attractive to women b.c it was a sign that they had the money to gorge themselves.

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 1:22 PM. Reason : a]

1/28/2008 1:22:15 PM

i was just in timmonsville, sc this past weekend and holy shit if that wasn't a third world country. i've never seen poverty so widespread and absolute.

1/28/2008 1:28:09 PM

Those are two completely retarded assertions. Neither holds weight in general populations.

1/28/2008 1:30:09 PM

Clearly HUR hasn't met the men and women of the tech industry.

Who did you reckon accounted for the above average income of the triangle? The spectacularly compensated tellers of SECU?

1/28/2008 1:31:36 PM

Quote :

"If some people have no intention and/or no willingness to work then let them starve."

This silly. People don't the work. Machines do. There's more than enough production around for all to live comfortably.

Quote :

"This lack of initiative is also what puts them in the $12/hr blue collar job instead of making $80,000 / year."

Twelve bucks an hour is poor? If I made that much, I'd consider myself rich.

1/28/2008 2:07:05 PM

You're alumnus and you don't make that much?

1/28/2008 2:09:07 PM

Quote :

"You're alumnus and you don't make that much?"

Bad life choices.

I make about half that much.

1/28/2008 2:14:31 PM

Damn. Well, to defend the original comment, it would be hard to raises a family on $12/hr or even buy a house + save for retirement for that matter

1/28/2008 2:30:29 PM

Quote :

"Clearly HUR hasn't met the men and women of the tech industry"

Actually I work in tech and have seen some dorky looking guys w/ some very attractive wives.

I am sure those women are with the guys solely for their high IQ not the bmw parked outside.

$12/hr blows ; i can get $9/hr lifeguarding.

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 3:02 PM. Reason : a]

1/28/2008 3:01:49 PM

Quote :

"Almost ironic is the fact that there is an inverse relationship between income and body weight."

your assertions about thin, attractive women "settling" or whatever are completely off base.
The inverse relationship between income and obesity can almost completely be accounted for diet and lifestyle choice differences between poor and well-off people, not some kind of conscious selective breeding where the fit people are being bred into upper class and fat ugly people are being bred into poverty.

First and most important is diet. Poor people, especially poor kids, are disproportionately obese because of bad diets, high in fats and sugars. The fact is, it is cheaper, but more importantly easier to eat high-fat, high-sugar diets. Poor kids live off of fast food and soda, which gives the best bang-for-your-buck for calories vs. dollars. Poor parents who work all the time and don't have time to cook healthy meals, or are just apathetic or lazy, will gladly stop by McDonalds 5 times a week where every family member can get a full meal with lots of calories for $4-5/person. Then in the grocery store, high calorie, processed, packaged and high fructose foods are cheap and easy to buy. Poor people or people on tight budgets will stock up on packaged foods that they can keep for a long time and are fast and easy to prepare. They will not spend money on (relatively) expensive and spoilable fruits and vegetables or fresh, lean meat.

After diet (where we established it is easier and cheaper to eat like shit than to go to the farmers market then Whole Foods and spend $50 to make a meal or two) the lifestyle of poor people is more sedentary and non-active than people with money and leisure time. Sure, it doesn't cost any money to go out hiking or start a running routine (apart from buying the right shoes, which can be expensive), but most other outdoor activities can get expensive really fast. Biking, skiing, tennis, etc have high cost barriers to entry just to start doing them. More so than cost, though, is just general lifestyle, where poor people will not choose to engage in active lifestyles like more well off people. You're not as likely to see, for example, a jogging club being formed at a trailer park than at a country club.

1/28/2008 3:53:53 PM

Quote :

"obesity can almost completely be accounted for diet and lifestyle choice differences between poor and well-off people, not some kind of conscious selective breeding where the fit people are being bred into upper class and fat ugly people are being bred into poverty. "

you are right about that too but i think there is still a natural selection factor also that i mentioned. So you totally disagree that an attractive thin female of lower socioeconomic status has the same chance of marrying a more sucessful husband than a overweight or unattractive female of low socioeconomic status??

1/28/2008 4:06:46 PM

yeah, there's probably some truth in the selective breeding argument too. To conclusively argue that over the long term, though, would take lots and lots of generational studies covering decades or centuries. This research may or may not have been done, i don't know.

But the relationship between low income and obesity via high-calorie fast and processed food has been done and is conclusive.

1/28/2008 4:16:38 PM

well of course; its a trend i've seen but not universally true as their are too many variables. Although it is intuitive. Guys tend to want the beautiful thin young girl that subconsciously portrays fertility. Girls want a strong and/or wealth guy to take care of them and subconsciously provide a secure and optimal environment for child rearing.

it is much like the nature v nurture debate or
the global warming debate

1/28/2008 4:23:23 PM

How is it like the global warming debate?

1/28/2008 4:26:12 PM

lots of variables, people will agree/disagree, no easily identifiable conclusive evidence, etc

1/28/2008 4:31:11 PM

Quote :

"$12/hr blows ; i can get $9/hr lifeguarding."

I'm sure that's true. At the same time, many folks make significantly less.

1/28/2008 4:31:22 PM