Remember when Australia shut down all immigration during the pandemic and suddenly a bunch of problems started magically fixing themselves? It’s almost like immigration is a net negative for developed countries.
That being said though they also put a ton of people into "covid camps" during that time, so you can't exactly say it was a good thing. It's like if your septic tank leaks and all of a sudden your neighborhood's potholes are filled with shit/no longer pose a problem.
Brain fart. I'll remove it, since in that context it actually means the opposite of what I meant.
But here is what I meant: They'll pick one thing a state is doing that they don't like, and try to do away with the whole system and apply their rule at the federal level instead. It's the same sort of authoritarianism; if a state tries to go against them, they're Wrong™ and, what do you know, it's time to federally enshrine that issue.
But, yeah, given that list, I was accidentally saying the opposite of what I meant. Oops.
The problem is that there actually are people who think that 14-year-olds raped by their brothers should be forced to give birth (and I'm sure there are some people who are now preparing their THE BABY IS INNOCENT retort).
Of course the pro-choice side is going to dishonestly spin that to push its agenda. I'm pro-choice myself, so it's not about tribalism for me, but the dishonesty of my side is truly incredible. I literally never see them make a good argument.
I don’t want to jump in and be the straw man, but I’ll bite:
The baby is innocent. One crime does not allow another to be committed. Abortion is fundamentally murder, and it’s becoming more and more the “leftists” version of the Eucharist, but a satanic inversion of it (where the Eucharist is “this is my body, given up for you” abortion is “this is your body, given up for me”).
Abortion is a deep, deep societal evil and its acceptance is one of the reasons why we have many problems. When life can be denied for convenience, dressed up as healthcare, it’s no wonder we have issues.
Cuck logic. A man who rapes you is your enemy, and willingly propagating your enemy’s genetic line is dysgenic nonsense.
You can also think of it in terms of self-defense. If someone attempts to murder me, I am not committing a crime when I prevent my own murder at their hands - even if it means killing that person. Likewise, the person responsible for the abortion of a rape baby is the rapist. The woman is simply defending herself and her generic line from a violent and unwanted incursion.
I actually agree with you. Rapist genes should be purged. The baby is innocent, yes, but it's also actively harmful by simply existing. It harms the mother and father by being a constant reminder of the rape, and it harms society by propagating low IQ a low IQ rapist's bloodline. It even harms itself by having to live with the fact that it's a rape baby.
Besides, if you're a Christian you believe that babies go to heaven anyway. Unless you're one of the more hardcore branches, in which case it goes to purgatory, then heaven. Which is still pretty good.
If we're doing analogies it's closer to your enemy sending a child with a suicide vest to your house, and to survive you have to kill not the enemy but that child. Also it turned out it was your child. Most people would assign responsibility to the person who strapped the bomb on the kid so this aligns with what you said.
As far as cuck logic goes I'm not sure that can apply to females. Yeah if your wife is raped and you insist she carry, you're leaning towards cuckdom.
Which of course only applies in these cases, and not, for example, when women say men under 6 foot should all kill themselves. Despite that being a much better way to improve our own countries genetic lines.
Let's say that you're absolutely correct about everything. Even from your own POV, making that argument is a political loser, because it enables the kind of strawmen that the pro-choice fanatics use to oppose any restrictions on abortion.
If I accepted that there is a 'baby' from the moment of conception, I may agree to ban abortions for convenience, but obviously, a rape victim did not ask to get pregnant. It's an act of wanton cruelty to force such a thing on that victim, based on what is ultimately a philosophical matter that cannot be proven one way or the other.
The effectiveness of an argument is measured by the extent to which it moves people towards your side. Obviously, if you make an argument that repels people, no matter how logically valid it is or you think it is, that "negates its effectiveness".
There are no prizes for being morally correct, though I wouldn't argue that people who want to ban abortion in cases of rape are moral.
It would be equally applicable to a Roman Senator who in 149 BC would say "hey, maybe we shouldn't destroy Carthage because they haven't done anything wrong".
Making arguments is trying to get the audience closer to your POV, nothing more.
Arguments are only relevant to debate among a people with a shared cultural framework, and culture is downstream from law. Progressives have been winning for many decades now by simply imposing their will and the populace accepts it later. This is a war.
The only debate the average normie should see is between ourguy and a carefully selected crazy progressive shouting about how much fun it is to murder babies. It's cruel that the average person is currently burdened with constant anxiety over complex geopolitical events and philosophical questions far beyond them, when they should be almost entirely focused on the concerns of their daily lives and families.
