Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

[Questioner]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

 

[B. Kidd]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

What is it with you and your fondness for censorship?

 

[Mac1958]

I think we have more than enough authoritarians trying to control, punish and intimidate speech as it is.

 

[B. Kidd]

I think we have more than enough authoritarians trying to control, punish and intimidate speech as it is.

Agree.
CNN really sucks, doesn't it?

 

[Mac1958]

I think we have more than enough authoritarians trying to control, punish and intimidate speech as it is.

Agree.
CNN really sucks, doesn't it?

Yes. Like Fox and MSNBC.

You thought you had me there.

One of the many behaviors shared by both whacked-out ends of the spectrum is that you assume EVERYONE is as hypocritical as YOU.

Incorrect.
.

 

[dblack]

Maybe we should just ban trolling with "A Modest Proposal" horseshit.

 

[Crepitus]

Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

Fuck no!

It should be the national pass-time.

 

[Questioner]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

What is it with you and your fondness for censorship?

Not sure, if I were rich I would merely grow tired of the immorality of the masses and desire to force a bit of morality on them, in practice most if not everyone depends on the "wealthy" to some degree or another, for the things that they have, much as most people in a 1st world country are "rich" or wealthy by the standards of 3rd world countries, and not keen, in practice on parting with it.

 

[Questioner]

Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

Fuck no!

It should be the national pass-time.

No, it really shouldn't - people criticizing the rich should be shot.

Critiizing human behaviors such as "greed", "miserliness" is one thing, but in practice no one believes that "wealth" automatically equates to these things to begin with, as evidenced by their own miserly behaviors and unwillingness to part with their wealth and socioeconomic status of a 1st world country, which is "wealthy" compared to most of the 3rd world countries.

So idiots criticizing "the rich", (usually rich pedogogues) themselves as a stereotyped "demographic" and trying to drum up anarchy and "class warfare" should simply be shot.

 

[sparky]

IMHO, the borg got nuthin' on us...~S~

 

[B. Kidd]

I think we have more than enough authoritarians trying to control, punish and intimidate speech as it is.

Agree.
CNN really sucks, doesn't it?

Yes. Like Fox and MSNBC.

You thought you had me there.

One of the many behaviors shared by both whacked-out ends of the spectrum is that you assume EVERYONE is as hypocritical as YOU.

Incorrect.
.

Get me outta your head.
I'm not that important.
And you digress, as usual.

 

[Questioner]

I think we have more than enough authoritarians trying to control, punish and intimidate speech as it is.

Not all speech is created equal.

I'm in the top 1 percentile in terms of language, why should my right to speech be "the same" as one who only speaks and reads at a 6th grade reading level and does nothing but regurgitate propaganda? That's not very meritocratic.

 

[Crepitus]

Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

Fuck no!

It should be the national pass-time.

No, it really shouldn't - people criticizing the rich should be shot.

Critiizing human behaviors such as "greed", "miserliness" is one thing, but in practice no one believes that "wealth" automatically equates to these things to begin with, as evidenced by their own miserly behaviors and unwillingness to part with their wealth and socioeconomic status of a 1st world country, which is "wealthy" compared to most of the 3rd world countries.

So idiots criticizing "the rich", (usually rich pedogogues) themselves as a stereotyped "demographic" and trying to drum up anarchy and "class warfare" should simply be shot.

Aaaaand fascism rears its ugly head.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

What do you think about the sign stealing controversy happening in baseball right now?

 

[B. Kidd]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

What is it with you and your fondness for censorship?

Not sure, if I were rich I would merely grow tired of the immorality of the masses and desire to force a bit of morality on them, in practice most if not everyone depends on the "wealthy" to some degree or another, for the things that they have, much as most people in a 1st world country are "rich" or wealthy by the standards of 3rd world countries, and not keen, in practice on parting with it.

You cannot force morality on anyone.

Even the Dimms fail to grasp this, too!

 

[playtime]

<ahem>

that would be

no.

 

[Questioner]

<ahem>

that would be

no.

Repeal it or amend it so that "free speech" is limited to select individuals, not "everyone" - problem solved.

 

[sparky]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

What is it with you and your fondness for censorship?

Not sure, if I were rich I would merely grow tired of the immorality of the masses and desire to force a bit of morality on them, in practice most if not everyone depends on the "wealthy" to some degree or another, for the things that they have, much as most people in a 1st world country are "rich" or wealthy by the standards of 3rd world countries, and not keen, in practice on parting with it.

mammon is king in this millennieum

~S~

 

[Harpy Eagle]

<ahem>

that would be

no.

Repeal it or amend it so that "free speech" is limited to select individuals, not "everyone" - problem solved.

Get started on that, once you have accomplished let us know....till then fuck off and die.

 

[playtime]

<ahem>

that would be

no.

Repeal it or amend it so that "free speech" is limited to select individuals, not "everyone" - problem solved.

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.............good luck with that.