Untitled
i have no idea what was written but that was cute
He can bite through anything and Lampy and Cat want to go on the other side of the mountain and "Innendurchfresser" bites a tunnel through it and they are very thankfull
innendurchfresser is such a kind friend :)
Indeed, a nice fella. and the music is very nice too
cool music
Good music
Now thats what i call art
Nice music too
So 2 retards need an authority figure to solve their problem for them. Is there anything in German media that doesn't involve propaganda?
i think you took this the wrong way friend
Have you watched Sesame street or the teletubbies? How is it different from this formula?
Thanks man seriously..
Exactly. Also digging tunnels without an environmental impact assessment. In which country do we live in, my god?
And a talking lamp. Isn't this illegal?
It takes a magical entity to solve a problem that isn't a problem. Look at the size of that hill. They could easily climb it or go around, but no they need a 5 second dumb solution from a magical entity.
It's like saying "there's poverty, let's solve it by money printing". Magical thinking is dangerous.
A understand your point. But what if the kitty and lamp are children or other people in need. Do you implicate to not help people at all?
They did not need help, but they didn't even consider critical thinking to solve a problem because there's a magical authority figure to solve their issue for them.
I remember the gang of 5 books, they were about 5 young kids solving problems the adults couldn't figure out. That's what you want, each generation becoming smarter than the previous generation.
This shit has been going on for a LONG time. Here's a children's song about a tree that's dying because evil germans won't stop hurting them. Pay your climate taxes.
You make good, valid points. But do we want to be responsible for a world, where everyone is on his own and nobody is even allowed to help? Because "Nah, they have to find their own way"
So you either need to be forced to help people, or you can't help them at all? Why not just help people who ask for it, when you want to do so?
some people just don't want to help anyone but themselves :(
I agree with you. The fact that they are not even asking for help and Inny just comes by and eats their tunnel is very annoying. But maybe he didn't care at all and Lampy and Kitty were just lucky
Ah no, it's much more insidious than that. The implication is that Lampy and Kitty are too stupid to help themselves if they actually tried. It's basically saying, you can't run a school or healthcare system in a free market, we need a government to do that.
Of course a government is just a group of people, so they're effectively saying "Groups of people can't do X, therefore we need a group of people to do X" and if you try, you get shot.
Look at the size of Kitty. He's not going to fit. The tunnel is likely not stable, so they'll try to get in, it will collapse and then they die. Is the provided solution the best option? No, but it's the one that's forced upon them.
I went looking for some examples, this is a recent one thelocal.de
For your advanced arguments at first we need to define framework conditions. Did Lampy and Kitty try to climb the hill before Inny arrived? Mabye there were problems because Lampy is a fucking lamp without legs.
I for my part, think, that we don't need government to dig the metaphorical tunnel, but to set rules, that our tunnels are stable ans safe enough and big enough for every fatass citizen
Why? Why would tunnels need to ensure the morbidly obese can fit through? Where I live, when building a house, we are required BY LAW to build doors and stairs in a very specific manner, so the houses can be sold to cripples and fat people easier later on. Whose property is the house? The government's or the owner's?
Ok, my "for every fatass citizen" argument was not smart. I don't want to understate obesity in any way.
But what if nobody built houses with doors for cripples, what if every magic entity could build public tunnels without rules? Cripples had to pay much more for there special doors even if their cripplity is not their fault. Tunnels would collapse and lamps and kitties would die because nobody cared who dig the tunnels, important is just that he is the cheapest
If I don't build a suitable house so that cripples can live in it, cripples will not buy my house so I have a reason to make my house cripple friendly if they are willing to pay more. No need to force anyone to do anything. Forcing everyone at gunpoint to build a cripple-friendly house against their will is insane, we don't even have that many cripples.
But we need to support cripples a bit or they will die. And if they are not cripples but other people of our society in need (maybe physically stronger ones) they will get angry and form mobs with pitchforks and torches
Would you not help cripples? If you would, why the need for force?
Fundamentally the question is, does having a need mean you get to steal from others?
I tried to explain, that - in my point of view - we need to support (weaker) minorities, in order to obtain a functioning and save society
Ok, save society from what exactly? How do you determine who is a weaker minority? What's the percentage of money you get to rob people for to pay for all this?
All I read is that you're creating the conditions for group warfare, where everyone is competing to be the victim class so they can justify taking resources from everyone else.
Of course you have to set boundaries. Save society - no extreme crime. I want that everyone has enough to eat, a roof over his head when it's cold outside and basic healthcare when he gets seriously ill.
