No Holds Barred Thread - Post Anything That Is On Your Mind, Even the Politically Incorrect!

[Tori72]

Dogs and sheep going extinct is near.

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Tori72

[soon]

 

 

[Padme]

56 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Icecream sandwiches.

I guess that means your all time favorite artist is Vanilla Ice 

[soon]

 

[DieselDaisy]

I love the fact that he chucked a bit of John Lennon, ''love'', on the end there haha.

[soon]

[Dazey]

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't have many controversial opinion, except maybe that it shouldn't be a human right to have kids or to foster them, that we need to spend a lot more resources on schools and education, that the UN must be fixed and become a lot more powerful so we actually get a global leader who can keep rogues states in check, that euthanasia can be acceptable in some cases, that free will is an illusion, that the supernatural doesn't exist, that we as a species need to come together and agree on what we hope to achieve beyond just to survive as individuals, that the idea of good vs evil is simplified nonsense, that we tend to focus more on the means than the results which should be to be happy and do good to others, that there is no scientific reason to assume there can't be differences in intelligence across populations/races just like there are other genetic differences between us, that goats should replace sheep because the latter are nothing but expressions of genetic debris, and on that point that many of our dog breeds are genetic abominations and should be slowly phased out, that we should open up for allowing parents to terminate pregnancies based on many more genetic defects including Downs syndrome, that democracy is only the best system of government because people are ignorant and/or can't accept the fact that governance including choosing our leaders should be left in the hands of the best among us (technocracy), that we spend too much money on things and too little on memories because the latter will make our lives worth it not the former, and that we really need to accept that the important thing in life is the love we have for our family and friends and pets and hobbies and everything and that we should never forget that because this love when cared for and cherished can dwarf so many of the petty problems and annoyances that tend for some reason to preoccupy our minds and make days grey and boring. Let love rule.

Agree with pretty much all of this. 

[DieselDaisy]

Recycled 1930s fascism. 

[soon]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Agree with pretty much all of this. 

If you agree with a technocracy and then give other policy suggestions, I guess that means that you believe you would be "one of the best among us?" Or else, one would think, you'd only state your support for a technocracy?

[DieselDaisy]

It is a horrendous post. There is racism in there. There are eugenics in there. There is the fuhrer principle (''global leader'') and advocacy for military interventionism (just what we need, more global policing?). The whole thing is statist and interfering, the ruthless aggrandising of the state at the expence of the individual and liberty. 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, soon said:

If you agree with a technocracy and then give other policy suggestions, I guess that means that you believe you would be "one of the best among us?" Or else, one would think, you'd only state your support for a technocracy?

I didn't say I wanted a technocracy. In fact, that would be catastrophic. I said democracy is the best form for government.

And even if you are willing to outsource governance to those best equipped for the job, doesn't mean you would consider yourself one of them, only that you accept that you'd be better off being governed by the best. So you'd be sensible in terms of taking care of yourself but not necessarily among the very best at governance. 

[soon]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I didn't say I wanted a technocracy. In fact, that would be catastrophic. I said democracy is the best form for government.

And even if you are willing to outsource governance to those best equipped for the job, doesn't mean you would consider yourself one of them, only that you accept that you'd be better off being governed by the best. So you'd be sensible in terms of taking care of yourself but not necessarily among the very best at governance. 

No. You did advocate technocracy. And then made policy suggestions. 

I didnt say that anyone advocating technocracy would see themselves as one of the elites, but pointed out that you listed policy suggestions alongside endorsing technocracy. I asked Dazy and not you about the implication of enduring technocracy alongside giving policy input because I already know youd envision yourself as part of the intelligencia control all the "ignorant" people. 

But you are backing off your endorsement so I guess thats that.

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is a horrendous post. There is racism in there. 

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there are genetic differences among human populations. The color of our skins is evidence of that. What I said is that there is no scientific reason why there can't be genetic differences among population groups that result in differences in intelligence. In fact, it would be highly unscientific to thing that intelligence is not a subject to evolution and hence couldn't have evolved differently in populations living under different environmental conditions. That's all I am saying. 

To follow-up: The jury is still out on whether there really are differences in intelligence among population groups. I am just saying it wouldn't come as a shock to science if there were 

Secondly, it is not racism to point out differences among humans, it is racism to treat humans differently, especially to discriminate certain populations or deem them of less value. We must be able to see the world for what it is yet still retain our humanity. 

5 minutes ago, soon said:

No. You did advocate technocracy. 

I literally said that democracy is the best form of government 

[soon]

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't have many controversial opinion, except maybe that it shouldn't be a human right to have kids or to foster them, that we need to spend a lot more resources on schools and education, that the UN must be fixed and become a lot more powerful so we actually get a global leader who can keep rogues states in check, that euthanasia can be acceptable in some cases, that free will is an illusion, that the supernatural doesn't exist, that we as a species need to come together and agree on what we hope to achieve beyond just to survive as individuals, that the idea of good vs evil is simplified nonsense, that we tend to focus more on the means than the results which should be to be happy and do good to others, that there is no scientific reason to assume there can't be differences in intelligence across populations/races just like there are other genetic differences between us, that goats should replace sheep because the latter are nothing but expressions of genetic debris, and on that point that many of our dog breeds are genetic abominations and should be slowly phased out, that we should open up for allowing parents to terminate pregnancies based on many more genetic defects including Downs syndrome, that democracy is only the best system of government because people are ignorant and/or can't accept the fact that governance including choosing our leaders should be left in the hands of the best among us (technocracy), that we spend too much money on things and too little on memories because the latter will make our lives worth it not the former, and that we really need to accept that the important thing in life is the love we have for our family and friends and pets and hobbies and everything and that we should never forget that because this love when cared for and cherished can dwarf so many of the petty problems and annoyances that tend for some reason to preoccupy our minds and make days grey and boring. Let love rule.

