Re: The Backroom Predefined Positions Thread
*Abortion - I'm not allowed to say what I think should be done if abortion during the first weeks and/or condoms didn't exist. But if they do exist, make the abortion as early as possible! Death to stem cell researchers - you shouldn't get pregnant with a child that you, before conception had planned to kill. Contraceptives are preventive measures, normal abortion is to compensate for an accident. Day after pills are nearly as immoral as stem cells.
*Capital Punishment - death penalty makes you want to become a murderer, out of the frustration of seeing the cases of innocent people being not only murdered, but also having their memory darkened, and be exposed to masses of primitive hordes of people who want to see human sacrifice of an individual they believe to be Satan or some other demon
*Drugs - protect people from drugs they don't want to take (i.e. people putting drugs in their glasses etc.), and make sure life in society is good enough (neither too hard, nor too easy and lacking in challenges) that people don't resort to drugs. Let drug users pay their health care alone, and if they can't, send them to dedrugging (is that a word?) clinics. Make sure drug dealers and drug users don't commit violence towards innocent people, by making laws against using drugs in public. As long as these goals are achieved, screw the rest, legalize it or whatever to achieve these goals best.
*Evolution - this isn't a predefined position, this is a result of thorough research
*Gays - as long as they don't hurt others, they may do whatever they want. Bisexuals are worse, since they connect two otherwise separate pools of STDs to each other. Same thing goes for heterosexuals moving between different sexual societies. Whatever people do, if they get STDs they should stop having sex with people who may have sex with someone else than them
*Gun Control - if the society forgets that it is entitled to have guns to resist oppression and tyranny from the state, there's really no reason left for having guns. Having gun control makes it easier for the police to stop dangerous criminals, but that potential is never really used. Tough question, and definitely one in which my opinion will change depending on the political situation in the particular country in which the question is raised.
*Immigration - any larger-scale immigration is a sign of failure in foreign aid politics. Smaller scale immigration and acceptance towards newcomers is a sign of a healthy world. Around 5-15% foreign population is a decent amount for giving birth to tolerance and managing integration and avoiding ghettos, but the current percentages in the western world are way above that, and have caused ghettos and racism. Historically, we can see that around 5-15% has been the best percentage both for the minorities and the majorities, as long as there are countries to flee to that will embrace the newcomers with open arms. If there are about equal numbers, there is heavy segregation and often civil war. People will always, in cases of emergency and lacking supplies, come up with different grouping of people. Race, religion and culture has historically been the grouping human beings have had the greatest tendency to make.
*Media Content - screw the commercials, screw the soap operas, screw the documentary soap operas, screw the biased news. Some movies can be ok though, but unfortunately not as often as I'd like
*Military in General - military is for defense. Only villains use military offensively. Peacekeeping forces is hypocrisy - I haven't heard of a single peacekeeping force that hasn't raped the local women and killed their husbands when they tried to defend their wives.
*Prostitution - if it improves the possibilities of stopping trafficking and decreasing rape, legalize prostitution, register all prostitutes, and let the police capture all unregistered prostitutes. But unless there is a socialist economy where nobody is pressured hard economically to become a prostitute, this option is impossible.
*Race and Racism - race doesn't matter. Racism is not based on causality, but usually on correlation or imagination. No negative behavior property is causally tied to race. Therefore whoever tries to group people by race is in reality trying to group by something else. Whatever that other thing is, is more interesting. For instance, people becoming racist over criminal immigrants are fools, since it's the lack of integration and formation of ghettos that causes the crime. Also the "natives" have an increased risk of becoming criminals, when they live in the ghettos, and indeed just as large percentage of the natives that live in the ghettos are often part of the organized crime there. But then, can you be angry with people because they have the sympthoms of living in horrible ghettos? No, you can't, and instead must realize that it's the ghettos - not the people - that are the problems.
*Separation of Church and State - theoretically, I can understand why people want state and church tied, since church defines a moral system, and law is the practical implementation of a moral system. The problem is, that most religion has morals that worked 2000 years ago, but wouldn't do so today, and that people want to follow different religions.
*The Rise of China and India - the rice of China and India is tasty... I just hope, given how stupid and malevolent some of my contemporaries in the western world are, that they won't get stronger than the western world, because some leaders in the western world today are strongly determined to make the western countries hate objects at the same time the western world is losing its economical and military superiority and is becoming weak. Neither ethically, nor strategically, a good choice of action
*The War on Terror - I haven't seen a war on terror, I have seen a war for oil, murder of civilians and causing a civil war of mass murder in Iraq, disguised under the name of war on terror. The European countries have responded to terrorism by improving airport security moderately, and has today almost no terrorism to speak of. The North Ireland troubles seem to have ended by a compromise from both sides, and the Basque terrorist organizations have lost support from the Basque population in general, which made them forced to make peace. They broke the peace and committed another terrorist attack, but most of the guilty have been captured, and the frequency of attacks is low, except for those countries that sent soldiers to take part in the action in Iraq. The costs for the European countries of dealing with terrorism have been minimal, only 1 civilian has been killed by the European actions at home. The countries joining the American expedition to Iraq was the only mistake made by European anti-terror measures, aiding in causing the nearly one million civilian casualties in Iraq. Seeing the "war on terror" as a war, as Bush has done, has caused nearly 1 million civilian casualties, several tens of thousand American soldier casualties, and hundred thousands Iraqi combattants casualties. The end result has been a huge increase in terrorism in Iraq, growing hatred towards USA among the Iraqi population, the American economy being severely damaged, the American relations to Iran becoming much worse, there not being enough soldiers at home to deal with the storm Katrina hitting New Orleans, causing many civilian Americans to die in the delayed rescue work, demoralizing and defaming the American army by the atrocities in Fallujah, and the imminent American defeat in Iraq, making terrorists and enemy nations lose all respect for the American army, which will damage its capability of defending the USA in the long term. There isn't a WAR on terror, there is a terror threat which is dealt with by undermining the popularity of the terrorists, making the populations they represent dislike them and not us. Avoiding war is one of the best methods, since no matter how good intentions a war has, there will ALWAYS be civilian casualties and soldiers losing discipline and raping and torturing innocents. Soldiers should only be used in situations when there's no other choice - in defense of your own soil. Only villains use military offensively. So if no European country had sent troops to Iraq, the strategy of the European countries would have been nearly perfect. That is what countries that are serious about fighting terrorism should do.
*Welfare - governments have the duty to make sure life is at least as good as it would be if we would still live the way things looked before civilization, in terms of food supply, freedom, relations between people, and fair competition between individuals, giving people equal starting positions. Those who do well should go far, those who don't do well should still have a decent situation.
*Your religious beliefs - Occam's razor
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Bookmarks