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

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, soon said:

Why are you so terse? Its 8 am here. I am very sober. Whats the connection between being sober and pointing out your glaring omission? 

Also, I didnt speak to abortion being available. I only spoke to the simplistic and utopian vision for how it comes about that you put forward.

Because thinking that a broad comparison of eugenics versus normal abortion practise would require pointing out that would-be mothers find themselves being pulled in different directions, also from doctors -- which really is an utterly trivial point and completely irrelevant -- and that failing to do so would be a "glaring omission", all packed into a rambling, unfocused post, usually indicates a reduction in one's mental faculties. 

There is also nothing utopian or simplistic about my description of abortion on medical grounds, it is being practised in many countries already and doesn't seem to confer much more problems for the parents involved than other forms of abortion. That is not denying that the decision to have an abortion can be very hard on the parents, nor that they may find themselves pressured from various sides, just that this has nothing to do with the points I am making.

[Len Cnut]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Because thinking that a broad comparison of eugenics versus normal abortion practise would require pointing out that would-be mothers find themselves being pulled in different directions, also from doctors -- which really is an utterly trivial point and completely irrelevant -- and that failing to do so would be a "glaring omission", all packed into a rambling, unfocused post, usually indicates a reduction in one's mental faculties. 

There is also nothing utopian or simplistic about my description of abortion on medical grounds, it is being practised in many countries already and doesn't seem to confer much more problems for the parents involved than other forms of abortion. That is not denying that the decision to have an abortion can be very hard on the parents, nor that they may find themselves pressured from various sides, just that this has nothing to do with the points I am making.

Part of the issue with some of the ideas that get thrown up is that, OK, you're coming from a good place with it but the human race ain't always a good bunch of people and you can set prescedents that are dangerous.  To which I suppose an obvious counterpoint is do we hinder the good or even things that are beneficial to the advancement of the species because there's a few cunts knockin' about?  Its just when there's human lives on the line the stakes are kind of high. 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

Part of the issue with some of the ideas that get thrown up is that, OK, you're coming from a good place with it but the human race ain't always a good bunch of people and you can set prescedents that are dangerous.  To which I suppose an obvious counterpoint is do we hinder the good or even things that are beneficial to the advancement of the species because there's a few cunts knockin' about?  Its just when there's human lives on the line the stakes are kind of high. 

I have no idea what you are talking about. The ongoing discussion is about allowing abortion on medical grounds, opening up for allowing it for fetuses with Down syndrome and similarly severe medical conditions. This is already acceptable in large parts of the world. Where I live would-be parents are screened for fetuses with Down and get the option to terminate the pregnancy. I think parents all over should have that option, because I think it is better to have that option than to not have it. My opinion on the matter isn't really controversial - unless one is against abortion as a principle.

[DieselDaisy]

What about this great world leader you desire then Soul? And more interventionist wars?

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

What about this great world leader you desire then Soul? And more interventionist wars?

What great world leader? What are you on about now, then? 

[DieselDaisy]

On 9/28/2018 at 1:50 PM, 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.

 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

Ah, I didn't literally mean a global leader as in one single person, more in the form of an organization.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Ah, I didn't literally mean a global leader as in one single person, more in the form of an organization.

Fair enough. So you want the UN to become an interventionist military body?

[soon]

16 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Because thinking that a broad comparison of eugenics versus normal abortion practise would require pointing out that would-be mothers find themselves being pulled in different directions, also from doctors -- which really is an utterly trivial point and completely irrelevant -- and that failing to do so would be a "glaring omission", all packed into a rambling, unfocused post, usually indicates a reduction in one's mental faculties. 

There is also nothing utopian or simplistic about my description of abortion on medical grounds, it is being practised in many countries already and doesn't seem to confer much more problems for the parents involved than other forms of abortion. That is not denying that the decision to have an abortion can be very hard on the parents, nor that they may find themselves pressured from various sides, just that this has nothing to do with the points I am making.

Yeah, the point you made about abortion on medical grounds with out including reference to the medical community. A community that was not built with a patients informed prior consent in mind. Yes it was simplistic and omitted key points.

You seem to believe that systems are benevolent and correct human wrongdoing. And your faith in those systems is unfounded.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

You said you wanted a powerful group to thoroughly police the world lol

I am not a huge fan of anarchy. The transition from lawless society to one where we all enjoy some degree of protection through law and order is vital for protection of our human rights. I think most of us would agree on that. 

And then I am a huge fan of the idea of a UN that operates on a level above states, to keep rogue states in check and prevent wars and conflicts between and in nations. I think that to a large extent is the idea behind the UN, too. To do the same thing that has been done on the levels of individual states, just lift it up to the level above.

Unfortunately UN doesn't work like that in its present form. It is ridiculously impotent and severely flawed in its setup. A proper UN, meant to protect all countries in the world equally, would have to be much more democratic in its organization. No veto rights for a few powerful countries. And a lot more that I dont have time to write now

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Fair enough. So you want the UN to become an interventionist military body?

I want it completely overhauled, changed and fixed. And then, if it works properly and has vast support from humans across the world, then I would also want it to have interventionist military powers, yes. That was also the idea behind the UN, but since we have the security council with veto rights for countries who tend to be in conflict with each other, it becomes pathetically impotent. And also, with the way it is set up now, when it doesn't fully represent the entire human population equally, it would be wrong to grant it interventionist military powers.

[SoulMonster]

19 minutes ago, soon said:

Yeah, the point you made about abortion on medical grounds with out including reference to the medical community. A community that was not built with a patients informed prior consent in mind. Yes it was simplistic and omitted key points.

You seem to believe that systems are benevolent and correct human wrongdoing. And your faith in those systems is unfounded.

