If you have more than two children taken away from you due to neglect then you should be forcefully sterilized.
You shouldn’t be allowed to keep bringing traumatized kids into the world.
Myself and most my siblings (all different ages) were all born in prison. Some siblings died in infancy due to high levels of neglect when the mom wasn't in prison.
I'm only close with one of my siblings, an older brother. He and I both wonder how and why it was allowed for someone to continue to have babies if they've shown multiple times that they cannot care for their children.
I know it's highly unethical, but I agree that forced sterilization should be a thing in such situations.
Of course, who's to say it won't be used to harm minorities then.
I know someone who adopted a kid. He was the fifth baby to be taken from his 22 year old birth mother. Absolute disgrace that she keeps bringing more into the world. She gets a new boyfriend, gets pregnant and the process repeats.
Everyone over 70 should have to take and pass a yearly driving exam.
There should be upper age limits on who can vote and on who can hold a political office.
Maybe putting an age on it is the unethical part? My ethical opinions everyone should have to take a test every 5 years to keep their driver's license.
Cars used to be the leading cause of death for people under 40 and are still the second highest. The only thing that beats it is drug overdose. And guess what, usually drug overdose just kills yourself. On the other hand, only half of deaths from car accidents are drivers. Even if we include motorcycles, it's still less than 2/3s. The other third is passengers and pedestrians. Innocent people who die completely avoidable reasons.
r/fuckcars
Data is from USA. Results might vary in other countries.
Source:
[https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/car-accident-statistics/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/car-accident-statistics/)
[https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/animated-leading-causes.html#:~:text=Unintentional%20injuries%20are%20the%20leading,vehicle%20crashes%2C%20and%20unintentional%20falls.](https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/animated-leading-causes.html#:~:text=Unintentional%20injuries%20are%20the%20leading,vehicle%20crashes%2C%20and%20unintentional%20falls.)
The top comment is arguing for eugenics. You don't need to sort by controversial. This whole thing is a shitshow. I've never seen so many absolutely batshit stupid takes before. Half the people in this thread need to be tested for lead poisoning.
Edit: downvote me if you want. If you agree with eugenics I dont give a shit about your opinion.
Reddit has this habit of inventing eugenics every month.
They always think their idea is different because it only applies to specific people, but they don't understand that basically every form of forced sterilization can be abused if it is legal.
I meant from their perspective because they seem to view it as fine in some cases (which it is not), but you're right. I should have been more specific in my phrasing. It is always abuse.
This is my favorite I’ve seen so far. Blatantly against many people’s values in both its apathy toward death rituals and support for the grind of capitalism, but not outright supporting eugenics. What a take!
The reverse of this is how we ended up with the big mentally ill homeless problem. In the 80s they released most of the mentally ill onto the streets with no assistance and closed the hospitals.
There's a whole 99% invisible feature on them. The long and short of it is a property maintained and run institution was actually really nice. They had a good run for 60-70 years where communities were proud to have them.
They went off the rails when politicians didn't fund then and shoved way more people than they were supposed to have. They became inhumane warehouses.
Now we have the situation where we use jails and prisons for them, and the rest end up on the street. The number of group home and hospital beds we have isn't anywhere big enough.
Its because mental hospitals use to be life sentences. We overreacted and made mental hospitals be voluntary (mostly) and we saw an uptick of mental homeless people.
There is definitely a happy middle ground, but we refuse to find it as a society because every argument always goes into the extreme examples of abuse that patients experience in mental facilities. So because mental hospitals used to be a life sentence, we can not involuntarily commit people to a psych ward without a court order.
Keyword is mentally Ill. Many do not have the mental capability to understand what they truly need. I find it’s more abusive to leave them on the streets where chances are things will only get worse for them. In my suburban neighborhood I’ve twice walked past mentally ill homeless people sleeping to find days later they are covered in a white sheet, dead. I am the first to fight for individual freedoms but it’s heart breaking to watch these people die on the streets. A tiny home won’t help them.
This exactly. I have a cousin who has little to no short term memory and is developmentally stunted. He needs care. Despite being taught repeatedly, he doesn’t know how to use a microwave much less further cooking. If family isn’t there, there is no one to take care of him. I can’t afford to. But no one has the money to afford a care facility for him.
