Where do you fall on the political spectrum?

[HamBone41801]

I dont think cripples are the only issue with the world, they are an issue, but far from the worst.

If I got power, the first thing I would do would be to insure the preservation of data and prevent any copyright action in my country, next would be free education(including equal access to the internet for all citizens) then reducing carbon output(eugenics is here).

They are not my scapegoat, they are just a waste of the carbon quota.

Jesus Christ.

 

[CallmeBerto]

Thankfully a wacko like you would never have any power.

 

[MaverickWellington]

The question is: Are those claims unprovable?

Yes, because not only do his claims have no evidence to back them up (and no, looking at IMDB pages or finding similar looking people in photos is not evidence) but they're hairbrained schemes.

Furthermore, why do you take him seriously? You know he has, under oath of law in front of a jury, outright stated that he plays a character on InfoWars and does not believe in his conspiracy theories?

 

[invaderyoyo]

Thankfully a wacko like you would never have any power.

Idk, it's happened before.

 

[bitjacker]

Anarchist.
I think a perfect government would be a group of people who flat out kill anyone who tries to take power over other people or exploit them. But they themselves would not be considered to be in power (until you fuck someone over). If everyone knew the consequence, it wouldn't be a bad deal at all. Human life is afforded too many protections.

 

[kevin corms]

well, they don't believe fox news because its "propaganda", and CNN doesn't cover it. USA TODAY is the only thing I could find. And I mention its left-wing because so is CNN.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


lower taxes, create more jobs, lower unemployment(same thing kinda)...immigration reform, healthcare reform. he's done all of these things.

I think he gets way too much credit, he spends most of his time tweeting and playing golf. Its a good thing the government will run without him. there are also a ton of people who know what they are doing around him, he seems to just pick a differnt one to listen to anytime he feels like doing work. Sometimes he listens to the wrong person, then he fires them lol.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I think he gets way too much credit, he spends most of his time tweeting and playing golf. Its a good thing the government will run without him. there are also a ton of people who know what they are doing around him, he seems to just pick a differnt one to listen to anytime he feels like doing work. Sometimes he listens to the wrong person, then he fires them lol.

If he would just let the government run without him we'd objectively be in a much better place economically right now

 

[KingVamp]

I find it fascinating that people can be driven to such a stupid belief by absolutely anything.

This is why I feel that even if religion was wiped off the face of the Earth, as some people want, something else would fill their place.

 

[Deleted User]

I've always been a rather mixed bag of believes, although I am a rather Left Liberal who leans rather heavily towards Communism. I also tend to gravitate towards Progressivism. I don't really cling to one political idea, but I tend to be rather against what a lot of Modern Conservatives are for.

Same

 

[WeedZ]

I'm absolutely reeling, I've met people who definitely act like they want disabled people to die but I've never actually met somebody who just straight up admits it. Christ. Okay.

So just "how disabled" does someone have to be to revoke their right to not just be treated like a human being, but to fucking continue to live?

Actively not helping those who need help when there's plenty of resources to do so, so they die is literally the same as just going for the kill outright.
Does your bullshit apply when someone breaks their legs?
What about general sickness? If they can't get out of bed to make food for themselves, is that meant to be a death sentence?

Some could argue that your way of looking at life and society is so far removed from reality, it could only qualiy as entirely defective. and by your reasoning, we shouldn't keep defective in the gene pool so... I dunno, I'm sure there's a suitable window nearby.

Stop trying to wiggle your way out of this, you're obviously inhuman either by choice or nature and you're proud of it too. If there's anyone on this planet not deserving to be treated like a 'normal human' its you and those like you.

You're a fucking monster.

you're right, that guy is fucking insane

Why or how do people like that even exist? It's like he's fucked in the head.

I don't agree with eugenics, but let's play with the idea for a second because you guys are getting pretty rude for an opinion that I don't think is all that offensive. Eugenics is basically controlling breeding and life of human beings for the purpose of improving humans with desirable traits.

If you take "human" out of that definition you have natural selection. Nature has been doing this since the dawn of life. Even more importantly it has been, and continues to do this to humans. Humans already have, and continue do this to other life. We breed animals and plants for the purpose of desired traits all the time. Without humans there would be no cows.