I think it makes more sense to say culture is downstream from power. Culture includes the application of and (non-)acquiescence to law. Enshrining laws is important but only temporary if you don't seize and hold power. For the forces in power, the law is what they say it is. (hmm, I suppose if that means law=power then never mind)
This has nothing to do with what you said, just something I thought about the other day.
An exception for muh rape will just enable even more fraudulent accusations. Women already make shit up all the time, just for attention or money. Imagine throwing a kid in there as another motivation. Everyone will be an accused rapist.
I'd laugh if it wasn't so evil. What's this "against their will" bullshit?!
No one is forced to take care, and 99.9% of people are physically capable of killing themselves if that's truly their choice. Asking the government to do it is cowardly bullshit, and will result in outright murder. People who were feeling a little down but would never have gone through with their thoughts will now be put down by their governments. The evil is damn near off the charts, and normies can't see it.
The whole "assisted death" thing is built on false premises and manipulative emotional appeal arguments.
These fuckers can all take a dose of their own "medicine" if it's so great.
Yeah it's actually annoying not to see every reply calling him immediately on that fantasist bullshit. Consent to treatment was one of the foundational tenets of western medical practice. Even obviously imminently life saving treatments can be refused for whatever reason and it was hardcoded in every professional guideline that that must be respected even if it meant watching someone die. They err'ed on the side of saving lives in the case of those incapable of consent, but even that is clearly accounted for by preparing do not resuscitate instructions in advance.
Unfortunately that's all in the past tense because somewhere around, oh, say 2020 they started taking a jackhammer to that foundation and filling the gaping holes created with hot, fresh horseshit.
You could have always have put a gun in your mouth, mixed meds, or inhaled your car's exhaust fumes, and the thing that seems to not be registering here is that the government creepily wants to do it instead and that they're uncomfortably forward with it. They insist upon being able to kill you.
It's like they didn't just see the canadian government get creepily totalitarian in a snap now they're not going to question or interrogate this creepy little power move. Why on earth would you trust them with that?
I like Richard Hanania and he's a good guy. Sometimes too much of a lolbertarian, but generally spot on - probably more to the liking than the people here than nearly all pundits, because as an Arab he is not afraid to touch on topics sensitive to Westerners.
But actually, suffering because God wills it is part of the Western tradition.
I disagree. He has some bad takes, like mocking people for not taking vaccines (but he's not a total Covid idiot, he goes further in attacking people for wearing masks than I would).
His takes on race, gender, and 'democracy' are more spicy than I see from basically anyone else.
I don't know who that is. Is it someone who is, for lack of a better term, on the far-right. What I like about Hanania is that he just a normal Ph.D. and yet he's pretty woke on racial issues.
Very interesting. I had never heard of the guy, but I had come across some of these ideas. I also find it interesting that this is labeled as 'identity politics for the right', but I don't see any identity politics here.
The other reply is much more thorough, but most recently Sailer has become a twitter apex predator and many memes have been made about it. Whenever progressives start talking about crime on twitter, the signal goes up and Sailer arrives to become the top reply with nuanced statistic drops, which causes his prey to immediately drop the topic and move on.
On the one hand, someone suffering tremendously in a 'life' that is nothing but a bed ridden drug fueled nightmare ride, ffs yes, let them die with some kind of dignity.
On the other hand, the government wrote the law, so corporations immediately began looking for loopholes, and they found a whole bunch of them to encourage you to die so they can save a buck in the long run.
It's a disgrace, but c'mon, anyone with more than 2 brain cells saw it coming.
There's actually nothing wrong with this. Healthcare shouldn't be universal or socialized. It should be privatized and then many people would die simply because they couldn't afford healthcare and that's a good thing. We shouldn't be investing resources into worthless people.
Funny, because I consider the people who think people deserve healthcare simply because they exist to be the insane ones. If anything given to you requires the labor of another, that is slavery. It's fine if you negotiate a fair price for someone to work for you but if you require them to do work for you in the name of socialism that's as slavery as it gets.
Funny, because I consider the people who think people deserve healthcare simply because they exist to be the insane ones
Those are not the only two options. But it's far more insane to think that Taylor Lorenz, Joe Biden and Mark Zuckerberg deserve health care, but someone who's out of work due to government policy deserves to die and he's a good thing.
If anything given to you requires the labor of another, that is slavery
Slavery is ownership of another person. But I notice that you aren't even trying to defend your claim that it is a good thing if people who can't afford health care die.
but someone who's out of work due to government policy
This isn't a very good argument against someone who's talking about their opposition to socialism: if someone is out of work due to "government policy," that's a whole different failure that has nothing to do with whether or not healthcare is 'affordable'.
