edible_funk

Eh I mostly don’t disagree, hell eliminating conditions like Huntington’s disease could qualify as eugenics so I don’t really have an issue with it in concept. Problem is if there’s a system in place for widespread eugenics some asshole is gonna use it for a genocide.

They met in the psych ward. Your question kinda answers itself.

If childcare resources were abundant and free that would offset the problem a great deal, but capitalism and rugged individualism and all that. Like, given all the stupid out there I definitely see the appeal of it, and even things like eliminating genetic disorders would qualify so the line gets kinda fuzzy insofar as the ethics are concerned. The issue is that once systems are in place for wide scale eugenics of any flavor, some asshole will absolutely use it to genocide an ethnic group or other minority.

Oops that’s eugenics! I get the sentiment but instead we should have a ridiculous amount of resources freely available to children and new parents, healthcare childcare food assistance socialization education. It takes a village and all that.

That may be the best use of that meme I’ve seen. I appreciated the chuckle.

Funny how this literally never applies to normal people.

There’s no provision for cancelling elections in the US under any circumstances. He cannot, in any way legally, suspend elections.

I swear it’s every single .ml user.

No but they are all over your comments, it’s like you work for RT or something. You sure do repeat basically all their points ad nauseum.

Scratch a both sideser, find Russian agitprop. Every goddamn time.

It isn’t a matter of opinion though. Hateful ideologies promote anti-social behavior, in the actively harmful to social order context, not the I don’t like being around people context. They promote social discord which is objectively bad for social order and society at large. There are objective measures here. Not all viewpoints are equally valid, and the whole idea that they are is one of the less valid ones. You’re operating under some sort of legislation=ethics and morals framework that’s flawed in incredibly fundamental ways. Any ideology that violates the social contract cannot be protected by it.

And I disagree that anyone has the right to believe whatever they want. Nobody has the right to believe the earth is flat. Nobody has the right to believe in chemtrails, or any other objectively false thing. You’re entitled to an informed educated opinion, not to reject objective reality and replace it with your own.

Refusing to allow ideologies inherently harmful to society doesn’t have anything to do with what you just said. We’re having two different conversations. Also ideologies aren’t intrinsic characteristics and thus can’t have or be denied rights, so it’s weird to make that connotation unless you just don’t understand what I’m saying.

Isn’t there a sect that kinda believes exactly this?

Task failed successfully?

Removed by mod

Should have let Sherman finish the job.

You talk like a chat bot. Stop defending nazis. You’re not defending the rule of law or any of that, you’re just defending nazis. Don’t do that. Supremacist ideology is incompatible with society as they expressly intend to destroy that society. It is always correct and right morally and ethically to remove anti-social ideologies. Legality is irrelevant.

This argument does not apply to anti-social ideologies such as white supremacy that are incompatible with society.

Paradox of tolerance. It’s absolutely self defense at the society level.

God I fucking hate that bitch so much.