![13012838_10154099710152436_4672000295142582702_n[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WKVSlry.jpg "13012838_10154099710152436_4672000295142582702_n[1].jpg")
>/pol/ can't refute this
>you should give me free shit because I deserve it because I said so
A lot of people don't deserve any of that.
>>71964097
what happened to earning things
Everyone who contributes to society deserves those things.
>people who contribute already have them
>>71964097
Statements I can't believe are controversial:
Mud races have no place in the West
Christ is King
Trump 2016
Globalism is bad
>>71964097
>deserves
the world owes you nothing, it was here first- Mark Twain
>>71964097
Just to play Devils advocate here, all three of things would only be considered a right in a society were we no longer have to hunt or gather for our food. If you didn't build a home, you died. If you got sick back then, you died.
What has changed that these three things are now considered a basic human right when at one time they were not?
>>71964097
1. No they don't
2. No they don't
3. No they don't
There you go.
These things are already in place in decent counties.
Hungary? Go to the food bank
Need shelter? the government will provide it
Decent counties have free health care.
This Is just bait
>>71964097
This same person would take these things from a Trump supporter in a second
Plus they are just wrong, you don't deserve shit unless you earn it.
Le human rights meme
When can we have someone gas these niggers? I would enlist immediately.
>>71964097
>I deserve things because I exist
This attitude is why you will go through life a pussy
>>71964370
>>71964097
You really dont understand how life works do you? The only way we survive is to work at surviving. Its not free or automatic. You will NEVER make it in the real world
>>71964097
>deserving the labor of others
>>71964097
1. every society deserves a food shelter
2. every society deserve a homeless shelter
3. every society deserves medicare
>if I can't afford something, I deserve to have the government steal it with the threat of violence from someone who can afford it
fuck off
>>71964097
>everyone deserves to eat
Define eat. Considering there are already states legislating what their citizens can and can't consume, I'm not sure that I would want the government in charge of this.
>everyone deserves a home
Define what constitutes a home. Further, if provided with a physical space of ownership and the individual destroys it in some manner, will they be provided with another of equal, greater, or lesser value? At whose cost? Further, if I dislike my neighbor, can I destroy their home, knowing that they will just be given another one somewhere away from me?
>everyone deserves medical treatment when they're sick
Define sick. At what point is someone ill enough to be treated? Further, define medical treatment. Does it include medication? If so, process must be expanded to cover pharmaceutical realm. At whose expense?
>>71964557
RARE
>>71964266
Modern capitalism is inherently based on blocking a certain percentage of the population from contributing to society. Otherwise there'd be full employment and nobody would bitch. It's not exactly a John Smith "if you work, you get to eat" collective endeavor.
>>71964184
fpbp
>>71964323
You are such a fool...I hope you get run down by an Asian bicycle rider on your way to starfucks coffee, only to die in agony in the er cause they've run out of whatever funds required for your need procedure...
Have a nice day...
I've tried so many times to debate the inherent worth of a human, what "human rights" should or does mean (in the appropriate contexts, I don't just blurt these things out), but everyone I talk to just assumes I'm crazy and that it's crazy to eve fathom that sometimes you just don't sacrifice of yourself to help someone who will never help you
Maybe I am the problem
>>71964097
I don't see this dumb bitch volunteering to give people free care.
>>71964233
>>71964266
Dubs of truth
/thread
>>71964097
Every animal has to find its own food, its own shelter, and rely on its own immune system to keep it alive.
If they don't, they die.
Reality is brutal, man. We don't like that things are this way, but people need to take care of themselves instead of insisting that others take care of them.
Why is it fair that I should so invest so much time, energy and resources into keep myself alive, only to devote so much more time, energy, and resources to someone else who can't be bothered to do it for themselves?
You need to be self-sufficient in order to live. If you want to help others, do it, no one is stopping you.
But don't guilt trip me and demand that I do it while you sit on your ass and disparage me.
>>71964392
> Hungary
>>71964097
Fine.
You will be provided with Bread, a Tent and Paracetemol.
Any more is a luxury and needs to be earned.
>>71964097
Everyone deserves to have these because they can afford them through their own productivity. Anyone who is TRULY incapable of being productive should be cared for at the public expense but those people are rare indeed.
>>71964557
no they don't
let the waste that can't support itself learn to support itself or starve
>>71964097
People die everyday. Get over it.
>>71964647
That is some delusional thinking there, along the lines of "You can't create wealth, you have to steal it from someone else".
>>71964097
>everyone deserves to eat
Well, even Hitler believed in helping out the poor - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eintopfsonntag
>everyone deserves a home
what do you mean by home? do you mean the same house as someone who works? or do you mean a homeless shelter?
>everyone deserves medical treatment when they're sick
since I am eastern-european, basic check-ups, surgeries, medicine and treatment whilst in hospital is all covered by the government
I once had heart problems along with a rotovirus that affected my stomach. The whole thing - didn't pay a penny.
If I have a cold, or something minor then you pay for your own goddamn medicine.
Diabetics get their insulin cheaper than at market value, they have to pay for needles though.
Heres the catch - we still have private clinics, and if you want better quality treatment you can go there.
- - -
however no one deserves shit just for being alive, you deserve these things because you are (ideally) a working citizen of a nation, and you contribute to the nation.
>>71964769
The reason why this isn't a cut and dry argument is because the world government has a monopoly on land and you are not allowed to be fully "self sufficient" without inventing something that you can sell to a lot of other people. Which isn't really self sufficiency at all, because you still rely on an existing consumer network.
>>71964919
>covered by the government
lol
>>71964097
You don't DESERVE shit.