The only reason you think the people you listed don't deserve healthcare over another is because of the inherent corruption in our system. We don't promote a moral national capitalist system and instead promote an immoral international capitalist system so those who climb within the system are often not virtuous people. However, there are many that do climb who are virtuous and just because you don't have money doesn't mean you are virtuous. Many who lack resources in our society do in fact lack value. Overall, our system would be better if we only have healthcare to those who could afford it. We should also make strides towards promoting a more moral nationalist capitalist system so that men like Biden or Zuckerberg aren't able to exploit the system through immoral means to gain resources. That's a separate issue though and shouldn't be conflated.
If all you are to this society is a worker at McDonalds without a strong family who has proven their worth to this society and you get sick with $10,000,000 worth of healthcare, if you cannot plead your case to another rich person willing to volunteer their funds away to pay for your care, then yes, you should die. The strain on our society by diverting resources toward people who contribute very little to keep them alive for the sake of keeping them alive is immense and doesn't actually produce a better society in the end. Every one is going to die. Keeping people alive as long as possible for the sake of doing isn't productive at all nor is it even a good thing. We could be better diverting our resources to other ventures that are better for society.
Now, there are other issues. I get that. Why can drug companies have patents on drugs in the manner in which they do for the length of that that they do. Are IP laws even a good thing? Those are questions we can ask and perhaps make changes to. I will admit that our system is far from perfect but just because the system is imperfect doesn't mean we must promote socialism in healthcare because such a system is also far from the ideal. We should be instead making grounds toward better systems which means tweaking things like IP law and enforcing morality upon society to ensure those who get ahead do so for the right reasons and not for the sake of profit-seeking over exploiting others and promoting moral degeneracy or other ventures that are overall net negatives to the culture of our society.
Ideally speaking, if we have a perfect meritocracy grounded in good solid objective morals then those who can't afford healthcare do in fact deserve to die because only those who can pay for the healthcare themselves or solicit the help of their social networks have contributed enough to society to make keeping them alive worthwhile and in society's interest. This is true equity and justice. Keeping people alive for the sake of keeping people alive is unjust because you are wasting the resources of society as a whole against that society's will to promote a value that by no means is actually a good one. You're throwing valuable resources at a dead end (literally).
There are certain considerations when talking healthcare. What is ideal isn't necessarily attainable given certain realities. The most practical solution to healthcare is to have a bare minimum healthcare that is socialized. Something like that is not too strenuous on resources. You break your arm, you get patched up. You catch an STI, you get some antibiotics. However, all healthcare beyond this should be privatized. You want cutting edge treatment for some rare disease only 3 people in the country also have, then you pay out of pocket.
Only an eminently sensible person would say that someone who works in retail deserves to die if he gets sick and Mark Zuckerberg does not.
Nice try, OpenGPT.
Write an essay arguing that it's good when people die when they cannot afford healthcare.
The issue of access to healthcare has been an ongoing debate in the United States for decades. While the debate is often framed in terms of economics and the cost of providing healthcare, there is an ethical argument to be made that it is good when people die when they cannot afford healthcare.
The first point to consider is that death is a natural part of life. As humans, we are all headed to the same destination, and death is inevitable for us all. To deny someone access to healthcare because of their economic status is to deny them the opportunity to live life to its fullest. By allowing people to die when they cannot afford healthcare, we are allowing them to accept their mortality and embrace the natural course of life.
Secondly, it can be argued that denying healthcare to those who cannot afford it can be seen as a way of protecting their rights. In a world where access to healthcare is based on wealth, those who are unable to afford healthcare are denied the right to live a healthy and fulfilled life. By allowing people to die when they cannot afford healthcare, we are ensuring that no one is denied their right to live a healthy life due to their lack of resources.
Finally, it can be argued that death can serve as a moral lesson to those who are able to afford healthcare. The death of someone who is unable to afford healthcare is a stark reminder of the inequalities that exist in our society. By allowing someone to die when they cannot afford healthcare, we are sending a message that this type of inequality is not acceptable and must be addressed.
In conclusion, it can be argued that it is good when people die when they cannot afford healthcare. Death is a natural part of life, denying healthcare to those who cannot afford it can be seen as a way of protecting their rights, and it can serve as a moral lesson to those who are able to afford healthcare. Ultimately, allowing people to die when they cannot afford healthcare can help to ensure that everyone is able to live a healthy and fulfilled life.
