This is what liberals believe

>this is what liberals believe
>This post was not ironic
>The comments were not ironic

Other urls found in this thread:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deserve
youtube.com/watch?v=QNaEEj7gCqM
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQt9j865_NAhUYwGMKHdHuCEoQyCkIIDAA&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL45pVdsRvE&usg=AFQjCNFE9ytCD3IHuerIfgTWc_Ho41TgNQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Lots of people believe lots of things. Doesn't make them right

Why would it be, it's what they've been told by the kikes all their lives. Ofcourse they believe it.

It's why we have 0 chance of every liberating europe, 95% of the population has the mental jew running their throughs.

People with disabled family members generally think they should be taken care of insomuch as is possible. So extending this to society I think it's easy to see why people could agree with that statement, taken verbatim.
The problem most people have isn't with those who -can't- produce, it's with those who -won't-, and the discussion really should be about how to BOTH have a safety net in society AND keep the profit/embetterment motive for everyone

well, people DO deserve all those things, we are human beings in this world

Also clover saves my trip code from other boards too lazy to erase it for each post

Is there a message or some kind of logic behind that gif, or is it just to confuse the watcher

That was interesting as fuck

when you're spending other people's money there's no limit to what you can dream.

Have you considered: why?

welcome to the internet friends.

>liberals

also nat soc

check mate, libertarians win.

Typical liberals though, they want to spend other peoples money and never stop to consider the violence inherent in that system.

Don't you already provide this though? There are private charities which do literally those things, the united States gives emergency room care regardless of coverage.

Sometimes i wonder how people like them exist. Like, what kind of education do you get to not uderstand that this is wrong. They are caught so deep in their fantasy world that they dont think straight. Do they not understand that this is how countries collapse. You provide for your country and the country provides for you. Its a basic concept. I get just angry just by looking at this even if its fake i dont care, there are people who belive that and they shouldnt be allowed to vote.

I have no medical insurance, I havent had any since I was 17, I am going to turn 22 in a few days

Thanks Obama for not giving me health insurance

Nazi Germany has zero(0) percent unemployment, so no.

Sorry m8

They're the people who think that the wealthy are this big pile of uranium that generates infinite money if you tax them and if you tax them enough everyone can have a free spaceship

People DO deserve those things though. It doesn't mean that people should have their money forcefully taken from them with the threat of force to supply those goods and services to other people.
People deserve those things, and various charities provide those resources to people.

He really fucked up the entire system and then declared it a victory
Sure some people have medical now but I aint one of those people

Sure I'm all for helping those in need and all that good stuff, but someone must work for that food. The food and shelter don't just come out from nothing, and god help yer soul if you abuse the system, and I bet my ass there are hundreds of nignogs with 20+ children who refuse to work. That will strain the system and will ruin it for everybody else.

Imagine what it must feel to be someone who works in some stressful 9 to 5 job, knowing that a big chunk of your paycheck will be taxed and then given to some family of 20 people who are never going to do anything because you're pretty much slaving your ass for them.

please explain how you will provide them all of those without forcing someone to give it to them

>Nazi Germany has zero(0) percent unemployment, so no.

so did commie poland, whats your point?

PEOPLE DESERVE NOTHING

YOU HAVE TO FIGHT AND KILL TO SURVIVE

THE WEAK SHOULD FEAR THE STRONG

It's not an unreasonable line of thinking

It all go to shit when the inevitable next step is "Tax everyone to finance the needs of the jobless"

I have yet to see liberals pooling their own money together to actually provide what they think is "deserved", it's always "Why cant someone else pay for it?"

You don't """deserve""" ANYTHING someone else worked for that they didn't willingly give away.

Deserve: to do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment).
All people deserve those things, some of the people get those things.
Just because you deserve something doesn't mean you actually end up receiving it.

Well the flipside to that is if you don't do tedious, manual labor at least, you should just starve to death under an overpass or wait to die from the common cold.

In a damn near post-scarcity world, they are both equally awful.

That was interesting

>Like, what kind of education do you get to not understand that this is wrong.
A regular college one.

You didn't read my comment fully then. I said they deserve it, but they should not be able to take it.

I totally agree

You guys want to know the best part?

These people would be the first against the wall if their economic desires were put into practice.

Food shelter and medicine cost next to nothing. At the basics: grub with calories and nutrients, a dorm bed, some painkillers. It's an absolute no brainer to provide them.

What liberals actually mean is a high standard of living which costs a massive amount of money and is not that much better for the beneficiaries.

You are confused between deserve and want
They have the right to ask for those
They dont have the right to get those

he'll just say it's charity's job to do so, even though charities obviously don't do a perfect job of eliminating poverty, etc. and never have.

