Unpopular Opinions V6 You know maybe fascism wasn't all that it was cracked up to be
5,009 replies, posted
[QUOTE=CoixNiro;49900068]eugenics isn't a bad idea on paper, it's just easily corruptible, easy to take too far, and always ends up being implemented in bigoted and genocidal ways.[/QUOTE]
The biggest problem with it is that a lot of people it would see killed can and do grow up to be perfectly functional members of society, and that's before you go into the problems with bigoted uses of it
"Make the population as genetically pure as it can be" sounds good, but then you need to define "genetically pure", which gets extremely murky extremely quickly and just gets into far too dangerous territory for it to be discussed as a serious measure to be used in society
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;49901108]The biggest problem with it is that a lot of people it would see killed can and do grow up to be perfectly functional members of society, and that's before you go into the problems with bigoted uses of it
"Make the population as genetically pure as it can be" sounds good, but then you need to define "genetically pure", which gets extremely murky extremely quickly and just gets into far too dangerous territory for it to be discussed as a serious measure to be used in society[/QUOTE]
First, eugenics doesn't mean killing people. only the most militant supporters of it have ever made it about killing people outright.
The proper application of it would be discouraging people who have genetic disease on top of genetic disease from creating more people with the same diseases. Civilization has a downside in that because you're protected and fed by it while serving it and you're able to specialize heavily in one area, natural selection's influence is almost completely gone. Genetic defects that would absolutely kill you dead outside of civilization get to propagate and thrive instead of dying with the affected organism. The idea is to make people in general healthier by discouraging the spread of genetic conditions.
but like I said, it's impossible to implement because it gets twisted to bigoted ends. That and it's hard to enforce and a bit totalitarian for my tastes
[QUOTE=CoixNiro;49901439]First, eugenics doesn't mean killing people. only the most militant supporters of it have ever made it about killing people outright.
The proper application of it would be discouraging people who have genetic disease on top of genetic disease from creating more people with the same diseases. Civilization has a downside in that because you're protected and fed by it while serving it and you're able to specialize heavily in one area, natural selection's influence is almost completely gone. Genetic defects that would absolutely kill you dead outside of civilization get to propagate and thrive instead of dying with the affected organism. The idea is to make people in general healthier by discouraging the spread of genetic conditions.
but like I said, it's impossible to implement because it gets twisted to bigoted ends. That and it's hard to enforce and a bit totalitarian for my tastes[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the fact that you can survive certain genetic diseases in modern society kinda means you don't need to eliminate them because you can deal with them appropriately. Furthermore if you want to eliminate genetic diseases from a gene pool, eugenics is a shit way to do it, because those with genetic diseases are actually a minority of people carrying the necessary genes, meaning that the many more carriers of the disease can continue to produce offspring with genetic diseases. So unless you want to sterilise or kill many many more perfectly healthy and able-bodied people, eugenics won't do shit to eliminate any disease. Then there's the whole ethical thing of maybe we shouldn't have the government - or anyone particularly - to govern whether or not someone should be able to have children.
There's a reason why geneticists do not support eugenics at all, because, aside from the obvious ethical reasons, eugenics just doesn't work and isn't scientific.
[QUOTE=Carlito;49901559]Yeah but the fact that you can survive certain genetic diseases in modern society kinda means you don't need to eliminate them because you can deal with them appropriately. Furthermore if you want to eliminate genetic diseases from a gene pool, eugenics is a shit way to do it, because those with genetic diseases are actually a minority of people carrying the necessary genes, meaning that the many more carriers of the disease can continue to produce offspring with genetic diseases. So unless you want to sterilise or kill many many more perfectly healthy and able-bodied people, eugenics won't do shit to eliminate any disease. Then there's the whole ethical thing of maybe we shouldn't have the government - or anyone particularly - to govern whether or not someone should be able to have children.
There's a reason why geneticists do not support eugenics at all, because, aside from the obvious ethical reasons, eugenics just doesn't work and isn't scientific.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure we ended up on two feet with opposable thumbs and big brains because of selection. That's pretty much how evolution works.
[QUOTE=CoixNiro;49901684]I'm pretty sure we ended up on two feet with opposable thumbs and big brains because of selection. That's pretty much how evolution works.[/QUOTE]
What relevance does that even have to my post?