I do not believe in human rights. I do not believe what you're arguing is moral. I firmly believe letting low value humans die would lead to a much better world. Part of the problem today is that we're trying very hard to go against nature's selection. This forums brings up feminism and gynocracy a lot because they understand women's hypergamic nature. Many single men who add considerable value to society are not getting a good outcome in life because the whole system is designed to take resources from what they generate and give to lesser humans. Men as a whole would get a much better outcome in life if we stopped propping less competent people up with things like universal healthcare among many welfare and resource distribution systems. Let people truly get what they deserve based on their worth based on their contribution to society while designed society itself to be moral (not in the way you suggest but in promoting strength and superior ways to do things). Our society instead oppresses the superior in order to unjustly elevate the inferior. We push victim mentalities onto everyone because people know in order to get ahead you have to pretend to be lesser so society takes from the superior and gives to you. It's an entire system designed to destroy itself by its own scam. A bunch of lazy entitled worthless humans that think their existence means they deserve things. We need to take that away from people and promote a just system that removes concepts like humans rights away entirely. Just because you exist doesn't mean you are guaranteed anything by society. You have to earn your way in life. You'd actually see depression decrease and people would become much happier under such a system that actually promotes people to accomplish things. Much of the problems of the gynocracy would end overnight if we stopped promoting things like humans rights and socialistic resource distribution policies. Make people work to earn their place. All of a sudden women's value plumits and so too do all the worthless leftists in this society. If you can't earn your way in this society you probably shouldn't have even been born. It's true, most people shouldn't have been born and it's not on society to correct for their parents mistakes in having them. When whores are fucking drug dealers and having 8 different kids from 8 different fathers who're in prison, yes those kids may end up dead and that's a good thing. We should not be encouraging people to continue this behavior by incentivizing it with socialism. They get stabbed in a gang fight over selling drugs and can't afford healthcare? Good.
No, people dying because they can’t afford healthcare isn’t a good thing, it’s a bad thing, a terrible thing.
The good news is that privatized healthcare would be far cheaper than government healthcare, and any remaining gap could be covered by charitable and religious organizations.
Government healthcare isn’t a problem just because it’s expensive, inefficient and eventually leads to government encouraging people to kill themselves like in Canada, but because it’s also a huge contributor to the slippery slope of government power and authority which eventually leads to escalation of all manner of atrocities and abuse, which in turn eventually leads to hell on earth.
I agree with your second paragraph completely. I also agree that if charitable groups want to cover the difference, that is all on them.
I want you to understand though that charitable groups will not be able to afford the difference. If your entire argument is based on this presumption that by privatization healthcare it will reduce the cost such that charity groups can easily make up the difference for those who can't afford healthcare, you are wrong. You're selling yourself a fantasy in order to not have to deal with the moral conundrum of not wanting public healthcare but also wanting all people who can't afford healthcare to get treatment. It's a fairy tale and it's why leftists are so opposed to your arguments because they know it's wrong. You will get some donations and some charity but you will not get enough and that's fine. You're going to need to come to terms with that.
Part of the reason charity is better than government is it allows people to control the funds. Perhaps they only want the funds to go toward healthcare related to issues that aren't drug related. That's good. Let them direct the funds on a manner they are most appropriate. It's their money. Only want to treat white people and not blacks? By all mean. Let them. But don't expect there to be enough funds because there won't be.
Also, healthcare will in fact get more expensive not less because the price will properly reflect the supply and demand but this is a good thing. Those with money to spend will spend it which will increase wages in the industry to leading to more innovation and better quality treatment which in the end is a better outcome for society as a whole. Socialized healthcare reduces the innovation in the industry and leads to less effieicnt. We don't divert resources properly given the supply and demand. This is what leads to shortages of workers, not enough hospital beds, not enough doctors, surgeons etc... (Though the doctors guilds and their monopoly on training/certification needs to be abolished also). Privatized healthcare will likely lead to a result where the most cutting edge and best healthcare goes up in price significantly, the average healthcare treatments goes up a little but with much better quality of service. You'll start to see more disparity in the quality of healthcare such as say the difference between money managers that manage $100k at a retail bank vs. money managers that manage $100,000,000 in net worth at a wealth management firm. Middle-class people will have access to better quality healthcare if they are willing to pay for it. Good doctors will be paid more. Bad doctors will be paid less. People will start shopping with their wallet and that's a good thing. The outcome is better. Privatized healthcare is superior in all regards.
I just want to reiterate though that if you fully privatize healthcare some people will not get enough money to get their treatment even with charities funding people and that's fine. If you don't think that's fine you shouldn't promote privatized healthcare. You're just fooling yourself because you can't take the next logical step morally and lose this idea that human life is worth saving for its mere sake. It's not. Your existence doesn't mean you have value and if you don't have value, no one has any reason to save you and no one should be under any obligation to save you if they don't want to.
Problem: Immigration is a putting a strain on resources such as housing and healthcare.
Solution: Kill the natives.
The only people safe from progressives' bloodthirst are murders and pedophiles.
