Stupid World

**Ocean1** · 15th December 2015, 06:49

Originally Posted by mashman

Pretty obvious who's fault that is.

And really really easy to fix: those who earn less than 60% of the average income shouldn't have kids.

**mashman** · 15th December 2015, 10:57

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Pretty obvious who's fault that is.

And really really easy to fix: those who earn less than 60% of the average income shouldn't have kids.

Yup, the economy and those captains of industry that actually aren't and are really fucking things up with their entitlement complexes and need to be rewarded for being a good dog.

Average? bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Although, as you say, it is easy to fix, because the moment you remove the $ value from the equation, poverty wouldn't exist... but no, that's too hard, that gives people too much for free and they simply don't deserve it and therefore the only viable alternative is, the one that you seem to like the most, forced sterilisation and vaccination. Heil Industry Solutionist!

**Ocean1** · 15th December 2015, 11:17

Originally Posted by mashman

Yup, the economy and those captains of industry that actually aren't and are really fucking things up with their entitlement complexes and need to be rewarded for being a good dog.

Their customers seem happy enough to pay them, here's an idea: if you don't want what they're selling then don't fucking buy it.

Originally Posted by mashman

Average? bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Although, as you say, it is easy to fix, because the moment you remove the $ value from the equation, poverty wouldn't exist... but no, that's too hard, that gives people too much for free and they simply don't deserve it and therefore the only viable alternative is, the one that you seem to like the most, forced sterilisation and vaccination. Heil Industry Solutionist!

I didn't define "poor". the fuckwits in your link did. And they, like everyone except you used money to do so: under 60% average income is "poor".

And apparently what's "too hard" is earning enough to make your kids "not poor".

And I don't advocate forced anything, in particular I don't advocate forcefully stealing money from people who earned it to give to "poor" people that didn't.

So let's just agree that their definition of "poor" deserves to be right there in inverted comas, and that anywhere outside that their definition is a joke, a hypocritical, disrespectful parody of those in third world countries that really are poor.

**mashman** · 15th December 2015, 12:04

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Their customers seem happy enough to pay them, here's an idea: if you don't want what they're selling then don't fucking buy it.

That must have been one hell of a survey to come to that conclusion... although I never got to fill it in.

Originally Posted by Ocean1

I didn't define "poor". the fuckwits in your link did. And they, like everyone except you used money to do so: under 60% average income is "poor".

And apparently what's "too hard" is earning enough to make your kids "not poor".

And I don't advocate forced anything, in particular I don't advocate forcefully stealing money from people who earned it to give to "poor" people that didn't.

So let's just agree that their definition of "poor" deserves to be right there in inverted comas, and that anywhere outside that their definition is a joke, a hypocritical, disrespectful parody of those in third world countries that really are poor.

Median, not average. Careful, you'll lose your service industry. Anyhoo, you were always so keen to point out that poverty is a financial measure. Changing your story again? I didn't think you were that boganesque. Perhaps I wasn't reading you correctly.

I blame the wages that the people are given... coz if they were paid well enough, they wouldn't have poor kids.

Not sure how else you're going to achieve your goal of preventing the "poor" from breeding... other than by force that is. Taking away the money that they are entitled to is force as well. So you seem to advocate it across the board on a $ basis. Perhaps you haven't noticed it is you. I have though.

Their definition? Disassociating yourself from a financial measure where you advocate financial measures is highly stupid... in fact it's up there with claiming social responsibility merely because one gives to charity. I have disappoint... I expected "better". If you're offended by the word poor, because there are "poor" people in 3rd world country's, then perhaps you should use words that more closely resemble their situation like, impoverished or destitute.

**Ocean1** · 15th December 2015, 13:05

Originally Posted by mashman

That must have been one hell of a survey to come to that conclusion... although I never got to fill it in.

Median, not average. Careful, you'll lose your service industry. Anyhoo, you were always so keen to point out that poverty is a financial measure. Changing your story again? I didn't think you were that boganesque. Perhaps I wasn't reading you correctly.

I blame the wages that the people are given... coz if they were paid well enough, they wouldn't have poor kids.

