this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
561 points (94.6% liked)
Memes
53498 readers
554 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good analogy, as long as that candy jar is the only food available.
Is it though?
The 70% roll is a one time at birth and you still live.
The average piece of candy is ~60 calories. But let's call it a 100 and since the average adult needs 1600 kcal on average - you've got a ~16% chance of just dropping dead everyday.
After 7 Days, the chance of you still being alive is 29.5%. 30 Days is 0.54%
The theme being you have 1 option and it’s a bad one.
I mean you could always go live in the woods?
Choose a life of crime?
Be homeless and save enough to travel somewhere and never leave.
And the previous candy jar that this replaced had even more death in it.
False, the gap between rich and poor has never been bigger in all of human history.
Based on what? Pure dollar signs? I would absolutely not want to convert to a fiefdom style monarchy, slave state, or aggregaryen commune because my quality of life would go down in all three. I might have a larger percent of the overall Total money but that doesn't matter if money stops mattering.
You can't even defend the system based on It's own merit. You can only declare other, select systems, to be worse. Try and defend capitalism on it's own merit. Dont claim things from the passage of time or things that could easily have happened under any economic system like "medicine existing."
Yes, the death there was represented by the wage theft of the ruling capitalist oligarchs.
Of course, the only options are to be ruled over by capitalist oligarchs or be in a slave state/no technology or literal kings instead of metaphorical ones. Nice one!
You pretending to be a billionaire? Also, I'm not sure the argument you're making because it seems to argue my point better than it does yours.
I said that it's better than what came before you said that was false with nothing to back that up. Now you write t a whole dissertation about me instead of the topic
I see that having to back things up only extends to me and not you.
You're the one that made it off topic though. You're the one with the ad hominins. If you want to go back on topic you'll have to start. I'm not going to sit here and be berated by someone who doesn't want to actually discuss history.
Can you quote the ad hominems or did you make that up?