Total Posts:112|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Radically Socially Unacceptable Opinions.

Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 1:52:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Since this is a forum topic and not a formal debate it is just as the title suggests, radically socially unacceptable opinions.

Such as

Eugenics
IQ Requirements for Voting
Requirements to bare children/raise children
Mandatory armed forces service
Population control

et cetera.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 1:55:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Actually, the mandatory military service isn't that radically unacceptable except for maybe on this site which is filled with libertarians and anarchists. Several countries do have mandatory military service, notably Israel.
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 1:56:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 1:55:35 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Actually, the mandatory military service isn't that radically unacceptable except for maybe on this site which is filled with libertarians and anarchists. Several countries do have mandatory military service, notably Israel.

I, foolishly, forget that this site goes across many country's. In the United States that would be radical and the Right would call it communist.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 1:58:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 1:56:28 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
At 5/10/2011 1:55:35 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Actually, the mandatory military service isn't that radically unacceptable except for maybe on this site which is filled with libertarians and anarchists. Several countries do have mandatory military service, notably Israel.

I, foolishly, forget that this site goes across many country's. In the United States that would be radical and the Right would call it communist.

Yes, although the majority of members are American.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:00:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 1:52:16 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
Since this is a forum topic and not a formal debate it is just as the title suggests, radically socially unacceptable opinions.

Such as

Eugenics
IQ Requirements for Voting
Requirements to bare children/raise children
Mandatory armed forces service
Population control

et cetera.

I interpreted radically socially unacceptable opinions as those which have a gut emotional response to them. Some of these ideas appeal to certain values, and can be justified in some sense. Of those, I think the only radical one is eugenics, although population control is a little seedy. Mandatory armed forces serve is already present in other countries, requirements to bare/raise children, while impractical, appeals to our sense of a parent's responsibility. IQ requirements for voting is certainly not radical and appeals to our sense to preserve the democratic process.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:00:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Freedom.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:02:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Eugenics only got a bad rep because the Nazis had a ridiculous idea about what constitutes an improved genetic population.
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:06:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:00:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/10/2011 1:52:16 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
Since this is a forum topic and not a formal debate it is just as the title suggests, radically socially unacceptable opinions.

Such as

Eugenics
IQ Requirements for Voting
Requirements to bare children/raise children
Mandatory armed forces service
Population control

et cetera.

I interpreted radically socially unacceptable opinions as those which have a gut emotional response to them. Some of these ideas appeal to certain values, and can be justified in some sense. Of those, I think the only radical one is eugenics, although population control is a little seedy. Mandatory armed forces serve is already present in other countries, requirements to bare/raise children, while impractical, appeals to our sense of a parent's responsibility. IQ requirements for voting is certainly not radical and appeals to our sense to preserve the democratic process.

I was being a bit generous as I do not know if I am to mention certain topics. Such as;

Assisted suicide
Killing off the mentality handicapped
High risk health patients let them die
Sterilize those of unworthy stock
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:13:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:06:53 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:00:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/10/2011 1:52:16 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
Since this is a forum topic and not a formal debate it is just as the title suggests, radically socially unacceptable opinions.

Such as

Eugenics
IQ Requirements for Voting
Requirements to bare children/raise children
Mandatory armed forces service
Population control

et cetera.

I interpreted radically socially unacceptable opinions as those which have a gut emotional response to them. Some of these ideas appeal to certain values, and can be justified in some sense. Of those, I think the only radical one is eugenics, although population control is a little seedy. Mandatory armed forces serve is already present in other countries, requirements to bare/raise children, while impractical, appeals to our sense of a parent's responsibility. IQ requirements for voting is certainly not radical and appeals to our sense to preserve the democratic process.

I was being a bit generous as I do not know if I am to mention certain topics. Such as;

Assisted suicide
murder

Killing off the mentality handicapped
only if necessary or if their caretakers do not want to care for them anymore.

High risk health patients let them die
logically speaking

Sterilize those of unworthy stock
in which way do you mean unworthy stock?
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:15:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't consider the severely mentally handicapped as people.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:19:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 1:52:16 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
Since this is a forum topic and not a formal debate it is just as the title suggests, radically socially unacceptable opinions.

Such as

Eugenics
IQ Requirements for Voting
Requirements to bare children/raise children
Mandatory armed forces service
Population control

et cetera.