Not sure how else you're going to achieve your goal of preventing the "poor" from breeding... other than by force that is. Taking away the money that they are entitled to is force as well. So you seem to advocate it across the board on a $ basis. Perhaps you haven't noticed it is you. I have though.

Their definition? Disassociating yourself from a financial measure where you advocate financial measures is highly stupid... in fact it's up there with claiming social responsibility merely because one gives to charity. I have disappoint... I expected "better". If you're offended by the word poor, because there are "poor" people in 3rd world country's, then perhaps you should use words that more closely resemble their situation like, impoverished or destitute.

Damn, no Stupid World passport. Again.

Ah well, at least you don't have what it takes to live out here in Real World.

**bogan** · 15th December 2015, 16:02

Originally Posted by mashman

Changing your story again? I didn't think you were that boganesque. Perhaps I wasn't reading you correctly.

Strange adjective since the rare times I need to I'm up front about it. Of course you'll counter with claims I do but no evidence as always, or maybe you'll just change your own story; that's certainly been known to happen

**mashman** · 15th December 2015, 17:15

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Damn, no Stupid World passport. Again.

Ah well, at least you don't have what it takes to live out here in Real World.

WTF? Mate, change "bogeyman" to "President". Tis your world.

True. I ditched that though and found something else, primarily as I found that living the "Real World" was counter-productive to a Real Future.

Originally Posted by bogan

Strange adjective since the rare times I need to I'm up front about it. Of course you'll counter with claims I do but no evidence as always, or maybe you'll just change your own story; that's certainly been known to happen

Rare? lulz. Thank you for proving that I can, and do indeed change my mind. You may wanna try it someday

So, the adjective is safe and built upon solid foundations

**bogan** · 15th December 2015, 17:24

Originally Posted by mashman

Rare? lulz. Thank you for proving that I can, and do indeed change my mind. You may wanna try it someday

So, the adjective is safe and built upon solid foundations

Called it, no foundations supplied; just like your pissant money free ideals. And an FYI, I supplied no proof that you can change your story/mind, just made the claim; perhaps where you go wrong is you confuse the two

**mashman** · 15th December 2015, 17:31

Originally Posted by bogan

Called it, no foundations supplied; just like your pissant money free ideals. And an FYI, I supplied no proof that you can change your story/mind, just made the claim; perhaps where you go wrong is you confuse the two

Fair enough.

**Ocean1** · 15th December 2015, 17:57

Originally Posted by mashman

WTF? Mate, change "bogeyman" to "President". Tis your world.

It only counts when someone else give you the name.

Originally Posted by mashman

True. I ditched that though and found something else, primarily as I found that living the "Real World" was counter-productive to a Real Future.

I can see that. It takes Real Talent to survive anywhere Real.

**jonbuoy** · 15th December 2015, 19:07

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Pretty obvious who's fault that is.

And really really easy to fix: those who earn less than 60% of the average income shouldn't have kids.

The worry is a lot of people with common sense and a half a brain realise this and don't breed so we get less people with common sense and half a brain. Meanwhile the ones who think it's everyone else's place to bring up their kids are breeding like mice.

**mashman** · 15th December 2015, 20:15

Originally Posted by Ocean1

It only counts when someone else give you the name.

Ah, I see your problem

... you need someone else to define you.

Originally Posted by Ocean1

I can see that. It takes Real Talent to survive anywhere Real.

I'm sure there's a deep message in there somewhere.

**oldrider** · 15th December 2015, 22:22

Satisfied with the way our stupid world is tracking right now? - If not do these films help explain in any way at all why? http://www.thecrowhouse.com/nwofs.html

**J.A.W.** · 15th December 2015, 23:23

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Pretty obvious who's fault that is.

And really really easy to fix: those who earn less than 60% of the average income shouldn't have kids.

Yeah, wasn't so long ago that the Kiwi bloke on the average wage could afford to buy a home & keep a housewife to raise the kids..

Nowadays wifey will have be working to pay the mortgage too, so kids are out.. by abortion on request, if wanted..

Yet kids born into poverty are sponsored by the DPB.. false economy? Where's a bloody eugenics program when you need it..