[QUOTE=Carlito;49901559]Yeah but the fact that you can survive certain genetic diseases in modern society kinda means you don't need to eliminate them because you can deal with them appropriately. Furthermore if you want to eliminate genetic diseases from a gene pool, eugenics is a shit way to do it, because those with genetic diseases are actually a minority of people carrying the necessary genes, meaning that the many more carriers of the disease can continue to produce offspring with genetic diseases. So unless you want to sterilise or kill many many more perfectly healthy and able-bodied people, eugenics won't do shit to eliminate any disease. Then there's the whole ethical thing of maybe we shouldn't have the government - or anyone particularly - to govern whether or not someone should be able to have children.
There's a reason why geneticists do not support eugenics at all, because, aside from the obvious ethical reasons, eugenics just doesn't work and isn't scientific.[/QUOTE]
There's types of eugenics which would actually work though, mainly to do with transferring beneficial genes from one population to another.
I'd argue it would be a good idea for instance to send a few dozen Tibetans over to Peru to marry some women and to also donate to sperm banks. Over a few centuries nature would do the rest as the adaptions Tibetans have for high-altitude living would become commonplace.
You could probably do the same for populations which are at high risk for diabetes, alcoholism, etc due to their ancestors lack of adaptation to agriculture (and consequently alcohol and carbohydrate heavy diets). Oh yeah, ban all forms of marriage closer than third cousins, that'll generally improve the genetic health of people too.
[editline]10th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=CoixNiro;49901439]Civilization has a downside in that because you're protected and fed by it while serving it and you're able to specialize heavily in one area, natural selection's influence is almost completely gone.[/QUOTE]
This is actually wrong. Natural selection hasn't slowed down within civilizations, nor has evolution.
If anything, it's speeding up. Selection has had a fairly substantial impact in recent times, even within recorded history.
Since this is apparently an unpopular opinion now, I have to say that I [I]love[/I] Interstellar.
I know the script is pretty mediocre, and Matt Damon is pretty unnecessary, and Anne Hathaway's monologue is sentimental bullshit (even though I still believe that the audience isn't suppose to agree, and the ending proves that it's science rather than love that saves the day), but the sheer ambition and scope of the movie is what stuck with me. It's my favorite movie theater experience ever. I love the soundtrack, I love TARS, I love the dumb MURPPPPPHHH stuff. No movie has ever felt so huge.
the thing that gets me about interstellar is that desertification and a failing ecology are forcing them to go to a new planet, so they move to a desert planet with no ecology
and they build immense verdant space palaces to get there, and I mean if you can build farms in space like that you probably have the technology to just continue living on earth anyway
[QUOTE=CoixNiro;49900068]eugenics isn't a bad idea on paper, it's just easily corruptible, easy to take too far, and always ends up being implemented in bigoted and genocidal ways.[/QUOTE]
Eugenics is literally a false science. Eugenics go against the very idea of how genes work.
Donald Trump would do less harm to America than Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton.
I don't really like donuts that much. I get nauseous if I eat more than one.
People need to stop acting like "SHILLARY!!!!" is the worst candidate ever. She's very similar to Sanders, historically she's voted on the same issues with 93% to Sanders' record. If you love Sanders so much you should be just as willing to vote for Hillary when, inevitably, she gets the nomination and Sanders backs her because he's not stupid.
Seriously, all these people going "I'm going to write in Sanders/Vote Trump when SHILLARY gets the nomination!" have no idea how politics work and honestly I hate more than /pol/lacks who back Trump while spouting dumb memes on /r/The_Donald. I really don't understand how you can back Sanders then want to vote Trump if Hillary gets the nomination, you're literally a single issue voter if you do (And not a very smart one lol). Seriously getting sick of this demonizing Hillary to hell and back, as if Trump is any better than what's essentially a Sanders Lite™
I just really hate all these berniebros where it's their first election and they support some grass roots candidate and cry when someone who isn't them gets the nomination then make a spite vote and literally go "IM GOING TO WATCH AMERICA BURN WITH TRUMP IF I CANT SAVE IT WITH SANDERS". Frankly it's super childish and says a lot on how someone can be so privileged that whoever they vote for doesn't matter to them because Trump's policies won't effect them. How about all those poor people who get the short end of the stick under Trump? Do you not care about them? The mental gymnastics people go through to say Hillary is worse than Trump when their main candidate is Bernie. As if Trump is any less "corrupt" than Hillary.
a lot of people are just voting against the establishment because they literally cannot remember a time when the government wasn't widely considered to be incompetent
I prefer Portal over Half-Life
Please don't kill me
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49912248]my fav part about the hillary hate is how sanders supporters who say they're voting for trump if sanders doesn't get the nomination are going against what sanders would want, which is to vote for the democratic party[/QUOTE]
Well just because people support Sanders doesn't mean they have to agree with whoever he endorses.
