So, you don’t think your beliefs should be implemented, but you still believe them.
Are they divinely inspired or something?
I’m rather pro-capitalist when it comes to economics, actually. Interesting that you lump me in with someone who advocates an utterly Stalinist approach to society because I have such extreme views as “homosexuals are people” and “the current state of abortion law in the majority of the world is the correct one,” you Christofascist retard.
I think he’s saying that while he approves of those end results, he doesn’t approve of the means necessary to achieve them.
OK, then that’s even nuttier. If you can’t imagine a way to get to your desired political outcome except through a totalitarian government, then that should tell you something about said desired political outcome.
Actually I think family bonds are very important which is why I am vehemently opposed to adoption, single-parent families, and the emphasis of the nuclear family over the extended family group. Smagti proposed a scenario to create an equal baseline for all children through which no one would have an advantage from birth circumstances. I am clarifying how it could be done.
:golf clap:
Even worse. It has become clear from a lot of research that bonding with specific parental figures is key to basic cognitive development. If we did this, we’d soon have a nation of mentally crippled people.
Or maybe he realizes deep down that they wouldn’t ever actually achieve those ends?
Not necessarily. It could be that he doesn’t have a very high opinion of his own imagination…
We know all about your feelings on these subjects. Are you aware that most board members think you’re nuts? Perhaps you could remind us again of your thoughts on handshake rape or the evils of breastfeeding? Just for entertainment value, of course.
It’s my understanding that a young lady by the name of Khardashian accumulated several million dollars for herself as a result of getting married (for about ten weeks) in a very public fashion. That she was able to do this (and to do it by design) suggests that we already have a nation of mentally crippled people…
For someone who is so opposed to adoption, you seem to know very little about the real problem of attachment that is so prevalent with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory
If you implemented the idea of removing children from anyone that they could attach to (even if it is a non-parent), they can develop some serious social problems down the road. With enough of them running around I don’t think a society would last very long.
I agree that all children should have the same advantages (including a loving family to to attach to) which is why I am pro-adoption.
(Of course, I am also a socialist so it’s none too suprising.)
Generally yes, but the name of that thread (which, notably, Qin didn’t mention or even link to in his OP) is “What are your most extreme, honestly held views?” This kind of thread calls for less censorship of one’s views.
Even in such a thread, some self-censorship is still in order: I wouldn’t go so far as saying “all members of <such or such group> should be killed”, unless that group is serial killers, or terrorists, or something similar. But that’s not what Smapti said. From what I can see, in his list of suggestions, two of them are really extreme: removal of children from their families, and complete abolition of private property. This doesn’t directly insult anyone on the SDMB. Everybody can recognize it for what it is: an idea that he probably didn’t think all the way through, that’s intended to solve some problems we have to face in this world, but which would probably have several consequences which he didn’t intend.
There are probably a lot of desirable political outcomes that couldn’t be achieved under a democratic government. If we had to design a perfect society from scratch, it’d be quite different from anything that’s been tried yet.
You obviously have no idea what a sociopath is. Of all the people on this board, I probably live in the most instact mulit-generational tribal culture. Family means everything to me. However we are not discussing that in this thread. We are discussing how and why Smapti’s ideas could be implemented. I find the what ifs of the idea fascinating though much like Smapt, I doubt it would ever occur except of course through the alien conquest scenario
Nonsense. My desired political outcome is for an end to war, crime, rudeness, and poverty. I have no goddamned idea how to get there, short of total nuclear war, but that doesn’t mean my desired outcomes are bad.
Nonsense. Your desired outcomes cannot be accomplished through a totalitarian government, so they don’t fit my criterion.
Maybe we just haven’t had the right leaders yet? I nominate myself.
- Step one: totalitarian government.
- Step two: launch the nukes.
- Step three: political goals accomplished!
The poster is either doing it for amusement value or truly cracked.
I’ll go with cracked.
The OP of this thread is someone who opposes no-fault divorce.
Admittedly not as bad as a totalitarian dictatorship, but almost as stupid.
The OP has never been married.