Ken M strikes again. Carrots are good for the soul. The Pope, Capitalism And The Far Left Facebook Twitter Share Email The preps, capitalism and the far left —  ken m
x
Click to expand

Ken M strikes again

Ken M strikes again. Carrots are good for the soul. The Pope, Capitalism And The Far Left Facebook Twitter Share Email The preps, capitalism and the far left —

Carrots are good for the soul

Tags: ken m
The Pope, Capitalism And The Far Left
Facebook Twitter Share Email
The preps, capitalism and the far left — [
Bill discusses recent Comments made by the Pope about unfettered capitalism and
greed,
ken m 1 day age
I' m a devout Christian but it sounds like this pope is reading tee much Bible and not enough Ayn Rand
Like Reply
tta
Charger 1 day age
meant Christians read the Word Of God and put vain words of man.
Like Reply
ken m 1 day age
words of man are sacred because they were created in Gafs
werds' s image (John Tll)
Like Reply
ado 1 day age
So are yeti saying all words written, masterlee author, are sacred?
Like Reply
1 day age
ken m
laas just quoting sence graffiti I read in the john at a T 11
Like Reply
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1007
Views: 43586
Favorited: 49
Submitted: 02/18/2014
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to haranaslicer submit to reddit

Comments(129):

[ 129 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - ragingspacepanda (02/18/2014) [-]
well damn.... Ken may have found the new really deep quote
User avatar #31 to #1 - lyiat ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
Oh, don't get me wrong, it's a cool great qoute. But it's not biblical.

John 7:11 - Now at the festival the Jewish leaders were watching for Jesus and asking, “Where is he?”
#41 to #31 - kez (02/19/2014) [-]
well, where was he?
User avatar #42 to #41 - lyiat ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
He was elsewhere in Galilee at the time and did not show up until halfway through the festival.
#43 to #42 - kez (02/19/2014) [-]
Cheers
#46 to #42 - bann (02/19/2014) [-]
Jesus loved to party hard
User avatar #118 to #31 - nobigwhoop (02/19/2014) [-]
He then proceeded to turn the water into Slurpees.
#54 - thefrostwolf (02/19/2014) [-]
Good old Ken M.
User avatar #127 to #54 - nustix (02/19/2014) [-]
Ken M. our lord and saviour. That **** is hilarious.
#40 - theluppijackal (02/19/2014) [-]
>People who like Ayn Rand
>People who like Ayn Rand
User avatar #71 to #40 - mrselfdestruct (02/19/2014) [-]
nonamerican here
who the **** is Ayn Rand?
#80 to #71 - kingpongthedon ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
Russian ex-pat. Moved to the US, and basically decided to go in the polar opposite direction as Communism. She espoused the idea that putting oneself before everybody else is somehow the ideal moral standard, which needless to say garnered her tons of support from some very high-profile people. Lit-Crits however tend to view Ayn Rand as the free-market equivalent to Stephanie Meyers.
#122 to #80 - anon (02/19/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolls 4,594**

As an American, I didn't know that. I find it kind of sad that it's gotten so popular if that's what it is.
User avatar #82 to #80 - mrselfdestruct (02/19/2014) [-]
isnt Stephanie Meyers the one wrote that ****** book about sparkly vampires?
#85 to #82 - kingpongthedon ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
Yep, that's the one.
User avatar #86 to #85 - mrselfdestruct (02/19/2014) [-]
meh. whats with this left wing/right wing stuff you guys talk about?
if you're talking about chicken, eat both wings. no need to worry about left or right
#111 to #86 - kingpongthedon ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
Two-party system. Left is Democrats (more liberal), right is Republicans (more conservative).