Though voting for Trump is a terrible idea regardless.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;49912369]a lot of people are just voting against the establishment because they literally cannot remember a time when the government wasn't widely considered to be incompetent[/QUOTE]
This has very little to do with the president and has everything to do with Congress being a bunch of babies. Obama literally walks into senate and saying "alright boys who do you want to be a Supreme Court justice" and they all tell him to screw off. Republicans control the house and a democrat is president, it's very hard to get anything done when the house refuses to work with him. If you want change so much and you love Bernie you'd vote for a democrat in your congressional district if it's up for election, that's going to matter way more than the presidential election, especially depending on the state you live in. Too bad Americans hate voting in congress and only care about the president, as if the president can wave his magic wand to get everything done. President is very important to the country as a whole but congressional people are ones who get the country running. People should be voting democrat in their congressional districts if they want Bernie to win as well as voting in primaries and the main presidential election. Also state elections, governor elections and city elections are important to your local area. Americans have a lot of elections and if you want a better country you should vote in all them if you can, at the very least as many federal ones as possible.
If Sanders doesn't get the nomination I'll vote 3rd Party. dunno who specifically yet, but the GOP and Hillary are not on my list of people who I have confidence in.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49912507]If Sanders doesn't get the nomination I'll vote 3rd Party. dunno who specifically yet, but the GOP and Hillary are not on my list of people who I have confidence in.[/QUOTE]
life hack: just don't vote!
you know how people say stuff like "if you didn't vote, you can't complain"? Totally untrue - you can always complain, no matter what.
Use the time you would've spent voting to do something enjoyable, like making yourself a panini or jerking off
[QUOTE=Sector 7;49912636]life hack: just don't vote!
you know how people say stuff like "if you didn't vote, you can't complain"? Totally untrue - you can always complain, no matter what.
Use the time you would've spent voting to do something enjoyable, like making yourself a panini or jerking off[/QUOTE]
"Even if you didn't do the absolute minimum you could do to prevent this happening, you get to whine about how things didn't turn out your way"
Jesus, I sometimes wonder what people have against dictatorships if you guys give this few shits about being in a democratic society. Speaking of which...
Voting should be mandatory for anyone capable of doing so, and the government should allocate a day or two free so you have no excuse
[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;49912797]Voting should be mandatory for anyone capable of doing so, and the government should allocate a day or two free so you have no excuse[/QUOTE]
FREEDOM IS MANDATORY
PROCEED TO YOUR LOCAL DEMOCRACY CENTER OR FACE ARREST
while we're on the topic of insane opinions, I am absolutely bewildered by the fact that people think vaccines should be legally required. Really? you don't think giving the government the power to forcibly inject people sets a bad precedent? (I'm looking at you, reddit.)
[QUOTE=Sector 7;49912824]FREEDOM IS MANDATORY
PROCEED TO YOUR LOCAL DEMOCRACY CENTER OR FACE ARREST
while we're on the topic of insane opinions, I am absolutely bewildered by the fact that people think vaccines should be legally required. Really? you don't think giving the government the power to forcibly inject people sets a bad precedent?[/QUOTE]
No, because the government wants healthy fucking workers, not some deadbeat cocktail of ebolaids. Do you think that the government wants a fucking epidemic instead of a few grumbles about mandatory life saving injections? Fuck yourself, you don't get to endanger your species because you are fucking retarded. Governments aren't actively fucking evil dude, also yeah, you should find the vote to be mandatory. You don't get to sit back and do jack shit while the fate of your nation is reaching a fork and you have the power to change that believe it or not. Go alone, go with friends, just fucking go.
[editline]11th March 2016[/editline]
You know what you SHOULD look out for? Companies and people trying to make money off things you life depends on. The government does try to cut corners where it can, but it won't replace your vaccines with milk. It wants you to work, and it doesn't get productiveness from having a crippling disease they could've prevented by spending an abstract concept of wealth
[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;49912848]No, because the government wants healthy fucking workers, not some deadbeat cocktail of ebolaids.[/QUOTE]
who gives a flying fuck what the government wants? [i]I[/i] want the right to deny strangers from sticking me with needles. If I want to become a wheezing viral planetoid, that's my terrible choice to make for myself.
furthermore, have you ever entertained the idea that the people who don't vote [i]shouldn't be voting in the first place?[/i]
Frankly, if it was possible to do it fairly (it is not), I would completely support [i]more[/i] barriers to voting. The only thing more dangerous than apathy is malignant ignorance. Emotional appeals and baseless, factless hostility should not be effective weapons in winning a vote, but they are, because you don't need to actually know anything in order to make your stupid voice count.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;49912895]who gives a flying fuck what the government wants? [i]I[/i] want the right to deny strangers from sticking me with needles. If I want to become a wheezing viral planetoid, that's my terrible choice to make for myself.[/QUOTE]
except it's not just for yourself?? not sure if you've looked up what diseases actually do but they can - brace yourself, i know this might be a shock - spread to other people
[editline]11th March 2016[/editline]
!!!!