Remember when Australia shut down all immigration during the pandemic and suddenly a bunch of problems started magically fixing themselves? It’s almost like immigration is a net negative for developed countries.
That being said though they also put a ton of people into "covid camps" during that time, so you can't exactly say it was a good thing. It's like if your septic tank leaks and all of a sudden your neighborhood's potholes are filled with shit/no longer pose a problem.
"Oh shit wait no!!!"
I mean if you finish that sentence the right way, all those problems kind of fix themselves.
And there are probably more than one correct answers, too...
Black Axe will be taking over.
Abortion, racism, sexism, guns, federal powers/big government, gay marriage, and so much more.
EDIT: Replaced "state's rights" with "federal powers" in the list as it had actually meant the opposite of what I intended in context. Oops.
wait why is state's rights on the list?
Brain fart. I'll remove it, since in that context it actually means the opposite of what I meant.
But here is what I meant: They'll pick one thing a state is doing that they don't like, and try to do away with the whole system and apply their rule at the federal level instead. It's the same sort of authoritarianism; if a state tries to go against them, they're Wrong™ and, what do you know, it's time to federally enshrine that issue.
But, yeah, given that list, I was accidentally saying the opposite of what I meant. Oops.
The problem is that there actually are people who think that 14-year-olds raped by their brothers should be forced to give birth (and I'm sure there are some people who are now preparing their THE BABY IS INNOCENT retort).
Of course the pro-choice side is going to dishonestly spin that to push its agenda. I'm pro-choice myself, so it's not about tribalism for me, but the dishonesty of my side is truly incredible. I literally never see them make a good argument.
I don’t want to jump in and be the straw man, but I’ll bite:
The baby is innocent. One crime does not allow another to be committed. Abortion is fundamentally murder, and it’s becoming more and more the “leftists” version of the Eucharist, but a satanic inversion of it (where the Eucharist is “this is my body, given up for you” abortion is “this is your body, given up for me”).
Abortion is a deep, deep societal evil and its acceptance is one of the reasons why we have many problems. When life can be denied for convenience, dressed up as healthcare, it’s no wonder we have issues.
Cuck logic. A man who rapes you is your enemy, and willingly propagating your enemy’s genetic line is dysgenic nonsense.
You can also think of it in terms of self-defense. If someone attempts to murder me, I am not committing a crime when I prevent my own murder at their hands - even if it means killing that person. Likewise, the person responsible for the abortion of a rape baby is the rapist. The woman is simply defending herself and her generic line from a violent and unwanted incursion.
I actually agree with you. Rapist genes should be purged. The baby is innocent, yes, but it's also actively harmful by simply existing. It harms the mother and father by being a constant reminder of the rape, and it harms society by propagating low IQ a low IQ rapist's bloodline. It even harms itself by having to live with the fact that it's a rape baby.
Besides, if you're a Christian you believe that babies go to heaven anyway. Unless you're one of the more hardcore branches, in which case it goes to purgatory, then heaven. Which is still pretty good.
If we're doing analogies it's closer to your enemy sending a child with a suicide vest to your house, and to survive you have to kill not the enemy but that child. Also it turned out it was your child. Most people would assign responsibility to the person who strapped the bomb on the kid so this aligns with what you said.
As far as cuck logic goes I'm not sure that can apply to females. Yeah if your wife is raped and you insist she carry, you're leaning towards cuckdom.
Ah yes, evolutionary genetic logic.
Which of course only applies in these cases, and not, for example, when women say men under 6 foot should all kill themselves. Despite that being a much better way to improve our own countries genetic lines.
The manlets are downvoting you but I agree my fellow southerner
One day they will learn that their impotent tiny rage only makes them look more hilarious.
Let's say that you're absolutely correct about everything. Even from your own POV, making that argument is a political loser, because it enables the kind of strawmen that the pro-choice fanatics use to oppose any restrictions on abortion.
If I accepted that there is a 'baby' from the moment of conception, I may agree to ban abortions for convenience, but obviously, a rape victim did not ask to get pregnant. It's an act of wanton cruelty to force such a thing on that victim, based on what is ultimately a philosophical matter that cannot be proven one way or the other.
The effectiveness of an argument is measured by the extent to which it moves people towards your side. Obviously, if you make an argument that repels people, no matter how logically valid it is or you think it is, that "negates its effectiveness".
There are no prizes for being morally correct, though I wouldn't argue that people who want to ban abortion in cases of rape are moral.
It has nothing to do with liberalism though.
It would be equally applicable to a Roman Senator who in 149 BC would say "hey, maybe we shouldn't destroy Carthage because they haven't done anything wrong".
Making arguments is trying to get the audience closer to your POV, nothing more.
You willing to bet your immortal soul, and the lives of innocents on that?