Should it be available in a perfect world? Of fucking course.
but we do not live in a perfect world and supply and demand is still in effect.
>>71964214
this
>>71964097
even genocidal maniacs?
>>71964987
i have no clue why you find that funny, you burgers have very pricy health care
>>71964097
None of those are rights
>>71964675
That very well may happen. I might get a terrible disease that requires a lot of resources to cure. If I die, I die. It would be monstrously selfish and unethical of me to demand that other people pay for what remains of my short life.
>>71965111
Where does the government get it's income?
>>71964097
I can agree to medical treatments.
however, there is such a thing as being deserving of help. If you constantly overeat, smoke, drink like a fish, and engage in reckless behavior then turn on the fucking waterworks when your kidneys are shot and need a new one then go fuck yourself.
Too many times people try to make the argument that since a child of leukemia needs a bone marrow transplant, then a Waste of human garbage who does drugs 24/7 needs a new liver.
Fuck that noise.
>>71964860
any three of those things would have zero impact on you and only positively impact those who are unable to find living space, food, or afford health care if they are very ill. in fact medicare would have a better impact for you than it would for the homeless or starving. there is no reason for you to reject these necessities if you have minimum respect for your fellow man.
>>71964630
>muh semantics: the post
>Considering there are already statest legislating what their citizens can and can't consume, I'm not sure that I would want the government in charge of this
So because you don't like the state telling you what you can and can't eat, that somehow negates the argument that everyone should have access to some form of food? They're not even contingent on one another, it doesn't follow.
>Define what constitutes a home. Further, if provided with a physical space of ownership and the individual destroys it in some manner, will they be provided with another of equal, greater, or lesser value? At whose cost? Further, if I dislike my neighbor, can I destroy their home, knowing that they will just be given another one somewhere away from me?
If you destroy your neighbour's house you go to prison you absolute fucking retard
>Define sick. At what point is someone ill enough to be treated? Further, define medical treatment. Does it include medication? If so, process must be expanded to cover pharmaceutical realm. At whose expense?
Obviously at the taxpayer's expense. If you think people should have to choose between selling their car or getting a vital surgery, or that cancer patients should just wait and die because the financial burden of their treatment would be too great on the family members, then you're a fucking sociopath.
You must have had some really shitty parents, not to teach you some goddamned empathy.
>deserves
There's
That
Fucking
Word.
You know what the only FUCKING thing you automatically deserve in this world is, son? A death, like the rest of us. Anything you get that's more than that is a gift, courtesy of the dubious benevolence of the human race.
I'm a very amicable person, when it comes to welfare. "We should give these poor sods something"? Ok! But it is benevolence all the same. Don't sit there and act like anyone owes your dumb ass anything, because trust me, they'll take it the fuck back first excuse you give them.
>>71964097
Just posting here because I notice this.
FUCK OFF /TV/ WITH YOUR SHITTY NORMIE SHOW.
Also
DO YOU FAGGOTS EVEN CHECK THE NUMBER OF POSTS MADE BY THE OP? THIS IS A SLIDE THREAD YOU FUCKNUGGETS, IT'S A SINGLE POST OP SO STOP FALLING FOR THE BAIT.
>>71964997
>You don't DESERVE shit.
You do deserve shit when you have a life threatening illness and it isn't even directly your fault for having it in the first place.
People like to say "you don't deserve any free medical treatment" until they actually get in that position.
>>71965277
>You do deserve shit when you have a life threatening illness and it isn't even directly your fault for having it in the first place.
Life sucks and then you die. We, as humans, have been dealing with that fact longer than healthcare has even existed.
Criminals should not get medical care.
>>71964097
the Jews invented muslims
>>71964097
Everyone also deserves to die though. And that shit's free.
>>71965277
No.
You don't.
All the drugs they put you on, all the infrastructure they use, all the technology they use EVERYTHING was created and owned by someone else.
You have absolutely no right to any of that simply because you're dying. You might as well be arguing that you have the right to steal a car because you have cancer.
>>71964896
Being able to "create" wealth isn't something everyone can do. This will become more and more apparent as more jobs become automated.
I love capitalism but to be moral it needs to be backed by basic income to balance out potential monopolies on land and work. Too bad our country is filled with niggers who do/would abuse social programs in bad faith.
>>71965277
>"you don't deserve any free medical treatment" until they actually get in that position
I'd rather die than deal with the stress of crippling debt for the rest of my life or leave that debt to my family should I not make it.
>>71965277
Based on what? What makes you deserve it?
So people who overeat carbs and become diabetic don't deserve government-funded insulin, then, right?
>>71964097
LITERALLY HITLER
>>71964097
They're not controversial. They're flat out idealistic and utopian
>>71964214
SPSBP.
This is Marxism, guys. This is the philosophy responsible for millions of people starving and the world almost destroying itself with a nuclear war. It isn't a coincidence that we keep losing freedoms in our society... that's part of Marxist doctrine.
>>71965277
It's objectively true that you don't deserve it. That people allow selfishness to overthrow their reason is not an argument.
I believe that society should provide its members with a degree of security, but to insinuate that this is because they are entitled to it as a right instead of it being charity on the part of society is ludicrous.
>>71964097
In the context of white people, I completely agree
>>71964097
>deserves
uh no
>>71965394
>longer than healthcare has even existed
Village shamans have been around since villages, anon.
>deserves
I deserve to have a 10/10 woman ride my dick for a week straight, but that doesn't mean it will happen.
