As with any debate you lose by the structural failure of your position by opposing party’s information. As such is the philosophy of debate. Here we can have intelectual conversation about fundamental behavior and economic impact. I will start. what rights should people not have? There will always be dissenting oppinions. As a clusterfuck as the anon threads are I don’t see any sense in withholding creative response on individual perception when it comes to social development.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): AFF4EB56694255FE1BF33E7169BD24C3-124298.png (121.4 KB, 400x500, E5E724B6-6A8B-40EE-9942-BAC9C0772EEC.png)
>>226102
>what rights should people not have?
This is the big question. I lean towards as little restrictions as possible. But there will always be a gray area that makes the question hard to give an answer to. The idea of the NAP is good but with the NAP there will always be cases where you have to use recreational nukes to resolve disputes.
To start you should not be allowed to murder, but then again I am not against executions as punishment for grave offenses. You should not be allowed to steal or damage others property or person (non-lethal stabbing and such).
But even in these simple cases there will always be exceptions and mitigating circumstances. You could say amputating the foot of an comatosed person to save his or her life is damaging but the outcome has a greater good. Cutting someones foreskin before they can consent to it should not be allowed as it is damaging without medical purpose.
I am a strong believer in nation states so I don't think people should have the full freedom of movement. But there is always arguments for the other options too. The only way I think to give full freedom to people (including movement) would also have to be followed up with taking away all the rights (as in governmental services). If there is no benefit moving from one place over
another besides climate I don't think that many people would move around.
But I think it is in the nature of man to form communities and create cultures. This is something we have done from the dawn of time. And in every community (even as small as family units) there will be formed an unique set of principles that gets formed and ratified as time goes on. And there will always be a need for an arbitrator to judge the gray area cases. Also I think the problem with the gray areas is the reason philosophers still exist and haven't come up wit any definitive answers to life yet.
But I think the approach the America was founded on is the only right way to go. Create a document that stipulates what right the government never can take away. The way I see it is that without this protection every nation will slowly take away all rights. How often has new rights been given. Or in other words laws removed and not replaced with something sounding similar?
New laws are made every day because new issues arises. And the solution is always "lets create a law to regulate it". But even with a set of defined inalienable rights there will be gray areas, or gray areas will be manufactured.
Dueling to settle cases is also something I am not totally against if both parties want to do it. The person challenged to a duel will of course be given the right to choose what weapon to use to make it fair.
tl;dr; I think the Cowboys more or less had the perfect system. But given most of my knowledge of cowboy life is from spaghetti westerns a big bucket of skeptical salt is perhaps needed
>what rights should people not have?
This is the big question. I lean towards as little restrictions as possible. But there will always be a gray area that makes the question hard to give an answer to. The idea of the NAP is good but with the NAP there will always be cases where you have to use recreational nukes to resolve disputes.
To start you should not be allowed to murder, but then again I am not against executions as punishment for grave offenses. You should not be allowed to steal or damage others property or person (non-lethal stabbing and such).
But even in these simple cases there will always be exceptions and mitigating circumstances. You could say amputating the foot of an comatosed person to save his or her life is damaging but the outcome has a greater good. Cutting someones foreskin before they can consent to it should not be allowed as it is damaging without medical purpose.
I am a strong believer in nation states so I don't think people should have the full freedom of movement. But there is always arguments for the other options too. The only way I think to give full freedom to people (including movement) would also have to be followed up with taking away all the rights (as in governmental services). If there is no benefit moving from one place over
another besides climate I don't think that many people would move around.
But I think it is in the nature of man to form communities and create cultures. This is something we have done from the dawn of time. And in every community (even as small as family units) there will be formed an unique set of principles that gets formed and ratified as time goes on. And there will always be a need for an arbitrator to judge the gray area cases. Also I think the problem with the gray areas is the reason philosophers still exist and haven't come up wit any definitive answers to life yet.
