When people say "in a month" do they mean 30 days or 31 days?

The same could be asked of the man who invented the electric guitar.

You could literally adjust the OP's pic with A being a chef, B being the farmer, and C likely being the same poor kid. In either scenario it's asking who you would give the food to. The farmer can make more, the other two don't but can do more with it in the case of A or C uses it to survive and that's about it.

>"How could you possibly take this from me and give it to someone else?"
You are literally appropriating someone else's stuff and choosing who to give it to without their consent.
That's theft.

>The same could be asked of the man who invented the electric guitar.
To patent and sell it? Seems obvious. If that is your angle the objectively right answer to OP is let CB keep it and sell it to the highest bidder which is CA because CC is broke as fuck.

Reminder the problem is literally that you (the reader) stole the flute from Child B and are now deciding who to give it to.

This. The redpilled thing to do is kill yourself for stealing.

You know, I have really good genes, you should give me your wife because I could make better children than you.

i break the flute and steal the children
problem solved

Well they were fighting over it and so we, the presumably older person, took it to stop that shit. Parents make this decision a lot and I would say they'll give the flute to child C and tell child B to share then once child C uses the flute no one wants it anymore after his dirty lips touched it.

if the social environment is set so that child B is compensated, then one might consider giving it to child a/b.
If child A has more avenues of making itself useful, then it should go to child C. Assuming the Child A is well off in general, as it could waste time in training for being a flute artist, it should go to child C so that it serotonin level would go up making it useful to society.

It belongs to EVERYONE

i give the flute to wichever kid suck my dick

I assume they mean by the end of the day before today, but pushed a month forwards.

i imagine it means the same date, in the next month, for example 1st april to 1st may would be 'in a months time' so it varies depending on what month youre in for the actual length

Usually 28 - 30 days in my experience. Child A should get the flute and give child B fair compensation for their labor and product. Child C can fuck off entirely.

B is the rightful owner of the flute. It is B's decision to sell/rent/gift the flute to A, because I see no reason why they would give it to C. Perhaps A and B can come to an agreement that fairly compensate's B's time and resources. C can fuck off.

This In a month to means to me is that if today is the 5th, it will be ~5th of next month. It is estimative term, and sometimes people say exactly a month, which would be 5th -> 5th.

This represents different ideas of justice and property relations in different schools of thought in political economy. A is classical liberal (it should go to those who make the most of it and benefit society the most), B is Communist/Marxist (it belongs rightfully to the worker's who made it, they and not you have the right to decide who it goes to) and C being social democratic/modern liberal (it should go to those in most need).

Which is why it's fucking HILARIOUS to see so many people on an otherwise anti-communist board go with the Marxist option! Shit even an ancap went with B lmao.

Child b and 4 weeks

Jow Forumstards are completely brainwashed, it's not really that suprising...

>look at date
>that number
>but next month

Attached: C8Y_ddIUQAA94Nd.jpg (713x713, 64K)

kek, btfo

Cheese

Attached: 1520720423023.gif (250x214, 1.02M)

I'd say at least 28 days (gotta consider february-chan), but generally I just think they mean the current date's number but in the next month. So, if it's March 7th, a month from now is April 7th. I don't even think about if a month has 30 or 31 days, and for several of the months I don't even know which they have without checking. I know February is 28 and I know my birthday month's amount of days. Aside from that I haven't really needed to know.

Tempting to give it to child A, but if there's a chance B or C would learn to use the flute, I like the idea of more skilled people in the end. Probably also worth considering that Child B is capable of making flutes, so maybe in a perfect scenario I would ask Child B to make a couple more flutes for the other kids.

B, anything else is communist nigger lover tier

True communism wouldn't have you, a random person, deciding what these children do. They'd settle it among themselves, as a community.

ok, next time you prepare some food we'll make sure to take it from you because there's always going to be someone hungrier than you

And 2/3 of those community members feel entitled to something they didn't work for while using the 1/3 as a slave by taking their product without consent.
Now that's "real" communism you dumb faggot.
Anyone who chooses anything but b has no morals and are the only people who should be sent to "work camps"

Attached: commietalking.jpg (750x581, 264K)

A
>I LARP as Robin Hood
B
>Not supporting theft is communism
C
>Affirmative Action is effective and good
Support plaasmoorde

Child D.