Yes, every sane person would want that, but that's a utopia. Resources are finite, and especially things like healthcare require the actions of others. I can't just create the right to someone else's actions. I can't just say the right to blowjobs is essential to have a safe society and then force everyone to give me blowjobs or healthcare or education.
HOW will you do these things? How will you set boundaries that won't change as time passes and other people get in power, now that you've set the precedent that needy people get to steal?
Don't deny the correlation between poverty and crime, it's the need to fulfill basic requirements.
Yes, it's a good question how to do all these things. And it's the question government and people should try to answer
Crime causes poverty. Governments are just groups of people. They are not a separate category from people. What you are suggesting is that "groups of people can't solve problems, we need groups of people to solve problems".
Im implying that we all should try to solve these problems. Everyone within his limits
But we have a solution. Don't let people steal. Stealing is immoral. Stealing is a crime. Giving a select group the power to steal AND be moral will just mean everyone tries to become a member of that group.
You aren't even trying to justify WHY you get to shoot people who disagree with you. That's a disturbing lack of empathy. People need things. I'm going to play god and redistribute everything. Everyone who doesn't agree gets imprisoned. Everyone who resists prison gets shot.
That's not something a good person would do.
What are you talking about?
You are advocating CAUSING these issues, rather than solving them, because you are trying to play god with people just being chesspieces you can rearrange on a board.
Just play this thought experiment with me for a moment.
>you: We must help the cripples, I need 20% of your income to do that
>me: I don't want to give you 20% of my income
Ok, what do you do now. You've made a proposition and I refused. Where do you go from here? Imagine for a moment that there is no way to get me to say yes.
I don't want to play god, but life is valuable and if I earned enough money to feed a second mouth without having financial troubles, i would do that
I would try to convince you, not more
Ok, and I continue to refuse because you are not making a very compelling case and I have more to do. At what point do you get to just take my money against my will and call it taxation?
You have the right to leave the area, where taxes provide basic needs. If you don't want to participate, I don't want you to use this stuff
Why should I have to leave my property?
You can stay if you want, but don't use infrastructure, fire brigade, anything supported by taxes
We're talking about cripples here. I'd actually pay for infrastructure willingly because that's something I use. What do you use the cripples for? Sex? Why should I pay for your hobby?
What if a family member of you is a cripple or gets a cripple through accident?
Why won't you pay taxes for us?
Depending on how they've treated me so far, I'd help them. If my uncle beats his wife and rapes his and then becomes a cripple, I'm not suddenly going to pity him and waste effort and time on such an asshole.
fuck I'm bored
But I get your point and it's indeed a big problem that nowadays it has gotten normal to pay 40% income taxes for shit
You can't just create an arbitrary moral category like this. You can't say, someone is a cripple, therefore we need to steal money from "bad people who won't help cripples willingly". That means you're saying that EVERY SINGLE CRIPPLE must automatically be "good", regardless of how they became a cripple, and everyone who doesn't have resources to spare or doesn't want to spend them on cripples is "evil".
All that achieves is that people will cripple themselves to become "good", because that's the group that receives.
> That means you're saying
WTF
Right! That's another very, very big issue: How much is enough? If 40% taxation to help people with needs is "good", wouldn't 50% be "better"? Why not go to a full 100%, that should be "the best" then, by these rules. Straight up slavery.
Don't tell me what (((I am saying)))
Slavery for everyone!
You think 50% is better?
If everyone is functioning at the lowest level of functioning, we're all equal! That's what communism is, dragging down everyone to the lowest common denominator. You can't make a short person as tall as the tallest person, but you can certainly cut the legs off of a tall person. The same applies to intelligence. Prevent people from succeeding, and everyone will function on the same level as the dumbest person. That's equality of outcome. What I want is the same rules applying to everyone, which is equality of opportunity.
No, I think stealing is immoral and therefore nobody should get to steal, including the government. A government is just a group of people, and the people in that group change. So to then have rules for people that say "People can't steal" and "These people can steal" makes absolutely no sense. It just means people will want to become part of the group that does get to steal or receive part of the loot from the group that steals.
Yes, exactly, i don't want anybody to succeed, and i want everybodys legs cut off
Sup Forums trash
Is that because of a lack of success in your own life? Is that why you focus so much on abstracts instead of yourself and those around you? Do you feel unfulfilled?
Finally someone who understands me
I'm trying to figure out why you would possibly be focused on "other people doing things for other people paid for by other people" as a way to improve society, rather than doing something yourself.
Why don't you just talk to yourself. Because you are already implying what I say, so i am de facto not needed
By asking questions and you choosing to answer them? Can you define theft and taxation as you see it then, help me understand.
Sorry, i don't have time anymore for this
Time to go back to stealing money for things you want? :) bye
Exactly, have a nice day
blyat