>>71964097
Statements that I can't believe will cost you your job and will send you to prison:
-All cultures are valuable and worth protecting, including the one of white European's
-Every ethnicity has a right to a home, including whites
And you just lost your job, family, house, friends and got a life in prison for hate speech. Groovy. Also your dog was sold on Ebay.
>people deserve the work of others
Yeah, no, fuck off cunt
i deserve an xbox and a ps4
>>71964647
No, Modern capitalism relies on people saying that their time is worth more than working minimum wage.
>>71964097
>deserves
Jamestown apparently taught him nothing when he took history.
>>71965875
Have fun starving to death.
>>71964647
>Modern capitalism is inherently based on blocking a certain percentage of the population from contributing to society.
>Modern capitalism is about not-including people into the market that you could then use to turn a profit.
did you even read your own post?
>>71964097
https://youtu.be/w_urWSSZgwU?t=40
>>71964097
If people "deserve" these things, that means they are entitled to them. But whose responsibility is it to provide them, and why?
>>71966018
You'll fry the pinkos brain with questions like that, friend.
>>71964097
>everyone deserves t eat
just not abuse food stamps
>everyone deserves a home
maybe a small living space, not a home.
>everyone deserves medical treatment when they are sick
the bare minimum required to keep them alive. and fatties and druggies who wreck themselves are not entitled to this.
>>71964214
>>71964266
>>71964599
>>71964858
>>71965217
ITT: Retards who believe in "free will"
OP is also wrong. "Deserve" in the sense the OP and people ITT are talking about is a nonsense concept in the first place.
There is no ethical justification for why human being #1 "deserves" a better life in some absolute sense than human being #2 just because he was born with a better gene/environment combo.
>>71966452
Define "better."
>>71964097
>entitlement: the image
>>71967582
Well-being can't be objectively defined so I won't bother with an arbitrary list
>>71964097
I can't refute that because it's not an argument.
>>71964097
Nobody deserves shit. The only thing you deserve is what you take, or what the charity of another gives you.
>>71966452
Yea but isn't it better if we have a system where everyone has the ability to self actualize than a system where everyone is "equal"
You are not entitled to the American Dream. When you get here, that was only the beginning of your journey, not the conclusion. If it were, we'd kill you before you even reached the Statue of Liberty.
>>71964097
Once upon a time there was a little red hen who lived in a big farm-yard.
The little red hen found a grain of wheat.
"Look!" she said.
"See what I have found. Who will help me to plant this grain of wheat?"
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the cat.
"Very well, I will then", said the little red hen, and she did.
After a while the wheat began to ripen:
"What fine wheat we have," said the cat and the duck.
"Yes, indeed, it is time to reap the wheat," said the little red hen. "Who will help me to reap this wheat?"
"Not I", said the cat.
"Not I", said the duck.
"Very well, then I will", said the little red hen.
She cut the heads off the grain very carefully and put them in a bag.
Then she called to the cat and the duck and she asked, "Now, who will take this wheat to the mill to be ground into flour?"
"Not I", said the duck.
"Not I", said the cat.
"Very well, then", said the little red hen, "I will take it myself".
So the little red hen trudged off to the mill, and in a few hours she was back with a sack of fine flour.
"Now, who is going to make this flour into bread?" asked the little red hen.
"Not I", said the duck.
"Not I", said the cat.
"I will, then," said the little red hen, and she did.
Soon the loaf was ready for the oven.
"Now, who is going to bake this bread?" asked the little red hen.
"Not I", said the cat.
"Not I", said the duck.
"Very well, then", said the little red hen. "I will do it".
So the loaf of bread was baked and it was baked, and it was beautiful, golden and crusty. The little red hen put it on the kitchen table, and the cat and the duck came into the house and looked at it longingly.
"Well now, who is going to eat this loaf of bread?" asked the little red hen.
"I will", said the duck quickly.
"I will", said the cat stepping close.
"Oh, no, you won't", said the little red hen. "I am going to eat it myself".
Not a crumb was left for the duck and the cat.
>>71968779
I'm not suggesting a system where everyone is equal at all times. Violent people still need to be locked up, brilliant people still need incentive to work hard etc.
>>71964097
>farmers should be enslaved to the state
>laborers should be enslaved to the state
>doctors should be enslaved to the state
WHY IS THIS CONTROVERSIAL I THOUGHT REPUBLICANS LOVED SLAVERY
>>71969458
>>mfw niggers don't get this
>>71969458
And then a Chinaman came along and turned the hen, duck, and cat into shishkebabs.
>>71964097
>supporting positive rights
>supporting theft
SHIGGY DIGGY
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""deserves"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>>71965277
you're a fucking retard. you don't deserve shit.
You people use rights completely wrong. Rights are something that all humans are endowed with, either by their humanity or a creator or something similar. Rights are things which transcend all the creations of man. The most basic human rights are: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness/property.
you don't have the right TO anything, as that inherently supports theft
Everyone deserves it, but who is going to PAY FOR IT!
>>71964097
Give them your home, give them your food, give them all your shit if you want so, but don't you dare to tell me to do it because I will fuck you up, disgusting tumblr hambeast.
>>71964184
Nice straw man
>>71965398
Ebin
>>71970713
actually what he said is the logical conclusion of these statements. it's basic positive vs negative rights.
>>71965634
>muh 100 billion
>>71964097
no one deserves anything. life is meaningless. embrace the natural order.
EAT OR GET EATEN
>>71966297
Epik
Dog eat dog world, nobodies inherently entitled to anything just because the state says so, which consists of cunts who have trouble wiping their own ass, yet they want to legislate every little thing. It's delusional.
>>71969665
Nice strawman
>>71969719
Positive rights are literally everywhere in political systems.
