A Resounding Flush of Socialism

[Justinr]

For a man who insists he hates socialism the OP seems awfully keen on the national variety.

[John Koerner]

Ahhhh [OINK] this piggy says that taking a longer view, the problem you wrestle with is self-correcting.

After all, suicide is painless

Chris, suicide is not what I am talking about.

The problem is also not one "I" wrestle with, but is a problem that is pandemic globally.

Those able to provide for themselves, contribute to society, and sustain themselves are not the problem.

Those unable to provide for themselves, who don't contribute to society, and who expect "others" to sustain them are the problem.

I am surprised you can't understand the difference, though (in the end) I shouldn't be.

At least you labeled yourself correctly and broke into this discussion utilizing your primary language.

[Hulyss]

On a side note, Jhon, I would not allow you to be transferred. You are too dangerous for a community of conqueror :p

The problem is also not one "I" wrestle with, but is a problem that is pandemic globally.

Those able to provide for themselves, contribute to society, and sustain themselves are not the problem.

Those unable to provide for themselves, who don't contribute to society, and who expect "others" to sustain them are the problem.

You sound like a new born in a hippie camp. Humans are like that since the start so it is time to wake up, Jhon.
We just follow our Darwinian plan like all other species out there. This is the destiny of the planet.

If I push you far into survival mode will you die or will you fight ? I'm sure you are more cruel and rude than you might even imagine.

Tomorrow go to wallmart and buy the following book :

On the Origin of Species

[Hulyss]

If you are bold enough, please provide to our judgement a list of 30 things you do for "the society", our "civilisation" or for the "nature".

[Christopher Sanderson]

Oh no! Hulyss please!
If he does that I will be forced to lock the thread

[Hulyss]

Yea it start to be dangerous

[Justinr]

Oh no! Hulyss please!
If he does that I will be forced to lock the thread

Please do.

[Manoli]

Those unable to provide for themselves, who don't contribute to society, and who expect "others" to sustain them are the problem.

I agree, let's friggin' nuke them.

too poor ? let's nuke them too
refugee ? wipe them , all of them
crippled, ill or otherwise infirm - yup, straight nuke

good train of thought ... stand tall !

[John Koerner]

I agree, let's friggin' nuke them.

too poor ? let's nuke them too
refugee ? wipe them , all of them
crippled, ill or otherwise infirm - yup, straight nuke

good train of thought ... stand tall !

It's readily apparent that you lack the subtlety to appreciate the difference between "doing" versus "allowing."

I advocate no one harm another individual, without just cause.

Even the most parasitic dependent can, at any time, opt to change their ways ... and begin providing for themselves.
My best guess is that, if welfare (socialism and other enablers of parasitism) were removed that people will begin to fend for themselves.
If they cannot, or will not, then so be it.

Every person should be autonomous.
If a person cannot be autonomous, then they are unfit, need to fade-on-out, which is the natural order of things across all ecosystems.

If "you" decide to help your family members in need, that is a choice you can make ... but "I" (and other members of society) should not be forced to provide this help to your family members.

It is rather fascinating to watch the small-minded invent any number of "strawmen" ... to keep talking ... as a way to circumnavigate the issue.

I never advocated nuking anyone, harming anyone.
I advocated to let people sink or swim, based on their own abilities, merits, or lack thereof.

If the upended turtle rights itself, it lives ... if it cannot do so, it dies.

But that is not the same as actively killing a living turtle for no reason.

A naturalist understands what I am saying; a member of the swine-herd will not.

The hardcore naturalist allows nature to take its course ... even if it is painful to watch a struggling (but ultimately unfit) individual die-off ... because, ultimately, it is for the best that it does so.

[MattBurt]

I think actual Christians may have a problem with this idea.

[Justinr]

"A hardcore naturalist"

Would that be one with an auto repeating high calibre butterfly net?

[John Koerner]

Would that be one with an auto repeating high calibre butterfly net?

A quick review of your contributions shows you have the mentality of a 10 year old and can't say anything of substance.

[Tim Lookingbill]

I never advocated nuking anyone, harming anyone.
I advocated to let people sink or swim, based on their own abilities, merits, or lack thereof.

What you're advocating is euthanasia by neglect. You'll be happy to know that's exactly what's happening right now in senior care centers across the US and maybe across the globe. My mother was just one of those non-contributors to society and she was dealt with just as you suggested.

I guess you'll be putting your aging parents in the same facilities, right?

[John Koerner]

I think actual Christians may have a problem with this idea.

Christians have a problem with reality in general.

The idea that we are all going to float about "in heaven" ... or burn in an eternal "hell" ... is another insanity that is pervasive amongst those who are not scientific-minded.

This is part of the problem: outdated, outlandish beliefs founded in a distant, superstitious past.

If you want to believe in Santa Claus (used to be St. Nicholas, but repeated over time degenerated into the phonetic "Santa Claus"), that is your right.

Santa Claus and his giving out "presents" or "coal" to children is nothing but the junior version of the idea God will be assigning "heaven" or "hell" to adults.

The silliness of this is so obvious that it bears no further mention.

Again, most people are still filled with bizarre, ancient, and outdated beliefs that they cannot simply accept cold reality for what it is.

It is natural to want to be "nice," but the best thing to be is objective.

I refuse to discuss religion any further. Nothing good ever comes of it.

What I am trying to discuss is the reality that harboring the unfit, and allowing them to propagate (which is the backbone of socialism and democrat ideology) is the cause of all other problems.

The functional reality is, those who cannot make it should not make it. This reality happens across every ecosystem, except the human ecosystem.

We have turned nature upside-down, because we "feel" for the unfortunate.
That is fine, and we can each make a personal decision to help the unfortunate, no problem.

But to create an entire system of government that forces the fit and able to sustain every unfit specimen, regardless of how unfit, regardless of how unwilling each may be to lift a finger for itself ... and which system encourages (dare I say, rewards) the unfit to keep reproducing ... giving more-and-more money so they can make more-and-more of the same ... all funded and made possible through a system of bleeding-out the capable just to perpetuate the unfit/unwilling ... is an abomination of every ethos of "Natural Selection."

I promise this will be my last post on this subject

[Tim Lookingbill]

What I am trying to discuss is the reality that harboring the unfit, and allowing them to propagate (which is the backbone of socialism and democrat ideology) is the cause of all other problems.

Problems? What problems?

[BernardLanguillier]

To start opposing capitalism/free market and socialism and describing this opposition as "a given in the contemporary world" is manipulative at best. Socialist countries in Europe under EU trade rules are probably more free market driven than the US.

So the first 3 seconds say everything we need to know...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Christopher Sanderson]

Sorry! Recess is over.
Topic Locked