Dubstepforum.com

Genevieve wrote:

DiegoSapiens wrote:i though we were discussing about who did the industrial revolution benefit the 3rd world, anyway talking about us, "luxuries", i pay a ridiculous amount of money for having an orange thats tastes a little bit to something similar to a real orange when in the country even the poorest man can have a better orange, second , we don´t have a better life, we just live more and have more facilities to procreate (which is the nonsense goal of progression) if we live better why are the anti depressives the second medicine in the western societies? depressions and suicides DONT EXIST in the tribal life. And yes i´m a bourgeoise but i´m not satisfied because i have a lot of stress and pressure in my studies and i have to makes plans for a future bigger than 20 years (which completely in-natural and quite mental), i can´t talk honestly to people because tabú are constant in our society, i´m addicted to entertaiment, actual religion can´t satisfy my spiritual ambitions etc etc

For the first part, no, we were talking about the industrial revolution in how it benefited our society and that people in third world countries are living in conditions that are similar what they were here during the industrial revolution and that their standards of living is slowly raised because of it.

What you just did was blame society for a lot of things and play the victim card, but you didn't actually address why you and everyone that agrees with your points doesn't do anything to volunarily solve the problems you want other people to be forced to solve. Don't complain about what the super rich aren't doing in your Utopia,but do what you and other likeminded people can actually do now, realitically.

It's like your throwing the solution to the problem off a cliff and complain that there aren't other people at the bottom of it to catch it.

I'm not going to cry about your shitty orange when there's people who haven't even seen food for a week.

I don´t r understand why you talk as if you knew me, anyway i don´t believe that it´s a labour of the middle class and there should not be any regret of being mid class like you feeling bad for buying some proteins, the economy nobel prize Amrtya Sen did a macro study that proved that there is enough sources in the world for allowing the whole humanity be mid class workers.if you work without exploting anybody and making profit of your power is enough for helping the 3rd world And yes i am saying a solution :

Genevieve wrote:

DiegoSapiens wrote:and its ridiculous saying that industrial revolution wash´t even a thing. it changed completely the whole world. and it was the start of the great fake that its actual economy: the cities are sustained in a false, THE REAL WEATLH COMES FROM THE 1RST SECTOR AND THE 2ND SECTOR, ONLY, cities business are just a way of freezing the wealth in a vicious circle of intermediaries...

Nothing said here makes sense. If only the lower and middle class creates wealth, which is then taken and kept by the upper class, there would've been no increase in wealth over time.

yes its makes a lot of sense, for example, you buy a house in the center of the city and it´s cost more than the double than another lands you could buy that are 40000 times richer in natural resources, of course you can get the same profit or even more for the house in the center if you put a shop or an office, but here is when the natural cycle of exchange in economy gets stucks, because when you are asking for big prizes without being based in a physical source you´re directly stealing the money to the guy who works in the country by making the people around you increase the prizes of their stuff.
about your argument, you think that the rich can live without the the lower class? no, you think that the poor can live without the rich? of course, the way the rich manage to increase their wealth is very easy when the money of a worker gets in the hand of the rich is going to be be used in two ways:
1 pay the workers, the more lower class the workers are the less they are going to pay
2 pay thing inside the "luxury cycle", in wich everything that they buy have a more expensive prize than the real value (for example diamonds, they are a lot of diamonds in the world but they can´t sell them all because the the prize would go down so the put them in a safe so the prizes keep overrated)

DiegoSapiens wrote: yes its makes a lot of sense, for example, you buy a house in the center of the city and it´s cost more than the double than another lands you could buy that are 40000 times richer in natural resources, of course you can get the same profit or even more for the house in the center if you put a shop or an office, but here is when the natural cycle of exchange in economy gets stucks, because when you are asking for big prizes without being based in a physical source you´re directly stealing the money to the guy who works in the country by making the people around you increase the prizes of their stuff.

about your argument, you think that the rich can live without the the lower class? no, you think that the poor can live without the rich? of course, the way the rich manage to increase their wealth is very easy when the money of a worker gets in the hand of the rich is going to be be used in two ways:
1 pay the workers, the more lower class the workers are the less they are going to pay
2 pay thing inside the "luxury cycle", in wich everything that they buy have a more expensive prize than the real value (for example diamonds, they are a lot of diamonds in the world but they can´t sell them all because the the prize would go down so the keep the in a safe so keep the prizes overrated)

Both of your arguments are explained if you grasp the idea of subjective value theory.

Objective value theories have long been disproven. This has nothing to do with 'freezing wealth', but is entirely based on how much individuals base the value of land on their own. You think that something with 'a lot of natural resources' has a particular value, but there are people who don't. Some people rate land more on scenic value, or how easily accessible it is, or because they grew up there. The reason people are buying expensive land, is because that land is because a lot of people want it, which makes it more valuable to a lot of people. You don't value the land the same way others do and you value land according to how many "resources" practical to you are present. But your value system isn't universially agreed upon

In essence, there's no 'real' value to stuff. This is where "one man's trash is another man's treasure" comes from.