But I think the approach the America was founded on is the only right way to go. Create a document that stipulates what right the government never can take away. The way I see it is that without this protection every nation will slowly take away all rights. How often has new rights been given. Or in other words laws removed and not replaced with something sounding similar?
New laws are made every day because new issues arises. And the solution is always "lets create a law to regulate it". But even with a set of defined inalienable rights there will be gray areas, or gray areas will be manufactured.
Dueling to settle cases is also something I am not totally against if both parties want to do it. The person challenged to a duel will of course be given the right to choose what weapon to use to make it fair.
tl;dr; I think the Cowboys more or less had the perfect system. But given most of my knowledge of cowboy life is from spaghetti westerns a big bucket of skeptical salt is perhaps needed
>>226102
>philosophy of debate
>fundamental behavior and economic impact
>social development
A /leftypol/ - /leftpol/ visitor perhaps?
>philosophy of debate
>fundamental behavior and economic impact
>social development
A /leftypol/ - /leftpol/ visitor perhaps?
File (): 2F662D6CACBA67BAFAA10FEA30375A10-5941440.jpg (5.7 MB, 3322x4290, HIN429B.jpg)
>>226102
I will not enter into any debate on this subject until you can first define, in exact terms, what precisely a 'right' is.
I will not enter into any debate on this subject until you can first define, in exact terms, what precisely a 'right' is.
File (): 311AF61F60CEF3A81C28BFA64830DC6B-60180.jpg (58.8 KB, 850x400, 1497633692620.jpg)
>what rights should people not have?
That is the wrong question. Man either does have a right, or does not. No man, or even supernatural being, could alter man's rights without changing the nature of man to the point he could no longer be considered man. You are either asking "What rights doesn't man have?" or "To what degree should rights be limited?"
To the first question, I believe the easiest criteria is "Would someone be able to have this as a right right if the rest of humanity ceased to exist?" If not, then it's not a right. Thus, healthcare is not a "basic humam right." From there, we can use reason to deduce what is or isn't a right. We might find, for example, that smoking in our house is a right, but shooting our neighbor when his t.v. is too loud isn't.
As for the second question, it depends on your goal.
>>226110
A right is that which man can do without infringing on natural law, that is, those laws of human behavior which can only be discovered through observation of man and reasoning.
That is the wrong question. Man either does have a right, or does not. No man, or even supernatural being, could alter man's rights without changing the nature of man to the point he could no longer be considered man. You are either asking "What rights doesn't man have?" or "To what degree should rights be limited?"
To the first question, I believe the easiest criteria is "Would someone be able to have this as a right right if the rest of humanity ceased to exist?" If not, then it's not a right. Thus, healthcare is not a "basic humam right." From there, we can use reason to deduce what is or isn't a right. We might find, for example, that smoking in our house is a right, but shooting our neighbor when his t.v. is too loud isn't.
As for the second question, it depends on your goal.
>>226110
A right is that which man can do without infringing on natural law, that is, those laws of human behavior which can only be discovered through observation of man and reasoning.
File (): 60A6F8F2CB230BA95E371A3938C8CAAA-60707.png (59.3 KB, 200x200, 04D1435B-1234-452B-B415-67E35CA528B6.png)
>>226105
There should be a fine line between peoples property as well as government regulation over that line. The idea is that the law will always be centered around an estimated predictive outcome. Cowboys very much had it right.
>>226108
What about a brick wall? I can say i own it, but at what point does it truly interfere with your goals? If you decide to grief my wall, the laws already presiding play key in percussed reaction.
>>226122
I believe people should have say in thier rights and the protection of thier property. It goes over the line when too many people with substantial power find it unreasonable and insist on taking your right. They only want it because they dont want you to have it.
To add further stipulation, I think the government, if sovereign, should promote growth in factions.
There should be a fine line between peoples property as well as government regulation over that line. The idea is that the law will always be centered around an estimated predictive outcome. Cowboys very much had it right.
>>226108
What about a brick wall? I can say i own it, but at what point does it truly interfere with your goals? If you decide to grief my wall, the laws already presiding play key in percussed reaction.