Does not know what a flute is. And has no idea why they just got a flute.

b is not Marxist you fucking leftypol sperg samefag. In real communism /b/ would have the flute taken from them and redistributed to the people while she starved to death. Go back to your containment board on x2chan and never come back. We don''t want losers who are too useless and pathetic to be self reliant and demand a mommy "community" come take care of them, I hope whatever shithole country you come from becomes communist. Because if communism is good at anything its killing communists and for that its almost respectable.

Attached: leftypol.jpg (960x720, 184K)

here ((((yout))) go lying kike

I think the idea is that everyone is contributing something for their community, so you see that 1/3 2/3 split, but everyone is the 1/3 in some situation. You may chop the wood or mine the coal but eat the food that someone else grew and cooked. Seems mostly fair. You can argue that not all jobs are equally difficult, but splitting up the work and sharing the reward like this should hopefully lead to everyone being happy.

>they say yesterday
>they mean an arbitrary amount of days up to around 7

C is the objectively wrong answer. If you even entertained the idea that C should be given the flute, you are already doom and should kill yourself as soon as possible for the sake of a better world.

B is the more just answer, and is objectively the correct answer both in context and in relation to our reality.

A would only be theoretically an acceptable answer in an utopia, where mankind works together into a brighter future. Unfortunately, an utopia is impossible to achieve by definition, so A can never be the correct answer.

I use "the other day" in this situation, although I have heard from some people that where they're from, this just means "yesterday".

Why can't Child B make another flute so that all of the children has a flute? What about "sharing and caring?"
>InB4 I'm a commie

Attached: Makes you thonk.gif (326x326, 372K)

"yesterday" is the previous 24 hours.
"the other day" is used for distinguishing between two mutually understood points of reference. not yesterday, that other day that we're both talking about.
fuck. i am angered by this.
t. aspergers

why does she have to? Why does she have to spend hours making more flutes for nothing in return against her consent? Why cant you leave her alone and let he do what she wants you amoral commie fag.

>sharing and caring
not equivalent to forced redistribution you fucking brainlet
>muh theoretical perfect world
pure intellectual masturbation any system that dosn't account for and trys to prevent abuse is dogshit tier

>make child B make 2 more flutes
>sell them to childs A and C
>give child B a quota
>keep the flute for myself

Attached: image.jpg (268x418, 18K)

Yeah, I don't get it. Everyone around here (Minnesota) uses "the other day" to be a recent / unknown day, but a Canadian friend used to flip whenever I'd use it to mean something besides "yesterday". If it had the same meaning, I don't think there'd be much point in using the longer phrase. Both him and I are probably autistic.

As for your meaning, I take it you're saying two people are talking about day X and day Y and the phrase is used to talk about the one they weren't just talking about. If that is how you see it, then what do you say when talking about a day from a bit in the past that you don't know the exact date of?

Why do you think she gets nothing in return? She will get the adoration of other children, fame among the town, and maybe the shopkeepers or other parents will give her something as thanks.

well child c is out right away...

I figure the date out or I narrow it down with a range.
>it was about 2 weeks ago, early in the week, maybe a tuesday?
specificity is important.

Because
>Seize the means of production

>any system that dosn't account for and trys to prevent abuse is dogshit tier
Any system that tries to prevent crime is often just punishing its ordinary citizens. There will always be crimes committed. More laws just restricts what the average joe can do.

It means the same day of the month next month.

If it feb 12th, next month is mar 12.

In general I agree it's good to be accurate, correct, clear, etc. I argue semantics with people fairly often, despite them insisting they don't care or it doesn't matter. I wouldn't bust anyone's balls for saying "the other day", though. Not only is it common among my family and people around here (not a good reason, I know), but I often have no clue when something happened. If I'm lucky I can say "a few weeks" or "a few months" ago, still not knowing precisely when it happened, just that it was probably under a year ago.

