|
yeah I eat rear end posted:At least that is interesting on some level instead of the same tired old highschool debate class level arguments about eugenics. Anything that is basically a "summon Jastiger button" issue is probably something really dumb and not worth seriously discussing. Last thing I'll say a bout it, Eugenics is actually really important and I think will become a more serious and pressing moral issue as technology and science allows us to modify genetics for the better. Yeah its obviously easy to be abused and has historically been abused, but that doesn't mean creating a world where Downs Syndrome doesnt' exist isn't better than one where it does and its actually morally incumbent to try to create the former rather than shrug and allow the latter.
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:As has been noted so many times, you have a different definition of eugenics than most do. Nobody would argue that preventing things like Downs is bad (unless it involves aborting all fetuses that have it). Why would the latter be bad?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:You know why. It's a slippery slope when you start defining what is the "right" kind of human. The focus should be on trying to cure things like Downs by prenatal gene therapy, not killing them all off. You'd have to be an idiot to not see how far people would take that idea if they could. It'd start with things like Downs but it would inevitably lead to racial stuff. Yeah i agree. Forcing people to have abortions is some evil poo poo. But, and this may be my PHUO here, i genuinely have moral conflict when folks know about genetic defects and intentionally propagate them and/or bring them to term. A world where someone will never be able to function in any fulfilling capacity is p lovely place to be, not just for the individual but for those supporting them. I dont have a solution, but I cant cheer lead on that either. Its tough.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Do you think anyone is doing this because "gently caress yes, now I get a defective baby!" because that's the impression you're giving off here. Like you havent seen "baby is a gift from the Lord god bess us [while all our hopes and dreams are dashed because every waking hour for the rest of our lives just became this babies]" Or that girl without a skull that was on SA years ago, thise parents didnt seem upset
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I'm very glad you're not in a position of authority. You disagree?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I think pointing at outliers when I ask a question about normal human behavior is a way to dodge the point. I also think that you think determining absolutes is extremely easy, which is never a good thing, I would encourage a life insurance program that paid out for anyone that chose to terminate a defective pregnancy before a certain point. Defects would be things that are terminal and would result in early death or would prohibit adult status. It would be voluntary to go ahead or not, but i would incentivize not if its going to cause harm.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Looks like im needed in Japan *sighs as he unsheaths his......Katana*
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
That short movie owns. Whats wrong with it
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Wwe is great because of the characters and music they produce and the over the top ridiculousness they have. Just imagine someone is giving an important speech on an upcoming international trade deal and then JOHN CENAS music hits and he comes out to shout down and beat down the speaker while making good opposition points. Shits funny precisely because its ridiculous and WWE has given this to us.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:If Trump is right about one thing it's that Alec Baldwin's impression of him is not funny. Also I'm not sure if this is unpopular but SNL hasn't been funny in well over a decade. His impression of him is.....ok. His material and comedic delivery are awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Trump is actually bad and there are very real reasons to consider him at least nominally illegitimate since he lost the popular vote by so much. Some of it is sour grapes on the left, sure, but if the boycott of the inauguration and subsequenr demonstrations turn in to action against the electoral college, then great.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
Being divided is totally justified in America and isnt necessarily a bad thing if one side of an issue is objectively incorrect on one side.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:i don't care, my dude. wouldn't care if hillary won, don't care that trump won. All I care about is the salt, and that, I think, is an unpopular opinion. If you dont care, then dont post. Im pissed at the idiot people that voted for Trump and am worried about my families future. Not about to compromise on that, salt or no salt.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Jastiger populist? Come now. Populism can be cool and good actually.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Violence or the threat of violence to people in charge is the only way to effect change in a modern world.