If you go so far as to say that someone in your country "deserves" something, it's a cop-out to say they only "deserve" to recieve it from someone else, and not from you

>don't do a perfect job of eliminating poverty, etc. and never have.

neither does the state.

I do believe everyone deserves to have food, shelter, medicine, etc. regardless whether or not they are a productive member of society.

But we do not live in a perfect world. Resources are limited.

That's not what deserve means though. it means they are worthy of, not entitled to.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deserve
I deserve a million dollars. Doesn't mean I I'll get or take a million dollars

Ironic considering that OP is probably a NEET

Me OP or original OP I took it from?

It's not a cop out to say that they deserve it from willing charity and not threatened force. It's a big distinction

The poverty rate was declining by 1% every year until the great society programs came in and it froze friendo

>because not all injustice can be remedied, none should

It's typical word play that is used by socialists, stuff like "people deserve" or "social contract" it's all an means to taking what other people have worked for and giving it to others, rather than working yourself and giving what is rightfully yours to others.

It's easier to rob people than it is to actually do the work yourself.

This is exactly right. People are confusing "deserving" with "entitled"

reminder that sammy loves trannies

Can you imagine trying to explain to cavemen that they should give food to people who do nothing but sit in the caves all day while they are out risking life and limb for the next meal?

Fuck libtards. The government and shitskins get to lick the sweat off our brows and we do fuck all but let them.

That's not what I was arguing. I am saying that everyone is worthy of all the things mentioned in the opening post.
I also mention that voluntary charities which provide those goods to the needy are a good thing. it's hard to disagree with either of those things, at least broadly

>space and resources are finite
>people who don't contribute anything deserve some of this limited space and resources
No thanks, I want my children and my children's children to have the best chance possible.

That's abusing the language. If you take what they say by the dictionary definition I would say they are right when it comes to those services because people literally need them to survive.
When we are talking about voluntary transactions between consenting providing goods required to have people survive it's difficult to go against if you take it at face value

>....whether or not they can produce profitable labor

This is the interesting part.

Is it profitable if you do some obscure activity that can't be quantified? If you have Down syndrome and someone teaches you to plant trees on some mountain for free, how profitable is that? Is it enough to earn food, shelter and medicine?

What about disabled persons? What if one of your children has an accident and loses his legs or whatever?

...

and?

First of all, the gov't is not threatened force. It's social contract, etc. etc.
And it's easy to say someone deserves something if you have no part in fulfilling it. One should have skin in the game for it to mean something.

No one tells us that the fly has a "right" to be safe from the spider, or that the rat has a "right" to a life without cats
No one insists that all the birds should be fed through no work of their own.
Even our very Sun has no claim to an endless life.
Yet the human, the lowly mutated ape, is so enraptured with the notion that it should be provided for, cared for, even if it should put forth no effort or production. That somehow, in the grand scheme of the universe, it alone is above something as pitiful as working for it's livelihood.

It is an unsolvable mystery, this "human condition".

Every nation has the government it deserves.

It would be totally unfair to a caveman because of the relatively high amount of time they have to spend per day getting food. A person on minimum wage getting the bare minimum of calories IE boiled lentils etc only needs to work under an hour a day, anywhere in the West

They are obviously exceptional cases. They cannot physically contribute to the same level as an able-bodied person and shouldn't be expected to

These shitlibs ARE able-bodied. They're just lazy as fuck and deluded to boot. There is zero reason why they cannot get off their ass and work

What the fuck did i watch...

All countries already do.
It's called join the army.

I'd argue that to fix things we don't need to end the social net programs, just discourage relative reproduction rates by recipients

>affirmative action to ensure minorities are employed while whites remain unemployed
>"got no job, free gibs plox"
It's black slavery all over again.
Guys, I think I found the endgame.

>This
They don't want to work either / are incompetent as well. The worst part is when they bring children into the world who have literally done nothing to deserve this. Then they get the government to look after them, otherwise the children starve. Sad!

So you agree with the statement from "fandomsandfeminism" when talking about disabled people, correct?

The 'everyone deserves the same shit' meme.
Animals dont share and humans dont either. Its called incentive. If we all work hard and get taxed to death to pay for little assholes to go to uni or sit at home to smoke pot all day only to be blamed for a poor economy by the very people who have yet to inject a dime into it why should we work?
I refuse socialism outright, life isnt free and it isnt fair.

All kinds of things aren't considered profitable and our society deals with it in interesting ways. If we are both mothers and raise our kids that's unprofitable. If we both become maids who raise each other's kids and pay each other both 30,000$ a year that's considered profitable and contributes 60k to GDP.
Reading to your kid isnt profitable but increases their intelligence.
Taking care of your grandparents in old age, not profitable but an important service. Creating patents, art, inventions etc and releasing it into the public domain. Unprofitabile. It still contributes

>deserve

And there you have it folks, the reason for the fall of Western civilization.