No, I seem to believe that parents should be allowed to terminate pregnancies in case of certain severe medical conditions 

20 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

@SoulMonster do you think A.I. androids are a good or bad idea? 

What is that? Fancy robots? I am pretty pragmatic, if they work and make our lives better, then I approve; if not, I don't.

[Ace Nova]

32 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Ah, I didn't literally mean a global leader as in one single person, more in the form of an organization.

New World Order, eh, Soul?

[Ace Nova]

To All Workers, Soldiers and Peasants. The authority will at once propose a democratic peace to all nations and an immediate armistice on all fronts. It will safeguard the transfer without compensation of all land – landlord, imperial, and monastery – to the peasants' committees; it will defend the soldiers' rights, introducing a complete democratisation of the army; it will establish workers' control over industry; it will ensure the convocation of the Constituent Assembly on the date set; it will supply the cities with bread and the villages with articles of first necessity; and it will secure to all nationalities inhabiting the world, the right of self-determination ... Long live the revolution!

 

-Soul Monster, 2018

 

 

[soon]

20 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, I seem to believe that parents should be allowed to terminate pregnancies in case of certain severe medical conditions 

 

Something that no one has argued against. 

[SoulMonster]

15 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

New World Order, eh, Soul?

Yes

[SoulMonster]

36 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Very fancy robots indistinguishable from humans possessing thoughts and feelings and a sense of identity. I think it's an inherently terrible idea that would never benefit humanity as the only outcome would be them taking over or us enslaving a sentient species.

Sentient mechanical life-forms, eh? Until we can properly take care of and protect the already existing life around us, we shouldn't even entertain that idea. 

[SoulMonster]

22 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Like the technocracy idea, more than the fact that people wouldn't accept it, it would never work.

Then again society mindlessly accepts a lot of things so who knows. It still wouldn't work though.

People thought we would never agree to state-formation either. That we would never accept to be governed by some over-arching national police force. That we would never adhere to rules and laws defined by someone else. That we would never agree to taxation that didn't directly benefit ourselves. Basically, that we would never agree to become citizens of a state. Yet we did all this, and escaped lawless society as a result. I see no principle reason why we can't, on a level of states, agree to the same thing. There is no fundamental difference between individual counties/fiefdoms coming together to be governed as a state, to individual states coming together to be governed by some global pan-organization.

And whether it works really comes down to its setup. Just like we have failed states today, we also have highly successful states. It all comes down to how it is done. And the benefits of a well-functioning state to a pre-state society should be obvious. At some time in the future I am sure we will look back at the time when we refused to organize ourselves globally, as bizarre.

[SoulMonster]

It really is disastrous that the UN was set up so badly. It really has turned people against the whole idea of an over-arching organization that should work to promote human right and peace. People look at the UN and think, "Well, that idea was flawed let's never try that again", whereas it was the implementation that was flawed. 

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

You can't see a fundamental difference between sovereign countries having states and taxes and a global authority military force?

Consolidation of power is a consolidation of corruption. 

The existing UN, nor the improved version I would like to have it replaced by, shouldn't be simplified to a mere military force. 

And no, I don't see a fundamental difference between organising counties in states, and organising states in something like the revamped UN. The difference is on scale and nothing else. 

If consolidation of power leads to consolidation of corruption, why do we then have successful states, and why can't the counter-measures to corruption as applied on the level of states also work and be successful on the larger scale? Is there any reason that the scale-up from state to UN becomes too much? 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Well, first of all which countries are in this hypothetical UN?

As with the current UN, the goal would be that all countries are members.

[SoulMonster]

47 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Is that really the current goal and if so, is it realistic? My cynical instincts tell me no. Unfortunately, society exists off the back of conflict and taking advantage of an 'other'.

You would need to fix America - at the bare minimum too just for a start and that's not going to happen. I say that's the bare minimum because Russia and China are even less likely to be fixed and one of those 3 has to go first to break the never ending cycle of pointing fingers and since they're all hypocrites and all have the mantra of if we don't do it they will; failing a synchronized global revolution of enlightenment that's not going to happen.

Debts/The banks. The military industrial complex. Religion. Are all very real persistent incentives for some to want global society to never unite.

There are many reasons why it is going to be hard to revamp the UN. It is not likely that countries which today enjoy a seat at the Security Council, would be happy to give some of that power away to other countries. But that is vital to have a UN that represents the entirety of mankind equally. So it is going to be hard. I fear that it is only going to happen as the result of some global catastrophe that emphasises the necessity of a functional UN, just like it was the massive loss of human life in WWI that lead to the construction of the League of Nations, the predecessor to the UN. 

[SoulMonster]

To follow up on that: It is not inconceivable that it could happen. As mentioned, the horror of WWI and a desire to prevent such catastrophies from ever occurring again, lead to the formation of what has evolved into our current UN. So if it has happened before, it can happen again. We shouldn't dismiss the possibility when we have historical presedence. 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

You're right I shouldn't be so cynical. Fingers crossed for another world war or alien invasion. 

Or maybe people will just get so fed up with continues failures on UN's part to keep peace, like the failure to intervene in Ukraine or Syria, that enough momentum will be grow to cause a reformation of the existing UN. Evolution, not revolution. That is more probable than political will to discard the one we have and design a new one from then bottoms-up.

Edited September 29, 2018 by SoulMonster

[soon]

Some would argue that WW1 was to restructure economic powers to be more in line with Industrialized Capitalism. It started splintering smaller feudal Empires with the very first shot. If one believes that industrialized capitalism provides safeguards agasint violence and catastrophes then mission accomplished. But if one reads the news, big swing and a miss.