Do you think it is impossible for a valid argument to not be effective in your aim, which is persuading people?
Of course there are. And there are many bad, invalid and fallacious arguments that are effective.
Arguments are only relevant to debate among a people with a shared cultural framework, and culture is downstream from law. Progressives have been winning for many decades now by simply imposing their will and the populace accepts it later. This is a war.
The only debate the average normie should see is between ourguy and a carefully selected crazy progressive shouting about how much fun it is to murder babies. It's cruel that the average person is currently burdened with constant anxiety over complex geopolitical events and philosophical questions far beyond them, when they should be almost entirely focused on the concerns of their daily lives and families.
I think it makes more sense to say culture is downstream from power. Culture includes the application of and (non-)acquiescence to law. Enshrining laws is important but only temporary if you don't seize and hold power. For the forces in power, the law is what they say it is. (hmm, I suppose if that means law=power then never mind)
This has nothing to do with what you said, just something I thought about the other day.
Power is more appropriate.
Law is the codification of formal power. Or something similar, there is probably a better formulation.
An exception for muh rape will just enable even more fraudulent accusations. Women already make shit up all the time, just for attention or money. Imagine throwing a kid in there as another motivation. Everyone will be an accused rapist.
I can think of good arguments, I just never see the looney tunes make them.
It's always "women have the right to control their own body". The fetus obviously isn't your "own body".
I'd laugh if it wasn't so evil. What's this "against their will" bullshit?!
No one is forced to take care, and 99.9% of people are physically capable of killing themselves if that's truly their choice. Asking the government to do it is cowardly bullshit, and will result in outright murder. People who were feeling a little down but would never have gone through with their thoughts will now be put down by their governments. The evil is damn near off the charts, and normies can't see it.
The whole "assisted death" thing is built on false premises and manipulative emotional appeal arguments.
These fuckers can all take a dose of their own "medicine" if it's so great.
Yeah it's actually annoying not to see every reply calling him immediately on that fantasist bullshit. Consent to treatment was one of the foundational tenets of western medical practice. Even obviously imminently life saving treatments can be refused for whatever reason and it was hardcoded in every professional guideline that that must be respected even if it meant watching someone die. They err'ed on the side of saving lives in the case of those incapable of consent, but even that is clearly accounted for by preparing do not resuscitate instructions in advance.
Unfortunately that's all in the past tense because somewhere around, oh, say 2020 they started taking a jackhammer to that foundation and filling the gaping holes created with hot, fresh horseshit.
You could have always have put a gun in your mouth, mixed meds, or inhaled your car's exhaust fumes, and the thing that seems to not be registering here is that the government creepily wants to do it instead and that they're uncomfortably forward with it. They insist upon being able to kill you.
It's like they didn't just see the canadian government get creepily totalitarian in a snap now they're not going to question or interrogate this creepy little power move. Why on earth would you trust them with that?
A nEw LeAsE oN lIfE? LeT uS cOrReCt ThAt FoR yOu
Hi Mr. Bailey, it's me, Terrence, your guardian demon. You're right it's a terrible life and everyone would be better of if you'd never been born.
I like Richard Hanania and he's a good guy. Sometimes too much of a lolbertarian, but generally spot on - probably more to the liking than the people here than nearly all pundits, because as an Arab he is not afraid to touch on topics sensitive to Westerners.
But actually, suffering because God wills it is part of the Western tradition.
I disagree. He has some bad takes, like mocking people for not taking vaccines (but he's not a total Covid idiot, he goes further in attacking people for wearing masks than I would).
His takes on race, gender, and 'democracy' are more spicy than I see from basically anyone else.
I don't know who that is. Is it someone who is, for lack of a better term, on the far-right. What I like about Hanania is that he just a normal Ph.D. and yet he's pretty woke on racial issues.
Very interesting. I had never heard of the guy, but I had come across some of these ideas. I also find it interesting that this is labeled as 'identity politics for the right', but I don't see any identity politics here.
The other reply is much more thorough, but most recently Sailer has become a twitter apex predator and many memes have been made about it. Whenever progressives start talking about crime on twitter, the signal goes up and Sailer arrives to become the top reply with nuanced statistic drops, which causes his prey to immediately drop the topic and move on.
He's so much smarter than most of the people who read him that the replies he gets are hard to read sometimes.
On the one hand, someone suffering tremendously in a 'life' that is nothing but a bed ridden drug fueled nightmare ride, ffs yes, let them die with some kind of dignity.
On the other hand, the government wrote the law, so corporations immediately began looking for loopholes, and they found a whole bunch of them to encourage you to die so they can save a buck in the long run.
It's a disgrace, but c'mon, anyone with more than 2 brain cells saw it coming.