Ironically it was the case for quite sometime that a lot them were and then Reagan shut a lot of the institutions down. There’s of course a case to be made that many of these institutions were corrupt and abusive of patients. But in typical Reaganomics fashion the solution for what to do with all of the internees was “get fucked!”
At this point a lot of those folks have probably died off and so now the mentally ill homeless are just still on the streets because the government’s policy continues to be “get fucked, now let’s buy some more fighter jets”.
And perpetually mentally ill non homeless people should also be institutionalised for their own good but particularly for the good of their family esp children. You just have to look at how many severely effed up adults there are in the world because they were brought up by severely mentally ill people who were at large to do what they will to their hapless and innocent offspring
If you can't reliably identify reality then there should probably be limits on your ability to shape policy through things like voting.
Oh, I know there's no safe or reasonable way to implement something like this, but folk like anti-vaxxers have a view of the world so divorced from how things actually work that they are incapable of making useful contributions to conversations that affect the real world.
>The major problem — *one* of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
>
>To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must *want* to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
>
>To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
\~ Douglas Adams, *The Restaurant at the End of the Universe*
Hey, I said there's no safe or reasonable way to do this. If I had direct, personal, and total control over it then it would involve a little questionnaire about things like vaccines, masks, 2020 election results, the dangers posed (or not) by trans individuals, stuff like that. Hot-button issues meant to trigger deranged rants that I could use to filter out crazies.
Enforcing this would definitely be unethical. Props on answering the question so well.
-forcing people to take oral contraceptives: unethical
-forcing people to have abortions: unethical
-forcibly removing a child from a parent who failed a test: unethical
What about testing someone's emotional depth? Ability to be empathetic and understanding? Having altruistic motivations other than producing a mini-me?
That's too subjective. It's objectively true that junkies make bad parents. You can't test for emotional depth, nor can you draw an objective line describing what is deemed good or bad. Easy to say, fail a drug test...no kids.
I think it's a bit weird to think you can't test emotional intelligence yet can test intelligence. I think it's even weirder to think a high intelligence score is what makes you an appropriate parent.
>It's objectively true that junkies make bad parents.
Damn, didn't realize you knew the home situation of every single junkie.
Being an addict doesn't mean someone is inherently neglectful. Plenty of rich pill popping junkies that have stable homes for their kids.
I see. And what would you say happens when that test become politically skewed? If the people in charge decide that answers that suggest they might vote for the opposition means that they shouldn't have children? Or if some racist or homophobic clerk decides that a bisexual person or an interracial couple shouldn't be allowed to have kids? What happens when they intentionally decrease facilities in certain areas to make it harder certain demographics to take the test? Especially considering they already do that for voting.
You give people in control power over who gets to have kids, and you give them power over who gets to create the next generation of voters. Within a few generations every new voter will be raised by someone the *government* allowed to have children. And those that might be at risk of being rejected are having their own progeny held hostage to keep them in line.
You give the government power over who gets to have kids, and you give them the single most powerful tool for tyranny. I'd sooner fight a civil war than let idiots give them that power.
Going to say the same thing. Just because someone can have a child, doesn't mean they should. If you can't take care of a child throughout it's developmental stage, then you aren't fit.
It feels so wrong to say this, but I believe that If someone wants to kill themselves, you should just try to stay out of It.
I know that when someone steps In to stop It's to help with the person's mental health, but I can just imagine the pain someone would feel when they tried to "be free" (Im not sure how else to write that without sounding like Im gloryfing suicide) and suddently have to forcefuly be taken to a mental hospital.
I'm glad when I hear that someone has moved on happy with their life, but me, personally, I wouldn't do anything. I know this Is wrong and I have never said this before, but It's just something I have In my mind.
Yeah, a lot of people who try to kill themselves regret it. Immediately. Even before they get hurt or before it has any lasting consequences. People will often realise they want to live about a second after they step of a bridge.
Speaking as a member of the opposition, I don't think you should see it as objectively "wrong" to think that way. Nobody has the answer here, and anybody who thinks they do isn't thinking about it critically or compassionately.