DiegoSapiens wrote:I don´t r understand why you talk as if you knew me, anyway i don´t believe that it´s a labour of the middle class and there should not be any regret of being mid class like you feeling bad for buying some proteins, the economy nobel prize Amrtya Sen did a macro study that proved that there is enough sources in the world for allowing the whole humanity be mid class workers.if you work without exploting anybody and making profit of your power is enough for helping the 3rd world And yes i am saying a solution :

I know you enough to know for this argument because you are a lower to upper or class European, which makes you wealthier than 97% of the world. I agree, there are enoguh resources in the whole world to give everyone what they need (according to what we as a culture believe they should need). That's exactly what I said. So, if you believe people should give more money to those people in the third world, you and everyone that agrees with you, should give them that wealth, because you can. You are the 3%. YOU. So you can do this. Don't try to force people who don't want to, but do it yourself and everyone in your camp. I garuantee, if every western middle class socialist invested into the third world, everyone would be better off and there would be a more "fair" distribution of wealth.

Do it.

Stupid butthurt Asian attention whores.

k so I would normally totally get in on this debate more, but I'm buzzing pretty hard right now and am about to go drink some more so I'm gonna have to wait till tomorrow. Sorry Gene

You know, I don't really think child labour is intrinsicly bad. If I had grown up on the steppes of Mongolia, didn't learn to read, but had a decent life in a nice community and was happy, would that be so bad? (Bleeding heart libruls: pweez, I know that in most of Mongolia, kids just go to school like they do in any western country and a lot of them go to university abroad. I just like examples)

I recently saw a documentary about something similar to that, I think a kid who grew up in Kazakhstan. He went to school when he was 12, but sucked so he moved back with his parents to herd and live a Nomadic life when he was 14. Per definition, that would be child labor.

We're overwhelmed with "choice" now and "absolutes" (you need to get an education!!!!). But an advanced education wasn't really important in most societies bar a few over a really short period of time. I was in a discussion with a guy once who measured societies by how "advanced" they were in maths and arts and science and building things. But I just asked him "shouldn't we measure a society by how happy the people are?" How successful are you as a people if you can do everything but are chronically miserable?

I don't think that strenuous, dangerous, work should be put on little kids, which I know people are refering to when it comes to child labour. But barring that, I think the concept of child labour as a whole is kind of overly demonized.

What if a 12 year old kid living in rural Arkansas always dreamt of becoming a farmer and wants to fully commit to that? Should he be forced to join a school, get a basic education he doesn't want, learning things he'll never use, even if he just wants to farm all day and excell at that? That would be 6 wasted years putting a lot of effort in energy in something he has no passion for. And I've done a lot of school in my days, engaging myself in things I had no passion for really drained me. (To quote Eyedea: Cause now I realize I could have learned more on my own/They taught me how to know everything except my soul/Which is everything I need to grow/Everything that keeps me whole")

I get that when a teenager decides to quit school, he's putting himself in a worse position later on in life, where he's less likely to succeed. But is he really to blame for that, or is it society's understanding of "success"? Or is society just not flexible enough and too unpermissive? I really think it's the latter two.

anyone live nearby Rotterdam or has been there once and a while? What are the good places to visit (coffeeshops as well as which species) and other stuff

3 and 4 kinda suck

I remember reading about the building collapse in Bangladesh that lead to the death of 500+ people working in a clothing factory. While thinking about this I came to the conclusion that even though these third world countries are going through the industrial revolution like the west was over a hundred years, many companies and governments are preventing the "next step" after huge industry. I also realized that companies don't want new techniques/technology that improve efficiency and remove the amount of people needed to do a job such as making clothes. Once the people are removed from the equation it is possible that the companies lose profit due to the need in investment in the new technology. Therefore it is essential that if the world economy wants to move forward we need to invest in new technologies and methods that will free the people from the factories so that they can live a better standard of living (Standard of living as viewed by westerners such as myself). I suppose once we find a source of virtually unlimited energy we may be able to move forward to a socialist utopia, but in order for this to happen we need to give up on our desire for wealth and materialism and instead help our fellow brothers and sisters. However this development will most likely not happen for the next hundred + years. Sorry if that came off unorganized, because I have never really written down my thoughts on the subject before.

Reign In Blood syncs up pretty well with the last 29 minutes of Friday the 13th Part 6.

Magma must love reading all this dumb shit

FuDuzn wrote:Reign In Blood syncs up pretty well with the last 29 minutes of Friday the 13th Part 6.

how did u wven find that out

that new loefah tune with trigga is fucking insane ona system

chekov wrote:that new loefah tune with trigga is fucking insane ona system

i can only imagine

were you at subdub?

i was indeed

zed bias couldn't make it so loe stepped up solo for the last set

Why are 80% of the avatars missing?

Laszlo wrote:Why are 80% of the avatars missing?

http://dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=271778

Laszlo wrote:Why are 80% of the avatars missing?

its the 4th of may 420 yolo blaze it?

May the fourth be will you