>>226122
I believe people should have say in thier rights and the protection of thier property. It goes over the line when too many people with substantial power find it unreasonable and insist on taking your right. They only want it because they dont want you to have it.
To add further stipulation, I think the government, if sovereign, should promote growth in factions.
>>226122
This definition is too vague. If I am to use it, you must clarify:
1. What a 'natural law' is, in exact terms,
2. What an infringement of this 'natural law' is, in exact terms,
3. What set of observations you are using to establish this 'natural law', in exact terms, and
4. What reasoning you are using to form this 'natural law', in exact terms.
All four of these must be answered before I will enter into a discussion involving 'rights'.
This definition is too vague. If I am to use it, you must clarify:
1. What a 'natural law' is, in exact terms,
2. What an infringement of this 'natural law' is, in exact terms,
3. What set of observations you are using to establish this 'natural law', in exact terms, and
4. What reasoning you are using to form this 'natural law', in exact terms.
All four of these must be answered before I will enter into a discussion involving 'rights'.
>>226102
Returning back to the OP thread, I'd like to ask something that I missed on my first reading.
The title of this thread is "unethical opinions". What, in precise terms, constitutes an 'unethical opinion'?
Returning back to the OP thread, I'd like to ask something that I missed on my first reading.
The title of this thread is "unethical opinions". What, in precise terms, constitutes an 'unethical opinion'?
>>226102
As some dude in the seventeen hundreds said.
Yo, there be two categories of thought. Call it my homeboy Hume's guillotine.
What IS Factual, and statements that are True, and what OUGHT Should, and should not, ethical, or moral, and Goals, and desires..
This discussion is, an Ought category.
Rights reside in the Ought section.
What the world Should be.
An an example.
Having child drag queens in the street for people I believe to be Morally wrong. THIS IS an Ought statement.
The child is a drag queen Will be mentally scarred later in life. THIS IS an Is statement.
False statements are False, and are untrue. Making it useless.
As some dude in the seventeen hundreds said.
Yo, there be two categories of thought. Call it my homeboy Hume's guillotine.
What IS Factual, and statements that are True, and what OUGHT Should, and should not, ethical, or moral, and Goals, and desires..
This discussion is, an Ought category.
Rights reside in the Ought section.
What the world Should be.
An an example.
Having child drag queens in the street for people I believe to be Morally wrong. THIS IS an Ought statement.
The child is a drag queen Will be mentally scarred later in life. THIS IS an Is statement.
False statements are False, and are untrue. Making it useless.
File (): 0ECFA6EDB4EAB680DA98931145A3732B-74767.jpg (73.0 KB, 630x630, 1556842790548.jpg)
>>226170
Fun related video about AI.
https://youtu.be/hEUO6pjwFOo
https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=hEUO6pjwFOo
>>226102l
The very final enforcement is violence. To uphold the Oughts. The Goals.
I believe people should have the freedom to communicate.
I also believe people should have the freedom to be armed.
I also believe that consequences for abusing the trust for malicious purposes is wrong.
There ought to be natural rights. To what extent to what rights would be morally right? Specific circumstances can apply. Going through the, and Facing the Shadow to see what problems can go on. Finally seeing the idea through to ALL it's extremes.
The Right to bare, and have Arms, and Ammunition. (Plus any fiddly bits.)
This right should be enforced with everything in our (as in a constitution for rights of citizens) power (with the Entirety of Ultimate Freedom by any means) to do so.
Fun related video about AI.
https://youtu.be/hEUO6pjwFOo
https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=hEUO6pjwFOo
>>226102l
The very final enforcement is violence. To uphold the Oughts. The Goals.
I believe people should have the freedom to communicate.
I also believe people should have the freedom to be armed.
I also believe that consequences for abusing the trust for malicious purposes is wrong.
