Almost gets killed by the people who butchered his property

>almost gets killed by the people who butchered his property
>gets berated by long lost cousin who left on a hippy dream trip and never came back
>forced to harbor illegal aliens who are responsible for the giant tumor bomb that will blow up the planet
>only person not thanked at the table because the gems literally dont care about humans

I've never seen an episode make me dispise the main cast so much. Andy really got the shit stick

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cCHTRyDs4RU
foxglove.paheal.net/_images/e63441187312e0f9040fb09a8d14220d/2324033 - Andy_Demayo Lapis_Lazuli Steven_Universe relatedguy.png
dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/private-property
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

You forgot that worst gem stole his barn.

>His property

THEY'RE ILLEGAL ALIENS YOU COULDNT EVEN MARRY AN AMERICAN

this kind of scenario would be like if a mouse came up to a human and started throwing a bitch fit, honestly even if the mouse is right the human likely wont give shit due to being so different an far more powerful

>>His property
Yes, it was his property, which he legally owned.
Greg just gave away a building he didn't own to someone.

you can't own property, man

all the more reason the gems deserve to die.

youtube.com/watch?v=cCHTRyDs4RU

They made him out to be a misunderstood and sympathetic person in the end. But yeah i wanted to sock lapis in the jaw for being a complete bitch to andy and throughout the series. But dont worry, andy will get payback soon enough
foxglove.paheal.net/_images/e63441187312e0f9040fb09a8d14220d/2324033 - Andy_Demayo Lapis_Lazuli Steven_Universe relatedguy.png

Be patient, comrade. That abolishment will come pretty soon.

The hippies are in the wrong because they're stepping on personal property because it's where Professor Farnsworth works and sleeps, but their argument would be correct if it was a private property like a factory.

Then again, should we even expect political episodes to not be fallacious shitshows?

Those are both private property.

How so? He lives there and he also works on it.

If you own a factory and the land it's on, it's private property.

Yeah, that is indeed true, but Farnsworth doesn't own a factory. He owns a building that houses his delivery company, his lab, and his home.

He should shoot Lapis in the gem

So what's the issue?
The hippies were dumb hippies.

By definition property is owned by someone you retard

That was where I stopped watching, because as unlikable the Gems were before, that episode made me realize that they are absolute dickheads.

fucking Sup Forums, do you even watch cartoons?

That the writers can't distinguish the difference between private property and personal property, that's the issue here.

The two are synonymous.

nahh man if a mouse came up to and told you you've ruined his home and you like "Ive been here way longer than you've been alive."

No, they are not. Personal property is your personal possession, like your house and dog and vintage spoon collection. Private property are capital owned by person for the purpose of making money.

Read a dictionary and cease your ignorance.

Does anyone have the off-model comparison picture where Steven is next to the counter and needs a step-stool to reach the top, and then in another scene he is a normal size next to the same countertop?

Asking for a friend.

Third party here: Google defines personal property as
>Anything that can be subject to ownership, except land. Real property is immovable property - it's land and anything attached to the land. Normally, a piece of property can be easily classified as either personal property or real property. The difference between the two is usually fairly straightforward.
Private property is defined as
>Property that is privately owned and generally relates to land or buildings being private property, so subject to trespassing laws, as opposed to public property which has different regulations. ... SO the house and it's fixtures is real property.

So the other guy is correct.

Here you go.

No, he is not correct. It is fallacious to label personal property as private property, and pic-related explains why perfectly.

I don't care what you think it should be labeled. By American law, real estate and land is considered private property.

Thanks dawg.

That's just the Marxist definition though, literally nobody other than postmodernist shills actually promotes that garbage.

The worst part is that he is probably still in Korea waiting for the return of Greg and Steven

This is not what I think, this is how it has always been for centuries. Private property is there to generate profit, personal property is an individual's possession to be used for their own needs and wants.
The people who wrote the American law dictating property laws wrote it that way to protect capitalist lords, and they rely on ignorant individuals like you to keep pushing around their false narrative.