If you don't already, think of the US as a majestic bald eagle. When working together, it's two wings can propel the eagle of America to new heights or allow it coast easily for miles at a time. You need both to keep this eagle flying as long as possible. However, right now we have one wing trying with to coast and one wing trying to fly, with neither accepting the idea that they need to find a balance between the two. This leads to an eagle that can do neither and causes the eagle to rapidly plummet to the ground.
#116 to #111 - anon (02/19/2014) [-]
If they're not from the US, it's advised that one does not use "more liberal" to describe Democrats. This is not to put down Democrats. "Liberal" outside of the US usually pertains to Neo-Classical Liberalism which is more akin to "Libertarianism" here within the United States.
User avatar #112 to #111 - sursum (02/19/2014) [-]
This eagle metaphor, I applaud you for it, that is assuming it is your, if not I applaud its creator.
User avatar #81 to #80 - elbrysobrony (02/19/2014) [-]
Isn't that pretty much social darwinism, or something?
#83 to #81 - kingpongthedon ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
Sort of. Social Darwinism is more based on the principle that poor people will die out if we don't help them. Her's is more of the idea that being self-centered will prevent people from being poor. She calls it objectivism, I call it rampant douche-baggerry, to-may-to to-mah-to.
User avatar #77 to #71 - seniorawesomesauce ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
She's a russian author...
Well she was born in communist russia then fled to america where she basically wrote about how communism is evil and individualism is the best thing ever.
#75 to #71 - fannypackattack (02/19/2014) [-]
An American.   
 Writer.
An American.
Writer.
#115 to #40 - willindor (02/19/2014) [-]
MFW Ayn Rand
User avatar #55 to #40 - ivoryhammer (02/19/2014) [-]
She's a good writer, but I would not treat her like a philosopher. She was a hypocrite anyways.
#66 to #40 - thebaseballexpert (02/19/2014) [-]
mfw Ayn Rand
#45 - lionti ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
I pushed the damn play button and enlarged the content...
#2 - aytoktonik (02/18/2014) [-]
Faggit fagg!t afluck3n $szh8l yau-0u don't m c4m up to me f4c3 l1ke somKAIND AV douz ! Such beautiful words . . .
User avatar #4 to #2 - twiztidxson (02/18/2014) [-]
After fagg!t I gave up on trying to read that. 10/10 real beautiful
#8 to #4 - anon (02/18/2014) [-]
Faggot alright ******* you don't come up to my face like some kind of douche.
#9 to #8 - aytoktonik (02/18/2014) [-]
Well Done .
User avatar #6 to #2 - exceeding (02/18/2014) [-]
This will be in the next print of the bible.
User avatar #7 to #6 - bible (02/18/2014) [-]
who u fink u r f0ck u

ur m0mma be shamed u homosexual
User avatar #119 to #87 - butiloveu (02/19/2014) [-]
you should make a comp
#108 to #106 - yorker (02/19/2014) [-]
#109 to #106 - yorker (02/19/2014) [-]
End of dump.
#107 to #106 - yorker (02/19/2014) [-]
User avatar #113 to #106 - assrocket (02/19/2014) [-]
I thought "insipid". I dunno what it actually means though.
User avatar #110 to #106 - yorker (02/19/2014) [-]
By the way I'm pretty sure the word is "illicit"
#44 - Yojimbo (02/19/2014) [-]
Food goes in

Poop comes out
#117 - Blarghfreat (02/19/2014) [-]
ken m glorious troll
#11 - pebar ONLINE (02/18/2014) [-]
User avatar #35 to #11 - jukuku (02/19/2014) [-]
>2014
>Believing in pure markets
>Not have regulated mixed markets to optimize for human success

TOP ****** LEL
User avatar #49 to #35 - pebar ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
you're going to have to be more specific
#26 to #11 - anon (02/19/2014) [-]
Disagreed, in capitalism you can sell people a product that causes a lot more problems, then sell them solutions to these problems. Capitalism, and pretty much any isms, are not so good in the real world. On paper they're great though.
#29 to #26 - pebar ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
name one example of that
User avatar #37 to #29 - jukuku (02/19/2014) [-]
Monsanto.

Sells herbicides too powerful for ordinary to handle.

"Oh, you could really use our round-up resistant plants!"

Insects become tolerant of the pesticides

"Oh, you could really use this EXTRA STRENGTH ROUND-UP"


Rinse and repeat.

If you honestly think companies don't do this, you're an idiot, pure capitalism is a ******* nightmare



#84 to #37 - anon (02/19/2014) [-]
There's no such thing as a perfect government. Capitalism has a ******* of flaws and always will have flaws. However, considering I live in a capitalist society and am currently wealthy enough to own a computer and internet, and healthy enough to walk outside and get a cut without risk of dying slowly due to infection, I'll withhold judgement as it could be a lot worse.