There ought to be natural rights. To what extent to what rights would be morally right? Specific circumstances can apply. Going through the, and Facing the Shadow to see what problems can go on. Finally seeing the idea through to ALL it's extremes.
The Right to bare, and have Arms, and Ammunition. (Plus any fiddly bits.)
This right should be enforced with everything in our (as in a constitution for rights of citizens) power (with the Entirety of Ultimate Freedom by any means) to do so.
>>226102
We all agree human rights are sacred, and it's wrong to violate them through actions, right?
We also all agree that whites invented the concept of human rights, made them work, made every lesser race jealous, and made them want to destroy those rights, right?
If you're anti-white rights you shouldn't get to vote in white countries.
We all agree human rights are sacred, and it's wrong to violate them through actions, right?
We also all agree that whites invented the concept of human rights, made them work, made every lesser race jealous, and made them want to destroy those rights, right?
If you're anti-white rights you shouldn't get to vote in white countries.
abortion is good as long as it leaves the woman traumatized; No act should go unpunished but no one should ruin their whole life over one mistake.
>>226501
>>226498
I'd say actual rape should have the female go through preventative measures to prevent the seed from taking. No need to have rape babies. Implying it's real rape. Not redlight pay a hundred bucks for some 'rape'.
I'd also like to suggest that cutting, and harming babies is wrong. Later in life they can choose to chop off their foreskin, or clit.
>>226498
I'd say actual rape should have the female go through preventative measures to prevent the seed from taking. No need to have rape babies. Implying it's real rape. Not redlight pay a hundred bucks for some 'rape'.
I'd also like to suggest that cutting, and harming babies is wrong. Later in life they can choose to chop off their foreskin, or clit.
File (): 97F33E81A7AD372DD9ED0620E95A80A8-764706.png (746.8 KB, 1000x819, 0322_OAT_Anthro_KAR98_Girls_Frontline_Anime_Hentai_Jay156_Randy_Aryanne_Sniper_Rifle_hat_bikini_Germany_beach_ball.png)
File (): 0DF9F43CA18E5339A17A2B82109E2DEF-42026.png (41.0 KB, 848x748, Ideology Test April 2018.png)
- i Support planned parenthood. Existing life and family infrastructure needs more protection than potential unborn life. That said it should not performed lightly.
- I also support the right to selfeuthanasia aka assisted suicide
- i do not support Christianity or Abrahamic Religions in general, they are antiquated jew bullshit that is holding back society
- i support the death penalty, especially for (but not exclusive to) sexual offenses or outright sexual corruption. I dont believe some things can or should be forgiven. also bullets are cheaper and argueably more mercyful than years of jail
- (most) brown people, jews and communists are not people
- each country should have its own segregated national bank, owned by the state
- the holocaust unironically never happened, but i hope to live to see it happen in my days
- i support eugenics for the purpose of cleansing society of mental and physical illness
- empathy is a privilege reserved for your close and loved ones and not to just about any stranger who thinks hes entitled to it
- about half of the white western population is made up of inredeemable traitors who deserve nothing but a bullet to the forehead
- if the world doesn't get nuked into a desert it will probably get taken over by an asian country
- Water, Electricity, Hospital, Postal Transport and other services required to maintain day to day life should never be owned privately
- i don't believe in """human rights""" since they are (to me) a malicious social construct invented by jews for the purpose of destabilizing western society
- i think its okay to denounce citizenship from enemies of the state, if i support the government and - its dogma.
- its okay to censor people who want to censor me or my peers
- i no longer believe humanity will into space, since its too complicated and expensive. its slowly but surely turning into a short term scam.
- if there ever will be a day of the rope, i hope current year social media will be somehow preserved as criminal evidence to get people prosecuted, arrested and killed.
