Do you have any beliefs that are considered “politically incorrect”?
How about:
“Let the children die”?
I got to discussing this with a co-worker once. He told me that the most profoundly sad perosn he had ever met was one of those who had done the “feed the children” programs in the 60’s - and then realized that all he had done was prolong/expand suffering - the children (artificially supported) reached puberty, made more babies - and there still wasn’t enough food available to support the parents - let alone the new generation of starving babies.
Nice going, generous Americans!
Also - if the kid has a genetic defect which will
a. if untreated, kill the child before it reaches puberty
and
b. will be transmitted to any children it ever has
either let it die naturally or, at the very least, neuter it so there is not another generation of dying children.
No, I don’t care to discuss these rather harsh opinions - all pit threads cheerfully ignored
Sometimes, violence IS the answer. There are people in this world who will only learn when they get direct negative feedback to their actions. And that action is a punch to the face, or a boot to the head.
Sometimes, in war, civilians get killed. Obviously the military should do everything possible to avoid this “collateral” damage, but sometimes, in the act of disabling the enemy, it’s unavoidable.
This is one of the reasons why people need to be responsible for the kind of government their country has.
The French are right in kicking Gypsies/Roma out of the country. They’re a group that, for the most part, refuses to assimilate, camps out on private property without the owner’s permission, and makes their living on petty theft and scam artistry. Yes, there’s Roma who have settled down, assimilated, gotten legitimate careers, and so on, but they’re in a very, very small minority.
I am a strong believer in political correctness being politically incorrect.
Conservation and recycling is only prolonging the inevitable.
The concept of global warming is really “Mother Earth” having a giant hot flash and She is getting ready for menopause that will destroy bi-pedal life as we know it. With the lack of an ozone layer, the heat will ultimately kill off mankind and while the planet will survive, the next species which thrives won’t need an ozone layer…
There’s no such thing as a “fair fight.” You’re trying to hurt me, I’m trying to hurt you. There are no rules. If I can win or gain an advantage by kicking you in the balls, jamming my thumb into your eye, ripping one of your ears off, or any other such “unfair” practices you’d better believe I’m gonna do it the first opportunity that arises.
Whenever somebody brings up the term “privilege” in an argument about marginalized people my brain shuts down and I don’t listen to another word they have to say.
If treated as an academic theory about how unconscious prejudice works, fine, but that isn’t how it comes up in arguments. How it comes up in arguments is if you are straight, or white, or male, or Christian, or able-bodied, or able-minded, or not kinky, or speak English, or have ever had even the briefest moment of non-victimhood you aren’t allowed to have an opinion. It just plays into the whole victim olympics identity politics thing and shuts down any meaningful examination of issues.
I don’t think this is especially true.
Populations tend to find a balance with their eco-system, and generally people do not settle where they just absolutely cannot support themselves- which is why to this day the Sahara desert is pretty much empty. As for concerns about population growth- famine creates immediate low fertility, but even when there are massive die-off the population tends to boom in a couple generations anyway (for example, look at China.) So your friend’s famine-based eugenics isn’t going to be very effective.
The reasons why famine happens are complicated. While a drought or flood may act as a trigger, what lets famine reach massive proportions is related to markets, transportation issues, and government regulations. Most places are fully capable of growing all the food they could ever need- and many places are. Famine is political.
There are instances of famine-struck countries still exporting food on the world market, or or exporting food out of famine-struck areas and into urban areas where food can get higher prices. War, of course, is also a major cause of famine. A common chain-of-events in a famine is:[ol]
[li]Everyone grows food, and mostly it works.[/li][li]Urban elites form. Since most people are growing food, they still have enough to cover the urban elites[/li][li]Urban elites have enough food, but not enought BMWs. They encourage or force farmers to grow cash crops to create foreign exchange with which to purchase luxury goods.[/li][li]Cash crops lead to soil degregation and unsustainable population movements. There are just enough people growing food to keep things working.[/li][li]There is a drought, flood, or other natural event. Food production drops.[/li][li]Food continues to flow to urban elites who can afford now-premium prices, the farmers don’t get any.[/li][/ol]
In any case, people in famine-struck areas have heard of suicide, and if they felt like their life and future was so empty it wasn’t worth trying to survive through a bad food year, they would do that. I don’t think they particularly appreciate you, all cozy and fed, deciding for them that their lives and the lives of their children are not worth living.
I have a lot of un-PC ideas, and I’d like to think I’ve learned not to post them on the internet! 
D’oh! :smack:
Yes.
Had to think, just thought of one: As indelicately as he put it, what Jimmy the Greek said that got him fired is true: athletic endeavors ARE separated by race: Blacks run fast and jump high, whites swim better.
#1 I actually think some of the more obnoxious behaviors are only indulged in because they know you legally can’t just kick them in the head or otherwise beat the ever loving fuck out of them.
#2 Find a way to encourage the farming world hire via local unemployment offices. Need 40 people to pick your grapes, call EDD, here they come. Don’t want to work the fields, better have a damn good reason.
#3 Reasonable protective tariffs would make the US a better place.
#4 Criminal fraud in excess of $1million dollars should be treated like violent crimes for purposes of prosecution and sentencing. Would big real estate and investment scammers be so inclined to screw people if it would get them a nice stay in San Quentin as opposed to a minimum security “club fed” type institutions.
#5 Big businesses should be allowed to fail, just like small ones. Yes it may suck for a while, but what comes out the other end will probably be a healthier more balanced business model.
Yup. Of course it’s hard to qualify reasonable violence, but self-defense is recognized as a right practically anywhere, so we can probably start from there.
I also think that secular, objective, scientific thought combined with something like the golden rule is the best way to see if an idea is a good one, and that any reasoning that depends on the arbitrary feelings of a hypothetical being is not just stupid but perpetuates stupidity amongst the oppressed in favor of the “elite”.
Oh - this applies to most of Western civilization at least - if you feel strongly about something and want to break the law in order to make a point, you shouldn’t complain about any punishment you might receive. It lessens your case. Take your actions with the expectation that the law will be executed, if you’re so convinced, or shut up.
If you immigrate to a country expect to follow that country’s culture. Don’t expect them to follow yours.
If you have moved to a new country and spend all your time telling everyone how much better your old country is don’t act hurt when they tell you to move back there.
Agreed.
As for the OP, I’ve said before that I think many things were better back in the days of the British Empire. Sadly provided you weren’t ethnic, of course.
To expand on that a bit: There are quite a few countries out there that just can’t seem to get their shit together and are now actually worse off than they were at independence. The British Empire wasn’t all Tea, Cricket, & Kittens but I still think the basic idea- an industrialised, stable, civilised country “taking over the affairs” of a struggling one has merit.
Paul Romer would like you to subscribe to his newsletter. His idea: give first-world countries jurisdiction over tiny areas of third-world countries, administrate them properly and act like a bunch of Hong Kongs.
People should be monogamous, and should not have children without committed partners.
Another thing, I don’t think corporal punishment for children is necessarily bad, and might even be good in some cases. Not only that, I think public, physical punishment of criminals would be a great thing too. Let’s bring back the stocks and some public floggings. I’m completely serious about that.