@Serendipper
I don't see the mechanism of keeping others down to lift ourselves up. Either shoot them or feed them, but allowing them exist in a diseased state is just shitting up your own environment.
If unemployed people have kids, they should be incarcerated and sterilized.
However, maybe it's enough they live in poverty, have a lower standard of living than the working class.
These days hardly anyone has more than a kid or two, rich and poor, 1st and 3rd world alike.
The only continent with high population growth is Africa, which's unfortunate, as I'd prefer their remaining wilderness be preserved.
In any case, prohibiting this wouldn't be like prohibiting alcohol, because most people want to drink, whereas only something like 5% of the population is unemployed, and of those 5%, many or most would probably agree to not having kids in exchange for welfare.
One exception. Asians are shorter, but what about that basketball guy? Most millennials are not on your side, but the boomers and silents are. And you're not complaining because you've been personally discriminated against, but are overdramatizing something I've never even seen or heard credible instance of. "The sky is falling... quick, run in circles while screaming!"
The property manager at the apartment my friend lives in is terrible.
She's rude, and allows thugs who break rules, and laws to live there.
Otherwise it's a nice apartment in a nice neighborhood.
Lots of people have complained about her, but it's difficult to have her removed because she's a protected class (mulatto).
The nasty jews with their sexual immorality
Not to mention their corrupt banking practices and dissemination of anti-white propaganda.
And the whole premise of his rise to power was that the people had forsaken religion!
Hitler was plainly anti-Christian, and an atheist or nearly.
He wasn't serious about Christianity, he was using it until the German people were ready to relinquish it.
There is no way to throw jews in ovens unless you think you're doing god's work.
Why?
Why can't you throw them in ovens just because you think they're inferior and/or a threat to your people?
Darwinism is non-teleological.
Social Darwinism is.
You cannot guide it.
We can't help but guide it, thinkingly or unthinkingly, we discriminate against the weak in favor of the strong.
If you do, then evolution will then be working against you. Evolution cannot work unless there is a force opposing it and hitler became that force. I become that force every time I pull a weed from my garden. I become the obstacle that evolution learns to overcome by making stronger weeds. All hitler accomplished was making smarter jews who now rule his "superior" aryans. Hitler was almost as dumb as trump.... blunder after blunder after blunder.
What you propose is the very antithesis of evolution.
You're saying by fighting your enemies, you make them stronger, so you should just give up, but if we surrender, we perish.
We do what we can, eliminate our enemies if we can, or at least keep them at bay.
Fighting your enemies weakens them in the short term, but can strengthen, or weaken them in the long run.
It's best to pull weeds by the root, but sometimes you can't, but you still have to pull them, keep them at bay so you and yours can survive, and thrive a little.
Russians were orthodox christians
The communist government and its military were atheist, and they massacred millions of religious, and irreligious.
and you may have an example with the chinese because even the buddhists are atheist.
There you go, the atheist Chinese massacred millions.
Fundamentally people kill people, not religions.
Altho some religions may be more militarizing/pacifying than others, governments and militaries don't need religion to massacre millions.
Yes it does.
The primary reason governments and their militaries go to war is greed, they will distort religious teachings and kill pacifist religious leaders to justify their lust for power.
Well that's nice... so religion makes good people do evil and evil people do good. So why have it then?
Religion has good and bad, like just about any activity, I mentioned some of its other virtues earlier, I say leave it up to the individual to decide how much value it has to them.
We could blow the planet out of the solar system and still not stamp out life, but probably wind up with a smarter breed of it as a consequence.
More unsubstantiated and irrational optimism.
That's probably the most sensible solution, but then the bank is state-run.
And the state is a democracy, preferably of thinking men and women.
We still need redistribution or else the created money just funnels up to the rich until the rich are rich enough to topple government.
Government can print money and purchase the education and healthcare industries.
3 people have more wealth than 50% of the people and 2 of them (Buffett and Gates) have been on crusade to raise their own taxes for decades and the 3rd (Bezos) is probably cool with it. The rich want to fix the problem, but the poor stupid ones won't let them.
If the rich really wanted to fix the problem, there wouldn't be the rich, or at least not the obscenely wealthy.
The rich want to tax small businesses nearly as much as themselves, and force them to pay the same minimum wage.
This hurts the middle class more than themselves, because the rich can afford to pay the taxes and the minum wage, often the middle class can't, and because the rich can afford to bribe the courts, hire the best lawyers to find tax loopholes and so on.
Right, people get nicer as scarcity is reduced. When ferraris are free, there is nothing left to fight over. That's the marxist end-stage communism. It isn't instituted by force, but arises of its own. The problem comes in when dictators try to implement it as a government when the technology can't support it.
Meanness has merely grown more sophisticated, that is it, in the main.
The murder rate may be 10 or 100 times less, but disparities are 100 or 1000 times more.
The powerful have found ways to monopolize wealth without having to shed so much blood.
And what we do to our livestock and nature is atrocious.
Democratic force will always be necessary to bring justice about.
The left has no absolute morality.
Yes officer, I was wearing my seatbelt.
Sorry officer, I cannot tell a lie.
While liberals are sexually looser in many ways, you'll still hear them say: 'there's nothing wrong with adultery or promiscuity so long as it's
open/honest'.
They still think you shouldn't cheat.
And in other ways, liberals are even more sexually restrictive.
Consent is exceedingly important to them, even innocent flirting is frequently misconstrued as sexual harassment.
Furthermore, there're some schools of Christian and conservative thought that say it's okay to choose the lesser of two evils if good isn't an option.
Take from the rich and give to the poor.
Stealing is wrong.
Yes but they justify stealing or as they like to say: 'appropriation, reallocation, redistribution', they say: 'it's for the greater good', not my good or no good, or they say: 'the rich cheated us'.
Their ethics are based more on consequences than actions.
Some of them also have alternative notions of property, like property is defined by continual occupation/use, or all property is public, a privilege democracy may temporarily bestow you, not a right.
No one on the left thinks it's right for the rich to steal from the poor, whereas some people further right do i.e. corporatists, fascists.
Kill the fetus so the woman has a better life
Murder is wrong.
I've never heard a liberal say rape is okay, or murder for the sheer thrill of it is okay.
It's been said conservatives care most about your life before you're born or suffering with a terminal illness, as they won't abort or euthanize, whereas liberals care most about your life in between, as they want to make sure you have access to education, healthcare and nutrition, altho they're not necessarily more charitable, they're just more willing to lower someone else's standard of living to raise yours, which, I am in favor of too, to an extent.
Hitler was sure willing to abort a lot of unborn, and born for his greater good.
I want to marry my boyfriend.
Homosexuality is wrong.
'I only want to befriend and be surrounded by people with the same race and customs as me'.
'Racist, xenophobe, Hitlerite'!
The liberal has no moral foundation because everything is relative.
The conservative cannot bend at all, ever, under any circumstances.
Every conservative could be replaced by a robot and nothing would change.
Liberals are every bit as predictable as conservatives.
The foundation for their ethics is on the pages of various writers from the enlightenment to the postmodern era, just as conservative ethics are, in part.
"Unless you lick this guy's boots like everyone else is doing, you can go starve you worthless bum! The reason you exist is to serve the system and our blessed and most virtuous elites who have most graciously bestowed upon us all these muddy boots to lick, so exercise your freedom to decide which boots you want to clean, or not only can you go starve, but I'll call you names as well."