>>226526
I'll only answer to points I disagree with or have anything to add
>- i do not support Christianity or Abrahamic Religions in general, they are antiquated jew bullshit that is holding back society
I don't think religious institutions have a place in politics but it works well for strengthening and uniting local communities. I see this sentiment a lot among modern pagans that because the current pope and many high profile individuals from the church are completely cucked we'd be better off completely dismanteling Christianity in the west. I honestly think that's a short sighted and self harming stance, just from a pure tactical standpoint. Jews have subverted most if not major all western institutions, be it politics, the economy, academia or the entertainment industries. Of course they wouldn't just ignore religion. But the church would be the easiest targets to remove jewish subversivion from since it is unlike the other institutions fundamentally traditional and hostile to jewish ideals. Throwing such a relatively easy victory away by completely denouncing Christianity would just gift the jews total control over the main western religion of the last 1000 years. Even if you disagree or dislike Christianity you should see that you would throw away a valuable asset and end up shooting yourself in the foot.
>- i support the death penalty, especially for (but not exclusive to) sexual offenses or outright sexual corruption. I dont believe some things can or should be forgiven. also bullets are cheaper and argueably more mercyful than years of jail
Theoretically I'd agree but seeing how many false rape- and sexual assault accusations get thrown around in our hyper feminist society you'd better make damn sure such laws can't be taken advantage off by subversive powers. Otherwise you would've just given the enemy an easy tool to kill off dissenting voices.
>- about half of the white western population is made up of inredeemable traitors who deserve nothing but a bullet to the forehead
Half seems to be a bit too much. The average citizen doesn't give a shit about politics, they just want to live their lives in peace and be left alone. Even if it means blindly repeating the current political zeitgeist of "racism bad". I'm positive that if either society collapses or there'll be some way to fully remove all subversive powers it won't take long for the average citizen to move more heavily to the right and realize it's a drastic improvement from before. Other than those people, I'd agree.
>- its okay to censor people who want to censor me or my peers
I would agree in saying that it's okay but I'm not sure wether it would be the most effective way. When talking about censorship it's always important to have the power dynamics in mind. Right now mockery and exposing the left is by far the most effective weapon we have in swaying opinions. Not only that but since all major instiutions belong to leftists we don't even have the power to really censor them, they are the current dominant force in society. It might make more sense if the roles were reversed but, and this is honestly only a belief of mine, I think that if we truly could establish some sort of ethno state or at the very least remove jewish influence from the west I think heavy propaganda and censorship would be mostly unneccessary. The reason why the jew utilized so much propaganda and censorship and is despite this still only barely able to contain the west is because his ideals are completely opposed to the basic, biological human nature. We have the fundamental truth of the human spirit at our side and I know it might sound naive but I believe that if people could simply experience it they would naturally be more resilient to subversive powers.
>- i no longer believe humanity will into space, since its too complicated and expensive. its slowly but surely turning into a short term scam.
Only if all high IQ civilizations are destroyed. Otherwise I'm sure that within the next couple hundred years we could do it.
>- if there ever will be a day of the rope, i hope current year social media will be somehow preserved as criminal evidence to get people prosecuted, arrested and killed.
Not only that I think it'd be massively satisfying to see all those smug Twitter cunts come the realization that their time is up.
I'll only answer to points I disagree with or have anything to add
>- i do not support Christianity or Abrahamic Religions in general, they are antiquated jew bullshit that is holding back society
I don't think religious institutions have a place in politics but it works well for strengthening and uniting local communities. I see this sentiment a lot among modern pagans that because the current pope and many high profile individuals from the church are completely cucked we'd be better off completely dismanteling Christianity in the west. I honestly think that's a short sighted and self harming stance, just from a pure tactical standpoint. Jews have subverted most if not major all western institutions, be it politics, the economy, academia or the entertainment industries. Of course they wouldn't just ignore religion. But the church would be the easiest targets to remove jewish subversivion from since it is unlike the other institutions fundamentally traditional and hostile to jewish ideals. Throwing such a relatively easy victory away by completely denouncing Christianity would just gift the jews total control over the main western religion of the last 1000 years. Even if you disagree or dislike Christianity you should see that you would throw away a valuable asset and end up shooting yourself in the foot.