Private property only came into existence after the birth of capitalism while personal property has been there since the existence of man, even animals distinguish personal property such as toys and territory.
If anything is being pushed by shills, it's private property.

I bet you're one of those people who think capitalism just spontaneously popped into existence around the 1700's

>owning land is a capatialist concept
What are kings and nobility for 400, alex

This has happened to me before with squirrels. Those guys really hate it when you go near their tree.

It came during the downfall of feudalism and the capitalist lords used the wealth generated during that time period for their own power, so yes.
Yes, feudalism exists, but that system also included slaves as property. In fact, so did capitalism in the early days of America until Lincoln abolished slavery.

What you are arguing is based on ideology and political science, many of which is theoretical. Thus I cannot argue that your claims of how property should be dealt is an "objective wrong"

However by American law the hippies were correct in the context of the show and thus you are wrong by replacing the shows context with your own.

To quote the show the Hippies "Are technically correct. The best type of correct".

They have phones. I’m sure somebody eventually thought to contact him and give him an update.

If we analyze how the SU writers operate, phones never exist in the world of Steven Universe unless it involves some drama with Connie. After that drama is over, it goes back into nothingness.
I'll settle with that then. Thank you for the debate, user.

By this definition a firearm, by virtue of allowing me to extend my control further literally extends my possessions.

Is this chart communist or ancap garbage I genuinely can't tell?

It's one thing to keep Steven the same age forever, but why did they have to deage him? Making his even higher is especially annoying.

A firearm is a personal possession, but using it to dictate your own rules is tyranny and will lead you into some serious trouble.
Thankfully, it's not ancap garbage. Don't see how that would confuse you.

I noticed that ever since they stole the concept of "hybrid/alien protagonist aging differently" from Dragon Ball on the Steven Birthday episode, the writers took the liberty of stretching and compressing Steven's height like a playdough.
I genuinely think that episode was made for the very purpose of justifying these animation mistakes, it's what pro-SU fans crutch on all the time.

So what I can posses is limited to what I can physically prevent other people from using with my fists, gotcha.

And the kicker is that we're supposed to think he's some out of touch conservative asshole half the time. Lapis and Peridot did nothing but fuck with him and his stuff and no one seemed to care.

>Private property are capital owned by person for the purpose of making money.

dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/private-property

Private property is anything, including land and buildings that a person rather than government owns.

If you wanna argue that for yourself, sure.
Again, private property is state-enforced via legal methods to dictate ownership of just about anything from factories to ideas, just like how Disney tried to copyright an entire cultural aspect like the Day of the Dead holiday.
Personal property is the computer you're using now to shitpost, it is in no way a private property.

Arbitrary definitions that have no basis in reality, classical postmodernism. You argue like a Talmudic rabbi lol

>ownership is enforced by legal institutions using state-sanctioned violence
>limited to things that can actually be controlled, used, or occupied by individuals

But those apply to both you fucking idiot

>Those guys really hate it when you go near their tree.
Pretty much, squirrels are just beings born of hate and strife. And gonads.

If private property is property that is used to make money, then a man's tools that he owns are used to make money, then his tools are private property. The concept of a farmer who owns his tools farming for money predates capitalism. Using a computer to make money would mean my computer is now private property.

They literally could have had him be able to change his height or whatever as one of his powers. Considering how OP he and the other characters are it would have at least given them an excuse. (Yes I know Connie and human characters are inconsistant too but in this show everyone both fans and writers really like using every excuse in the book to cover up laziness and filler.)


Honestly there is no reason for him to age differently in a plot sense.