Then if she gets so much in return why would you force her to make it. If she actually gets compensated then she can make the decision herself like in a free market.

how is B communist? What if B was the owner of the flute factory but not a line worker? You could argue it belongs to him even though it technically wasn't made directly by him, he owns it through owning the factory.

I can relate. I have issues with dates also. Luckily I never really have to talk to anyone so it doesn't matter.

I didn't really imagine this as me forcing a decision. I guess I thought of it more like a choose-your-own-adventure sort of thing where each choice happened in its own universe and I was choosing the one I'd most like to see. I think she should probably get to do what she wants. Although, if I am involved as a non-god in this scenario, I would love to talk through this scenario with her the way we're talking about it in this thread, and see if she feels any differently after considering all her options.

>Implying a kid would think of that

Fuck it let's take the bait without the pic related because i'm on my phone but anyways, here it goes.
In anything other than communism you don't have the right to keep what you made to yourself ? If you're living in the USA, made some cookies, crafted some shit for fun, the fucking swat will come in, take it away from you to give it to someone else without you having a word about it. Are leftists actually this retarded and delusional to believe this ?

That's because F.B.I John is a fuckboy and was mad he could not get any cookies.
:v)

"The other day" is the day before yesterday, you autists.

what the actual fuck makes you think it has such a specific and non-obvious definition? aren't you really just telling us how it's used in your local area? where are you from?

urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The other day
in the end these entries are just written by people like you and I, but neither of these definitions match your meaning, at least

>regional language doesn't exist

Keep the flute for myself, the weak should fear the strong so if they can't take it back they don't deserve it.

The flute obviously belongs to B.
But if this was lofe saving medicine and not a flute, i would be much more inclined to give it to A since thy actually NEED it

they can mean anything
they can mean 3 to 6 weeks

Anyone who doesn't say B is a fucking commie that needs to be shot

Humans are not ants

I usually assume around the same date as the current day but next month

Fuck, Marry, Kill
tfw no ancap child bride

Attached: 1502212717420.png (375x424, 190K)

Kek. Fuck A, marry B and ends C's suffering

>redistributed to the people
That's communalism you autistic faggot

Attached: pol cuck boy.png (780x617, 619K)

A can play my flute, if ya get my meaning

Attached: 1520600201838.gif (320x180, 1.58M)

take the flute for myself and rape the children

I would break the flute into four pieces, one for each of them them and one for me as payment.

Amartya Sen, while not a Marxist himself, was quite familar with Marx and tried here to express the Marxist sentiment. Now one might not AGREE with that sentiment, and that sentiment is NOT in and of itself what is being debated. You are free to think it's stupid and wrong. BUT from the Marxist point of view, the workers are being robbed; capitalism IS theft, because the workers made it and they don't get to have it!

Notice how B does not mention anything about risk or delayed gratification or investement or other things that the neoclassical school would use to justify capitalists getting their profits - it refers to labour above all: to TIME and EFFORT. Materials, but NOT capital, are mentioned, and neither funds or machinery or tools are mentioned either!

It's subtle - and that's the point. It seeks to ask what reaction people might have to this conception of justice if the fundamental idea of Marxism was presented to them without the burden of association with Marxism or Communism. This is why I refered to B and Communist/Marxist, i.e. it does NOT refer to actually existing communism or socialism , but rather it is the original Marxist idea of what Communism ought to be (and, many would argue, never was and can never be).

Again, one is free to think this is all dumb and argue otherwise, but it IS the idea being expressed. And it is interesting that once said burded of association is removed, lots of people see B as not only acceptable but obvious. And once the association is re-introduced, they freak out! Suddely the insults abound and I am attacked for even mentioning it (did I even imply that I would agree with B? No! I just pointed out what it was!).

Kill all of the children for breaking the peace and instigating unnecessary thinking about politics.