>- i support the death penalty, especially for (but not exclusive to) sexual offenses or outright sexual corruption. I dont believe some things can or should be forgiven. also bullets are cheaper and argueably more mercyful than years of jail
Theoretically I'd agree but seeing how many false rape- and sexual assault accusations get thrown around in our hyper feminist society you'd better make damn sure such laws can't be taken advantage off by subversive powers. Otherwise you would've just given the enemy an easy tool to kill off dissenting voices.
>- about half of the white western population is made up of inredeemable traitors who deserve nothing but a bullet to the forehead
Half seems to be a bit too much. The average citizen doesn't give a shit about politics, they just want to live their lives in peace and be left alone. Even if it means blindly repeating the current political zeitgeist of "racism bad". I'm positive that if either society collapses or there'll be some way to fully remove all subversive powers it won't take long for the average citizen to move more heavily to the right and realize it's a drastic improvement from before. Other than those people, I'd agree.
>- its okay to censor people who want to censor me or my peers
I would agree in saying that it's okay but I'm not sure wether it would be the most effective way. When talking about censorship it's always important to have the power dynamics in mind. Right now mockery and exposing the left is by far the most effective weapon we have in swaying opinions. Not only that but since all major instiutions belong to leftists we don't even have the power to really censor them, they are the current dominant force in society. It might make more sense if the roles were reversed but, and this is honestly only a belief of mine, I think that if we truly could establish some sort of ethno state or at the very least remove jewish influence from the west I think heavy propaganda and censorship would be mostly unneccessary. The reason why the jew utilized so much propaganda and censorship and is despite this still only barely able to contain the west is because his ideals are completely opposed to the basic, biological human nature. We have the fundamental truth of the human spirit at our side and I know it might sound naive but I believe that if people could simply experience it they would naturally be more resilient to subversive powers.
>- i no longer believe humanity will into space, since its too complicated and expensive. its slowly but surely turning into a short term scam.
Only if all high IQ civilizations are destroyed. Otherwise I'm sure that within the next couple hundred years we could do it.
>- if there ever will be a day of the rope, i hope current year social media will be somehow preserved as criminal evidence to get people prosecuted, arrested and killed.
Not only that I think it'd be massively satisfying to see all those smug Twitter cunts come the realization that their time is up.
People should not have the right to keep their organs after they die. The health of society matters more than the beliefs of a dead man.
>>226816
Hot damn nice ID.
I'd argue if the person states what they want their organs used for they should be allowed that. If you are a donor they won't try to keep you alive, just long enough to get to the next payer or recipient.
>>226526
1. Fix yourself, and then others. All else follows. I agree.
2. I agree. I'd recommend mandatory labor if applicable to change their mind. A cool down period depending on a case by case basis. With extreme, and bizarre treatments available.
3. Currently, Christianity even as a puppet is providing resistance to the other dune religions. Later I believe that those religions will fail.
4. >>226552 this.
5. Indeed.
6. I don't trust the state enough, or other people. The Treasury of the 'bank' ought to be able to be exchanged for the currency they provide.
7.
8. Sounds good. Gene editing nearby will be helpful. We just can't lose the flawed genetic code just incase something stupid happens. Don't want to doom everyone because we are too similar that we get wiped out for a variety of reasons.
9. I disagree it's a social contract the implies a returned favor at a later date. In this case understanding the person, and situation. People can't demand empathy, or sympathy.
10. Most people are sheep. They should not be allowed to make changes. Short term ill planned ideas hurt so much. Either they are removed from the gene pool, naturally filtering them out. Or they are related at second class citizens for enacting long term change. The later is doomed to fail after a while. I have made some stupid choices in the past so I should make sure the ideas, and plans I have are not idiotic.
11. Eh... If China doesn't go through it's revolution, and all of Korea fully unites, and has a full military, if Japan has a full military...
12. Important Utilities, Must not be Denied. It all boils down to resources, time, and efficacy.
13. I believe in the value of the people that put work to create the 'rights'. The one's I agree with. I think the problem is that those arn't human rights (((they))) designed. It's as you say malicious manipulation.