Liberty doesn't involve the government advocating killing it's own people
Reason doesn't include self-harm without the most extreme justifications.
Freedom is having a choice. "Freedom" is mandating the government do it. As you say, "liberals" love "freedom"...but generally hate actual freedom.
There's actually nothing wrong with this. Healthcare shouldn't be universal or socialized. It should be privatized and then many people would die simply because they couldn't afford healthcare and that's a good thing. We shouldn't be investing resources into worthless people.
This place sometimes feels like an open-air asylum.
The guy did say elsewhere in this thread that he does not believe in human rights.
Logically, by his own beliefs, killing him is not wrong. No right to life.
Funny, because I consider the people who think people deserve healthcare simply because they exist to be the insane ones. If anything given to you requires the labor of another, that is slavery. It's fine if you negotiate a fair price for someone to work for you but if you require them to do work for you in the name of socialism that's as slavery as it gets.
Those are not the only two options. But it's far more insane to think that Taylor Lorenz, Joe Biden and Mark Zuckerberg deserve health care, but someone who's out of work due to government policy deserves to die and he's a good thing.
Slavery is ownership of another person. But I notice that you aren't even trying to defend your claim that it is a good thing if people who can't afford health care die.
This isn't a very good argument against someone who's talking about their opposition to socialism: if someone is out of work due to "government policy," that's a whole different failure that has nothing to do with whether or not healthcare is 'affordable'.
The only reason you think the people you listed don't deserve healthcare over another is because of the inherent corruption in our system. We don't promote a moral national capitalist system and instead promote an immoral international capitalist system so those who climb within the system are often not virtuous people. However, there are many that do climb who are virtuous and just because you don't have money doesn't mean you are virtuous. Many who lack resources in our society do in fact lack value. Overall, our system would be better if we only have healthcare to those who could afford it. We should also make strides towards promoting a more moral nationalist capitalist system so that men like Biden or Zuckerberg aren't able to exploit the system through immoral means to gain resources. That's a separate issue though and shouldn't be conflated.
If all you are to this society is a worker at McDonalds without a strong family who has proven their worth to this society and you get sick with $10,000,000 worth of healthcare, if you cannot plead your case to another rich person willing to volunteer their funds away to pay for your care, then yes, you should die. The strain on our society by diverting resources toward people who contribute very little to keep them alive for the sake of keeping them alive is immense and doesn't actually produce a better society in the end. Every one is going to die. Keeping people alive as long as possible for the sake of doing isn't productive at all nor is it even a good thing. We could be better diverting our resources to other ventures that are better for society.
Now, there are other issues. I get that. Why can drug companies have patents on drugs in the manner in which they do for the length of that that they do. Are IP laws even a good thing? Those are questions we can ask and perhaps make changes to. I will admit that our system is far from perfect but just because the system is imperfect doesn't mean we must promote socialism in healthcare because such a system is also far from the ideal. We should be instead making grounds toward better systems which means tweaking things like IP law and enforcing morality upon society to ensure those who get ahead do so for the right reasons and not for the sake of profit-seeking over exploiting others and promoting moral degeneracy or other ventures that are overall net negatives to the culture of our society.
Ideally speaking, if we have a perfect meritocracy grounded in good solid objective morals then those who can't afford healthcare do in fact deserve to die because only those who can pay for the healthcare themselves or solicit the help of their social networks have contributed enough to society to make keeping them alive worthwhile and in society's interest. This is true equity and justice. Keeping people alive for the sake of keeping people alive is unjust because you are wasting the resources of society as a whole against that society's will to promote a value that by no means is actually a good one. You're throwing valuable resources at a dead end (literally).
There are certain considerations when talking healthcare. What is ideal isn't necessarily attainable given certain realities. The most practical solution to healthcare is to have a bare minimum healthcare that is socialized. Something like that is not too strenuous on resources. You break your arm, you get patched up. You catch an STI, you get some antibiotics. However, all healthcare beyond this should be privatized. You want cutting edge treatment for some rare disease only 3 people in the country also have, then you pay out of pocket.
Only an eminently sensible person would say that someone who works in retail deserves to die if he gets sick and Mark Zuckerberg does not.
Nice try, OpenGPT.