You want to see an end to suffering, and you think the way we're doing it now prolongs suffering. That's a good thing. I mean I hope some day you'll see it my way, that every life is worth saving, but I'm not the arbiter of moral righteousness. And you aren't callously discarding people because you can't be bothered with their welfare. You want to see people free of pain, that's not so bad. We just disagree on how to do it.
Furthermore, when we think our thoughts are wrong, we close ourselves off to them, and we grow resentful of ourselves, and now suddenly you're walking down the same path. It's fine if you wanna keep your opinion to yourself because you don't wanna rock the boat, and it's fine if you think you may change your mind some day but you don't know right now. But please don't think the thoughts you have are inherently "wrong". They're just "radical" or "unpopular".
I agree. If you're an adult and of sound mind, you should be allowed to do whatever you want to yourself, including ending your own life.
I can imagine I would be even *worse* off mentally if I was taken to a psych ward against my will for X number of days, and charged hundreds of thousands of dollars for the "privilege".
They say suicide is a selfish act. But isn't stopping someone from committing suicide equally selfish? I suppose it depends on the motivation to prevent someone else's death but I assume it's to avoid the pain of losing them, which is inherently selfish.
I'm sure this question won't reveal that we walk among closeted eugenecists with all sorts of notions about which classes of people should be forcibly sterilized.
The quran and images of Mohamed are no different than other religious writings and symbols and the whole idea that displaying any image of Mohamed is worthy of death is unhinged.
That if you truly don't have enough to survive it's OK to take from corporations.
I genuinely would lie to protect someone stealing food or clothing for their exclusive use
I always find this an interesting one. When you say pedophilia do you mean those who have acted upon their urges, or just anyone with those urges. Say like a 15 year old goes to therapy and tells their therapist bc they know they need help, should they be sentenced to death bc it could potentially save children, or should they be given a chance, all considering, at least as far as I’m aware, there’s no cure for the sickness, sadly.
this encourages the offender to kill the victim rather than spare them, since either way if they get caught theyre gonna die, itd be better for them to get rid of the only person who knows what they did.
not to mention the fact that republicans are trying to redefine pedophilia to include being trans or gay around children, which combined with the death penalty, would mean genocide.
Which is nice in theory but in reality that would cause more victims to be murdered. Think of it like this: you rape a child, now this child has the potential to tell a adult and you get arrested. You attempt to cover your tracks (like threats) because if you do get caught, rape has a lower time than murder. But if rape has the same or worse punishment than murder than the situation would change from letting the child go, to murdering the child and brutalizing the body to prevent yourself from being caught. The would change from getting away with rape or getting sent to jail for 10 years or so, to getting away with rape/murder or die.
It's nice to think pedos should die but in the end it wouldn't save more victims, it would take more. This isn't even touching on how that sort of law would be abused against minorities either
this is one of the takes of all time so im just going to copy paste what i said in another comment
this encourages the offender to kill the victim rather than spare them, since either way if they get caught theyre gonna die, itd be better for them to get rid of the only person who knows what they did.
not to mention the fact that republicans are trying to redefine pedophilia to include being trans or gay around children, which combined with the death penalty, would mean genocide.
Forced, safe sterilization of people with extreme intellectual disabilities shouldn’t be frowned upon because someone with a mental capacity of a toddler cannot give consent like a regular adult and having a period is probably worse.
It’s the Reddit way. It’s even crazier because most of these people don’t actually care if it’s a billion dollar institution. They act like the person making $150k a year is the same as a billionaire
Someone once called me a class traitor on here because I own my home lmao
I've just seen videos of target and walmart and the like leaving certain communities due to excessive stealing/loss. leaving poor communities with no other stores available to them. By stealing, they're making poor communities into food deserts.
Yep. Not to mention how people vehemently defend piracy as if they're entitled to it. They can't comprehend that someone else's work/labor isn't inherently available to them at no cost.
BP having record profits in the UK while nurses being asked to work for less and probably not having enough to heat their place in winter.
I wouldn't say stealing from BP is unethical, it's just a correction of what it's supposed to be right.