I do hope nobody finds that socially acceptable :)

To put my 2 cents in, I'd like the voting age to be increased to, say 40 or something. I'm too lazy to argue for it right now, though.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:19:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:13:30 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:06:53 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:00:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/10/2011 1:52:16 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
Since this is a forum topic and not a formal debate it is just as the title suggests, radically socially unacceptable opinions.

Such as

Eugenics
IQ Requirements for Voting
Requirements to bare children/raise children
Mandatory armed forces service
Population control

et cetera.

I interpreted radically socially unacceptable opinions as those which have a gut emotional response to them. Some of these ideas appeal to certain values, and can be justified in some sense. Of those, I think the only radical one is eugenics, although population control is a little seedy. Mandatory armed forces serve is already present in other countries, requirements to bare/raise children, while impractical, appeals to our sense of a parent's responsibility. IQ requirements for voting is certainly not radical and appeals to our sense to preserve the democratic process.

I was being a bit generous as I do not know if I am to mention certain topics. Such as;

Assisted suicide
murder

Less population, more surplus.

Killing off the mentality handicapped
only if necessary or if their caretakers do not want to care for them anymore.

Waste of resources that may have more use.

High risk health patients let them die
logically speaking

Again resources.

Sterilize those of unworthy stock
in which way do you mean unworthy stock?

Disease, potential birth defect traits, mental instability, stuff like that.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:20:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:19:46 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/10/2011 1:52:16 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
Since this is a forum topic and not a formal debate it is just as the title suggests, radically socially unacceptable opinions.

Such as

Eugenics
IQ Requirements for Voting
Requirements to bare children/raise children
Mandatory armed forces service
Population control

et cetera.

I do hope nobody finds that socially acceptable :)

To put my 2 cents in, I'd like the voting age to be increased to, say 40 or something. I'm too lazy to argue for it right now, though.

I am not feeling so lazy. =)

40 s a bit too high. Maybe 25.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:23:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:06:53 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:00:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/10/2011 1:52:16 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
Since this is a forum topic and not a formal debate it is just as the title suggests, radically socially unacceptable opinions.

Such as

Eugenics
IQ Requirements for Voting
Requirements to bare children/raise children
Mandatory armed forces service
Population control

et cetera.

I interpreted radically socially unacceptable opinions as those which have a gut emotional response to them. Some of these ideas appeal to certain values, and can be justified in some sense. Of those, I think the only radical one is eugenics, although population control is a little seedy. Mandatory armed forces serve is already present in other countries, requirements to bare/raise children, while impractical, appeals to our sense of a parent's responsibility. IQ requirements for voting is certainly not radical and appeals to our sense to preserve the democratic process.

I was being a bit generous as I do not know if I am to mention certain topics. Such as;

Assisted suicide
Killing off the mentality handicapped
High risk health patients let them die
Sterilize those of unworthy stock

I wouldn't describe advocating euthanasia as a radical opinion. I would describe the other 3 as radical, however. I'm assuming "high risk" would mean like AIDS patients?
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:25:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:23:02 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Refer to my previous post.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:36:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:15:19 PM, Korashk wrote:
I don't consider the severely mentally handicapped as people.

Define "severely mentally handicapped". There's a fine line there.
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:38:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:36:11 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:15:19 PM, Korashk wrote:
I don't consider the severely mentally handicapped as people.

Define "severely mentally handicapped". There's a fine line there.

I would go with those who require someone to care for them.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:39:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:19:46 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/10/2011 1:52:16 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
Since this is a forum topic and not a formal debate it is just as the title suggests, radically socially unacceptable opinions.

Such as

Eugenics
IQ Requirements for Voting
Requirements to bare children/raise children
Mandatory armed forces service
Population control

et cetera.

I do hope nobody finds that socially acceptable :)

To put my 2 cents in, I'd like the voting age to be increased to, say 40 or something. I'm too lazy to argue for it right now, though.

That's absurd. College students tend to be smarter than their adult counter parts. If your proposed age law was enacted, Ron Paul would not be where he is a today because a great number of his supporters are young people.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:43:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:38:44 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:36:11 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:15:19 PM, Korashk wrote:
I don't consider the severely mentally handicapped as people.

Define "severely mentally handicapped". There's a fine line there.

I would go with those who require someone to care for them.