I wish a new revolutionary governmental system would come out in my lifetime. It'd be entertaining to watch people bitch over something besides capitalism, socialism and communism for once. Maybe by the time this happens all us old folk will be bitching about how much better capitalism/socialism/communism was.
User avatar #123 to #84 - jukuku (02/19/2014) [-]
PURE capitalism, as in no regulation.
User avatar #48 to #37 - pebar ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
a temporary fix is still better than nothing
it's no different from getting a flu shot every season
User avatar #53 to #48 - revanmal (02/19/2014) [-]
A temporary fix to what? The consumer wouldn't have had any problem if they hadn't bought the herbicide, or at least been informed that the herbicide kills weaker plants. But then Monsanto wouldn't make money, so they don't tell the consumer that.

Selling a solution to a problem you cause is absolute horse **** , and it's the sort of exploitative practices that laissez faire capitalism will inevitably lead to.
User avatar #56 to #53 - pebar ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
Do you honestly think that farmers don't pay attention to what's happening to their crops?

If using the herbicide didn't increase crop yield, farmers wouldn't have used it in the first place. Sure there are some crops that are killed, but there's still a net increase. Then more technology and herbicide resistant crops which increase crop yield even further.
But alas, nature is a fickle bitch and weeds evolve to changing environments.
The temporary fix is to evolution.
User avatar #57 to #56 - revanmal (02/19/2014) [-]
A fix to evolution? That's nonsensical. You don't "fix" evolution. The chemicals might "fix" the weed or pest problem, but if it causes more problems than it solves, is it really any better than pursuing a less effective but more safe solution? Or even just doing nothing at all?

If a person has a broken finger and you "help" them by surgically removing it, are you really helping them? It doesn't matter if you sell them gloves with fewer fingers afterward, you still cost them a finger.
User avatar #58 to #57 - pebar ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
TEMPORARY fix
if it caused more problems than it solved, farmers wouldn't use them
User avatar #59 to #58 - revanmal (02/19/2014) [-]
The time frame is irrelevant. DDT was temporary, but it still caused a **** load more problems than it solved, that lasted a lot longer than the benefits it gave. In fact, it STILL causes problems in some areas of the U.S. to this day.

All because no one KNEW the ramifications of chemical usage. Because no one bothered to test it. Farmers used it, because they didn't know any better or didn't give a damn. Yeah, it increased crop yield. It also caused huge amounts of damage to the ecosystem. Not worth it, if you ask a lot of people.
User avatar #63 to #61 - revanmal (02/19/2014) [-]
Irrelevant! Herbicides are safer nowadays, but that is entirely outside what I give a **** about. My problem isn't with herbicides and chemicals.

My problem is with the morality of selling someone a solution to a problem you caused with a previous solution. Forget Monsanto, forget the chemicals. All that matters is the premise, the example could be anything, like the broken finger argument.

If someone has a problem, and you sell them a solution that only causes more problems, how is that a solution in any practical respect? And how is it in any way "better than nothing?" If you have more problems than you had when you started, you're still not very well off. Now instead of just having problems, you have problems and less money.
User avatar #64 to #63 - pebar ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
But that doesn't happen.
Farmers aren't forced to buy Monsanto's products, they choose to because it is profitable. If it wasn't profitable and just caused more problems, farmers wouldn't use the herbicides.
User avatar #65 to #64 - revanmal (02/19/2014) [-]
No one FORCES you to buy their products. They TRICK you into buying their products. The entire purpose of Marketing is playing up your product's strengths and avoiding the weaknesses. It's basically lying by omission in the worst cases, deliberate misdirection at best.

Alright, let's go with the chemical analogy, since you are so fixated on it. Farmer is having trouble with weeds. So he goes to a farming supplier and asks for an herbicide that will kill the plants he needs killed. The suppliers sell him a powerful herbicide without actually telling him what it does exactly and he goes on his way. Herbicide works. No more weeds. But the herbicide also causes one of his crops to wither up and die because the herbicide works on them as well. So he goes back to the suppliers and complains, until they show him this new crop that's been modified so it's completely immune to the herbicide. Rather than go into a lengthy legal battle over it, or in the case of laissez faire economics just being shafted, he decides to just use the new plants. He leaves, after paying for them.