You're vomiting incoherent phrases at this point. Please speak English.
No, they don't, you fucking retard. You can't exactly put a copyright on your toothbrush, can you?
The farmer, the builder, and the programmer are combining their tools (that was made with embodied labor) with their own living labor to produce products with a total value labor.
Private property is the act of buying the tools in bulk so you can give discounted payment to the workers and profit off the surplus value they gave up to work for you.
As such, a farmer's tools and a programmer's computer are not private property unless if they're working for a capitalist that owns them, yet hires people to use them and gives them dimes as he makes a dollar.

I honestly think it'd be better if Steven went to school and aged naturally, it'd actually give purpose to his humanity besides doing petty shit with the Townies.

>Private property is the act of buying the tools in bulk so you can give discounted payment to the workers and profit off the surplus value they gave up to work for you.
There is nowhere I've found in any English dictionary where this is the case.

Your definition is one you are setting yourself, arbitrarily with no citation.

My thoughts exactly.

This is an economic definition, dude. The entirety of capitalism crutches on ownership of private property and paying pennies to workers.

>You can't exactly put a copyright on your toothbrush, can you?
A copyright is just a form of ownership contract, which you can easily put on your toothbrush, retard.

I'm genuinely curious now can you define the following for me?
"embodied labor"
"living labor"
"total value labor"

If your issue is someone making money off the work of others how do you account for the problem of purchasing tools or property larger than an individual afford? A pilot cannot typically afford to purchase their own jumbo jet nevermind the infrastructure to support such a device. I suppose collectively a group of pilots could pool money and share the jet, but then who owns it if it is not the private property of their cooperative?

What about if I as a farmer reach an age in which I cannot physically work my own farm? Can I not make an agreement with a younger man to work my farm for a share of the proceeds (whether as money or crops) without ceding partial ownership of my farm to him?

>and paying pennies to workers.

Are you retarded or something? Only the US uses pennies. Does capitalism therefore only exist within the US?

A copyright is an artificial contract made to dictate ownership on ideas and items for personal gain. Are you actually gonna rent your toothbrush or something, illiterate retard?

Private property is not a definition dependent on capitalism.

No commies, we won't share anything with you guys leave us be

Faking ignorance, another Talmudic strategy.

But sure, let's take your advice and abolish private property and have everything owned by "the people". Sure, it killed 120 million people last century, but I bet if we try again with your super special brand of socialism, it will work!

He's using a colloquialism to refer to, "the worker is paid less than the sum value of the goods divided evenly among everyone."

However, demanding this happen means that an unfair amount of the financial responsibility in larger services such as planes, pilots, transportation and etc be either placed summarily and entirely on the burden of the person providing the place to work.

OR.
Conversely. The cost of initial investment of the factory, hanger, runway, road, bus, and so on be can be evenly split up amongst all the workers.

At which stage the value of the goods being sold is greater than the value being paid to the worker.

Let's use the analogy of the farmer and his family. Working the soil to produce foods to bring to market and sell.

Firstly. The farmer and his family cannot take ALL the money that was produced and split it amongst themselves. First, the cost of seed, tools, and other bills are required. This will include the cost of livestock if he owns any. Fertilizer. To pay the veterinarian and shots to keep his livestock healthy. To pay for more seed or seed grain.

After all is said and done, these costs mean that for every dollar made on the crop, he makes pennies. A small percentage of the profit is left for him and his family.

Thus, he is making pennies on the dollar for his own goods.

But of course, you mean that this doens't apply, because they aren't other people, its himself and his family.

So if a group of close friends and acquaintances do this - it becomes private property?

Embodied labor is the value of the products and raw materials you purchased to use for a project or product, like lumber or glue or hammer.
Living labor is your own physical work that you put into creating the product, which in turn puts additional value into the product since you made an effort to turn the raw material into something tangible.
Total value labor is "Embodied Labor" + "Living Labor", which is the final product you're planning on selling and has a higher value than the embodied labor you purchased.

