The Rich or Poor?

[Mike the Progressive]

Duh. Get a cable repairman to hack the aliens with a MacBook. Worked in Independence Day.

Was he using a mac?

[Reigna]

Neither. I would have it be all irreligious people.

Might I ask why?

And what specifically do you mean by Irreligious?

Because if you mean Atheist, contrary to what some will tell you, Atheism is still a religion, it has it's followers, it has it's zealots, and it has it's crazies, just like all the other ones.

If you mean Agnostics, then why?

And Secularists?

[Ainin]

Duh. Get a cable repairman to hack the aliens with a MacBook. Worked in Independence Day.

Was he using a mac?

Yeah. He was a hipster cable repair guy.

[Genivaria]

Duh. Get a cable repairman to hack the aliens with a MacBook. Worked in Independence Day.

Was he using a mac?

Yes and the alien in the mother ship was using a PC.
All we saw was a missle launching but before that Jeff Goldblum and the alien were having a fierce hack battle, eventually Goldblum got tired of the alien noob and launched a nuke down his throat while whispering "Mac forever asshole."

[Reigna]

I'd annihilate the poor, because I'd rather have me and my family stay alive.

Is it wrong that I thought you'd pick this? Seems I wasn't wrong, actually.

The rich. They are the leeches, and tend to be greedy and selfish. See the quote.

I guess I can understand your point, but I still don't agree with it.

Rich Folk (Or at Least, First and Second Generation ones) tend to have to work really hard to get to their wealth (Mcdonalds, Starbucks, Wendy's, Walmart, ETC) All had to start somewhere.

And going by your logic, looking at the majority (Middle to Lower Class) There is TONS upon TONS of greedy, selfish Leeches, if anything, theirs more, if only simply because of it being a larger demographic.

[Genivaria]

Neither. I would have it be all irreligious people.

Might I ask why?

And what specifically do you mean by Irreligious?

Because if you mean Atheist, contrary to what some will tell you, Atheism is still a religion, it has it's followers, it has it's zealots, and it has it's crazies, just like all the other ones.

If you mean Agnostics, then why?

And Secularists?

You apparently don't know the meaning of that word.

[Naidaro]

Obviously, you would get rid of the poor.

[Solmakia]

WAIT A MINUTE.
Where does the middle class stand in all of this? I know for a fact that I certainly don't live in utter poverty, nor do I live a life in the lap of luxury.
So, I'd assume I would just kill off the rich. Doesn't hurt me, ends the fewest lives, and the middle class will return to fill their spots.

[The New Sea Territory]

Neither. I would pick neither, and let God decide.

[Jassysworth 1]

For the last time... it's NOT about killing ''the rich'' vs ''the poor'' even though the poll makes it out to be that way.

Read the OP...

''They give you a choice: eradicate all humans living in extreme poverty, or eradicate all business owners, capitalists, upper-middle class individuals and the wealthy?''

''Humans living in extreme poverty'' is a LOT less people than a label like ''the poor'' would make it ought to be. There are a ton of people who are part of the poor but who aren't living in extreme poverty by global standards. Hence why when you choose this option, you do NOT just get rid of all or even most of the world's manual labor force ok? Only those in EXTREME poverty... which hell, even disqualifies most of the unemployed in developed countries.

''all business owners, capitalists, upper-middle class individuals and the wealthy'' is a group that includes a LOT of people other than the richest 1%. ''Business owners'' include all such individuals in all nations EVEN SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. ''Capitalists'' include ANY individual who makes it a goal to amass capital, play with capital, and has made any kind of investment (on the stock market, bonds, forex, housing etc)... again that is a LOT of people and lot of them are only just middle class and not even upper-middle class. Finally, ''upper-middle class'' people are not part of the richest 1% either and they are a very numerous group with lots of expertise.

So again... it's not that skewed. We are not killing ''all of the working class/manual laborers'' vs killing ''a few rich cats.''

In fact, if you look at it rationally... it is probably the case that simply killing those in ''extreme poverty'' is overall less disruptive than killing every single capitalist, business owner, upper middle class professional, and every rich person.

If you kill those in ''extreme poverty,'' other people in the lower class will simply take on their jobs once the wages for those jobs rise as a result of demand rising due to the sudden vacum. Life will move on and no one would start a war and the economy wouldn't fall.

If on the other hand, you kill the second group... you will cause massive disruption in the capitalist system and probably start a global war over who gets to take over the wealth of the massive number of people who have suddenly disappeared from the face of the planet. And the economy will suffer because all of a sudden almost all of your private sector wage handout people will have disappeared and the economy will suffer from a lack of structure and organization. All investors have disappeared... dear dear... Do you have any idea how many millions of people would probably die from the ensuring war to fight for the wealth without owners and how many people will suddenly get laid off because the people who were formerly employing or paying them have just disappeared?

For the interest of the rich AND the poor... everyone here ought to select killing those in extreme poverty vs the other option. It's clearly the less socially and economically disruptive option...

I feel this forum has SUCH a pro-left bias that most of the people who voted ''poor'' here didn't even bother to read the entire OP and see how silly their choice is once the details are qualified...