End analogy.

No one FORCED the farmer to buy anything. But if he wasn't informed of any flaws in the product, how can he, a simple farmer, be blamed for not knowing the herbicide would kill his crops? And how is it fair for the supply company to make more money off of him because their product caused his crop to die? It's not a perfect analogy, no, but the point is that this sort of thing does happen, will happen, and has happened in the past.
User avatar #67 to #65 - pebar ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
Agriculture is a multi-billion dollar industry.... these aren't white trash rednecks you're talking about; they do their research.

And even if that did happen, the farmer would have the opportunity to end the cycle whenever he wishes, and this would be the case with all customers. Monsanto would lose all their profits if they didn't have repeat customers. Monsanto's own desire for profit ensures the quality of the product.
User avatar #72 to #67 - revanmal (02/19/2014) [-]
And what happens when they're the only people who can make the chemicals, because they bought out every other company? What happens when profit is guaranteed? Because once you reach monopoly status, it basically is guaranteed. When you have people under your thumb, it makes it much easier to wring what you want out of them.

In a perfect world, Capitalism, like all -isms, works. But the world isn't perfect, and humans are greedy and power hungry. Unchecked, it is inevitable that some group will consolidate all the power they can and take over. Big fish eats smaller fish.

And even if the farmer has the choice to not buy anything, what else is he going to do? If he doesn't use the herbicide, his crops suffer because of weeds. If he uses it, he loses out on an entire section of crops unless he is incredibly careful. And going to another company is no guarantee that their products are any better.

His choices are be exploited, do nothing and suffer, or take a gamble. And sometimes, it's hard to tell which is more dangerous.
User avatar #74 to #72 - pebar ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
There still would be no transaction if the trade wasn't mutually beneficial, having a monopoly doesn't change that. If the herbicide really was sooo bad, the farmer would deal with the weeds.

capitalism thrives under greed; rational self-interest is that foundation of economics
#73 to #72 - anon (02/19/2014) [-]
#60 to #59 - pebar ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
DDT is completely different... you think people don't learn?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Glyphosate_toxicity
User avatar #124 to #48 - jukuku (02/19/2014) [-]
That assumes the problem is inevitable, which it isn't. You're delusional.
#128 to #124 - pebar ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
evolution is an inevitable process
User avatar #129 to #128 - jukuku (02/20/2014) [-]
Yeah you really are as narrow minded as I though. Let me say it louder.

DUMPING THE HALF MOLECULE OF AGENT ORANGE ON CROPS ISN'T NECESSARY YOU STUPID MOTHER ****** .
#130 to #129 - pebar ONLINE (02/20/2014) [-]
agent orange and roundup are not related
#34 to #29 - anon (02/19/2014) [-]
Slaves
User avatar #78 to #26 - RiflemanFunny ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
Yeah. We call that Crony Capitalism.
#79 to #78 - anon (02/19/2014) [-]
that word.... I don't think it means what you think it means
User avatar #33 to #26 - vorarephilia (02/19/2014) [-]
But unless we can link ourselves into a giant collective, or some other trans-humanist goal we are stuck choosing the lesser of two evils.
#38 - kingpongthedon ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
I tried reading some of Rand's work. I started with "The Fountainhead" as I prefer to read any series of works in publishing order. Overall, it was pretty dull. The characters seemed more like caricatures. The good guys were the best people ever and the bad people were big stinky meanies. She basically laid out exactly what you should be feeling about every detail. You were never given the chance to form your own opinions. She also seemed to be in love with Roark, the protagonist, so the story came across as biased in his favor, I just couldn't see him not triumphing so long as Rand was in control of the pen. It seemed trite and predictable. Or at least that's what I thought before Roark straight up rapes a chick. To top it off, the whole scene was portrayed as some heroic action on his part. I guess it's just my foolish middle-class values, but that was quite an uncomfortable experience for me and I closed the book. I have yet to open it back up.

