Execution of gay people in Iran
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (42)
sorted by:
It's a very simple premise - no group should get special treatment that disadvantages others.
Single people shouldn't pay for schools they don't need, to bail out parents.
Nobody should have their healthcare taken away to fund useless fertility treatments for retarded Christian women to shit out another kid at 40. The actual cause of autism is decrepit old mothers, not fucking Tylenol, but RFK has no balls.
Non-religious people shouldn't be subjected to retarded Christian morality police.
Women shouldn't be a protected class in hiring.
There shouldn't be special payoffs for people who have kids.
Those are a lot of shoulds and should nots. I'm asking where do you get those from and why ought we follow this premise?
I just explained the premise with examples. I know you're retarded enough to believe in a sky daddy, but I can't spoonfeed this any easier than I have.
If you need to ask why government shouldn't endorse lifestyle choices, you're an autocrat.
Christians are doing everything they accuse everyone else of.
But wait, I thought we're not supposed to hold unjustified beliefs? I asked you to give a justification for your belief things should be the way you say and I get "I explained the premise with examples" which is begging the question and ad homs about sky daddy?
Aren't you supposed to be the reasonable one here who deals with logic and facts and not unfounded beliefs?
I am dealing with facts. It's a very simple premise - the government has no right to enforce or criticize people's lifestyle choices.
Any involvement of the government in personal choices is an infringement of basic human rights.
Ok, let's go the pragmatic route: Do you need people for a functioning society? Who's going to provide you with healthcare and services? Maybe there's a reason behind state incentives for people having children?
Anti-natalism is self refuting. it is plain retarded.
Haven't heard how you plan for societies to continue existing without supporting parenting. Are you different from the other genocide purveyors?
He's a Jainist.
Obviously ;)
Considering the idea that society had to bail out parents financially is relatively new, introduced by the Soviet Union's Family Edicts, and adopted "temporarily" by the West to regrow the population post WW2...
I think we'll be fine. A declining population is a good thing in the age of AI. Natalists like Musk just want more kids to rape in orphanages.
Are you looking for the world population to decline to zero, or are you looking for reproduction to happen in some way that you approve (and what)?
It's patently absurd to declare that without robbing the childless to give out free money, that nobody will have kids.
Natalist economics is unsustainable and doesn't work anyway. It's fueled by spite for the childless more than any real goal - I fail to see how anyone who sees the current legal system around marriage and children thinks a man would sign up for a few hundred bucks off his taxes. The losses are limitless.