14. I agree with that. I would extend that to business, corporations, groups, gatherings, and people.
15. If they believe in censorship they will be the first to taste it.
16. I disagree. Currently we have all the shit, but some fuckers are preventing us from going all in. I mean ffs we can make better nuclear reactors, but we aren't. It's costly, and time consuming because we Have to devote so much shit to these fucks that keep dragging us down. We are caught in a web of lies, and promises. The sooner we are free from that bullshit the sooner we can start making stuff better.
17. One day...
Hot damn nice ID.
I'd argue if the person states what they want their organs used for they should be allowed that. If you are a donor they won't try to keep you alive, just long enough to get to the next payer or recipient.
>>226526
1. Fix yourself, and then others. All else follows. I agree.
2. I agree. I'd recommend mandatory labor if applicable to change their mind. A cool down period depending on a case by case basis. With extreme, and bizarre treatments available.
3. Currently, Christianity even as a puppet is providing resistance to the other dune religions. Later I believe that those religions will fail.
4. >>226552 this.
5. Indeed.
6. I don't trust the state enough, or other people. The Treasury of the 'bank' ought to be able to be exchanged for the currency they provide.
7.
8. Sounds good. Gene editing nearby will be helpful. We just can't lose the flawed genetic code just incase something stupid happens. Don't want to doom everyone because we are too similar that we get wiped out for a variety of reasons.
9. I disagree it's a social contract the implies a returned favor at a later date. In this case understanding the person, and situation. People can't demand empathy, or sympathy.
10. Most people are sheep. They should not be allowed to make changes. Short term ill planned ideas hurt so much. Either they are removed from the gene pool, naturally filtering them out. Or they are related at second class citizens for enacting long term change. The later is doomed to fail after a while. I have made some stupid choices in the past so I should make sure the ideas, and plans I have are not idiotic.
11. Eh... If China doesn't go through it's revolution, and all of Korea fully unites, and has a full military, if Japan has a full military...
12. Important Utilities, Must not be Denied. It all boils down to resources, time, and efficacy.
13. I believe in the value of the people that put work to create the 'rights'. The one's I agree with. I think the problem is that those arn't human rights (((they))) designed. It's as you say malicious manipulation.
14. I agree with that. I would extend that to business, corporations, groups, gatherings, and people.
15. If they believe in censorship they will be the first to taste it.
16. I disagree. Currently we have all the shit, but some fuckers are preventing us from going all in. I mean ffs we can make better nuclear reactors, but we aren't. It's costly, and time consuming because we Have to devote so much shit to these fucks that keep dragging us down. We are caught in a web of lies, and promises. The sooner we are free from that bullshit the sooner we can start making stuff better.
17. One day...
File (): F990DA5D2C63AD80DFB17B486916EB9E-920766.png (899.2 KB, 1024x768, tiny_sweetie_belle_loves_music_by_zuckerschnuti-d5qdf15.png)
- eugenics is easy/straightforward. low iq shepherds and farmers have been doing it for literally thousands of years. shephers who didn't literally starved.
- foreign aid/alms can/should? be given, but only in large quantitied with a 2+ generational gap. There will always be people who waste it but if it's clear there will be nothing for their childreb they might actually think fer once.
-
>>226526
>planned parenthood
The name planned parenthood is nice because that's exactly what it isn't. Having an abortion most of the time is evident of not having a plan & lacking foresight. Therefore, most people who think they need abortions actually need sterilization instead.
>single bank owned by the state
why? to keep the jewry out?
>human rights
There might be some rights we'd wish to grant all Homo, but the current human rights declaration isn't it, that one's just kumbaya wishful correctthink.
>its okay to censor people who want to censor me or my peers
please expand.
>>226552
>Christianity would be an easy victory
May this post be enshrind among the greats!
