Don't forget raped repeatedly. Even if there's no women or children among them, the media narrative is that at least half of them are. Either they have to admit they are all fighting age males or they don't care about women and children being raped.
The humane solution would be to sink the human traffickers before they load up. Forcing half a dozen traitors to swim to the Libyan shore would be an ironic punishment.
But I don't think that you understand what I mean. As far as I can understand, you interpret it as a 'the ends justify the means', but I actually mean it as a deterrent strategy. Having a lot of abortions does not actually deter unwanted pregnancies, indeed, it might do less to deincentivize them. But if migrants know that they won't be picked up by human smuggler helpers when they traverse the Mediterranean on leaky boats, they will stop coming, and that will end the problem.
Whether abortions are justified to prevent future suffering depends on your view of the moral status of the embryo/fetus.
In medical emergencies triage may require you to allow people to die to save the most lives possible with the resources on hand. The only difference is active/passive involvement.
But if you believe the solution to the trolly problem is to actively change tracks, then you could consider AoV's solution humane if it causes less total deaths.
That's doing your best to save as many lives as you can without shooting anyone. It's not the same as murder.
if you believe the solution to the trolly problem is to actively change tracks
Nobody would kidnap a bunch of people and engineer that trolly scenario with "ethics experiments" goals in mind. It'd just be a game for his amusement/ego trip. It'd be just about sadism, regardless of how he justifies it. Such a person is going to continue to play with the survivors until he tortures and rapes the last one to death. Everyone in the tracks and the person at the button is going to die. The solution to any actual trolly problem that could exist in real life is not to engage with the sadism of whoever put everyone in that situation by playing along. Every death will be on the lunatic, not you.
I wouldn't say that protecting your border is murder. But let's assume that it is. I'm merely remarking on the irony that something that is supposedly 'inhumane' would lead to the most humane outcome, namely invaders not coming and not dying in leaky vessels.
My analogy did have a correspondence with the previous post:
Shooting immigrants on sight to stop them the inhumane suffering of dying while trying to cross illegally is like killing the unborn to free them from all inhumane future sufferings.
It's the same logic of justifying murder out of "concern" for the victim.
I actually spoke to an 18yo guy about this issue and he blames girls. I know, I know, Imp1, the usual but hear me (him) out.
Basically, girls want to be seen as having the best social reputation (image). Teachers reinforce what is right/wrong in their classrooms and the girls go along with whatever the teachers tell them in order to virtue signal to enhance their image. The boys want sex from the girls and the girls don't want to be seen associating with the boys that have incorrect opinions because it might ruin the girls' image. This compels the men to start repeating the values/beliefs of pro-LGBTQ and pro-climate policy in order to gain access to the girls. Of course, boys do this without even realizing they're doing this because they're being compelled into it by their sex drive (simping essentially). Girls to gain social approval virtue signal and boys to gain girls approval virtue signal. Boys and girls do it enough, they start to believe their virtue signaling because it's easier to believe that then to believe you're being lied to by everyone. Any rebels to the system exist but are alienated from the main groups and the driver of lack of sex from the girls is a huge drive to compel the men to change their beliefs to the "correct" ones in order to potentially gain access to girls.
Thus, realistically, the boys and girls who are going to have the actual right opinions on things will be the nerdy, autistic Incel types. The "cool" kids just do as society tells them to maximize their mate potential.
No, what you're saying is a fundamental law of society that all of us not under the spell recognized by middle school. I remember hearing from former hippies how lots of men in the 60s only participated in the protest movements to get sex from the women. (they eventually became old hags but they were young with big tits at the time)
What TheImpossible1 would say is that it's caused by young boys being broken by evil female teachers who convince the young girls to manipulate the boys to do what they want or else, and we need international prosecutions to punish female teachers and girls who propagate this system of control. Anti-feminist Nuremburg 2.0 will teach the females to stop their very deliberate anti-male campaign.
All you have to do is restrict teaching to people aged 60+ who have been succesful in either the military or private sector, preferably both. No more low IQ leftist women who go straight from highschool to college to get a "teaching" degree and go right back into the system.
Realistically, you need to abolish public education. Women should be at home anyway to look after the children, not out working. You only need to spend about 2 hours a day teaching a child for them to learn as much as the public education system and they get a much better quality education. You can have community groups of people with children who get together during the day and among those people you may have elders (grandparents) who may do teaching. All instruction about moral values and politics should only be done by men. Women should only teach what the men assign or facts essentially. Nothing of opinion. But good luck getting to the ideal.
Anti-immigration is basically the most popular policy position you can hold in any country where the way actual citizens vote is what decides an election.
Because they are power-hungry tyrants, and the climate is an excuse to seize emergency powers and never give them back. A war economy ends when the enemy is destroyed, but a climate economy persists forever because the enemy is your own workforce.
Nobody gets a say except for them. If you're ever in power, make sure to remember how much power you have by never letting the population decide. Only please do it for the betterment of your people instead of globohomo satanists.
All the leftist policies can be reverted in time except immigration.