>>71966452
Why does there need to be an ethical justification for anything in the first place? What you're saying is only true if human life has intrinsic worth, which it doesn't.
>>71964097
Op does a wildfire deserve to have fuel dumped on it?
There are 7 billion people, most are not useful, most do nothing but consume fuel, waste time, complain, and make problems for themselves and others.
why the hell should anyone deserve utopia who didn't fucking work for it?
That's why utopia is functionally impossible, eventually a generation who knows no suffering comes along and destroys the system because they have no memory of life without it
When i saw "Logans run" i wanted to destroy the fucking computer for trying to fix what wasn't broken, i wanted to kill logan for ruining everything, i wanted to kill every last one of those fucking imbeciles when they left their utopia, i wanted to kill the imbeciles who setup their utopia, and i wanted them to suffer because that was the key experience they where lacking
>>71964097
>nobody deserves anything simply by virtue of being born
>the only necessity in life is dying
>>71964097
Nobody deserves those things unless they EARN it.
>>71964097
>some people are only alive because its illegal to kill them
>>71970051
Is this post satire? You do realize the US constitution is just a creation of man.
>You people use rights completely wrong. Rights are something that all humans are endowed with, either by their humanity or a creator or something similar.
You're the imbecile who doesn't understand what human rights are. They are something a society can decide upon based on their collective ethical values. There could be a society where it is a human right that you get your dick sucked every week. They are 100% subjective.
>>71966452
>
There is no ethical justification for why human being #1 "deserves" a better life in some absolute sense than human being #2 just because he was born with a better gene/environment combo.
having a better gene/environment combo led to human being #1 having more resources than human being #2 which is the cause of his better life. In order to reverse this, you need to take by force from human being #1 to give to #2.
this is called theft, and theft is unethical
also: when you fail to understand a concept, it's not the concept that is retarded, it's you
>>71966452
kek, you're literally fake Sweden.
>>71964647
That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Did you ever take Exon 101? I'm going to hazard a guess and say no.
>>71969557
But what you're describing is a form of Utopian society. There is a huge gap between the brightest and best of society and the dregs we have to deal with. The majority of people within that gap do have an overestimated sense of self worth and what they refer to as their "rights". So do you give in to what they believe they are entitled to, or do you remind them that freedom isn't free?
>>71971081
>Dog eat dog
Seeing someone correctly phrase this is a bit off putting now thanks to the internet.
>>71971191
The way people we're using "deserve" ITT implies a claim about what is right and wrong.
>>71971540
Econ*, Apple confirmed for le Exxon shills
>>71964392
Did you mean:
When you are in Hungary you go to the food bank
or
>When you are Hungry go to the food bank
>>71966452
free will is real but i agree with the rest of this. the american greed usually comes from medicore retards who think they're hot shit because they make 100k a year doing construction.
You deserve to use your body as a tool and then die. That's all you deserve.
>>71964097
>Boys go to the mens room and girls to the womens bathroom
>have a penis you are a man
>women has real pussies
>illegal aliens commited a crime
>Islam is bad
>All lives matters
>there were no niggers a thousand years ago in Poland
>>71971598
Ah, ok I understand what you mean. Then what is your full opinion?
>>71964097
>survival of the fittest
>everyone deserves to breed
choose one fedora fags
>>71971591
>doggie doge world
white males don't deserve that.
>>71966452
There might be no ethical justification, but there is a very clear practical justification. A society that rewards productivity and creating value for society out competes a society that doesn't, all other things equal.
>>71970713
Thats not even a straw man thats literally what they are saying.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that if everyone is responsible for the individuals welfare then don't we collectively have a say in who is allowed into our society? If by birth or by immigration. People that cannot or won't contribute to that collective responsibility should not be allowed to be a member of that society.
>>71964097
What is the definition of "deserve"?
>>71964097
i agree, but who's gonna feed the people?
who's gonna give the people a home?
who's gonna treat these people?
won't get far in a world when you say everyone "deserves"
>>71964097
I agree to an extent. Where i disagree is that it's not my responsibility to support foreigners especially those hostile to my culture.
>>71964097
>everyone deserves to eat
if it's a human right the government must provide you with food, so whose labor are you entitled to?
>everyone deserves a home
if it's a human right the government must provide you with a house, so whose labor are you entitled to?
>everyone deserves medical treatment
if it's a human right the government must provide you with healthcare, so whose labor are you entitled to?
spoiler: slavery
>>71971430
>You do realize the US constitution is just a creation of man.
you clearly don't understand enlightenment thought, and that quote was from the declaration you mong.
You're the imbecile who doesn't understand what human rights are.
No, you're the one who doesn't understand things.
>They are something a society can decide upon based on their collective ethical values.
not at all. a right is something which can not be taken away, it is inalienable. if it comes from the government, it can be taken away by it. rights transcend any construct of man.
>There could be a society where it is a human right that you get your dick sucked every week. They are 100% subjective.
no they aren't. go read some books on philosophy and political thought.
>>71964097
This assertion is making the statement that life should be fair.
Well guess what, life isn't fair, it is nothing more than a series of moments that leads to your death in which the existence you now know ceases to exist.
Those moments are full of regret, rage, anger and frustration yet are also full of hope, happiness, joy and relief.
When you do not have these opposing sides, when you do not have the starkness of black and white, but instead try to make everything a shade of grey then you lose the beauty that is the contrast in this never ending parade of sweet sadness.
Socialists and Communists are nothing more than people who want to live in the grey because they do not want to experience the worst and best life has to offer, instead they want to live a life that is completely average.