>people don't give a shit about politics
Just genuinely wonderingif that's a desirable way for society to function /brainfart
>>226816
>distributing dead people's organs has positive effect on the health of society
please try better explain your retarded train of thought because ATM I feel like you took 2 unrelated concepts and put them end-to-end.
- foreign aid/alms can/should? be given, but only in large quantitied with a 2+ generational gap. There will always be people who waste it but if it's clear there will be nothing for their childreb they might actually think fer once.
-
>>226526
>planned parenthood
The name planned parenthood is nice because that's exactly what it isn't. Having an abortion most of the time is evident of not having a plan & lacking foresight. Therefore, most people who think they need abortions actually need sterilization instead.
>single bank owned by the state
why? to keep the jewry out?
>human rights
There might be some rights we'd wish to grant all Homo, but the current human rights declaration isn't it, that one's just kumbaya wishful correctthink.
>its okay to censor people who want to censor me or my peers
please expand.
>>226552
>Christianity would be an easy victory
May this post be enshrind among the greats!
>people don't give a shit about politics
Just genuinely wonderingif that's a desirable way for society to function /brainfart
>>226816
>distributing dead people's organs has positive effect on the health of society
please try better explain your retarded train of thought because ATM I feel like you took 2 unrelated concepts and put them end-to-end.
>>226176
>human rights are sacred
>human rights
No.
Human Rights is a construct invented by the (((left))), it is an arbitrary definition and i is meaningless if other party refuse to acknowledge it.
>human rights are sacred
>human rights
No.
Human Rights is a construct invented by the (((left))), it is an arbitrary definition and i is meaningless if other party refuse to acknowledge it.
>>235156
Knock it off spamming that video anon.
Knock it off spamming that video anon.
>>227354
Dead people's organs can be used for transplants. They can be used to keep other people alive.
Dead people's organs can be used for transplants. They can be used to keep other people alive.
Humans can and should begin enhancing themselves with technology.
Is it okay to work with (((them))) to increase the rotting and breaking down of the system?
>>236025
What a humdinger of a question.
TLDR: If done wrong it can have catastrophic consequences.
I would say it depends on the plan, and the amount of setup needed to make full use of it, and if it can be successfully done. Also long term consequences need to be considered. The more simple, and more flexible it can be the more useful the plan becomes.
If it works with those I'd still advice being careful.
Things can go wrong fast.
Ideally whatever plan you infiltrate leaves (((them))) worse off in every aspect, but (((they))) believe that it worked and is good for them.
Even better is that if you can also prepare yourself, your friends, and family, your country, and your people too.
Accelerationism itself has both good, and bad parts. Capitalizing on it takes knowing exactly when to proceed, and where with a specific amount of power.
>to increase the rotting
You want to have them focus on the most corrupt parts effectively shooting themselves in the foot. While preserving, or copying the best parts.
That includes preserving, and preparing good people.
>breaking down of the system?
A controlled demolition that once over leaves (((them))) weak, and makes you, and your people stronger.
What a humdinger of a question.
TLDR: If done wrong it can have catastrophic consequences.
I would say it depends on the plan, and the amount of setup needed to make full use of it, and if it can be successfully done. Also long term consequences need to be considered. The more simple, and more flexible it can be the more useful the plan becomes.
If it works with those I'd still advice being careful.
Things can go wrong fast.
Ideally whatever plan you infiltrate leaves (((them))) worse off in every aspect, but (((they))) believe that it worked and is good for them.
Even better is that if you can also prepare yourself, your friends, and family, your country, and your people too.
Accelerationism itself has both good, and bad parts. Capitalizing on it takes knowing exactly when to proceed, and where with a specific amount of power.
>to increase the rotting
You want to have them focus on the most corrupt parts effectively shooting themselves in the foot. While preserving, or copying the best parts.
That includes preserving, and preparing good people.
>breaking down of the system?
A controlled demolition that once over leaves (((them))) weak, and makes you, and your people stronger.
29 replies | 8 files | 20 UUIDs | Archived