Their lineage is not "icky", it's just statically much more likely to be harmful to society. Debating resource allocation isn't "nasty stuff", it's just uncomfortable for people sheltered from reality. Abandon this childish language and grow up already.
These are the families future children are most likely to need protecting from, you can't talk about wanting to protect people without having any real intent to deal with the predators. If some of them are willing to destroy themselves by their own hand, at the very least don't step in their way. A lawman who spends all day in his basement philosophizing on how utopia should look like does far less good for society than one who applies accurate statistics to racial profiling and stops many violent crimes. Our intent as civilized folk, should be to attain results that strengthen and support civilization, not spend our lives penning the most righteous and useless vanity project in town.
You either accept and adapt to reality in order to master it, or you ignore it and wait for the day it inevitably victimizes someone you actually care about, even if that's only yourself
We are simply not compatible. You're seeking maximum statistical optimality without a shred of spirituality or humanity. You talk of likely outcomes like a lolbertarian talks about GDP--as if efficiency was the over-arching goal. I used "icky" because it's childish, because your position here is very stunted. In your schema, all this "humanity" stuff is just externality. This is either stupid or sociopathic, neither or which interests me, not even as casual conversation.
You either accept and adapt to reality in order to master it, or you ignore it and wait for the day it inevitably victimizes someone you actually care about, even if that's only yourself
No thanks man. I'll side with decent civilization. You go have fun with pogrom-ing or whatever. Being actually good comes with tangible benefits--you're less likely to get guillotined or colombian neck-tie-ed by those undesirables and browns you kicked because you didn't like the cut of their chromosomes.
Their lineage is not "icky", it's just statically much more likely to be harmful to society. Debating resource allocation isn't "nasty stuff", it's just uncomfortable for people sheltered from reality. Abandon this childish language and grow up already.
These are the families future children are most likely to need protecting from, you can't talk about wanting to protect people without having any real intent to deal with the predators. If some of them are willing to destroy themselves by their own hand, at the very least don't step in their way. A lawman who spends all day in his basement philosophizing on how utopia should look like does far less good for society than one who applies accurate statistics to racial profiling and stops many violent crimes. Our intent as civilized folk, should be to attain results that strengthen and support civilization, not spend our lives penning the most righteous and useless vanity project in town.
You either accept and adapt to reality in order to master it, or you ignore it and wait for the day it inevitably victimizes someone you actually care about, even if that's only yourself
We are simply not compatible. You're seeking maximum statistical optimality without a shred of spirituality or humanity. You talk of likely outcomes like a lolbertarian talks about GDP--as if efficiency was the over-arching goal. I used "icky" because it's childish, because your position here is very stunted. In your schema, all this "humanity" stuff is just externality. This is either stupid or sociopathic, neither or which interests me, not even as casual conversation.
No thanks man. I'll side with decent civilization. You go have fun with pogrom-ing or whatever. Being actually good comes with tangible benefits--you're less likely to get guillotined or colombian neck-tie-ed by those undesirables and browns you kicked because you didn't like the cut of their chromosomes.