[Reigna]

Well yeah, but when transcending the bondage of the class system, smashing the bourgeois and creating equality for ourselves means that me and my family would be killed. It's only logical that I'd choose the option where me and my family stay alive.

Though to be honest, I'd choose the annihilate the poor even if my family would be spared if I chose the rich. As horrible as this sound, the wealthy are much more valuable to the world than a bunch of slum-dwellers. The wealthy run the world and make the world go around, the extremely poor.. Well, besides working in some factories, they don't really do much.

Tell me. Who work all those fields? Who do all the work you and your capitalists consider "dirty"? The poor! Who's going to be supplying you with food? If the poor, the legions of poor, would all suddenly die, then humanity would go to extinction. Rather have filthy capitalists die than the poor.

You are making me laugh, good sir.

If that was true we'd all be dead by now, having never existed about 1000 years ago.

If anything, people would just start taking over those jobs.

Even though people may not like to do dirty things, contrary to what you may believe people also REALLY like being alive.


And Hippostania, SMART rich people make the world go round, but said Smart Rich person needs a Legion of Poor to Middle class to get him there, Henry Ford got to where he was because of the Poor, if he didn't use them to work in the Factories and get them building cars then noone would know who he was.

Same for Bill Gates.

Same for Steve Jobs.

Same for Edison.

Well, I think you may get what I'm saying, while the Poor DO tend to live in clusters (South Park Joke, in case anyone gets offended) they're still needed.

[Reigna]

Might I ask why?

And what specifically do you mean by Irreligious?

Because if you mean Atheist, contrary to what some will tell you, Atheism is still a religion, it has it's followers, it has it's zealots, and it has it's crazies, just like all the other ones.

If you mean Agnostics, then why?

And Secularists?

You apparently don't know the meaning of that word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

[The Serbian Empire]

I would say poor. Because it would be more fun watching the rich having to do manual labour

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto!

[Regnum Dominae]

You apparently don't know the meaning of that word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

And atheism is the lack of a religion. It is not a religion in itself, unless you think that science and logic are religions.

[Reigna]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

And atheism is the lack of a religion. It is not a religion in itself, unless you think that science and logic are religions.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a Deity, hence it being called Atheism.

[Regnum Dominae]

And atheism is the lack of a religion. It is not a religion in itself, unless you think that science and logic are religions.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a Deity, hence it being called Atheism.

Yes, I know that, I'm an atheist. There is absolutely no grounds to the claim that atheism is a religion.

[Vazdania]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a Deity, hence it being called Atheism.

Yes, I know that, I'm an atheist. There is absolutely no grounds to the claim that atheism is a religion.

its lack thereof, just like Asexuality...its a lack of sexuality.

[Reigna]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a Deity, hence it being called Atheism.

Yes, I know that, I'm an atheist. There is absolutely no grounds to the claim that atheism is a religion.

I am one to, Atheism is still a belief system, a collective one at that (with various Groups and Organizations being dedicated to it) and it pertains to Moral and Spiritual values (Albeit, not in the ways most other religions handle it)

And while I would argue Science and Logic are more like Philosophies than anything else, they are stilled used in Religion to debate points. (Such as, the ancient School of Names in China, or philosophers like Plato and Socrates)

[Reigna]

Yes, I know that, I'm an atheist. There is absolutely no grounds to the claim that atheism is a religion.

its lack thereof, just like Asexuality...its a lack of sexuality.

It is a lack of believing in a God yes.

_{as a side note I happen to be Asexual as well, but I prefer not to talk about that}

[Greater Pokarnia]

Well, technically atheism can be a type of religion or can be the position of an irreligious person. There are such things as atheist religions. WHich is why I prefer the term irreligious, since I have no religious beliefs.

[Genivaria]

Yes, I know that, I'm an atheist. There is absolutely no grounds to the claim that atheism is a religion.

I am one to, Atheism is still a belief system, a collective one at that (with various Groups and Organizations being dedicated to it) and it pertains to Moral and Spiritual values (Albeit, not in the ways most other religions handle it)

And while I would argue Science and Logic are more like Philosophies than anything else, they are stilled used in Religion to debate points. (Such as, the ancient School of Names in China, or philosophers like Plato and Socrates)

Atheism isn't a belief system either, it's a single position on a single issue.
Humanism on the other hand IS a belief system.

[Regnum Dominae]

Someone make a new thread for the religion stuff.
I admit that I helped the threadjack, but let's move it somewhere else.

[Reigna]

Through all this time I still haven't really offered what I would do, although I did mention previously it depended on where the line was drawn.


Two sides are arguing within me, if I kill the poor, it kills a rather large section of the world, but then again, they weren't going to add to the economy and probably weren't going to do anything important.

However, if I kill the Rich, it allows for the Middle and Lower Classes to rise up in rank (Being the new Upper Class and all) and the money from the Rich would still exist, and it would decrease the standard of living, however.


I'll have to think about it.

[Reigna]

Someone make a new thread for the religion stuff.
I admit that I helped the threadjack, but let's move it somewhere else.

I agree, I would do it if I trusted myself to do it correctly

[The North Polish Union]

Rich, because then no Donald Trump or Mitt Romney.

I'd probably also kill everyone involved directly in federal government, but hey, that's just my opinion.