Najsmješnije izjave protiv IK

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:
pa vruće..prijetnja u obitelji, tu su i vanbračni partneri pod obitelji
najčešće kazneno djelo i najviše ljudi je u istražnom zbog toga

strasno

nego, jesu li zene u istom omjeru nasilne kao i muski

pa nisu, ima ih naravno ali manje, ima tu i prijetnji zbog imovine ali uglavnom ti je ovo...

pa jesu
imas neovisne stidije (i to par njih) koje pokazuju da su zene podjednako nasilne
i to studije zena kojima je to struka

ma nisu, ne treba mi studija i sranje , samo pogledaš koliko ih je zatvoru a koliko je muškaraca, jednostavno vrlo.

The Marxist Perspective on The Family

Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.

Marxism is a ‘structural conflict’ perspective. They see society as structured along class lines with institutions generally working in the interests of the small elite class who have economic power (the ‘Bourgeoisie’) and the much larger working class (the ‘Proletariat’). The Bourgeoise gain their wealth from exploiting the proletariat. There is thus a conflict of interests between the Bourgeoise and the Proletariat.

However, this conflict of interests rarely boils over into revolution because institutions such as the family perform the function of ‘ideological control’, or convincing the masses that the present unequal system is inevitable, natural and good.

Something else Marxists suggest about the family (like the Functional Fit theory) is that the family type generally changes with society – more specifically, the nuclear family emerges not because of the needs of industrialisation, but because of the needs of the capitalist system.

According to Engels, the monogamous nuclear family only emerged with Capitalism. Before Capitalism, traditional, tribal societies were classless and they practised a form of ‘primitive communism’ in which there was no private property. In such societies, property was collectively owned, and the family structure reflected this – there were no families as such, but tribal groups existed in a kind of ‘promiscuous horde’ in which there were no restrictions on sexual relationships.

However, with the emergence of Capitalism in the 18th Century, society and the family changed. Capitalism is based on a system of private ownership – The bourgeois use their own personal wealth to personally invest in businesses in order to make a profit, they don’t invest for the benefit of everyone else.

Eventually the Bourgeois started to look for ways to pass on their wealth to the next generation, rather than having it shared out amongst the masses, and this is where the monogamous nuclear family comes from. It is the best way of guaranteeing that you are passing on your property to your son, because in a monogamous relationship you have a clear idea of who your own children are.

Ultimately what this arrangement does is to reproduce inequality – The children of the rich grow up into wealth, while the children of the poor remain poor. Thus the nuclear family benefits the Bourgeois more than the proletariat.

https://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/marxist-perspective-family/

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:
pa vruće..prijetnja u obitelji, tu su i vanbračni partneri pod obitelji
najčešće kazneno djelo i najviše ljudi je u istražnom zbog toga

strasno

nego, jesu li zene u istom omjeru nasilne kao i muski

pa nisu, ima ih naravno ali manje, ima tu i prijetnji zbog imovine ali uglavnom ti je ovo...

pa jesu
imas neovisne stidije (i to par njih) koje pokazuju da su zene podjednako nasilne
i to studije zena kojima je to struka

ma nisu, ne treba mi studija i sranje , samo pogledaš koliko ih je zatvoru a koliko je muškaraca, jednostavno vrlo.

pismejker wrote:

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:
strasno

nego, jesu li zene u istom omjeru nasilne kao i muski

pa nisu, ima ih naravno ali manje, ima tu i prijetnji zbog imovine ali uglavnom ti je ovo...

pa jesu
imas neovisne stidije (i to par njih) koje pokazuju da su zene podjednako nasilne
i to studije zena kojima je to struka

ma nisu, ne treba mi studija i sranje , samo pogledaš koliko ih je zatvoru a koliko je muškaraca, jednostavno vrlo.

Kayo,psihicki teror zena nad muskarcima je tesko dokazati,..da nije tome tako,zene bi rulale po zatvorima..ipak,pravosudje jos uvijek masnicu gleda kao nest ogore,nego strgane zivce...

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:
strasno

nego, jesu li zene u istom omjeru nasilne kao i muski

pa nisu, ima ih naravno ali manje, ima tu i prijetnji zbog imovine ali uglavnom ti je ovo...

pa jesu
imas neovisne stidije (i to par njih) koje pokazuju da su zene podjednako nasilne
i to studije zena kojima je to struka

ma nisu, ne treba mi studija i sranje , samo pogledaš koliko ih je zatvoru a koliko je muškaraca, jednostavno vrlo.

ne treba tebi studija
al treba normalnim ljudima koji logicno razmisljaju
btw muskarci nece prijavit nasilje
to i ptice znaju, a i da prijave sta bi kad su sudovi inace naklonjeni "drugotnima"

nego, ako muz nije nasilan i zena ga prijavi da jeste nasilan, sta on moze rec u svoju odbranu kad se stvori narativ o muskarcima kao nasilnicima

kaja wrote:

pismejker wrote:

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:
pa nisu, ima ih naravno ali manje, ima tu i prijetnji zbog imovine ali uglavnom ti je ovo...

pa jesu
imas neovisne stidije (i to par njih) koje pokazuju da su zene podjednako nasilne
i to studije zena kojima je to struka

ma nisu, ne treba mi studija i sranje , samo pogledaš koliko ih je zatvoru a koliko je muškaraca, jednostavno vrlo.

