>Schoolchildren should take field trips to slaughterhouses & sweatshops to get a lurid firsthand look at the underside of what our consumer culture is built on
>Euthanasia should be accessible for anyone who wants it
>Representative democracy is a phase in human history with a mixed record of success and is inherently vulnerable to the influence of money
>Video games are a juvenile waste of time and the people who play them are often the most boring, dull, uninteresting and stupid people (see /v/ or any forum catered towards "gamers")
>In the not so distant future anti-depressants (SSRI's especially) are going to be seen as counter-productive, dangerous & asinine as we see heroic medicine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_medicine) 200 years ago
>>27597416
>Video games are a juvenile waste of time
What about puzzle games? I play a lot of puzzle games.
At least those exercise your mind.
>>27597416
>Representative democracy is a phase in human history with a mixed record of success and is inherently vulnerable to the influence of money
I'm going to give you a spoiler
There is no type of government that is not inherently vulnerable to the influence of money.
In fact, the less democratic a government is, the MORE vulnreable it is.
>>27597416
>EDGY OPINIONS
ranch actually did come before cool ranch
>90% of college jobs are useless, you're flappy bird clone app isn't going to make you the next Bill Gates
>media and culture got notably worse after the 21st century began
>we would be better off paying a benevolent king taxes than a bloated useless government that fucks itself over all the time
>comic book movies suck
>>27597466
You stupid bitch, you stupid fucking bitch. I can't believe how dumb you are, JESUS CHRIST I can't believe how fucking dumb you are.
>>27597454
>In fact, the less democratic a government is, the MORE vulnreable it is.
I don't know where you got this idea, but history does not support your assertion.
The more power invested in the arbitrary whims of the executive, as in say a Monarchy or a dictatorship, the less avenues there are for pecuniary influence. Money is incredibly influential in a modern democracy because of the incredibly number of avenues it can be spent to acquire influence or patronage. The sinews of political campaigns are money.
In the Roman empire, the emperor could simply divest a citizen of his assets and seize it for the state. This same arbitrary power was invested in essentially every single Monarch or despot for all of civilized history. The idea that these forms of governments are somehow even MORE susceptible to buying influence is unfounded.
>The world would be better if we just culled off a good portion of the human race, and used their assets to further the survivors quality of life.
>We should have a single governing space program that consists of all the nations on Earth working towards creating habitable spacecraft/interplanetary settlements before we get fucked by global warming.
>Those with a terminal illness/crippling mental illness should have access to a practical euthanasia clinic
>>most people shouldn't need to be literate to live a fulfilling life, everything was better when reading and writing were only required for the scribes, sages, nobility , record keepers etc
>>Arranged marriage is a good thing, and far superior to the whole concept of dating
>>27597416
You would have to leave the nation to see sweatshops. Most slaughterhouses are in the middle of nowhere. Not really a solid plan but I suppose some sort of documentary would suffice.
>>27597745
>Arranged marriage is a good thing, and far superior to the whole concept of dating
edgiest I can think of is if I was like the supreme leader of earth 95% of people would be culled
>>27597777
if it's just because I can't get laid then why was it the norm for millenia in nearly all societies before the modern West?
Bees need to be holocausted, I fucking hate them
that's literally all I've got
>>27597792
>Implying that the more attractive partner gave a shit and didn't cuck their spouse with Sir Chad Knightingcocke/Stacey Cavinsnatch
>>27597745
>Arranged marriage is a good thing, and far superior to the whole concept of dating
DESIGNATED
>>27597825
They already are being holocausted, and it's destroying our crops.
Bees are fine you horrid little cunt, it's predatory insects like Wasps and Hornets that nobody likes.
>>27597840
the whole point is matching partners of equal attractiveness
also keep in mind that there was religion , law and culture that ACTUALLY believed in chastity.
Not saying it never happened but adultery was definitely not rampant like now
>>27597825
if you're talking about africanized bees then I agree with you
but honey bees are alright, they literally never sting unless you're being a dick and trying to swat at them
plus bees are important for pollinating crops
if they all died out we'd have a pretty serious food shortage
Modern poetry (Whitman -> The Present) is superior to everything proceeding it.
>>27597825
Fuck off cunt walk off a cliff
Kys
>>27597416
abortion is one of the best ways to lower crime rates. It's basically a pre-emptive death penalty against future murderers and rapists
>>27597858
If I'm not mistaken I thought that arranged marriages were for the upper class to pick the most attractive of the lower class OR to keep the social hierarchy of the upper class by preventing mixing with lower caste
Plus it's a chance for the parents of the lower caste to marry off an attractive child to a rich upper class in order to gain substantial wealth.
Either way the only people who mainly benefit are
>Ugly virgins who can't get any
>Greedy/snobby parents after wealth or social status
>Royals/leaders in order to attain more influence in marrying off their children to others from a different province
>>27597858
You are sorely mistaken. The point of arranged marriage was for political ties and wealth, attractiveness be damned. Marie Antoinette was MUCH more attractive than her loser husband. Attractive lower class females were often concubines or mistresses. Wives were for strategy. I can't believe you honestly think arranged marriage was set by matching attractiveness. Top lel.
>>27597416
>sweatshops
>in a first world nation
AHAHAHAHAHAHAA
Yeah dude, let's take kids overseas to sweatshops with their beta as fuck teachers. I'm sure there's literally no downside to itthe reason sweatshops offend your sensibilities to the extent that you want to rail against the system is because you live in a culture that is unlike any other in history - one that abhors slavery and indentured servitude.[/SPOILER]
>>27597494
Good luck finding a benevolent king that won't just leave behind a load of spoilt out of touch kids to rule the country
>>27597416
are you originally me?
>>27597416
>EDGY
>OPINIONS
they true and they facts
>>27597494
>you're flappy bird clone app
>you're
>>27598235
>Attractive lower class females were often concubines or mistresses.
"No"
But you're just a fujoshi whore shitposter so it's no wonder you're an idiot
>>27598382
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage
Plenty of sources there talk about the use of concubines as a way for men to sleep with attractive women of lower classes without marriage. Just an example. Sure, there were businessmen that would take it upon themselves to marry a poor woman, but the vast majority of arranged marriages weren't based on attractiveness.
But it's okay, I'm sure your feels are a way better argument.
>>27597591
Besides the fact that "unlimited power" is really limited by whether you can get people to do what you say, emperors and despots still have advisers who can be bought. More importantly, the long-held belief that it's the metal (rather than the face of the king---by which I mean, force of government) that gives money its value has always given money-men power over emperors.
>>27597416
>>Schoolchildren should take field trips to slaughterhouses & sweatshops to get a lurid firsthand look at the underside of what our consumer culture is built on
I don't think that's a terrible idea, actually. I think it's important to know where your stuff is actually coming from.
>>27598683
>always given money-men power over emperors.
There isn't a shred of historical evidence behind your bold claims.
I've explained in very clear terms what makes representative democracy susceptible to the influence of money. Power is diffused among many office holders who are dependent on campaign contributions to finance successful bids for office. Thus, there are literally thousands of opportunities for interested money parties to lobby with their wealth. Behind elected officials at every level, local, state and federal you can literally look up the contributions from monied parties looking for a pro quo in exchange for their quid.
This is something entirely unique to representative democracies. The influence of money plays an enormous part in the function of modern democracies. Much more than it does in more autocratic forms of government, where money cannot be spent to pick and choose leaders.