I do not believe in human rights. I do not believe what you're arguing is moral. I firmly believe letting low value humans die would lead to a much better world. Part of the problem today is that we're trying very hard to go against nature's selection. This forums brings up feminism and gynocracy a lot because they understand women's hypergamic nature. Many single men who add considerable value to society are not getting a good outcome in life because the whole system is designed to take resources from what they generate and give to lesser humans. Men as a whole would get a much better outcome in life if we stopped propping less competent people up with things like universal healthcare among many welfare and resource distribution systems. Let people truly get what they deserve based on their worth based on their contribution to society while designed society itself to be moral (not in the way you suggest but in promoting strength and superior ways to do things). Our society instead oppresses the superior in order to unjustly elevate the inferior. We push victim mentalities onto everyone because people know in order to get ahead you have to pretend to be lesser so society takes from the superior and gives to you. It's an entire system designed to destroy itself by its own scam. A bunch of lazy entitled worthless humans that think their existence means they deserve things. We need to take that away from people and promote a just system that removes concepts like humans rights away entirely. Just because you exist doesn't mean you are guaranteed anything by society. You have to earn your way in life. You'd actually see depression decrease and people would become much happier under such a system that actually promotes people to accomplish things. Much of the problems of the gynocracy would end overnight if we stopped promoting things like humans rights and socialistic resource distribution policies. Make people work to earn their place. All of a sudden women's value plumits and so too do all the worthless leftists in this society. If you can't earn your way in this society you probably shouldn't have even been born. It's true, most people shouldn't have been born and it's not on society to correct for their parents mistakes in having them. When whores are fucking drug dealers and having 8 different kids from 8 different fathers who're in prison, yes those kids may end up dead and that's a good thing. We should not be encouraging people to continue this behavior by incentivizing it with socialism. They get stabbed in a gang fight over selling drugs and can't afford healthcare? Good.
Why is a McDonald's employee "low value" while Mark Zuckerberg, Yoel Roth and the chief of diversity at some corporation 'high value'?
Explain how the chief of diversity is 'earning his way' while a coal miner who is unemployed due to draconian environmental legislation is not.
No, people dying because they can’t afford healthcare isn’t a good thing, it’s a bad thing, a terrible thing.
The good news is that privatized healthcare would be far cheaper than government healthcare, and any remaining gap could be covered by charitable and religious organizations.
Government healthcare isn’t a problem just because it’s expensive, inefficient and eventually leads to government encouraging people to kill themselves like in Canada, but because it’s also a huge contributor to the slippery slope of government power and authority which eventually leads to escalation of all manner of atrocities and abuse, which in turn eventually leads to hell on earth.
I agree with your second paragraph completely. I also agree that if charitable groups want to cover the difference, that is all on them.
I want you to understand though that charitable groups will not be able to afford the difference. If your entire argument is based on this presumption that by privatization healthcare it will reduce the cost such that charity groups can easily make up the difference for those who can't afford healthcare, you are wrong. You're selling yourself a fantasy in order to not have to deal with the moral conundrum of not wanting public healthcare but also wanting all people who can't afford healthcare to get treatment. It's a fairy tale and it's why leftists are so opposed to your arguments because they know it's wrong. You will get some donations and some charity but you will not get enough and that's fine. You're going to need to come to terms with that.
Part of the reason charity is better than government is it allows people to control the funds. Perhaps they only want the funds to go toward healthcare related to issues that aren't drug related. That's good. Let them direct the funds on a manner they are most appropriate. It's their money. Only want to treat white people and not blacks? By all mean. Let them. But don't expect there to be enough funds because there won't be.
Also, healthcare will in fact get more expensive not less because the price will properly reflect the supply and demand but this is a good thing. Those with money to spend will spend it which will increase wages in the industry to leading to more innovation and better quality treatment which in the end is a better outcome for society as a whole. Socialized healthcare reduces the innovation in the industry and leads to less effieicnt. We don't divert resources properly given the supply and demand. This is what leads to shortages of workers, not enough hospital beds, not enough doctors, surgeons etc... (Though the doctors guilds and their monopoly on training/certification needs to be abolished also). Privatized healthcare will likely lead to a result where the most cutting edge and best healthcare goes up in price significantly, the average healthcare treatments goes up a little but with much better quality of service. You'll start to see more disparity in the quality of healthcare such as say the difference between money managers that manage $100k at a retail bank vs. money managers that manage $100,000,000 in net worth at a wealth management firm. Middle-class people will have access to better quality healthcare if they are willing to pay for it. Good doctors will be paid more. Bad doctors will be paid less. People will start shopping with their wallet and that's a good thing. The outcome is better. Privatized healthcare is superior in all regards.
I just want to reiterate though that if you fully privatize healthcare some people will not get enough money to get their treatment even with charities funding people and that's fine. If you don't think that's fine you shouldn't promote privatized healthcare. You're just fooling yourself because you can't take the next logical step morally and lose this idea that human life is worth saving for its mere sake. It's not. Your existence doesn't mean you have value and if you don't have value, no one has any reason to save you and no one should be under any obligation to save you if they don't want to.