Fuck them, I was homeless and hungry for two years when I was a teenager (Both parents died when I was 17 and I was to old to be placed in foster care apparently) and I strived in those two years to get a job, get my own place and get on with my life, I now truly appreciate that which I have because I went without and I can always see the upside to everything.
I would rather go through that experience than be some molly coddled fucking shitstain who thinks they deserve everything handed to them on a platter because of "equality". Fuck them and fuck you too if you think along the same lines, you are dulling the human experience with your blandness.
>>71971487
>this is called theft, and theft is unethical
This is your great argument? A categorical statement that intentionally ignores all context? Top kek. No, taking by force from #1 is not unethical in the framework I outlined because there is no reason for why the well-being of #1 should be of any greater priority than the well-being of #2.
>>71971585
This is why eugenics and genetic engineering is extremely important. Killing off all the dumb people is not practical or ethical (to me at least), we just have to make sure we minimize the amount of them in the future generations.
>>71971430
You do have a right to have your dick sucked every week. You just can't obligate someone to do it.
>>71971870
go away evil dogger
>>71972324
this.
>>71972148
>I'm not going to explain how you're wrong, go read some books
Thanks, great discussion.
>a right is something which can not be taken away, it is inalienable.
This only makes sense if it is given by something like a Creator. If that's what you're referring to you can fuck off. If not, then you have to explain where these rights come from.
>>71964097
>other people should pay for me to eat
>other people should buy me a house
>other people should pay for my healthcare
>>71972184
Practically speaking though, how would a society go about implenting a responsible eugenics program while dealing with those that would inevitably be opposed to it? I certainly agree eugenics is the most efficient and inexpensive solution, ethical considerations aside.
>>71972184
>Killing off all the dumb people is not practical or ethical (to me at least), we just have to make sure we minimize the amount of them in the future generations
and who will determine who the dumb people are? you? the government?
What is there to refute? There's no argumentation to build a counter-argument against. It's just an opinion. Shit bait,1/10
>>71972174
you're okay, straya. you're okay.
>>71966452
>There is no ethical justification for why human being #1 "deserves" a better life in some absolute sense than human being #2 just because he was born with a better gene/environment combo.
The reason he "deserves" it is because of his parents and all his ancestors before them. The sum of the harsh environments they managed to survive/reproduce in has given him his good genes. The sum of their labors has given him this wealth. He "deserves" what he has because all the people who came before him would want HIM to have those assets and wouldn't want him forced to share with everyone. Most people don't work hard only for their own personal benefit, nor do they work hard for "humanity." They work hard for their kids, their legacy. I care more about descendants of mine that don't exist yet than I do about random strangers who are alive now. If there was no way for me to restrict access to the resources I've earned to only/mostly my own descendants, I wouldn't bother working hard. I'd do the very bare minimum.
>>71972527
reading The Law over the summer absolutely blew my mind, Bastiat was absolutely legendary
>>71964097
IT'S HAPPENING!
OIL TO 20
LOL
>>71972517
By eugenics I didn't mean preventing a huge amount of people from procreating. I don't think that's practical. The breakthroughs probably have to come from gene therapy before anything feasible can be done.
>>71972435
>>I'm not going to explain how you're wrong, go read some books
That's not what i said.
>This only makes sense if it is given by something like a Creator.
or from reason, like kant suggested. or from something like one's humanity.
>If that's what you're referring to you can fuck off.
Why? don't tell me you're a fedora too.
>If not, then you have to explain where these rights come from.
You already said it: man's creator. anything else is wrong.
>>71972751
>being able to manipulate genes and DNA
>absolutely nothing bad or unethical can come from this
>>71964097
Well as a norwegian I can only say that I am proud and happy with the "safety nets", solidarity and strength in our society.
that being said it does seem like our social-democracy produces limp wrist marxist-cultist suicidal faggots, who believe they are liberal enough to get along with eeeverybody
>>71972527
First we have to identify genes that greatly influence things like IQ and creativity etc. We are far away from understanding the gene world well enough though.
>deserves
XD
Deserving doesn't mean we can realistically provide it.
/thread
>>71964097
People have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
My right to life doesn't mean that I get to sit on my ass and expect the government to feed, house, and clothe me.
>>71972680
Yep. every American should have to read and take a class on it, the declaration of independence, the Constitution, and other stuff like common sense if they want to vote.
an uneducated voter base has caused more harm to America than anything else.
>>71972580
You must realize that is just a primal instinct with no basis in anything apart from your genes wanting to continue propagating. Why do you so willingly give into primal instincts? Are you a nigger?
>>71972924
>First we have to identify genes that greatly influence things like IQ and creativity etc
but what makes those traits inherently desirable? why should we support them and kill off the rest?
>>71972517
Monetary incentives.
Singapore gives incentives for female university graduates to have children.
India pays young people with no children to be sterilized.
>>71972894
Of course something bad could come from it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
>>71964097
>deserve
the excess we have today is ridiculous
>>71964097
I agree with her, it shouldn't be controversial at all, the answer is "no" to all three.
>>71964097
only the most alpha do, all the beta should be left for dead so we evolve more masterfully
https://soundcloud.com/couchtruthing/trump-loves-america
>>71972751
I certainly wouldn't condone any sort of genetic engineering on humans until the long term consequences of such manipulations were fully studied and realized. I think easy access to contraceptives and abortions to low income families is a good start, as well as free vasectomies to anyone already in a marriage with two children. In the long term, I could see issuing licenses to procreate as a possible solution.
>>71973093
Because intelligent people generally create and maintain systems that are more efficient and logical than dumb people. This boosts human flourishing.