So babies and young children aren't people? They require people to care for them.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:44:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:00:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Freedom.

I'm serious about that by the way. Freedom may in fact be one of the most radically and socially unacceptable opinions around.

That's why when Ron Paul speaks of legalizing Heroin, everyone gasps in astonishment. Nobody wants freedom, it's too radical for them.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:53:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 1:52:16 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
Since this is a forum topic and not a formal debate it is just as the title suggests, radically socially unacceptable opinions.

Such as

Eugenics

Would be fun to experiment with.

IQ Requirements for Voting

Wouldn't base on IQ, but love the general idea.

Requirements to bare children/raise children

No to the first, Yes to the second.

Mandatory armed forces service

No, though other mandatory social services (requirements of donating blood, everyone is an organ donor upon death, community service, yada yada yada)

Population control

Sure, but through what means? Everyone supports some kind of control on the population, it is just how do we go about doing it and to what extent?

Other issues (may catch a poo storm). fyi, I don't support all of these, just some other things.

beastiality rights
removing the age of consent (legalize pedophilia)
concenting cannibalism
totally free market
nation-wide surveillance
cutting a single dollar from the military budget
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:54:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:44:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:00:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Freedom.

I'm serious about that by the way. Freedom may in fact be one of the most radically and socially unacceptable opinions around.

That's why when Ron Paul speaks of legalizing Heroin, everyone gasps in astonishment. Nobody wants freedom, it's too radical for them.

depends on the degree of freedom. Nobody wants 100% freedom. People want certain freedoms, and certain protections.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:55:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:39:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:19:46 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/10/2011 1:52:16 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
Since this is a forum topic and not a formal debate it is just as the title suggests, radically socially unacceptable opinions.

Such as

Eugenics
IQ Requirements for Voting
Requirements to bare children/raise children
Mandatory armed forces service
Population control

et cetera.

I do hope nobody finds that socially acceptable :)

To put my 2 cents in, I'd like the voting age to be increased to, say 40 or something. I'm too lazy to argue for it right now, though.

That's absurd. College students tend to be smarter than their adult counter parts. If your proposed age law was enacted, Ron Paul would not be where he is a today because a great number of his supporters are young people.

Do you mean smart college students become dumber when they turn 40?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:58:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:54:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:44:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:00:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Freedom.

I'm serious about that by the way. Freedom may in fact be one of the most radically and socially unacceptable opinions around.

That's why when Ron Paul speaks of legalizing Heroin, everyone gasps in astonishment. Nobody wants freedom, it's too radical for them.

depends on the degree of freedom. Nobody wants 100% freedom. People want certain freedoms, and certain protections.

Yeah, but then they don't really want freedom, they want specific freedoms. The argument isn't that freedom is intrinsically good, it's that freedom to do x is intrinsically good.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:03:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:58:58 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:54:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:44:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:00:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Freedom.

I'm serious about that by the way. Freedom may in fact be one of the most radically and socially unacceptable opinions around.

That's why when Ron Paul speaks of legalizing Heroin, everyone gasps in astonishment. Nobody wants freedom, it's too radical for them.

depends on the degree of freedom. Nobody wants 100% freedom. People want certain freedoms, and certain protections.

Yeah, but then they don't really want freedom, they want specific freedoms. The argument isn't that freedom is intrinsically good, it's that freedom to do x is intrinsically good.

Though it is typically viewed the other way. They want specific limitations. Which, pending how you define "freedom," everyone wants. Example, libertarians typically believe you should have the freedom to do anything that doesn't infringe upon the freedoms of others. However, isn't that ending "...that doesn't infringe upon the freedoms of others," nothing more than a limit on freedom?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:04:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:53:25 PM, OreEle wrote:

beastiality rights
removing the age of consent (legalize pedophilia)
concenting cannibalism
totally free market
nation-wide surveillance
cutting a single dollar from the military budget

How do you have consensual cannibalism? A person agrees to be lunch?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:07:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:04:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:53:25 PM, OreEle wrote:

beastiality rights
removing the age of consent (legalize pedophilia)
concenting cannibalism
totally free market
nation-wide surveillance
cutting a single dollar from the military budget

How do you have consensual cannibalism? A person agrees to be lunch?

Yes, a person agrees to let you kill them and eat them. Personally think it is messed up and a clear sign of a mental imbalance (but hey, I'm judgemental).

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"