For your jet pilot example, you are right, they need a collective institute to gather funds to buy a jumbo jet. The jumbo jet is the embodied labor since it's a product made to be used, and the pilots operating it to transport people is the living labor, so the plane ticket fees are the value of the total labor so the pilots get compensated for their beneficial work.
Also, since the institute is a collective business, everyone in the institute owns the means of production. In case you're asking about the total revenue made after a year's worth of airplane trips, the ones who contributed the most work get paid more than those who did the least of the work, so the pilots obviously get paid more than the receptionist at the gate who collects tickets.

As for the scenario in where you're a retired old farmer who still needs money but doesn't have the strength for work anymore, the State would always provide for you, but we'll pretend they're out of the pictures here. It is ethical to let a young man in need of a job to work on your farm, as long as you split it fairly since he's the one doing all the work. He is morally obliged to keep you a steady income since you need it to live.

Holy hell, you're more retarded than a down-syndrome donkey for trying to argue semantics instead of the subject here.

It is dependent on both capitalism and feudalism.

What you just described was capitalism though. Ironic, huh?

In the example of a jet pilot the workers would be paid pennies on the dollar of the value of their total value labor. Which you defined as being captialism/private property. Because they're not being paid the evenly distributed amount of their total value labor.

Free exchange doesn't kill people. Try again though.

>Are you actually gonna rent your toothbrush or something
No, because then a butthurt commie will whine how he should own my toothbrush because he uses it.

>It is dependent on both capitalism and feudalism.
Capitalism, if I'm reading you correct, did not exist 350 years ago. Private property however did.

>So if a group of close friends and acquaintances do this - it becomes private property?
If they what? Work on his farm? If it's a collective farm and they all equally toil the land and cover the costs, it's not a private property.
It's private property if the farmer sits on his ass, lets his close relatives do all the labor, and gives them a smaller percentage of the revenue than him.

No, it does not work like you think it does. The total value would cover the cost of the embodied labor the worker has purchased, but he profits from the leftover value that he created with his living labor.

By being "paid pennies", a capitalist would cover the embodied labor with some of the total value created by the laborer, but he would pay the laborer less than the value of his living labor so he can make a profit at the expense of the laborer.

It does indeed kill people by giving them petty wages, poor working and living conditions, and an ever-expanding wage gap. Try again, autismo.

Actually, the commies would call you a retard for trying to profit off a used toothbrush and tell you to get a job.

Again, private property is a core concept in both feudalism and capitalism. The latter is an evolution of the former.

Oh well, it's nearly 11 and I need some sleep, I can't continue this debate even further. Goodnight, Sup Forums.

>muh wage gap

Oh great, you're a feminist in addition to a Marxist. Tell me, has your wife's lover given you a Nintendo Switch yet?

...

>the commies would... ...tell you to get a job.

But I thought jobs were the tool of the bourgeoise to exploit surplus value from the poor workers?

>If they what? Work on his farm? If it's a collective farm and they all equally toil the land and cover the costs, it's not a private property.
You may be surprised to learn this.

But we have these in our capitalist societies. Today.

>No, it does not work like you think it does.
It absolutely does. The cost of upkeep of the planes, fuel, runways, hangers, and, well, everything that makes an airport run, would be massive enough that anything left over would mean that the amount the workers brought in, evenly and fairly distributed, would be pennies on the dollar for the total revenue brought in.

And that's not covering things like expanding the business. Effectively, they workers would all be paid pennies on the dollar here.

You're shifting the goalposts by trying to redefine what you mean by, "pennies on the dollar." It's the only way an airport can work. The only way you can keep an airport running, fundamentally, is to take a HUGE chunk out of the total revenue before you divide it up among your employees.

>Again, private property is a core concept in both feudalism and capitalism. The latter is an evolution of the former.
And feudalism, and, ultimately private property, goes back to the ancient egyptians.

