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.
You think I deleted my post? No, it was removed by the mods.
Unfortunately, we will always disagree on this. I do not believe a person has value simply because he is white. Does the person have a higher predisposition toward being value because he is white compared to black, yes. I do believe that. However, a white person can still be worthless. If there is ever a war fought tomorrow over establishing a new imperium and a white guy was standing in my way by promoting a gynocracy and Jewish degeneracy, I would kill him in an instant. His skin color is worthless then.
That chief of diversity does have value to the current system in place. Our moral values are setup wrong. The fact we promote diversity is a problem. We're living in a theocracy where the religious dogma is diversity and inclusion, so yes from the perspective of this moral value system, they do have immense value. The problem is the moral value system which needs to change. Once you change such a system to actually be holy and not degenerate then chief of diversity won't exist because non-whites will be deported and immigration will be banned. Under such a system he will no longer have value of though I suspect if he submited to such a system he would have value in promoting the dogma of the new moral value system.
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.
You think I deleted my post? No, it was removed by the mods.
Unfortunately, we will always disagree on this. I do not believe a person has value simply because he is white. Does the person have a higher predisposition toward being value because he is white compared to black, yes. I do believe that. However, a white person can still be worthless. If there is ever a war fought tomorrow over establishing a new imperium and a white guy was standing in my way by promoting a gynocracy and Jewish degeneracy, I would kill him in an instant. His skin color is worthless then.
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.
That chief of diversity does have value to the current system in place. Our moral values are setup wrong. The fact we promote diversity is a problem. We're living in a theocracy where the religious dogma is diversity and inclusion, so yes from the perspective of this moral value system, they do have immense value. The problem is the moral value system which needs to change. Once you change such a system to actually be holy and not degenerate then chief of diversity won't exist because non-whites will be deported and immigration will be banned. Under such a system he will no longer have value of though I suspect if he submited to such a system he would have value in promoting the dogma of the new moral value system.
And yet you think that those who add "value" to the current system deserve to live and those who do not deserve to die. Pretty disgraceful.
The world needs to change, and you need to get a pony.