whyyyyy

[Hensa]

Just hurry up and suck his cock 

o.o those werent my plans for the evening.

[Commander Fuckass]

o.o those werent my plans for the evening.

Well, those are my plans for the night bitch. |:

[Pelelol]

o.o those werent my plans for the evening.

damn straight i payed good money for you

get back in the bathroom

[guff]

The teacher hates me for political and religious comments I've made in papers so she gives me shitty grades.  caterpie;

post some of these papers

[Hensa]

damn straight i payed good money for you

get back in the bathroom

yessir :'(

[Pelelol]

yessir :'(

k good

now continue to scrub my back

[Daddy]

post some of these papers

Garret Hardin?s essay ?Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor? attempts to convince the reader that his view against helping the less fortunate in the world is the view that will allow the human race to survive. On many occasions Hardin tries to throw around his flawed, and obviously biased, logic.  Throughout the entire essay he only makes one reasonable point, and even that isn?t a heavy-hitting point.
   Hardin?s only reasonable point in the entire essay is his mention of overloading the environment.  He points out that helping people in already crowded nations such as India, will only hasten the destruction of the area?s natural ecosystem by not giving it a break from the heavy load of the human race (page 136/137).  However, Hardin fails to realize that there is an abundance of ways to conserve the environment and keep the human population alive.  It is not so much the population of the human race in the crowded nation as it is the destructive nature that modern society brings to the environment.   More ecologically friendly energy and food producing techniques throughout the whole world will not only negate the effects of such increases in population, but may improve existing conditions, even with the increased population.  In short, Hardin attempts to blame human population for the destruction of the environment instead of human society.
   Unfortunately for Hardin, his points get weaker throughout his entire essay. Other than misconstruing quotes to fit into his argument, (He mentioned the Marxist ?ideal? of ?to each according his needs?(Page 131), yet he oddly seems to leave out the first half of the quote, ?From each according his ability?, which would render his comparison useless as it has no relation to what he was trying to convey) Hardin attempts to  prove another point using flawed capitalistic logic.  He brings up the fact that poorer nations are growing at a substantially faster rate than the richer nations, which is true, but he also leaves the reader with the assumption that these nations have nothing while the richer nations only have enough for themselves, plus a small safety factor. This is completely false considering the fact that 50% of the world?s wealth is concentrated into 2% of the population. One would assume that these nations would have something to spare. Hardin?s over the years as the population of the poor nations grew at a much faster rate than the wealthier nations which would result in the ratio of sharing of resources going from 1:1 to 8:1, is also a bit flawed.  This is, once again, based on the assumption that the richer nations would be the only ones offering something to the other nations, when in reality each person would be contributing equally, so while one American would be supporting 8 Ecuadorians the 8 Ecuadorians would be outputting 8 times the labor as the Americans, which, in all rights, is fair.
    ?Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor? fails  to make a lasting point. Hardin?s attempt at shocking the reader into following his one sided, and severely flawed, argument is laughable. There are many other weak points throughout the essay based on false assumptions, such as section about the world food bank (page 133) which assumes that very few nations are supplying food to these nations and every impoverished nation is drawing from the bank as their only food source. One could go through the essay and pick apart each of Hardin?s foolish claims, but that would only be humoring him. ?Lifeboat Ethics? is a step back in social equality for all human beings.

also go add your image dp

[guff]

how long did it have to be

what did you get on that

[Daddy]

how long did it have to be

2 pages

what did you get on that

9/20 since it was late.

[guff]

9/20 since it was late.

but mostly because of your views right

[Daddy]

but mostly because of your views right

the comments in the in class discussion seem to make me believe that.

[guff]

the comments in the in class discussion seem to make me believe that.

how much was deducted for it being late

[Daddy]

how much was deducted for it being late

i dunno

It just said 9/20 late.   At least five since they are normally 25 points.