This isn't the most important factor though. Preventing genes that cause violent behavior should be priority number 1 in my book. But that is a pipedream considering how ingrained violence is in animals like us, I doubt it's possible.
>>71973352
savages
>>71973360
I agree
First, define "deserve".
Second, lay out who decides what things are "deserved" and who "deserves" them and why they get to make that decision.
Third, shut up.
>>71971870
go away evil dogger
>>71973097
That's a really great solution as well to this
>>71973360
Taking a multi-faceted approach would certainly be more effective, and these policies could be implemented without too much public outcry.
>>71973416
Violence is ingrained in sub human filth like niggers, sandniggers and generally desert dwelling assholes. they are separated from actual civilization for a reason
>>71964097
>those statements
>controversial
Those aren't "controversial" at all you spoiled bitchy little marxist brat. You wouldn't know a god damned thing about believing and saying controversial statements. We, on the other hand, live and breath "controversial" all the fucking time. When we so much as peep we get a wave of condemnation, from you no less.
>>71973352
Is this webm really what American high schools are like?
>>71973149
>That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
it 100% does mean that. Your basis for supporting this is for the good of society and mankind.
However, these actions, by your own admission, are bad and unethical. because of this, you must either subscribe to a school of thought that doesn't give a shit about morals, or be wrong.
if the former, then your something like a relativist, and wrong because you're basing your arguments in absolutes, or and egoist or nihilist or something of the sort, and wrong because those systems would in no way support the argument: "we must do something for the greater good".
in short, you're wrong no matter what.
>>71972894
>>71973360
But people already do use eugenics.
Many MANY women in the West screen their fetus for genetic abnormalities like Down's Syndrome very early in the pregnancy, and usually abort if it's show to be positive.
That is eugenics by definition, but why would be so much more different if we are talking about intelligence and other traits?
>>71964097
I refute this.
>>71964965
Well you are allowed to purchase land and live off of it.
nope
nope
nope
>>71964097
>everyone deserves to eat
Why? What did they do to deserve it? Should farmers work for free? Should they not get paid for their hardwork? But a bum that refuses to do any work, DESERVES food?
The same for a home, the same for medical treatments. Should engineers, architects, construction workers and doctors work for free?
The only thing controversial is that retards like this exist who can't even understand BASIC logic of life.
>>71964965
It's like a ship. There's a limited amount of space, food, resources. So you've got to either roll up your sleeves and help out or you're going to have to get by with half-rations and hard boards. And if you still don't pull your weight then maybe we're going to have to throw you overboard. Because the only thing in life that's really free is a short walk off a plank.
>>71973416
>Because intelligent people generally create and maintain systems that are more efficient and logical than dumb people.
only based upon your definition of logical and efficient. you've already shown you in no way subscribe to any form of absolutism, so you can't all the sudden start using absolutist arguments and ideas.
>This boosts human flourishing.
but you have provided no reason for why this is desirable.
>>71966452
That's precisely why he deserves better. It's precisely why those with extraordinarily bad genes and cultures should not be subsidized.
>>71970713
They're logically equivalent.
>>71973672
>However, these actions, by your own admission, are bad and unethical.
You are unashamedly twisting my words, in quite a brazen way. I said something bad could come of it.
Just like something bad could come of most inventions ever made, you moron. Our understanding of physics led to the atomic bomb. That doesn't mean we were wrong in studying physics.
>>71973899
because they are human and you have humanity. I give to the hungry because it is the right thing to do, i dont need to make fallacious comparisons to engineers. Starvation is an ugly ugly thing and you clearly have never seen it up close.
>>71974044
Not him but:
>Humanity has intrinsic value
[citation needed]
>>71973938
>only based upon your definition of logical and efficient. you've already shown you in no way subscribe to any form of absolutism, so you can't all the sudden start using absolutist arguments and ideas.
Logic is absolute as long as you accept it's axioms. If I didn't accept the axioms of logic I wouldn't be sitting here talking to people as this whole conversation relies on logic.
>but you have provided no reason for why this is desirable.
It's desirable to me because I am a living being and want to flourish, and want other living beings to flourish too.
>>71974042
>I said something bad could come of it.
doesn't matter. you admit that there is wrongness and bad things, which negates you're ability to try and justify you're arguments from anything but an absolutist point of view. and any absolutist school of thought would disagree with what you want and denounce it as wrong.
>>71964097
Nothing wrong with wanting that but who is going to pay for that?
>>71964097
>7.5 billion people
>average human is like pic related
>hurr everbody da same, we need to labor and toil to feed this useless garbage cuz they have similar DNA!
>>71974210
>Logic is absolute as long as you accept it's axioms
If you accept this to be true then you're wrong, because of your own basis. logic being absolute means that Kantian ethics is true, which in turn means that you are wrong for using people as an means and not only and end unto themselves.
>It's desirable to me because I am a living being and want to flourish, and want other living beings to flourish too.
but why is it desirable to flourish?
>>71974215
I have no clue what you're talking about.
>>71973691
What specifically are you asking? We don't have the means to identify and manipulate the gene(s) that code(s) for intelligence, or even precisely what causes it. Hypothetically speaking, after we've gained a more thorough understanding of genetics, neuroscience, and the long term consequences of genetic engineering (on the individual and the larger human gene pool), I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with genetically altering fetuses during pre-natal care to be more "intelligent." But as of right now, to try to do so would be impractical, irresponsible, and extremely risky.
>>71964097
Pedophiles
>>71964097
I agree, those things should not be controversial.
>>71974440
>logic being absolute means that Kantian ethics is true
How so?