Sadly, the elites know this and are pushing as hard as possible. Sadly there are still center-left people that believe this is natural and not pushed by elites to destroy the west.
In 5 years: "Due to increased mortality from the jabCOVID-19, we all need to accept another billion Africans to fill the jobs that Europeans won't do."
Makes zero sense.. by accepting africans, their carbon footprint increases. Back in africa, they eat bugs and live in metal shacks. In the west, they eat steak, use ac, drive cars, watch tv on flat screen and etc.
It makes ZERO sense... flooding California with illegals is destroying its environment and ecological resources by increasing pollution while increasing the possibility for drought by increasing the demand on water, let alone the additional CO2 brought out in dense population areas.
Everything this invasion does goes directly against every environmental and ecological (let alone economical) goal leftists claim to hold dear.
Shoot them on sight. Solves the problem.
Unironically, that would be the humane solution. That'd stop them coming and dying in decrepit vessels.
Don't forget raped repeatedly. Even if there's no women or children among them, the media narrative is that at least half of them are. Either they have to admit they are all fighting age males or they don't care about women and children being raped.
They care as much about that as they do about the grooming gangs, or the girls raped when crossing the US border.
Rape is only bad when they can use it to take down someone they don't like.
It's never about them. We know "they" are a lost cause; it's about making them more obviously evil to normies.
imagine mistaking the Great Pan-Afrikan Celebration Success Rape Orgy tribal ritual for mere rape... what racists!
The humane solution would be to sink the human traffickers before they load up. Forcing half a dozen traitors to swim to the Libyan shore would be an ironic punishment.
That's like defending abortion as humane because it avoids all the child's future sufferings.
Pretty sure babies don't come from another country and consciously choose to invade someone's womb.
You can't deter babies from existing by making examples of them, but societal leeches on the other hand...
Unborn babies aren't making a decision to invade someone else's land.
I do defend abortion with this logic though.
Upvoted for challenging a popular view.
But I don't think that you understand what I mean. As far as I can understand, you interpret it as a 'the ends justify the means', but I actually mean it as a deterrent strategy. Having a lot of abortions does not actually deter unwanted pregnancies, indeed, it might do less to deincentivize them. But if migrants know that they won't be picked up by human smuggler helpers when they traverse the Mediterranean on leaky boats, they will stop coming, and that will end the problem.
Whether abortions are justified to prevent future suffering depends on your view of the moral status of the embryo/fetus.
I'm just against calling murder humane.
In medical emergencies triage may require you to allow people to die to save the most lives possible with the resources on hand. The only difference is active/passive involvement.
But if you believe the solution to the trolly problem is to actively change tracks, then you could consider AoV's solution humane if it causes less total deaths.
That's doing your best to save as many lives as you can without shooting anyone. It's not the same as murder.
Nobody would kidnap a bunch of people and engineer that trolly scenario with "ethics experiments" goals in mind. It'd just be a game for his amusement/ego trip. It'd be just about sadism, regardless of how he justifies it. Such a person is going to continue to play with the survivors until he tortures and rapes the last one to death. Everyone in the tracks and the person at the button is going to die. The solution to any actual trolly problem that could exist in real life is not to engage with the sadism of whoever put everyone in that situation by playing along. Every death will be on the lunatic, not you.
I wouldn't say that protecting your border is murder. But let's assume that it is. I'm merely remarking on the irony that something that is supposedly 'inhumane' would lead to the most humane outcome, namely invaders not coming and not dying in leaky vessels.
That wordplay, man.
There's nothing merciful or compassionate about shooting unarmed people. It is not humane.
Michael Brown would like to have a talk with you. And I think invaders fall in that same category.
I admire how you stick to moral principle, I really do. You're a Catholic, correct?
You are purposely mixing things together.
That's the point of analogies.
Your analogy must contain a correspondence or partial similarity, "yours" had none and thus isn't an analogy.
My analogy did have a correspondence with the previous post:
Shooting immigrants on sight to stop them the inhumane suffering of dying while trying to cross illegally is like killing the unborn to free them from all inhumane future sufferings.
It's the same logic of justifying murder out of "concern" for the victim.
No, it isn't, some reasons have been forwarded to you by other users why those two aren't compatible.
I vote for 1.2 billion fewer Africans as an alternative solution.
Camp of the Saints.
So few knew, for so long.
Can the west accept the ones experienced with successful coups and deep Christian beliefs? /s
The elites want the west to fall that is obvious, every 'expert' that validates these kind of articles has a diploma worth less than toilet paper.
How did so mayn’t youths get brainwashed by the hysteria? It’s so trendy to be all about climate change
I actually spoke to an 18yo guy about this issue and he blames girls. I know, I know, Imp1, the usual but hear me (him) out.