Pic related: Publisher'sFW
User avatar #51 to #38 - revanmal (02/19/2014) [-]
That's basically Ayn Rand in a nutshell. Leaden writing, simplistic characters, and a whole lot of her own biases and desires shoveled in. Apparently Rand was into rape fantasies and rough sex.
User avatar #30 - lyiat ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
John 7:11 - Now at the festival the Jewish leaders were watching for Jesus and asking, “Where is he?”
#121 - butiloveu (02/19/2014) [-]
If Ken M should take a role in The Big Bang Theory so the show would be finally some kind of funny.
If Ken M should take a role in The Big Bang Theory so the show would be finally some kind of funny.
User avatar #5 - nervaaurelius (02/18/2014) [-]
Looking at the comments on your average yahoo article makes me think all of them are trolls...
User avatar #10 to #5 - fgtometer (02/18/2014) [-]
I think Ken M actually is a troll. Someone mentioned it wrt recent content
#16 to #10 - anon (02/18/2014) [-]
He has been around for awhile. He is one of the more successful trolls. Probably because he does it on yahoo, where all the users take themselves way too seriously.
User avatar #39 to #16 - fgtometer (02/19/2014) [-]
It's pretty common in comments on articles. People believe satire, or can't spot the most obvious sarcasm...
User avatar #3 - mynameisnotmike (02/18/2014) [-]
u wot m8 <-- my standard reply
#27 - anon (02/19/2014) [-]
I don't care what your political views are, Bill O'Reilly is a ******* tool.
User avatar #52 - sphincterface ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
People praise Ayn Rand for being some incredible writer and poet. I honestly didn't like the books or the messages they sent across. It basically tells us to take care of our own needs and not give a **** about other people, because apparently having a desire to help others and to put others before you is a bad quality.
User avatar #69 to #52 - schneidend (02/19/2014) [-]
Actually, most people are pretty derisive of Ayn Rand for the very reasons you stated. She's largely considered a fad philosopher these days.
User avatar #21 - nerdrugger (02/19/2014) [-]
i thought Ayn Rand's books were pretty anti religion

so doubt the pope would be a fan
#32 to #21 - SenatorSnowe (02/19/2014) [-]
Ayn Rand's books are also very pro-captialism as well as anti-religion. The capitalism part is what I believe he was referring to.

Pic unrelated.
User avatar #22 to #21 - asheskirata (02/19/2014) [-]
They are. The comments are satirical.
User avatar #13 - davisdamen (02/18/2014) [-]
"the Pope is reading too much Bible"
.....
what?
User avatar #18 to #13 - jubnik ONLINE (02/18/2014) [-]
>2014
>not knowing ken m
#20 to #13 - vandettamask (02/18/2014) [-]
It's Ken M, look him up, seriously, you can get dangerously down voted for not know this legend.
#12 - madcoww ONLINE (02/18/2014) [-]
HOLY 			****		!  Ayn Rand mentioned on FJ!?   
   
 objectivism &gt; libertarianism
HOLY **** ! Ayn Rand mentioned on FJ!?

objectivism > libertarianism
User avatar #36 to #12 - jukuku (02/19/2014) [-]
Ayn Rand was a naive sociopath. She was a childish retard who cried and went into a deep depression because her book, Atlas Shrugged, didn't turn society on it's head over night. Talented writer, with a completely naive perspective of society.
#15 to #12 - anon (02/18/2014) [-]
I read one of her books and it was boring. Fine message, but boring as **** .
User avatar #17 to #12 - jewishcommunazi (02/18/2014) [-]
I thought they were about the same, what are the main differences between the two?
User avatar #23 to #17 - pebar ONLINE (02/19/2014) [-]
It says that a persons duty in life is to maximize their own self interest, this is also called ethical egoism. This should not be misinterpreted as being a selfish dick because doing so would drive people away and friends and relationships are nice to have. It is very similar to the axiom of capitalist economics which says people will act in a way that maximizes their own self interest, the only difference is that ethical egoism says you are morally obligated to behave this way.

Libertarianism however is built on the non-aggression principle, the idea that it is always morally wrong to use force against another. It is very important that people's actions remain voluntary.

An easy way to tell the difference is if you have a chance to steal something without getting caught, ethical egoism says you should steal it, whereas libertarianism would say that it's morally wrong since you are violating someone else's property rights filthy commie without their consent.
[ 129 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)