>but why is it desirable to flourish?
Because flourishing feels better than suffering.
>>71964097
yes, everyone deserves those things, and in an ideal world everyone would have food shelter and medical care regardless of anything else; however, we do not live in an ideal world, so whining about idealism won't solve anything. We have to cope with what's real, and the reality is that you're not going to have everything handed to you, so if you want those things you have to work for them. If you don't want to work and are unable to abuse the system that provides for people that can't work then you starve or die of a treatable disease. That's just how things are, and now amount of whining on the internet is going to change that.
>>71974441
then like I told you earlier: READ A BOOK NIGGER.
if you don't understand simple things like absolutist, relativist and nihilist, you don't know enough to espouse your ideas in any manner that presents them as something to be considered.
>>71973416
I disagree-- violent behavior still has its uses today, particularly among the warrior classes. In the long term, when nations and peoples are no longer at war, I think breeding more docile populations should be necessary.
>>71964097
Statement I can't believe is controversial among leftists:
If you don't work you don't eat.
>>71974483
>We don't have the means to identify and manipulate the gene(s) that code(s) for intelligence, or even precisely what causes it.
You're underestimating the progress of research in physical genetics. They will find out that sooner or later, and when they do, someone is going to advocate using it on humans.
>>71974643
I understand all those words, you just aren't using them in a way that makes sense.
>>71974598
>How so?
because Kantian ethics is quite literally just "ethics and morals based on reason and reason alone"
and by Reason I mean logic
>Because flourishing feels better than suffering
prove it.
>>71973938
Shut the fuck up you moral relativist bitch.
>>71974854
>"ethics and morals based on reason and reason alone" and by Reason I mean logic
Are you saying that if you accept the axioms of logic you also accept Kantian ethics as your code of ethics?
>>71974813
Yes I am.
either you're an absolutist, in which case you're wrong because what you want goes against any absolutist school of thought, or you're not an absolutist and you're wrong because you ideas have absolutist concepts as the fundamental basis.
>>71974660
God forbid ours ever comes into contact with another species.
>>71974749
And you are greatly over-estimating our understanding of genetics-- particularly in the field of genetic engineering. There is absolutely no way to accurately predict the results of genetic engineering on human populations without first observing it in the long term. There is plenty of literature out on this right now. We permit genetic engineering to be performed on individuals who have genetic diseases because the risk is certainly worth it in these cases; however, I do not know of a single scientist that would think it is OK to apply this technology in any other manner given our current understanding of it.
>>71974993
no, but if you accept logic but don't accept anything else (like a god), then you have to accept Kantian ethics.
>>71974995
that second sentence is so full of dumb by definition it hurts
I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet when it comes to dangerous thoughts. Read his quote and then ask yourself those this comply with common core and affirmative action.
>>71974995
I thought it clear that I was a relativist and a nihilist from my responses. What "absolutist concepts" do I have as the fundamental basis here?
>>71974210
If wanting other life to flourish, despite it's form or the actions it takes is your logical imperative; then why does it only apply to humans?
What about nonhuman invasive species such as wild boars in North America and Australia? They were originally from Eurasia, but came to the new world with human migration. They destroy native habitats and overpopulate. However, they are a form of life, so do you want them to flourish?
If not, then why is it morally wrong for Europeans and whites of the Anglosphere to want to keep foreign, invasive cultures out of their countries; instead of encouraging them to come with free welfare handouts?
>>71975108
how so?
>>71974361
>Man'Man Shoota
Sides.
In orbit.
>I deserve this
>I deserve that
>blah blah blah fucking blah
When will the entitlement end? I can't stand these fucking people anymore.
>>71964097
>deserves
>>71975058
That is a risk we should be willing to take-- given the rare earth hypothesis, as well as the fact that any species capable of intergalactic travel would almost certainly require them to be highly cooperative, it is highly unlikely that we would encounter an intelligent, hostile lifeform.
>>71975132
>>71975101
I can accept logic and then make up my own axioms in regards to ethics like "the flourishing of living beings is better than the suffering of living beings" and go from there, giving my own definitions for flourishing and suffering.
>>71975172
well then if that's the case, you're wrong because your actions are motivated by a desire to do something for the betterment of humanity, which is against relativism and nihilism.
>>71975340
I got you beat
>>71975352
alright then, prove your claims using your logic
>>71964097
Everyone does deserve to eat if they have done something to earn it. If they are unable to, well, there are already federal programs for that.
Not everyone deserves a home. I'm sorry. It sucks. But a home is something you absolutely must work to get in this society. If you don't work for it, it's never really yours to begin with.
Everyone GETS medical treatment when they're sick. There are free clinics all over the place. If you go into a hospital, you can flash your Medicare card and get pretty much whatever you want. You may have to pay for it, but you'll get treatment.
If you want free food, free housing, and free medical care for everyone, well... maybe once we figure out how to duplicate shit like they did on Star Trek and no longer have a consumption economy. Until then, it's laughable to even try.
>>71975352
Yeah, just keep saying it from your tiny, 95% white, monocultural fortress nation.
>>71975193
>then why does it only apply to humans?
It doesn't, I just didn't want to complicate the discussion.
>However, they are a form of life, so do you want them to flourish?
I think how important the flourishing of a given living being is is tied to it's cognitive capabilities. So the flourishing of a human is more important than the flourishing of a pig, but the pig takes priority over a worm.
>then why is it morally wrong for Europeans and whites of the Anglosphere to want to keep foreign, invasive cultures out of their countries; instead of encouraging them to come with free welfare handouts?