Basically, girls want to be seen as having the best social reputation (image). Teachers reinforce what is right/wrong in their classrooms and the girls go along with whatever the teachers tell them in order to virtue signal to enhance their image. The boys want sex from the girls and the girls don't want to be seen associating with the boys that have incorrect opinions because it might ruin the girls' image. This compels the men to start repeating the values/beliefs of pro-LGBTQ and pro-climate policy in order to gain access to the girls. Of course, boys do this without even realizing they're doing this because they're being compelled into it by their sex drive (simping essentially). Girls to gain social approval virtue signal and boys to gain girls approval virtue signal. Boys and girls do it enough, they start to believe their virtue signaling because it's easier to believe that then to believe you're being lied to by everyone. Any rebels to the system exist but are alienated from the main groups and the driver of lack of sex from the girls is a huge drive to compel the men to change their beliefs to the "correct" ones in order to potentially gain access to girls.
Thus, realistically, the boys and girls who are going to have the actual right opinions on things will be the nerdy, autistic Incel types. The "cool" kids just do as society tells them to maximize their mate potential.
No, what you're saying is a fundamental law of society that all of us not under the spell recognized by middle school. I remember hearing from former hippies how lots of men in the 60s only participated in the protest movements to get sex from the women. (they eventually became old hags but they were young with big tits at the time)
What TheImpossible1 would say is that it's caused by young boys being broken by evil female teachers who convince the young girls to manipulate the boys to do what they want or else, and we need international prosecutions to punish female teachers and girls who propagate this system of control. Anti-feminist Nuremburg 2.0 will teach the females to stop their very deliberate anti-male campaign.
What we need is to abolish public education.
Or have some volunteer parents in each class helping the teachers and calling shenanigans on bullshit newspeak ideas and other anti white agendas.
All you have to do is restrict teaching to people aged 60+ who have been succesful in either the military or private sector, preferably both. No more low IQ leftist women who go straight from highschool to college to get a "teaching" degree and go right back into the system.
Realistically, you need to abolish public education. Women should be at home anyway to look after the children, not out working. You only need to spend about 2 hours a day teaching a child for them to learn as much as the public education system and they get a much better quality education. You can have community groups of people with children who get together during the day and among those people you may have elders (grandparents) who may do teaching. All instruction about moral values and politics should only be done by men. Women should only teach what the men assign or facts essentially. Nothing of opinion. But good luck getting to the ideal.
Immigration has been pushed by the elites. Occasionally, they successfully consensus crack it, but they're the cause of it. Approval of our current immigration is down to an abysmal 28% for example. It's not something that the populace just demands and Congress responds to.
Anti-immigration is basically the most popular policy position you can hold in any country where the way actual citizens vote is what decides an election.
Youths are very susceptible to brainwashing: from the Salem witch trials to Savanonarola's piagnoni to the Hitler Youth and the Komsomol.
The question is: why do the powers that be find it expedient to brainwash them with the idea that the world is going to end due to climate change?
Because they are power-hungry tyrants, and the climate is an excuse to seize emergency powers and never give them back. A war economy ends when the enemy is destroyed, but a climate economy persists forever because the enemy is your own workforce.
Can't demobilize from a war economy if you're at war with the weather forever.
Good point
Because the boomers partied and smoked dope instead of trying to build a society that works, and gatekeeping out the enemy.
While true, only one of those groups of people were actively wallowing in their own filth while eating the proverbial lotus flowers.
Nobody gets a say except for them. If you're ever in power, make sure to remember how much power you have by never letting the population decide. Only please do it for the betterment of your people instead of globohomo satanists.
All the leftist policies can be reverted in time except immigration.
Sadly, the elites know this and are pushing as hard as possible. Sadly there are still center-left people that believe this is natural and not pushed by elites to destroy the west.
I say we all go raid Africa and wipe out the indigenous wildlife. It's free real estate.
Kinda seems counter productive to get more CO2 polluters into first world countries. Especially if they displace the productive members of society.
In 5 years: "Due to increased mortality from
the jabCOVID-19, we all need to accept another billion Africans to fill the jobs that Europeans won't do."no.
The correct response is "Fuck you. No."
Makes zero sense.. by accepting africans, their carbon footprint increases. Back in africa, they eat bugs and live in metal shacks. In the west, they eat steak, use ac, drive cars, watch tv on flat screen and etc.
Right????
it makes zero sense.
unless the real goal is genocide and climate hysteria is just a tool to facilitate it.
It makes ZERO sense... flooding California with illegals is destroying its environment and ecological resources by increasing pollution while increasing the possibility for drought by increasing the demand on water, let alone the additional CO2 brought out in dense population areas.
Everything this invasion does goes directly against every environmental and ecological (let alone economical) goal leftists claim to hold dear.
It's how you know they are LYING.
Their true goal is not the environment (or they would push for nuclear power)
Their true goal is to demographically replace you so they have democrat control forever. (and eventually communist control)
Should be 5 degrees, globally.
1 degree would actually be quite good.
Still doesn't change the fact that the correct response to climate refugees is to close the borders.
Seems like a good Twitter poll
This would be more believable if we'd seen any large scale climate-related movement.
Those Africans produce a lot of carbon.
Fun fact - they produce almost zero carbon in Africa.
But if you bring them to the US they release tons of CO2
nitter https://nitter.unixfox.eu/griptmedia/status/1709535124277076420
Just colonize Africa. Leave the EU/US to tend to welfare parasites while you go and set up in Africa.