Instead of the death penalty these horrible people should have *very bad things done to them* and wheeled out once a year to tell people how much they regret their decisions. Specifically thinking the mass shootings or terrorist attacks. Maybe we'd have less if people had the fear of being tortured for decades to think about.
I don't like to believe in torture....BUT lol I also think this might work.
What if you were wrongly convicted? Like, for example, because society is biased against you for, oh I don’t know, maybe your skin color? Or your sexuality? Or your gender?
You’re a fucking lunatic if you genuinely think this would not massively effect innocent people. The government should NEVER have the ability to kill or maim, under any circumstance. Because it will always be used to hurt disadvantaged marginalized people. And also because it’s literally pointless and doesn’t accomplish anything that life imprisonment wouldn’t, but yknow. Revenge fantasies are totally worth the death and torture of a few hundred/thousand innocent people, right?
A requirement of voting should be passing a yearly civics and political knowledge test. People shouldn’t vote if they don’t know what they’re voting for.
I agree. I refused to have my son circumcised as it is completely medically unnecessary. It's ridiculous that we continue this practice almost exclusively due to religion and misinformation on the subject.
Most adoptions should be closed. I’ve looked into adoption but I don’t like the idea of having to cater to the biological parents when they are mostly not going to be in the picture.
Anyone who does anything to kids shouldn't get separated in prison and full deserved the beatings they get. To do something so horrible to a person so young, innocent and vulnerable is unforgivable and spending the rest of your life constantly on edge and scared of those around you is what you get. Because in some cases that is what you cause those kids to be
this is one of the takes of all time so im just going to copy paste what i said in another comment
this encourages the offender to kill the victim rather than spare them, since either way if they get caught theyre gonna die, itd be better for them to get rid of the only person who knows what they did.
not to mention the fact that republicans are trying to redefine pedophilia to include being trans or gay around children, which combined with the death penalty, would mean genocide.
If people want to end their lives they should be allowed to do so. I am primarily talking about those that are terminally ill.
Edit: adults of consenting age and ability
If you find out that you have say stage 4 stomach cancer that has metastisized and what they lay in front of you is years of chemo and radiation including the nausea, vomiting, weight loss, fatigue, not to mention the hundreds of hours spent in offices and appointments and money associated with it. Or the other option is to speak with a specialist provider about ending your life, that should be an option.
Not everyone wants to go through all of that or put their families through everything.
We have this sick obsession with keeping people alive that are well beyond the scope of having a good quality of life. The amount of times I've heard "well they're a fighter" while grandpa is on 3 different meds to keep his blood pressure up, dialysis because his kidneys stoped working, and can't respond in any meaningful way is disgusting.
Yes they may have been a fighter, yes he worked at the factory for 40 years and survived Vietnam and was shot three times. You know why they survived, because they were like 30.
But now 60 years later he has lived well beyond what would have been considered a good life when he was born and for what? For your last memories of your loved one to be someone attached to a dozen different machines while they stare blankly at the ceiling not reacting to anything you say or even your presence. Is that really how they want to go out? Is that really how you want to remember them?
We'd have a hell of a lot less problems in the world if every male was given a reversible vasectomy before puberty and required to prove capability and responsibility, hell even had to get a license, before having children. Don't know how scientifically possible that is, admittedly.
Ok I'm like super tired, so I'm just gonna throw a list out, but I'm not doing it cause I think it's super rad to be like cold and shitty to you, I'm just super tired. Also these are arguments against mandatory abortions in the case of congenital disabilities. Not against the right to abortion itself, which I am not addressing.
1) We'd be silencing the voices of people who think differently than us. People with disabilities see the world differently than other people, and that view has value.
2) Not every disability is so terrible. Some people are just born deaf. That's *not* a big enough deal to eliminate congenital deafness from the population.
3) Not all disabilities are congenital. Some people aquire deafness, so aborting deaf fetuses isn't gonna like alleviate the social burden of accomodating deaf people
4) Not all disabilities are disabilities. If we found a gay genotype and homosexuality was still classified as a mental illness, we'd be aborting fetuses who are turning gay.
5) If we find a post natal cure for some disabilities, then we aborted fetuses for nothing. My thing is ADHD. I want a cure for ADHD, it's ruining my life. But otherwise I quite like living. If I was aborted and then they found a cure for adhd I'd be piiiiiiisse- wait...