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I'd argue wealth is much more effective. People respond much better to being paid off than being murdered. That is kind of the point i was making. Threatening peoples wealth is a form of violence. Also unironically the world would be a better place if people like thr Waltons, Trumps, etc were stripped of all their wealth by some government. Its a total violation of rights and huge over reach and isnt fair to them, but it would by every measure improve the lives of most of humanity to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:violence does not solve nonviolence. in fact, it makes your side look worse, and it ruins whatever dumbass point you could ever want to present. if you want to say "I want to run around and wreck poo poo without consequence", then please just say that. Nearly every major change in history has been due to a threat of violence. Union strikes, riots, boycotts, actual war. All violence. It doesnt mean i want to be violent im just recognizing that a silent sit in doesnt do poo poo. Threatening to burn down the building would. Clintons are little fish compared to those other folk.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Maybe try becoming one of the rich people who determine how the world works instead of having a tantrum and threatening to steal their money. Didnt win that lottery.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:yeah, threatening to burn down a building does something..it puts the rioters in the morgue! It does hurt the rioters sure. But even if it isnt literally burning it down. Holding up production or stopping production does more than angry letters ans rallys. And the Clintons arent Walton Rich and they werent born in to it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:It's easy to talk like this, but most people who do nowadays at least will never act because they know they will lose and don't want to go to prison. Which is why change doesnt occur in modern capitalist society. Im not talking big im not even someone who would be willing to be violent. Im just pointing it out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Who dat
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
My original point is that violence accomplishes a lot more than peaceful means. Writijg an angry letter ti the editor about your boss being a dick accomplishes far less than unplugging thr buildings internet until he agrees to your demands.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:All that would accomplish is getting your rear end fired. Its like youre intentionally missing the implication. Obviously thatd get you fired. Why? Because it actually threatens the owner. A nasty letter doesnt. Thats why protests often accomplish nothing unless they hit a serious critical mass. Otherwise they are just ignored. But if those protests actually threatened the economic well being of folk in charge, uh uh now this has meaning. The difference? The right kind of violence. You seem to think im advocating doing this or something in real time. Im not. Im just saying historically it alwayd been violence that got poo poo done, not angry talk show segments or Facebook posts. These are catalysts instead of actual change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:If you don't have solidarity, you literally have nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While I agree with the general idea that non-violent protest accomplishes jack poo poo 95% of the time (though on rare occasions it can accomplish something if it's creating enough negative press for the company/politician in question), I think it's also questionable whether violence can accomplish things in the modern day like it used to be able to 100 years ago. 100 years ago it was a threat to a company if workers striked or threatened to destroy company assets because the company didn't have much of an other choice. But in our modern world, corporations often have the option of simply relocating if workers cause problems. It might cost them money to do so, but it still gives them an option other than acquiescing to the demands of the workers (which effectively limits the workers' negotiating power). Right.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Name one good thing violence has accomplished. Shut down the South in the Civil War, thus preserving some semblence of Democracy in the West
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:the rare triple shitpost...we live in golden times. You gonna contribute at all?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I don't think that's a particular uncommon opinion. There are people who love it but there are also plenty of people who recognise that it is worthless garbage. The South wins the Civil war and secedes. WWI breaks out. Guess whose side the South goes on and/or guess how effective the North is in helping the British? Yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I doubt anyone can say with any confidence what effect a successful secession would have on a war that took place 50 years later on the other side of the world, but it's my understanding that America's involvement wasn't terribly significant anyway. I'm not saying that the US won the second or first world wars by themselves. But the influx of man power, the not having to watch your borders too closely, the sheer economic strength of a nation untouched by war was a pretty big deal. If they had a belligerent country to their South its not likely they would have been able to commit anything to the war effort. And seriously, the South was likely more on the side of the 3rd Reich than the Allies in the second world war, that would have been some serious poo poo to have an Axis sympathetic 3rd world country on the Southern border of the United States. So yeah, Western Democracy was pretty much saved at Appomattox Courthouse when the evil South was destroyed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:The Confederates would almost certainly have sided with the British and the French, because the only way they'd have had a snowball's chance of winning the Civil War would've been if the British and the French help them (i.e. Royal Navy breaks the blockade and Canadian troops attack New England, Napoleon III successfully establishes a pro-French Hapsburg monarchy in Mexico etc.). Hey, that is even possible, but the war effort is effectively cut in half because there are two countries instead of one, and thr South wasnt self sustaining economically. It is a Very Good thing the South lost and likely history would be very different and worse for the West if theyd have won. Its almost time for the annual South thread so Im just gettin warmed up. Ill have all the data and stuff in that annual effort post.