Another way to look at it, as we've made medical advances making life expectancy much longer for everyone across all sexes, races, conditions, there has been an increase in occurrences of cancer, genetic disorders, mental disorders, etc. So one could argue that increasing life expectancy and open breeding is harmful to the human race.

 

[Xzi]

I don't agree with eugenics, but let's play with the idea for a second because you guys are getting pretty rude for an opinion that I don't think is all that offensive. Eugenics is basically controlling breeding and life of human beings for the purpose of improving humans with desirable traits.

Though it's nice to talk about it like it would happen in a vacuum and everybody would see benefits, the reality is that even if we perfected the technology, eugenics would be ridiculously expensive. Just another privilege for the rich to enjoy while the rest of us do without. Essentially we'd be manufacturing "perfect" humans to rule over the rest of us wretched beings who are subject to the genetic lottery.

 

[MaverickWellington]

Another way to look at it, as we've made medical advances making life expectancy much longer for everyone across all sexes, races, conditions, there has been an increase in occurrences of cancer, genetic disorders, mental disorders, etc. So one could argue that increasing life expectancy and open breeding is harmful to the human race.

People being alive longer, and more people being alive means you're going to notice more of these occurrences happening. It does not mean they are related. Furthermore, increasing life expectancy, health, and lowering the mortality rate is a good thing. People with disabilities, or people with a history of them in their families should have the right to live, rather than have that right taken from them because some nerd thinks they should be. Eugenics is an awful idea, full stop. Natural selection is not comparable, because it is not something decided by a being, it is decided by a force. Taking the human input out of eugenics doesn't suddenly make it natural selection. If anything, removing human intervention would make natural selection become a force of eugenics itself. Not only is your reasoning flawed, but eugenics as a whole is flawed to begin with. It is absolutely not the right of any one man, or group of men to determine if others have the right to live just because of their genetics.

So yeah, frankly? I think calling someone a, quote, "fucking monster" for advocating the extermination of those they deem unfit, or to abandon them and let them suffer alone (which is arguably more cruel than just outright exterminating them) is more than justified. As I'm sure you're well aware, I have plenty more fitting words for someone with such stances. There's a line between judging the state of someone's life, then making a decision based on mercy because of that, and the edgy as fuck stance of "lol fuck them bro just like survive and shit." Especially when those completely capable of survival will be squandered by events out of their control in society.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Though it's nice to talk about it like it would happen in a vacuum and everybody would see benefits, the reality is that even if we perfected the technology, eugenics would be ridiculously expensive. Just another privilege for the rich to enjoy while the rest of us do without. Essentially we'd be manufacturing "perfect" humans to rule over the rest of us wretched beings who are subject to the genetic lottery.

This too. "perfect humans" would just lead to awful classism, which we really don't need more of.

 

[KingVamp]

Well, I do think something like transhumanism will happen, but it will be by choice.

 

[MaverickWellington]

Well, I do think something like transhumanism will happen, but it will be by choice.

Honestly, it's happening now. Transgenderism fits the bill for transhumanism, for example. It just hasn't reached the Human Revolution levels of development. I honestly hope it doesn't, because the recent Defcon thing proved that shit would be way too easy to exploit.

 

[KingVamp]

because the recent Defcon thing proved that shit would be way too easy to exploit.

Now I'm curious. What Defcon thing are you speaking of specifically?

 

[MaverickWellington]

Now I'm curious. What Defcon thing are you speaking of specifically?

https://www.wired.com/story/pacemaker-hack-malware-black-hat/

 

[WeedZ]

Though it's nice to talk about it like it would happen in a vacuum and everybody would see benefits, the reality is that even if we perfected the technology, eugenics would be ridiculously expensive. Just another privilege for the rich to enjoy while the rest of us do without. Essentially we'd be manufacturing "perfect" humans to rule over the rest of us wretched beings who are subject to the genetic lottery.

Sounds a lot like gattica

People being alive longer, and more people being alive means you're going to notice more of these occurrences happening. It does not mean they are related.

That's exactly what that means.

People with disabilities, or people with a history of them in their families should have the right to live, rather than have that right taken from them because some nerd thinks they should be.

I agree

Natural selection is not comparable, because it is not something decided by a being, it is decided by a force. Taking the human input out of eugenics doesn't suddenly make it natural selection. If anything, removing human intervention would make natural selection become a force of eugenics itself.

I fail to see the difference. Natural selection in its natural state is a form of eugenics. What your saying is redundant.