I don't think it's morally wrong because I think the survival of Europeans and the Anglosphere is important for long-term human flourishing.
>>71968288
Well we're talking about objective things here such as housing and healthcare. A better quality of life can be measured in some way senpai
>>71974183
it doesnt. in fact it usually is a net loss on your part, but i accept it in the face of watching someone starve to death
>>71975391
>desire to do something for the betterment of humanity, which is against relativism and nihilism
How so?
>>71975519
What claims?
>>71975100
>There is absolutely no way to accurately predict the results of genetic engineering on human populations without first observing it in the long term.
Sure it is. We already know plenty of genes that *influence* intelligence. The question is how to insert these genes into a viable fertilized egg.
>I do not know of a single scientist that would think it is OK to apply this technology in any other manner given our current understanding of it.
They will eventually, because the more technologically advanced we become as a species, the more intelligent people we are going to need.
>>71964097
>slavery is okay when we do it
>>71975510
excellent my nigga
Fucking "Gullivers travels" dedicated the entire first section of the third book to that concept
Intilectuals slowly destroyed a civilization because they never had to pay consequences for their failures, and blamed everything but themselves for it, and then tried it again in the next area
>>71975619
So you want to protect Europe and the Anglosphere's sovereignty and culture?
Are you a white national socialist, or just a socialist that happens to be in a white nation?
>>71964097
>everyone has a right to someone else's labor
lel
>>71964097
>I deserve things because I was unwillingly brought into this world and am unwilling to partake in any activities that will assimilate myself into society
Well we can euthanize you for a win-win.
>>71975740
Because in nihilism human life, or life in general, as no intrinsic worth; thus, seeking to preserve it or measure it in any sense is misguided. I don't think even Nietzsche could predict how humanity would come to resolve this existential crisis once nihilism prevailed.
>>71964097
I agree on health care mainly because of how collectivism can help bring down the costs for everyone.
The other two should only be for children, the disabled and the elderly who can't take care of themselves.
Everyone does deserve a stable job with good pay, and with that comes the other two. It's just unsustainable and economically ruinous to do it any other way.
I think socialism can be great, but socialism does not mean 'welfare state.'
>>71975857
More the latter than the former I suppose. I don't want mass nigger/mudslime migration to white countries though.
>>71975740
because it presupposes and absolute moral good, in the form of your claim that we need to eliminate certain "dumb people" for the good of humanity.
relativism states their are no absolutes (which is why relativism is wrong), so your belief in an absolute good for humanity is opposed to relativism.
and nihilism believes that nothing is inherently good or bad, so it is against your idea that any form of good for humanity exists.
>>71964097
>Everyone should work and earn their keep in order to have these things for themselves. Those who do not work do not deserve to have them.
FTFY
>>71966452
>concept is intangible
>therefore it doesn't exist/is a social construct
>unless, of course, I declare that it isn't
I sure love this applied solipsistic determinism meme.
>>71975765
that it is better to flourish then to suffer.
prove it logically.
>>71976015
Intrinsic worth no, but I can still decide that it has worth to me, and that it's cooler to have living things fucking shit up in the universe than a bunch of rocks doing nothing.
>>71964097
People that don't work don't deserve a home or food
People that live horrifyingly unhealthy lives do not deserve """""""""""""""""free""""""""""""""" health care
>>71975772
We have a general idea of what influences intelligence, but we don't have a thorough understanding of the exact biological mechanisms that contribute to it, and how they do it precisely. I am not saying that one day we will be able to genetically engineer intelligence, but that we are still far away from being able to do it safely.
>>71976103
>because it presupposes and absolute moral good
Nope, nothing absolute about it. Just my ethics.
>nihilism believes that nothing is inherently good or bad, so it is against your idea that any form of good for humanity exists.
It doesn't need to be inherent. It comes from my ethics.
>>71970713
fag
>>71964097
But everyone doesn't deserve those things.
If they want to eat they have to work. If they want to work they have to think. If they want to think they have to understand reality. If they want to understand reality, they have to acknowledge the truth.
Life isn't truly easy for anyone. Their pursuit of living easily at the expense of others is immoral, and also them making the choice to live like shit.
Not my problem.
>>71964097
>Africans given free shelter, food and healthcare
>Population explodes
>Eventually western provider runs out of resources to give
>Africans haven't advanced their infrastructure or done anything mildly productive since aid started
>Most of them starve
>Population back to were it was initially
TL;DR: Nature always wins and dindus always dindu.
>>71976171
I don't need to, it's an axiom. I can't have ethics without having some axioms.
>>71976189
I don't necessarily disagree, but realize then that we cannot, or better should not, make ethical considerations in our decision-making process because of it.
>>71976056
Well aren't you fucking privileged.
You realize that you're even more immoral than me, right? You actually live in one of the last white havens on Earth, and you only just "meh, kinda" care about preserving white nationalism. I think you need to have a couple hundred thousand Tyrones and Pedros shitting-up your neighborhood to understand the gravity of our situation.
New York City is bigger than the entire population of Finland.
>>71964097
Milton Friedman said it the best way possible:
>"Who deserves what? No one deserves anything."
>>71976217
>but that we are still far away from being able to do it safely.
I know that, and I never said we could do it today either, I just think it's unreasonable to assume that people of the future will not be doing it on ethical grounds, because I think they will, just like humans have had no ethical problems nuking people during war.
>>71964097
Its how to get those things thats controversial.
>>71964097
>everyone deserves things
3.8 billion some odd years of life that has been specifically selected for based on scarcity, and you think that providing free shit for everyone will have zero biological repercussions.
Leftists confirmed for worse than Creationists.
