Yes, it is inevitable. As technology develops, and we move closer to a post-scarcity society, the need to rely upon Capitalists for the production of goods will gradually decrease, and along with it, the need of the State. With limited resources no longer an argument for private property, collective ownership of the means of production will simply be the standard.
So yes, it is inevitable.
It's asinine to control what individuals wear. Hell, it's asinine that we even require clothing when going out in public in the first place! Let people do what they want. If some little shit decides to bully someone else fo wearing "poorer" clothing, well, kick their ass. And then disestablish Capitalism, as it's the true cause for upper class snobbery, not individuality. Dont attack some poor kid who justs wants to wear something they like the look of, because some other dipshits decided to take things to another level. That's unjustified.
Children deserve a right to privacy. Especially when it comes to matters of their body. Would you like to be forced to tell your parents every time you go to the bathroom? Or have your period No? I didn't think so. What utter nonsense. A child, as a human being, deserves privacy in matters of their own biological function. It's not their parents business of they get pregnant or deserve to have an abortion. It is their's and theirs alone, along with anyone they choose to share that information with.
Feminism was never relevant. That probably confuses some. Let me explain. Feminism as a movement should never have existed. It is a corrupt movement. This is not to say that gender equality i wrong, or that Feminism has not achieved certain goods; it has. However, despite what Feminism claims, Feminism's goal has NEVER been gender equality; rather, it's entire focus is on females, often ignoring or even working against males in order to gain what it wants. Further more, Feminisms theories on Patriarchy and female oppression or horribly out of line with even the most casual observer of history. It's an intellectually dishonest movement that's focus is on female empowerment, not gender equality.
For those reasons, Feminism isn't a movement that should receive any kind of respect. If we want a society of gender equality, the first step is to stop focusing on one specific gender all the time, while letting the other one flounder; you cannot fix sexism with sexism.
Why? It's nonsensical to do so. If we're going to allow the slaughter and consumption of animals, and if we are going to allow seasons of hunting, where individuals go out and kill animals for sport, then there is no reason why we should not also allow animals to be sacrificed. It's hypocritical. The taking of something's life is the greatest violation possible to it's being, so any claim of "animal cruelty" while we allow the killing of said animal is utter bollocks. Again, hypocrisy. Why should it be okay to commit the greatest moral crime against an animal, but disallow a substantially less morally corrupt crime?
It's not science I don't even know why this is an argument for some people. It's a SCIENCE class. Creationism is not a scientific explanation. That's not saying it's right or wrong, it's just saying that it's NOT A SCIENCE. So it has no place in a SCIENCE CLASS. Just like how acting lessons have no place in, say, a history class.
The Olympics Are About Unity The whole purpose of the Olympics is that they are supposed to transcend petty political squabbles. They are designed so that, for a time, we can set aside our differences and conflicts, and come together as a united species. And that's imperative.
Besides, it would be quite fitting if a team could get a gay athlete out there and win the gold. Shove that in Russia's face.
Killing is always unjustified... With the exception of self-defense. No one deserves to have their life taken from them, because no one can "lose" sovereignty over their body. Further more, when you kill someone, you take away the chance that they may eventually realize the ill of their crime, and repent, and seek to make amends and improve their livelihood by whatever means thy can. Killing another individual is only ever justified when you are defending yourself from attack. If you have someone in captivity, there is absolutely no reason to kill them. You have them captured and neutralized. To kill them is entirely unjustified, and makes the state just as bad as a murderer. It's childish vengeance, and nothing more.
No one "needs" anyone from any specific "group". The group you are born into has no valid bearing in of itself on whether or not you will doa good job at whatever it is you are doing. America doesn't "need" a woman president, it needs a good presidential candidate. Now if a woman comes along and is a good presidential candidate, then America needs THAT SPECIFIC WOMAN. But the blanket idea of "woman president = good" is complete and utter nonsense. America needs a woman president no more than it needs a white, middle aged, male president of wealthy birth.
The war on drugs is pointless. Why have people not learned their lesson from prohibition? Banning something doesn't make it go away, it just makes it go underground, and then the more dangerous individuals begin to make a market off of it. The law doesn't prevent people from doing drugs, it just punishes the ones who do. It's a waste of money. Further more, the government has no moral justification for arresting someone who is only doing harm to themselves. If a drug addict gets high and hurts someone else as a result, punish them for that act. Otherwise, doing drugs is just like drinking; it affects you, and only you. Therefore it is unjust to punish someone for that.