Kayo,psihicki teror zena nad muskarcima je tesko dokazati,..da nije tome tako,zene bi rulale po zatvorima..ipak,pravosudje jos uvijek masnicu gleda kao nest ogore,nego strgane zivce...

dobro, samo vama je psihički teror ako vas netko pita gdje ste bili do 5 ujutro, ili vam kaže da nešto radite..
tako da je to rastezljiv pojam psihičkog terora

hororskop wrote:

The Marxist Perspective on The Family

Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.

Marxism is a ‘structural conflict’ perspective. They see society as structured along class lines with institutions generally working in the interests of the small elite class who have economic power (the ‘Bourgeoisie’) and the much larger working class (the ‘Proletariat’). The Bourgeoise gain their wealth from exploiting the proletariat. There is thus a conflict of interests between the Bourgeoise and the Proletariat.

However, this conflict of interests rarely boils over into revolution because institutions such as the family perform the function of ‘ideological control’, or convincing the masses that the present unequal system is inevitable, natural and good.

Something else Marxists suggest about the family (like the Functional Fit theory) is that the family type generally changes with society – more specifically, the nuclear family emerges not because of the needs of industrialisation, but because of the needs of the capitalist system.

According to Engels, the monogamous nuclear family only emerged with Capitalism. Before Capitalism, traditional, tribal societies were classless and they practised a form of ‘primitive communism’ in which there was no private property. In such societies, property was collectively owned, and the family structure reflected this – there were no families as such, but tribal groups existed in a kind of ‘promiscuous horde’ in which there were no restrictions on sexual relationships.

However, with the emergence of Capitalism in the 18th Century, society and the family changed. Capitalism is based on a system of private ownership – The bourgeois use their own personal wealth to personally invest in businesses in order to make a profit, they don’t invest for the benefit of everyone else.

Eventually the Bourgeois started to look for ways to pass on their wealth to the next generation, rather than having it shared out amongst the masses, and this is where the monogamous nuclear family comes from. It is the best way of guaranteeing that you are passing on your property to your son, because in a monogamous relationship you have a clear idea of who your own children are.

Ultimately what this arrangement does is to reproduce inequality – The children of the rich grow up into wealth, while the children of the poor remain poor. Thus the nuclear family benefits the Bourgeois more than the proletariat.

https://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/marxist-perspective-family/

obitelj je temelj kapitalističkog sustava

ako zbog promiskuiteta svd djeca budu kopilad onda možemo imati primitivno plemensko društvo u kojem nema privatnog vlasništva

u tom smjeru ide i IK

pismejker wrote:o Kayo,ynas ti dobro na sto ja mislim..svakodnevno mocanje,grintanje i prigovaranje u VEZI SITNICA I GLUPOSTI,

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:
pa nisu, ima ih naravno ali manje, ima tu i prijetnji zbog imovine ali uglavnom ti je ovo...

pa jesu
imas neovisne stidije (i to par njih) koje pokazuju da su zene podjednako nasilne
i to studije zena kojima je to struka

ma nisu, ne treba mi studija i sranje , samo pogledaš koliko ih je zatvoru a koliko je muškaraca, jednostavno vrlo.

ne treba tebi studija
al treba normalnim ljudima koji logicno razmisljaju
btw muskarci nece prijavit nasilje
to i ptice znaju, a i da prijave sta bi kad su sudovi inace naklonjeni "drugotnima"

nego, ako muz nije nasilan i zena ga prijavi da jeste nasilan, sta on moze rec u svoju odbranu kad se stvori narativ o muskarcima kao nasilnicima

pa neće, nekada bi trebali ako je prijetnja ozbiljna ali ne prijavljuju. ne kuže da mogu s luđakinjom imati posla..
međutim uglavnom je pucanj u prazno - ubiću te, čiji je ovo ruž na košulji? neće ga ubiti nego plakati

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:A evo nam i prve gluperde foruma. Mašala!