>Forced to live next door to food monsters

Ok looking at the jet and farm the crux of your issue is fundamentally unfair recompense for labor yes? I'd argue capitalism doesn't dictate that exchange must be unfair any more than communism/socialism dictates it wouldn't be. The state is also not a magical actor that can summon resources from beyond, all labor and resources come from somewhere, whether the old man splits proceeds himself or pays taxes to a state to give to someone to take care of him has ideally the same result. The only difference being how much control a person can exert on their own life for better or worse.

Regarding your description of the value of labor I think I have more serious concerns though as it seems to completely ignore context. It takes the same raw materials and labor to construct a refrigerator in the arctic as it does in Mexico but I'd wager the end result has significantly more value in one place than the other. I believe this and your "pennies a day complaint" are frankly one in the same. Low skill labor earns little because the context it exists in, of overpopulation and increasingly advanced and cheap automation. Please tell me more about how communism solves the lack of need for low skill labor though? Or how capitalism, in the age of public high speed internet access stops people finding ways to make themselves more valuable in this context?

To continue.
You seem to argue that you think the pay in most businesses and sectors is unfairly distributed. That seems to be the crux of the argument. Am I wrong? I mean, it seems like you're saying, "the baggage handler is paid less than the pilot."
But, as you so poignantly pointed out, these jobs are not the same, and their importance is not the same. So paying someone based on the value of the work they bring in is fair. That's also reasonable.

However. The less important jobs at the air port DO outnumber the important jobs of pilots and air traffic controllers. Security, baggage carriers, janitors, collectively make up more than the aforementioned pilots and air traffic controllers. We're going somewhere with this, I hope, but it'll take a bit so stay put and try and bear with me, ok?
So then, when payday rolls around. When it's time to give each worker their fair share for their work:
Who is deciding who gets what? There's several options here, so lets go over each.

In option one, the workers do. Democratically voted. Great. The workers do own the means of production at the airport, right? So they all have a say. But, as I said, the low skill, low value jobs outnumber the pilots and air traffic controllers. So now, the janitors, baggage handlers, clerks and stewards all decide, by virtue of having the most of them, decide they get the most. Because they feel their job is worth more than what the others are willing to give them. Thus, the democratic majority in each respective area gets a bigger say in how they're each paid. The larger the respective job's base is, the more they're going to be paid. So. The air traffic controllers and pilots are far and away the smallest group. And thus, they will be paid the LEAST, because everyone else gets a bigger say in how much they're paid.

And then you have a total wage gap and the pilots and air traffic controllers will NOT work for the little they're getting.

>goes back to the ancient egyptians.

This. They fucking invented surveying as we know it to define property boundaries.

Let's move to option 2, because I'm hoping that option 1, a pure democracy, should hopefully seem pretty unfeasible. Ok.

Option 2:
The state enforces fair pay.
So cool. The state objectively looks at your airline, and they get it sorted out who gets paid the most and the least. Great. Everybody is being paid what they should and this is decided by the state.

For the airline, the situation is resolved. For now. But who appoints the state to make this decision. The people, of course! By democratic vote! Only...The baggage handlers, stewards, janitors and others all outnumber the pilots and air traffic controllers. Still. So who is going to get elected? Well, they're obviously going to vote for the person who is going to pay them the most. As anyone would and probably should if they care about themselves and their family.
So once again, the airport is going to redistribute the wealth towards the largest number of laborers, which is not the most skilled. Bummer, man. The pilots and air traffic controllers (ATC from here on out) are gonna get screwed again! Now, stay with me the best you can, because we're not done yet. There's still more options we can consider here!

This is getting stupid. Post Gems. The lewder the better.

So the state failed us in option 2. But, what if the state WASN'T elected democratically. They're an objective public figure. They can't be ousted by simple mob rule. They're there and they're going to make the best decisions possible. Terrific. The airport is finally saved, right?

Well, before we go back to the airport, there's one last little technicality. How much does HE make? I mean. The state is doing an important job by setting how much each person makes, right? And if the person in charge of distributing wealth isn't paid, he's not going to do such an important job. And, objectively, it IS an important job. Without him, nobody will ever get paid the right amount. So he will have to be paid for it. What I'm saying here is, the guy whose job it is in the government, to decide how much each person is a paid position, and we can agree that is what needs to happen. He needs to get paid or he can't do his job.