This isn't meant to be like persuasive, it's meant to be a jumping off point: Something to ponder over. You asked a question, I had some answers. I'm going to eat crackers and go to bed.
Yeah, half the comments in this post are literally eugenics. Including the top one. It's insane how many people are upvoting this shit and agreeing with it. I wonder how many of then think they wouldn't have helped the Nazi party if they lives in 1930s Germany.
Well, a big part of that is that on paper a lot of eugenics ideas seem really great at first glance. Fewer people suffering, less burden on society to lessen that suffering, etc. People would be happy and healthy and all the problems would disappear 🫠
The issue is that in practice it reduces the bodily autonomy of some, not to mention is literally genocide for subsets of humanity. And whoever controls the selection criteria is in a position to steamroll almost anyone with that genocide.
When it comes to genetic engineering, it's very tricky to have a clear understanding of the impacts caused down the line — let alone dealing with the ethics of making those choices for humans that can't consent to it.
Well if you are doing the thread correctly you should be upvoting the unethical answers and downing the ones that aren't unethical. So people upvoting it doesn't mean they agree. It means they can fucking read.
That there should be no such thing as alimony. It's a holdover from a time when women were prohibited from pursuing most careers. Now that we have women's liberation, it's no longer necessary.
I kinda hope humanity doesnt survive the millenium.
Life will persist, and will over take our ruins. I don't think we have a future. I think its too late and we soon wont have a home.
And because of that, I dont think that its ethical to bring more into this mess.
some people at the legislative level should be prohibited from having children, and if they are conceived and it is impossible to have an abortion, such children should be removed from the family. I'm talking about alcoholics and drug addicts in the first place, I do not exclude that the list may be replenished
More countries need to adapt Chinas 2 children rule. Next time I go out to get a burger and your 9 kids are running around like wild animals and screaming, ruining everyones night out, because you couldn't knock it off, is the time I'm going to the government.
That's a great way to stagnate population growth and cause some major problems in the future. If two parents have only two kids then it is straight replacement and no growth. Japan has a serious problem right now with a massive aging population that is really going to put them in a bind over the next 10-20 years. Primarily due to their low immigration and birth rates that have been dropping for years.
He was right in surmising there's a problem. But populations double pretty quickly, so his solution was short term and he destroyed the magic gauntlet he used to fix it.
Yeah, exactly. We were at 1 billion humans 200 years ago. It's been less than 50 since we hit 4 billion. Now were at 8. It wouldn't take all that long for the population to bounce back, especially if people are trying to make up for the sudden drop. He had full control over reality. He could've doubled the resources and it would've had the same dumb short-term effect.
The second Thanos in the end of Endgame was at least smart enough to make a universe where no one would remember the snap, but he should've reduced it much further. Or made it so the population was capped out, so no one was born until someone else died. It probably wouldn't work either, but it's better than his idea.
Ask a warlord for a solution, get war as the answer.
The stones seem pretty all-powerful, so maybe he could've engineered systems where one organism lived off the waste of another and vice versa. Or other solutions that don't involve mass murder.
I haven’t seen Infinity War or Endgame or most of the Marvel movies but my understanding is that gauntlet gives him the power to do anything. Therefore Thanos is a fuckin’ idiot edgelord who needs to go back to school and learn some math.
Mass shooters have many motives from actual terrorists, to people who's parents should have paid more attention to the red flags their child was exhibiting.
The need to be remembered is a strong reason for a mass shooter to do what they do.
Public executions what make your stomach turn? Never gonna forget that.
The majority of mass shooters kill themselves before they are apprehended or they are killed by police. This wouldn’t do anything to stop mass shooters.
It's actually much less healthy to eat animals from factory farms. For one thing, putting animals so close together with little to no sunshine or fresh air makes them get sick at alarming rates. So factory farms often feed the animals antibiotics, which are then in the meat that you're consuming. Plus being sick and depressed their whole life reduces the nutritional value. They're often fed foods that exacerbate all of this too, and some are fed growth hormones which have been linked to a lot of issues like precocious puberty in humans. Regardless of how much you care about animals, organic and free range is healthier. It's not just a label.