[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;49912797]Voting should be mandatory for anyone capable of doing so, and the government should allocate a day or two free so you have no excuse[/QUOTE]
Mandatory voting is an atrocious idea. You can't force people to care and forcing them to vote when they don't care will just end up with a lot more people voting randomly or badly just to spite the system. An actual solution would be giving people a reason to care. Making them feel like their vote actually does matter for example.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;49912895]who gives a flying fuck what the government wants? [i]I[/i] want the right to deny strangers from sticking me with needles. If I want to become a wheezing viral planetoid, that's my terrible choice to make for myself.
furthermore, have you ever entertained the idea that the people who don't vote [i]shouldn't be voting in the first place?[/i]
Frankly, if it was possible to do it fairly (it is not), I would completely support [i]more[/i] barriers to voting. The only thing more dangerous than apathy is malignant ignorance. Emotional appeals and baseless, factless hostility should not be effective weapons in winning a vote, but they are, because you don't need to actually know anything in order to make your stupid voice count.[/QUOTE]
"[I]I[/I] want the right to decline my part in improving not just my nation, but humanity as a whole because needles scare me or mercury or some shit"
Tell you what DOES set a bad precedent though; LIMITING WHO CAN FUCKING VOTE. I don't understand your position, what do you want? Do you want to be a truly free man in the wild where all the rules are set by your own morality? Do you also want the wonders of modern technology without any of the strings of civilsation and society attached? Well, no, you don't get to have that. The state of humanity has far beyond being a single man against the world. Like it or not, we are a part of nations, and even if you are in a democracy that doesn't mean you get to just fucking say no to anything that does nothing but harm to not just you but your fellow man. I bet you'd also support allowing people to smoke around kids just because it might be "your kid" or some shit.
Bottom line is we are far past the time of the cowboy, the explorer, and the wander in this world, and if you want to enjoy the blessings of modern life then you will have to abide by the things you must do to keep the lifeblood of democracy flowing. And if you're that afraid about ignorance, go out and fucking educate people and become a learned man. Become a bastion of intelligence people can learn from, not sit back and eat chips and complain how the world is going to shit while you do fuck all about it.
There is no excuse not to vote, no non-medical excuse not to get vaccines, and no excuse to just not do something that is totally beneficial because basically "fuck you I dun wanna" or "freedoms" or some shit.
The idea of voting for someone you don't want want to be president because YOU HAVE TO VOTE is waaaay worse than abstaining because you don't agree with the candidates.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49912908]except it's not just for yourself?? not sure if you've looked up what diseases actually do but they can - brace yourself, i know this might be a shock - spread to other people
[editline]11th March 2016[/editline]
!!!![/QUOTE]
I know! That's why I get vaccinations, obviously. I'm not an idiot. I just have some [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States]mild reservations about the federal government forcing injections on people.[/url]
[QUOTE=Skyward;49912941]The idea of voting for someone you don't want want to be president because YOU HAVE TO VOTE is waaaay worse than abstaining because you don't agree with the candidates.[/QUOTE]
There are far too many varied candidates that are independent. Democrat and Repubican aren't the only options. If you want to garner an underdog support get the ball rolling.
[editline]11th March 2016[/editline]
Also, an idea is to include an "abstain" option on the ballot, as it is a far better way to communicate to the government that all these guys are shit than just not voting
[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;49912956]Also, an idea is to include an "abstain" option on the ballot, as it is a far better way to communicate to the government that all these guys are shit than just not voting[/QUOTE]
I'm sure the government will be devastated. Totally worth clogging roads and voting lines with one hundred million extra people. Their voice needs to count, of course, even if they don't remember what year 9/11 happened on and can't point to France on a map.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;49913153]I'm sure the government will be devastated. Totally worth clogging roads and voting lines with one hundred million extra people. Their voice needs to count, of course, even if they don't remember what year 9/11 happened on and can't point to France on a map.[/QUOTE]
Then spread the voting process over a manageable amount of time. Also, at what point do you draw the line for someone to be able to vote? Because that really is a slippery slope.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.