Any society that spends too long in safety, security, pomp, luxury, and convenience eventually comes to expect these things as a matter of course. In due time, these things are not just seen as niceties, but rather, are instead seen as essential necessities. Without outward adversities to shore up the morality of a people (a common enemy), or an inward framework to maintain it (religion or other strong moral foundation), societies fall into decay and ruin as people seek every greater heights of pleasure and decadence.

The truth is lost on people today:

>youtube.com/watch?v=QNaEEj7gCqM

Nobody deserves anything, you're supposed to earn it

ideas of fairness can be seen in most social animals. There's a semi-famous experiment of giving monkeys grapes and cucumbers that illustrates it.
Ideas of fairness aren't weird ethereal results of a soul, they're firmly based in our biology/evolution as social animals.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQt9j865_NAhUYwGMKHdHuCEoQyCkIIDAA&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL45pVdsRvE&usg=AFQjCNFE9ytCD3IHuerIfgTWc_Ho41TgNQ

It is true that the mentally/ physically challenged should be helped by the state and community but the problem is that among non Euro/ Asian/ Ashkenazi the numbers vastly increase. They see Northern Europe and think "Oh look. Socialism works!" but that isn't the case if you purposefully bring in the handicapped or if you don't seek work.

Sure, if she was talking about disabled people only. We all know she's talking about retards who work in "art" and other dogshit areas, who don't make money

Basically she wants EVERYONE to get gibsmedat, regardless of their career choice. Want to be a freelance "feminist scholar"? No problem, here's some gubment money

Actually many countries deny people that ability, for stuff as simple as asthma and various other medical conditions. Which "ironically" people need medicine for

Posting at 35,000 feet. Was just wondering what my flag would be.

everyone already knows that people aren't compensated based on the quality of their labor, they're compensated based on social class. corporate executives, financiers, etc. produce nothing of value at all but get paid millions.

Deserve means to be worthy of. It doesn't mean that they are entitled to it.

Is that a 737 m8

RULES OF NATURE

r U goING strAghit Into thE T0werS m8?
KaBo00M XD

The opening post never mentions "free" college, just food medicine and shelter which people literally need to survive

>arguing semantics instead of just rephrasing to use a different word
fucking kill yourself

The weak are supposed to die to make room for the strong

>liberals are crypto-christfags

>sitting above the wing
you just got cucked

Health care is free but food is not. Explain this shit. If I don't eat food I will die.

Food water shelter and medicine aren't considered niceties though. They're required to survive

The fact that you need something to survive doesn't entitle you to that thing, millions of our ancestors have died to get humans to this point and they weren't given anything because that's not how life works, you don't magically get something that someone feels like you deserve.

So in what sense is the world "deserve" in any way meaningful other than to attempt to justify take other people stuff to redistribute it?

It has no other meaning in this context, just think about it for a second, if it has meaning then in what way is the world different if these people didn't deserve food/shelter/etc? It wouldn't be any different.

>35,000 feet
>Is posting on 4chin and not joining the mile-high club
Stay cucked.

>People deserve to survive a shipwreck, whether or not they can swim

No bitch. Nature affords you only one inalienable right. The right to die.

Food is more expensive, i think that's the most logical explanation. Everyone has to eat, not everyone gets sick

These monkeys know each other. They are the equivalent of friends, if not family. What would be the outcome if the experiment used monkeys from two different groups?

Uses ground based stations, normally USA just because its easier to relay there.

Just type what you mean next time.
People arguing about semantics is what keeps our language pure

Become homelss, homeless people in the middle of London get more food than families in council estates

this gif rly rly
rly
makes u think

what did you mean by it, btw?

>Food water shelter and medicine aren't considered niceties though.

You miss the spirit of my post and drag it down by overthinking my message.

>hurr fugging libbturdds

but I'd agree with the original statement. they should get food, shelter and medicine, no matter what though. because an unhappy, ill or starving living being can't work properly anyways.

besides, life has to go on, day by day. starving is fucking terrible and every life lost is a tragedy in itself. that shit is never good. even the most intelectually and degenerate nigga has some fleeting and decent qualities.

considering monkeys, like humans, are not above attacking and killing other groups over resources, I'd postulate that the effect probably carries over.

*intellectually depraved and degenerate

They aren't entitled to them, but they do deserve them. Entitled implies holding on to the title of something, giving you legitimacy to take that from someone else I.E. if I have title to a house I can lock out the current inhabitant and live there myself.
I never argued this. I just said that they were worthy of it. If there was no limitations when it came to resources I would say they should have it. Of course we don't live in that world, but we may in the future