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:
pa jesu
imas neovisne stidije (i to par njih) koje pokazuju da su zene podjednako nasilne
i to studije zena kojima je to struka

ma nisu, ne treba mi studija i sranje , samo pogledaš koliko ih je zatvoru a koliko je muškaraca, jednostavno vrlo.

ne treba tebi studija
al treba normalnim ljudima koji logicno razmisljaju
btw muskarci nece prijavit nasilje
to i ptice znaju, a i da prijave sta bi kad su sudovi inace naklonjeni "drugotnima"

nego, ako muz nije nasilan i zena ga prijavi da jeste nasilan, sta on moze rec u svoju odbranu kad se stvori narativ o muskarcima kao nasilnicima

pa neće, nekada bi trebali ako je prijetnja ozbiljna ali ne prijavljuju. ne kuže da mogu s luđakinjom imati posla..
međutim uglavnom je pucanj u prazno - ubiću te, čiji je ovo ruž na košulji? neće ga ubiti nego plakati

ti si nezrela

Sora wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:
ma nisu, ne treba mi studija i sranje , samo pogledaš koliko ih je zatvoru a koliko je muškaraca, jednostavno vrlo.

ne treba tebi studija
al treba normalnim ljudima koji logicno razmisljaju
btw muskarci nece prijavit nasilje
to i ptice znaju, a i da prijave sta bi kad su sudovi inace naklonjeni "drugotnima"

nego, ako muz nije nasilan i zena ga prijavi da jeste nasilan, sta on moze rec u svoju odbranu kad se stvori narativ o muskarcima kao nasilnicima

pa neće, nekada bi trebali ako je prijetnja ozbiljna ali ne prijavljuju. ne kuže da mogu s luđakinjom imati posla..
međutim uglavnom je pucanj u prazno - ubiću te, čiji je ovo ruž na košulji? neće ga ubiti nego plakati

ti si nezrela

A ti promjeni psihijtra 
I naocale

prckov wrote:

hororskop wrote:

The Marxist Perspective on The Family

Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.

Marxism is a ‘structural conflict’ perspective. They see society as structured along class lines with institutions generally working in the interests of the small elite class who have economic power (the ‘Bourgeoisie’) and the much larger working class (the ‘Proletariat’). The Bourgeoise gain their wealth from exploiting the proletariat. There is thus a conflict of interests between the Bourgeoise and the Proletariat.

However, this conflict of interests rarely boils over into revolution because institutions such as the family perform the function of ‘ideological control’, or convincing the masses that the present unequal system is inevitable, natural and good.

Something else Marxists suggest about the family (like the Functional Fit theory) is that the family type generally changes with society – more specifically, the nuclear family emerges not because of the needs of industrialisation, but because of the needs of the capitalist system.

According to Engels, the monogamous nuclear family only emerged with Capitalism. Before Capitalism, traditional, tribal societies were classless and they practised a form of ‘primitive communism’ in which there was no private property. In such societies, property was collectively owned, and the family structure reflected this – there were no families as such, but tribal groups existed in a kind of ‘promiscuous horde’ in which there were no restrictions on sexual relationships.

However, with the emergence of Capitalism in the 18th Century, society and the family changed. Capitalism is based on a system of private ownership – The bourgeois use their own personal wealth to personally invest in businesses in order to make a profit, they don’t invest for the benefit of everyone else.

Eventually the Bourgeois started to look for ways to pass on their wealth to the next generation, rather than having it shared out amongst the masses, and this is where the monogamous nuclear family comes from. It is the best way of guaranteeing that you are passing on your property to your son, because in a monogamous relationship you have a clear idea of who your own children are.

Ultimately what this arrangement does is to reproduce inequality – The children of the rich grow up into wealth, while the children of the poor remain poor. Thus the nuclear family benefits the Bourgeois more than the proletariat.

https://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/marxist-perspective-family/

obitelj je temelj kapitalističkog sustava

ako zbog promiskuiteta svd djeca budu kopilad onda možemo imati primitivno plemensko društvo u kojem nema privatnog vlasništva

u tom smjeru ide i IK

i IK, i feminizam i ljevicari
rusi se obitelj, kultura, tradicija i sloboda
u biti temelji zapadne civilizacije
u EU imas plan izjednacit pay gap,
theresa may govori o pay gap-u izmedu spolova, a djeca se sa time vise sprdaju koliko veze s mozgom nema

prckov wrote:

hororskop wrote:

The Marxist Perspective on The Family

Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.

Marxism is a ‘structural conflict’ perspective. They see society as structured along class lines with institutions generally working in the interests of the small elite class who have economic power (the ‘Bourgeoisie’) and the much larger working class (the ‘Proletariat’). The Bourgeoise gain their wealth from exploiting the proletariat. There is thus a conflict of interests between the Bourgeoise and the Proletariat.

