User Controls
Elitism is a moral imperative
-
2017-05-04 at 6:56 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-05-04 at 7:29 PM UTC
-
2017-05-04 at 7:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by Dionysus Of course it does. The Secretary of Defense is generally more intelligent than Private Pyle. The tribal chief is generally more charismatic than the ditch digger. Unless you don't think this qualifies as elitism, cause everyone is equal in the eyes of Jesus.
It's hilarious that you don't actually understand what elitism entails while trying to argue for it.
Originally posted by Dionysus *were
Wuz* -
2017-05-04 at 7:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by AltarEgo A laughable conjecture. People absolutely are monkies. You can try and say otherwise but it will only show how uneducated you are.
You fucking retard.
People are apes. The category "monkey" is paraphyletic with regards to apes. Despite their cladistic similarity, apes are taxonomically separate to monkeys.
You can try to say otherwise, but it will only show how deluded you are about your own level of education. -
2017-05-04 at 8:02 PM UTChttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism
Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, high intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken more seriously or carry more weight; whose views or actions are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.
You are either a troll or a moron. I'm thinking the latter. -
2017-05-04 at 8:03 PM UTCa shiyt on u
-
2017-05-04 at 8:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by Dionysus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism
Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, high intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken more seriously or carry more weight; whose views or actions are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.
You are either a troll or a moron. I'm thinking the latter.
Lol and this is why schools try to prevent idiot kids from becoming dependent on Wikipedia
Quick, tell me the difference between elitism and egalitarianism. 20 bucks say you fuck up. -
2017-05-04 at 8:40 PM UTCAlso for that matter, attempt to explain the difference between elitism and meritocracy
-
2017-05-04 at 8:59 PM UTC
-
2017-05-04 at 10:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon You fucking retard.
People are apes. The category "monkey" is paraphyletic with regards to apes. Despite their cladistic similarity, apes are taxonomically separate to monkeys.
You can try to say otherwise, but it will only show how deluded you are about your own level of education.
Haha what a pedantic asshole -
2017-05-05 at 2:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Dionysus Only if you can tell me the difference between were and we're, moron.
One is a typo and the other is an excuse for a gay asshole called Dionysus to avoid justifying his idiotic viewpoint.
Your turn shithead. But I don't expect any real response because your a fuckimg idiot, not a social scientist (heavens no).
Originally posted by AltarEgo Haha what a pedantic asshole
Shut up, faggot. I just put my logical cpck in your mouth and jizzed science down your throat. You fucking mong. Now spread those asscheeks boy. -
2017-05-05 at 2:27 AM UTC
-
2017-05-05 at 2:29 AM UTC
-
2017-05-05 at 2:48 AM UTCANSWER ME, YOU STUPID MOTHER FUCKER.
-
2017-05-05 at 6:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon One is a typo and the other is an excuse for a gay asshole called Dionysus to avoid justifying his idiotic viewpoint.
Your turn shithead. But I don't expect any real response because your a fuckimg idiot, not a social scientist (heavens no).
Shut up, faggot. I just put my logical cpck in your mouth and jizzed science down your throat. You fucking mong. Now spread those asscheeks boy.
*fucking *cock -
2017-05-05 at 7:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws I think that patterns arise for a reason. Think about it, in all the different ways that humans can theoretically live their lives, they somehow manage to form hierarchical civilizations in almost every instance for the thousands of years that we've been around. Any anarchical (or really, quasi-anarchical) societies that arise only last for a few years at most which would seem to indicate that they are unsustainable in human populations.
While it's true most societies historically have had a king and nobility and functioned in a feudal manner. There are significant historical examples of societies that were structured more along the lines of an anarcho-capitalist nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Historical_precedents_similar_to_anarcho-capitalism
Of course the degree to which different societies were like AnCap society varies but the emphasis in these societies was on individual freedom, trade and private property. -
2017-05-05 at 8:37 AM UTC
-
2017-05-05 at 8:46 AM UTCUntil and unless we make any major advances towards colonizing other planets, the end game of humanity is a global population of ~500 million or lower in total, and something that largely resembles anarcho-capitalism.
But this is in the distant future, after almost everyone in society has been educated, and when automation has created lots of wealth and thus has allowed for the population to shrink through many generations of family planning, while also taking care of the aging members of society. This is a realistic goal. But in the present, where everyone is a retarded asshole, government is necessary... But no, elitism is not a moral imperative despite that. -
2017-05-05 at 9:11 AM UTC
-
2017-05-05 at 2:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Until and unless we make any major advances towards colonizing other planets, the end game of humanity is a global population of ~500 million or lower in total, and something that largely resembles anarcho-capitalism.
But no, elitism is not a moral imperative despite that.
At leasy attempt to make a logical sensible coherent point. To say the former then the latter is pretty stupid. Basically you think the 500 million we keep shouldnt be the best? Please dont be such a retard