So...Who decides how much HE gets paid? Does he figure that out himself? If he decides how much he's paid, he's going to pay himself a lot. A metric FUCKTON. He's the only one doing the job and the only one who makes the decision, so he can take as much as he wants. And because the people don't elect him, he can pay himself as unfairly as he likes, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Now maybe the airport gets paid fairly in this situation. But where do your tax dollars go - and, you WILL need to tax the people to run the state or else there IS no state, and then there is no way to enforce how much each person is paid (which we'll go back to that in a minute.) He can decide how much of your tax dollars go where.

Now, what you've created here, is the state is deciding the distribution of wealth through a legal institution using state sanctioned force, if necessary.
Which is private property, according to this definition:

So. Our troubles at the airport can be condensed into solving the situation one of a few ways, and let's go over them once again:

The first is the people who are working decide where the distribution of wages goes. In this situation, there will be an unfair wage gap of unskilled labor, because unskilled labor necessarily is always greater than the skilled high important labor, particularly at this airport, where the janitors, baggage handlers, stewards and other jobs outnumber the pilots and ATCs by a large margin. So their voice is going to be heard first and the largest. Majority rule.

OPTION TWO.
A democratically elected official enforces the distribution of wages. This carries the same problems as option one, with the added bonus that now, you have the state, using a legal institution, using sanctioned force to enforce this distribution of pay (ownership) of the airport. The wealth is the property of the airport, and the portion each worker owns is enforced by the state. Private property.

OPTION THREE.
A state appointed, non elected official distributes the wealth at the airport. This means you still have private property, and the people have no say in who or how much. The state is still enforcing ownership through force.

GONADS IN THE LIGHTNING, IN THE LIGHTNING IN THE RAIN!

Indeed

Briefly, I'll touch on a state official who, whether elected or not, decides the redistribution of wealth. However, this official has NO state sanctioned force. The official cannot enforce the redestribution of wealth. Option one here:
can happen and the state can do nothing about this.

So then. The government now cannot stop the airport from distributing the wealth among itself. And option one is likely to happen, as the majority of the workers in option one can decide that is how they are going to distribute the wealth. If the majority of the low skill labors want, they do not have to listen to the officials, and they most assuredly will not. They're the majority of the workforce and the airport, without all of them, cannot function.

In any of these scenarios, there is either a large unfair pay gap, or else private property much be necessarily enforced.

No. Nuke the gems.

Yes. You can.

Soon.

i haven't watched this in a while. is it still good?

You're all pathetic. You get online and browse a forum for endless hours with nothing to show for it. Most of you don't have jobs, and none of you can see your penises. I'd encourage you all to get a life but that would mean that you'd have some hope of ever attaining anything in life. I hope you're all happy with the lives you've chosen: fiddling away at Cheetos-encrusted keyboards, laughing over your shitty Microsoft Paint memes, mom's microwaveable pizza, dollar store deodorant, make-believe rock women cartoons, and online "friends."

Hey Faggots,
My name is John, and I hate every single one of you. All of you are fat, retarded, no-lifes who spend every second of their day looking at stupid ass pictures. You are everything bad in the world. Honestly, have any of you ever gotten any pussy? I mean, I guess it’s fun making fun of people because of your own insecurities, but you all take to a whole new level. This is even worse than jerking off to pictures on facebook.
Don’t be a stranger. Just hit me with your best shot. I’m pretty much perfect. I was captain of the football team, and starter on my basketball team. What sports do you play, other than “jack off to naked drawn Japanese people”? I also get straight A’s, and have a banging hot girlfriend (She just blew me; Shit was SO cash). You are all faggots who should just kill yourselves. Thanks for listening.
Pic Related: It’s me and my bitch