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:be sure to use the "BAN ME" tag Why are you a confederate sympathizer?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Why are you so obsessed with something that happened hundreds of years ago? Why do you judge people born in the same region hundreds of years later as if they themselves support slavery? Most of my criticisms of the South are political and social in nature, not as if all individual are evil or whatever just because they were born in Mississippi. A lot of the social, political, and even economic ills we have in the US stem from policies that the Southern bloc of states have enacted along with their cultural standards against progressive ideas, I.E. Mississippi JUST ratified the 13th amendment in 2013  That poo poo isn't OK or anything to be proud of.spit on my clit posted:well here's a few reasons. I live in the south, the south is not a bad place, we are not living in civil war times (nor should we), william sherman was an animal and not a human being, and your posting is so god awful that any normal minded person that reads your crazy conspiracy theories about the south would either put you on block or become a confederate sympathizer themselves. Whoa insulting William T Sherman is kind of against the forums rules, man. I won't report you but you gotta be careful with that kind of talk! William Sherman was kind of a dickhead but he did something that likely ought to have been completed more completely and thoroughly in order to Make America Great Again. Total war on a region dedicated to the subjugation of its own people (Black OR White) is cool and good. Also if you don't chug estus in DS3 pvp then you need to look at your life and choices.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:"kind of a dickhead" he burnt down most of georgia. he's literally a war criminal. i'd call you retarded but that'd be unfair to the mentally disabled. He spared civilians and didnt mess with them, he just made the CSA unable to effectively wage war. A cool and just and good General.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Anyone that marched yesterday but doesnt vote in EVERY upcoming election for the next 10 years (if eligible) is a massive piece of poo poo and just as bad as Trump supporters. Ive told all my friends this to my face and im dead serious. The marchers are right, but if you dont vote on it when you can, then you're useless.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:Are you implying disenfranchisement is the voter's fault? Or that literal voter discrimination is the voter's fault? Im implying that if they genuinely are pissed off, but sit at home instead of voting, then they are part of the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:"apparently". Did you even cover the american electoral process in school? This wasn't some surprise, everyone knows the electoral college exists and is the only thing that matters. The problem is that one party has consistently been winning elections with LESS votes. Its one thing to be salty about your state going a certain way, its another to actively have the will of the people consistently circumvented because those in power are incentivized against abolishing an archaic system.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:I conclude Jastiger hates the South 'cause that's where all the black folks at. This is supported by Iowa being Jastiger's favorite state and weighing in with a black population of a whopping 3%. Ive consistently said everything good about the South is coopted from minorities there. The only good thing white Southerners have given us is maybe Bourbon. Everything else is either natural beauty or thought up by black folk.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Particularly Planned Parenthood, cultural acceptance of misogyny, and education standards.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:You can argue that a different system would be better, but making the argument that the electoral college is bad because it sometimes produces results that differ from the popular vote is a very dumb argument because that's the whole point of it. If you put ice cream in the microwave and it melts, you can say "I don't like melted ice cream", but you don't say "the microwave is broken because it melted this ice cream". The microwave is working perfectly. If it didn't heat things there'd be no point in having it. "Better" in any contest where someone makes a choice is generally the one that is ACTUALLY their choice vs any other out come. Anything that more accurately reflects the intended choice. The EC isn't dumb because it can diffuse votes, its dumb because of the way its enacted and gives more voting power to low density states.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
You dont want to tip it too far in their direction. But as it is, its tipped the other way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 04:09
|
|