So yeah, frankly? I think calling someone a, quote, "fucking monster" for advocating the extermination of those they deem unfit, or to abandon them and let them suffer alone (which is arguably more cruel than just outright exterminating them) is more than justified.

He wasn't advocating extermination. That's genocide. Eugenics at its core is controlled breeding. I'm not on the side of eugenics. I'm just asking that people remember to respect others, and that there is no harm in playing with an idea that you don't personally agree with. If only for the sake of debate.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

People being alive longer, and more people being alive means you're going to notice more of these occurrences happening. It does not mean they are related. Furthermore, increasing life expectancy, health, and lowering the mortality rate is a good thing. People with disabilities, or people with a history of them in their families should have the right to live, rather than have that right taken from them because some nerd thinks they should be. Eugenics is an awful idea, full stop. Natural selection is not comparable, because it is not something decided by a being, it is decided by a force. Taking the human input out of eugenics doesn't suddenly make it natural selection. If anything, removing human intervention would make natural selection become a force of eugenics itself. Not only is your reasoning flawed, but eugenics as a whole is flawed to begin with. It is absolutely not the right of any one man, or group of men to determine if others have the right to live just because of their genetics.

So yeah, frankly? I think calling someone a, quote, "fucking monster" for advocating the extermination of those they deem unfit, or to abandon them and let them suffer alone (which is arguably more cruel than just outright exterminating them) is more than justified. As I'm sure you're well aware, I have plenty more fitting words for someone with such stances. There's a line between judging the state of someone's life, then making a decision based on mercy because of that, and the edgy as fuck stance of "lol fuck them bro just like survive and shit." Especially when those completely capable of survival will be squandered by events out of their control in society.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


This too. "perfect humans" would just lead to awful classism, which we really don't need more of.

Thank you for putting into words what I didn't have time to at the moment, although I'll add:

I'm obviously all for the betterment of human life in general, but the second someone advocates for a genetic alteration without the recipient's consent, or as, God forbid was said here, some variation of advocating for the death of a person because they see them as a "useless eater" due to the simple fact that they can't do conventional labor, I do believe that we've hit territory where it's fair to call said person a monster

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

He wasn't advocating extermination. That's genocide. Eugenics at its core is controlled breeding. I'm not on the side of eugenics. I'm just asking that people remember to respect others, and that there is no harm in playing with an idea that you don't personally agree with. If only for the sake of debate.

He specifically said that he wanted to pull medical assistance from people who can't take care of themselves on their own and leave them to die. I don't know in what universe that ISN'T considered extermination

 

[Xzi]

Sounds a lot like gattica

Pretty much. That's the (justified) fear anyway, and the reason there's a lot of stigma behind discussing eugenics. That, and the Nazis.

 

[MaverickWellington]

There is a lot more than just "controlled breeding" to, and I directly quote, "if you cannot survive with shelter, food, and water provided to you you are a waste of resources and defective."

You fail to see the difference because you aren't looking. One has conscious control, the other doesn't. It's completely different for this reason.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

To further clarify, one can consciously set up what standards and tests something will encounter for the sake of creating a desirable result. Without the human aspect, natural selection just happens. You can chalk it up to luck if you want, but it is not intentionally subjecting people to tests of natural ability or suitability, so it's incomparable.

I don't think kindness should be reserved for unkind beliefs. There's better ways to better mankind than to falsely pretend eugenics has merit to it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Thank you for putting into words what I didn't have time to at the moment, although I'll add:

I'm obviously all for the betterment of human life in general, but the second someone advocates for a genetic alteration without the recipient's consent, or as, God forbid was said here, some variation of advocating for the death of a person because they see them as a "useless eater" due to the simple fact that they can't do conventional labor, I do believe that we've hit territory where it's fair to call said person a monster

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


He specifically said that he wanted to pull medical assistance from people who can't take care of themselves on their own and leave them to die. I don't know in what universe that ISN'T considered extermination

Yeah, like I said, just leaving them to die like that is arguably more cruel than extinction, because they're just sitting there suffering. To refuse to help people you have the resources to help solely because you see them as a burden, even in situations where their burden isn't even a strain on resources, is absolutely amoral. So yeah, like I said, calling it out as such is totally justified and disrespectful ideas should not be treated with the basic respect they refuse to see other humans with.