This is what was said.

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there are genetic differences among human populations. The color of our skins is evidence of that. What I said is that there is no scientific reason why there can't be genetic differences among population groups that result in differences in intelligence. In fact, it would be highly unscientific to thing that intelligence is not a subject to evolution and hence couldn't have evolved differently in populations living under different environmental conditions. That's all I am saying. 

To follow-up: The jury is still out on whether there really are differences in intelligence among population groups. I am just saying it wouldn't come as a shock to science if there were 

Secondly, it is not racism to point out differences among humans, it is racism to treat humans differently, especially to discriminate certain populations or deem them of less value. We must be able to see the world for what it is yet still retain our humanity. 

I literally said that democracy is the best form of government 

Garbage. There would not be intelligent people produced from all the races then.

[SoulMonster]

25 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

There are eugenics in there. 

I suppose you are thinking about my opinion that we should open up for allowing parents the right to end a pregnancy if the fetus has Downs? Well, this is already established practise many places. In fact, most countries allows abortion if the fetus suffers from various defects. So in that sense eugenics is already accepted. 

Or maybe you were thinking about getting rid of sheep in favor of their cooler cousins the goats? Well, sheep are genetic cul-de-sac and goats rule so what can I say? 

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Garbage. There would not be intelligent people produced from all the races then.

Huh? You think that there can't be differences in average intelligence between different population groups because that would mean that some of the groups would only be comprised of unintelligent people? Oh Daisy 

Edited September 28, 2018 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I suppose you are thinking about my opinion that we should open up for allowing parents the right to end a pregnancy if the fetus has Downs? Well, this is already established practise many places. In fact, most countries allows abortion if the fetus suffers from various defects. So in that sense eugenics is already accepted. 

Or maybe you were thinking about getting rid of sheep in favor of their cooler cousins the goats? Well, sheep are genetic cul-de-sac and goats rule so what can I say? 

Huh? 

If  ''there is no scientific reason to assume there can't be differences in intelligence across populations/races'', this would be empirically evident then? As history shows, intelligent people have sprang forth from every different race. Racial essentialism has fallen out of favour with mainstream academics since the defeat of Nazism. 

[DieselDaisy]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I suppose you are thinking about my opinion that we should open up for allowing parents the right to end a pregnancy if the fetus has Downs? Well, this is already established practise many places. In fact, most countries allows abortion if the fetus suffers from various defects. So in that sense eugenics is already accepted. 

Or maybe you were thinking about getting rid of sheep in favor of their cooler cousins the goats? Well, sheep are genetic cul-de-sac and goats rule so what can I say? 

There was a girl with Downs who worked in the shop next to me. She led a full life and was adored by everybody.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

If  ''there is no scientific reason to assume there can't be differences in intelligence across populations/races'', this would be empirically evident then? 

Do we even have a proper way to measure something as vague as intelligence? And is our methods strong enough to measure a difference that is probably very small? Also, not exactly a well-funded field of science 

As I said, the jury is out. Measurements of IQ certainly suggests differences, but IQ doesn't equal intelligence and IQ measurements come with heaps of weaknesses. 

Regardless, I am certainly NOT advocating that there are, just that intelligence, like other traits, is subject to evolution and hence may have evolved differently in distant population groups, or that it would be unscientific to disregard this possibility offhand. 

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

There was a girl with Downs who worked in the shop next to me. She led a full life and was adored by everybody.

And? 

[soon]

 

[DieselDaisy]

54 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Do we even have a proper way to measure something as vague as intelligence? And is our methods strong enough to measure a difference that is probably very small? Also, not exactly a well-funded field of science 

As I said, the jury is out. Measurements of IQ certainly suggests differences, but IQ doesn't equal intelligence and IQ measurements come with heaps of weaknesses. 

Regardless, I am certainly NOT advocating that there are, just that intelligence, like other traits, is subject to evolution and hence may have evolved differently in distant population groups, or that it would be unscientific to disregard this possibility offhand. 

And? 

And you would've bumped her off? (She is already dead you'll be pleased to know). 

 

[DieselDaisy]

Low government. No government interference - ''every Englishman and his castle''. Low taxation. That is what I believe. 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

And you would've bumped her off? (She is already dead you'll be pleased to know). 

 

Opening up for allowing the parents to choose on terminating a pregnancy where the fetus has Downs syndrome says nothing about what I would have chosen if I was in that situation personally. But I would appreciate having the option and not having to to defer to whatever the politicians felt on the matter.

And why would I be pleased to know that the girl is dead? That is unacceptably crude. 

This is not about people with Downs. This is about pregnancies and granting the would-be parents the choice to not have to worry about whether their child will die from heart failure as a child, to not worry about whether their child will suffer from teasing and cruel jokes, to not have to accept the costs of taking properly care of a child with numerous handicaps. I think the parents should be granted that choice, and fortunately in many places politicians agree. 

I have to say, I don't think you are understanding much of this discussion. It seems to be just outside your grasp. And implying that I am advocating for the murder of people with Downs is crude and stupid even by your low standards. 

 

[arnold layne]

America isn't all that great.

Also Open Container laws are stupid. 

[SoulMonster]

As a personal side-note, some of my best friends have a daughter with Downs. And I am quite aware of the anguish they felt when they knew the fetus had Downs, the anxieties that were thrust upon them when they started to understand the complexity of the issue, and then, the hardships that followed, and will stay with them, in taking care of their daughter. I am sure they made the right decision to not terminate the pregnancy, they are great parents and she lacks of nothing despite having a severe case of the syndrome. They are excellent, resourceful parents. Still, I am also very happy they actually had that choice, and I would not condemn any parents who made the opposite decision.