Schizophonia

You said we should take money from multinational corporations and give it to the poor who are starving. That's an ethical idea. And i say it's wrong for different reasons You are regularly aggressive and have a big ego.

It's just some kind of limit within infinity.

@LordFall I just went on a date, so I haven't created a Hinge account yet. Since she's interested in philosophy I briefly mentioned Actualized. I made the mistake of saying I was posting here so I hope she isn’t trying to spy on me given all the things I've said here lol.

Yes It's when you give space to a person in their vulnerability, to what is missing

No: you tacitly suggested an ethical principle and I said in return that you would do well to apply it to yourself to begin with if you find it good that much. It's not a question of either becoming libertarians or taking all the money available without any logical considerations. There are stupid things and relevant things to do that don't fall under a manichean dichotomy. Taking a little money from everyone for public services can be relevant, but destroying national savings and giving them to others because they are poor lol makes no sense. It's another problem. What I was responding to was your statement that we have "40 trillion at our disposal"

Glory to Mammon

I don't know your source, but assuming it's true: 1) Once again you want to squander private savings—even destroy these companies' ability to borrow money—and by extension potentially destroy a huge number of often skilled jobs, their R&D, and most of their productive capacity in general. 2)Money is capital it's not linked to the means of production or available social time. Just because there's more liquidity available doesn't magically mean there's more labor and raw materials available; so the moment you start spending that liquidity you'll generate proportional inflation. It's logical even if you add $10 to your wallet it doesn't mean that the equivalent in goods has appeared somewhere in the world, therefore since the quantity of goods is the same but there is more money the goods in question will now cost more. This works to some extent, in the long run, which is why central banks create money to maintain a slightly positive inflation rate. Countries can also implement stimulus plans, but this often creates enormous amounts of debt (it's better to borrow than to print money or, worse, squander savings for the reasons I listed earlier) ans inflation still; the New Deal for example, created so much inflation that it actually reversed a deflationary trend. That's just your opinion. If you're so humanitarian you can delete your Actualized account, sell your computer, and give all the money to poor starving children, lol. Meanwhile even from a humanitarian perspective, thanks to AI as @LordFall said we'll certainly be able to create more abundance of all kinds (consumption, health, etc.) in the long run, for everybody. It's not our prerogative, and intervening could also create problems; like local production collapsing because people prefer to consume foreign aid or things like that. Investments are already a better solution but well to invest you need capital, and to have capital you have to accumulate it, not squander it. Already responded It's true, you could say it's exaggerate, certainly because of lobbying. But unfortunately there are also geostrategic interests at play. The biggest ally and customer of the United States in printed circuit boards for example, is Taiwan, and what maintains Taiwan's independence, and by extension the value of the dollar since the United States buys in dollars, is largely American military deterrence. The same goes for Saudi Arabia with the pretrolium; then Israel, South Korea... Even Europe benefits from the American military, and this pushes Europeans to trade more with the United States and to pay in dollars. At one point, in exchange for the United States' participation in the defense of Ukraine, the United States even tried to negotiate resources in exchange for a treaty between the two countries.

I mean I'm tired of being paranoid about being needy or whatever; it's too complicated It's worse than living under Stalin. I'll try to be authentic no matter what problems it might cause, because you can't really love something you got by cheating anyway. It's easier to amplify one's qualities than to diminish one's flaws; if what i say makes sense.

Not in the sense that there is a nearby paradise stolen by the rich.

It's deeper than that; he takes "pleasure" in watching, raging at, and commenting on videos of women over and over. You can see from his facial expressions that he's on the verge of a psychiatric breakdown.

It's true

It's true that the super-rich protect their class interests and use their power to support ideological agendas they deem important for other reasons.

No we can criticize the power of billionaires; I'm saying it's delusional to believe that all the money is "hidden somewhere above."

It's a far-left conspiracy theory to believe that the money that's missing is hidden away by the rich. I'm not against redistribution but even Elon Musk only has a few billion dollars in personal funds (in his personal bank accounts). Even if you were to seize all the accumulated wealth of the American super-rich, for example—which is suicidal because whether we like it or not private savings is the essential of national savings, and you would squander it—you would only accumulate a few tens of billions of dollars, whereas by comparison the annual American budget is nearly 4 trillion dollars. The majority of that money comes from the middle class. Besides nobody except a few idiots here and there actually believes what's being said in the image; it's just another leftist tactic to treat people like fools and convince themselves they're very intelligent. If you ask people why they're against immigration most of them will talk about crime; because they see the news items, ethnic statistics etc.

No because cancer is involuntary. Also hardship makes you want to love, unlike stupid behavior.

In my experience, the girls who seem to be easy prey are those with the strangest or even meanest behavior; unsafest in general if you come from blackpill. Acting through a quasi-form of coercion, dating girls because they are "seemingly easy, with less competition", because one believes that life is difficult and that one must "have leverage" ultimately backfires like a boomerang.

He wallows in cynicism and hatred lol, you can even see it on his face.

A good relationship is one that doesn't tend excessively towards negative emotions.

👍

The more I try to understand women, the closer I get to an aneurysm; it's simply easier to abandon the realm of understanding and just move forward by following one's desires.

No I'm too lazy; I have other things to do. I actually did it in a thread a while back; I remember emerald was in the discussion and my examples were about Germany. Maybe you could find it by searching through my messages.

C'est ballot

Crimes are primarily committed by young, poor men. You can't expel all men and/or young people, and you can't magically eliminate poverty. However you can limit immigration, another key factor in crime. It's a question of what's possible. In every European country, non-Europeans or people of European descent are overrepresented. And everywhere crime particularly sexual crime has exploded in correlation with immigration. Again you can't take every migrant and shower them with money before hypnotizing them on LSD to suppress their potential misogynistic and selfish unconscious. I'm not obsessed with ethnicity that's just in your imagination. It's what i say since the beginning.

You can at best improve the situation by making sound political decisions, but again the impact of politics on reality is very limited and importing large numbers of people from poor countries will inevitably increase crime. Even if you shower all migrants with money, which would be absurd, there are still traumas, religions, and the more primitive collective unconscious/red and blue stagecraft in general. And while you are perched in your ivory tower issuing postulates and sociological theories without real practical and efficient scope, it is your population that pays the price. Poland now has significantly lower growth and crime rates than most Western and even Central European countries, which nevertheless have much stronger social policies. What more needs to be done? Suck the migrant's dick? Again you talk as if the state were like a city builder like City Skylines where you are basically omnipotent and where everything is more or less privatizable and possible. Ethnicity is one of the criteria most correlated with the proportion of most crimes. I never said that you just made it up. I said that most of the crimes were committed by non-whites, which tacitly means by migrants or descendants of migrants since European countries are basically exclusively white at the beggining. Probably because well immigration has been massive and uncontrolled for decades. White people 2000 years ago lived in warrior tribes who decapitated their enemies before turning their skulls into soup bowls lol; so even if it would not pose a problem of ethnic replacement, it is not certain that if there were a trans-temporal portal modern Europeans would accept an immigration of Europeans from antiquity and the Middle Ages, for the same reasons or worse.