However, this conflict of interests rarely boils over into revolution because institutions such as the family perform the function of ‘ideological control’, or convincing the masses that the present unequal system is inevitable, natural and good.

Something else Marxists suggest about the family (like the Functional Fit theory) is that the family type generally changes with society – more specifically, the nuclear family emerges not because of the needs of industrialisation, but because of the needs of the capitalist system.

According to Engels, the monogamous nuclear family only emerged with Capitalism. Before Capitalism, traditional, tribal societies were classless and they practised a form of ‘primitive communism’ in which there was no private property. In such societies, property was collectively owned, and the family structure reflected this – there were no families as such, but tribal groups existed in a kind of ‘promiscuous horde’ in which there were no restrictions on sexual relationships.

However, with the emergence of Capitalism in the 18th Century, society and the family changed. Capitalism is based on a system of private ownership – The bourgeois use their own personal wealth to personally invest in businesses in order to make a profit, they don’t invest for the benefit of everyone else.

Eventually the Bourgeois started to look for ways to pass on their wealth to the next generation, rather than having it shared out amongst the masses, and this is where the monogamous nuclear family comes from. It is the best way of guaranteeing that you are passing on your property to your son, because in a monogamous relationship you have a clear idea of who your own children are.

Ultimately what this arrangement does is to reproduce inequality – The children of the rich grow up into wealth, while the children of the poor remain poor. Thus the nuclear family benefits the Bourgeois more than the proletariat.

https://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/marxist-perspective-family/

obitelj je temelj kapitalističkog sustava

ako zbog promiskuiteta svd djeca budu kopilad onda možemo imati primitivno plemensko društvo u kojem nema privatnog vlasništva

u tom smjeru ide i IK

i IK, i feminizam i ljevicari
rusi se obitelj, kultura, tradicija i sloboda
u biti temelji zapadne civilizacije
u EU imas plan izjednacit pay gap,
theresa may govori o pay gap-u izmedu spolova, a djeca se sa time vise sprdaju koliko veze s mozgom nema

slidingdoorsoperator wrote:

Sora wrote:Otprilike velis da se ne moze biti dobar jer nisi dobar 

Ne možeš napraviti ništa dobro po definiciji jer ti namjere nisu dobre! Namjere su te koje te određuju i tvoja djela.
Gluperdo.

kaja wrote:

Sora wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:

prckov wrote:
ne treba tebi studija
al treba normalnim ljudima koji logicno razmisljaju
btw muskarci nece prijavit nasilje
to i ptice znaju, a i da prijave sta bi kad su sudovi inace naklonjeni "drugotnima"

nego, ako muz nije nasilan i zena ga prijavi da jeste nasilan, sta on moze rec u svoju odbranu kad se stvori narativ o muskarcima kao nasilnicima

pa neće, nekada bi trebali ako je prijetnja ozbiljna ali ne prijavljuju. ne kuže da mogu s luđakinjom imati posla..
međutim uglavnom je pucanj u prazno - ubiću te, čiji je ovo ruž na košulji? neće ga ubiti nego plakati

ti si nezrela

A ti promjeni psihijtra 
I naocale

sore uzmi ga malo, evo meni smeta od jutra
ja odo na kavu

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:

Sora wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:
pa neće, nekada bi trebali ako je prijetnja ozbiljna ali ne prijavljuju. ne kuže da mogu s luđakinjom imati posla..
međutim uglavnom je pucanj u prazno - ubiću te, čiji je ovo ruž na košulji? neće ga ubiti nego plakati

ti si nezrela

A ti promjeni psihijtra 
I naocale

sore uzmi ga malo, evo meni smeta od jutra
ja odo na kavu

ajd
i vidi ima li ti na dnu soljice kakav argument pa donesi

hororskop wrote:
ako padne kapitalizam onda će bit komunistička utopija i svi će biti jednaki

Sora wrote:

prckov wrote:

kaja wrote:

Sora wrote:

prckov wrote:
ti si nezrela

A ti promjeni psihijtra 
I naocale

sore uzmi ga malo, evo meni smeta od jutra
ja odo na kavu

ajd
i vidi ima li ti na dnu soljice kakav argument pa donesi

Eto idem ga uzeti malo 



Ja dosla s kave

Sora wrote:Prcko Da te uzmem malo 
Daj mi objasni ovo RUSI SE OBITELJ I SLOBODA S NJOM . 


To je recenica za genije . EPOHALNA. 
TO ISTO KO I OVI KLERIFASISTI KOJI B
BOGA VOLE A MRZE SVE DRUGEM drugscije i rszlicite ? Ljude ..

A? 
Kak je spojivo ha ?