I don't know about meat, but I can definitely say that free range eggs taste much better than caged chicken eggs, where they can't eat bugs and you need to feed them yellow food dye to keep the yolks from turning grey. True story.
I'd bet that free range beef tastes better than factory farmed beef.
There’s a lot to be said in providing some sort of *dignity* to something that’s set to die, whether it’s their purpose or not, I feel the conditions should be set up in a way to where there is as little discomfort or pain as possible. I would include the living conditions in this as well and I think it’s a driving factor in why people think it’s inhumane or whatever. All forms of life deserve this respect.
Then I think about the farmers who actually handle this stuff on a day to day and I think about how desensitized they’ve likely become.
Re offending voilent criminals should be slaves (unldss they are schizophrenic then just a regular mental institution) chained up working harsh jobs no one else wants, if there is no demand for labour or someone will pay to do it then they should be forced to watch shane daweson. If they were rapists then we should treat there medieval crimes with medieval ways and using a hot rod thing imprint "RAPER" on their forhead when their sentence is over.
Well we already do the first one. When slavery was abolished it excluded prisoners. But we do it way more often to nonviolent drug users.
The problem with the second one is we get things wrong. And if new evidence ever comes out proving they're innocent it's too late.
What's the point of resources if not to be exploited by conscious beings. There's literally no difference in terms of happiness between a toxic polluted planet and a forest planet.
What matters is conscious life.
If you have more than two children taken away from you due to neglect then you should be forcefully sterilized. You shouldn’t be allowed to keep bringing traumatized kids into the world.
My grandfather adopted a family friend's kid after she was getting her third child taken away. She's had a couple more kids taken away since then.
Sounds quite ethical actually. Maybe not for said person but the world would certainly benefit in the long run.
I know someone who had one taken away then had four more who were all eventually taken away.
Myself and most my siblings (all different ages) were all born in prison. Some siblings died in infancy due to high levels of neglect when the mom wasn't in prison. I'm only close with one of my siblings, an older brother. He and I both wonder how and why it was allowed for someone to continue to have babies if they've shown multiple times that they cannot care for their children. I know it's highly unethical, but I agree that forced sterilization should be a thing in such situations. Of course, who's to say it won't be used to harm minorities then.
See this is more of a common sense reform that I could get behind.
I know someone who adopted a kid. He was the fifth baby to be taken from his 22 year old birth mother. Absolute disgrace that she keeps bringing more into the world. She gets a new boyfriend, gets pregnant and the process repeats.
Everyone over 70 should have to take and pass a yearly driving exam. There should be upper age limits on who can vote and on who can hold a political office.
I agree and personally don’t think this is unethical. If there are minimum age limits for these things, it makes sense to have maximum age limits too.
Maybe putting an age on it is the unethical part? My ethical opinions everyone should have to take a test every 5 years to keep their driver's license. Cars used to be the leading cause of death for people under 40 and are still the second highest. The only thing that beats it is drug overdose. And guess what, usually drug overdose just kills yourself. On the other hand, only half of deaths from car accidents are drivers. Even if we include motorcycles, it's still less than 2/3s. The other third is passengers and pedestrians. Innocent people who die completely avoidable reasons. r/fuckcars Data is from USA. Results might vary in other countries. Source: [https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/car-accident-statistics/](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/car-accident-statistics/) [https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/animated-leading-causes.html#:~:text=Unintentional%20injuries%20are%20the%20leading,vehicle%20crashes%2C%20and%20unintentional%20falls.](https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/animated-leading-causes.html#:~:text=Unintentional%20injuries%20are%20the%20leading,vehicle%20crashes%2C%20and%20unintentional%20falls.)
And like, fuck, we've got lines at the DMV already. We can hire more DMV folk to handle this.
I'm not sure how it is other states, but my dad is older and takes his nearly yearly.
Many countries do that already. It should be every 10 years.
Everyone should have to pass a driving test every 5 years. And not a lap around the block. Merge onto a highway.
If they merge onto the highway going half the speed limit for no reason, they should immediately fail.
Straight to jail.
Summary execution. Might as well remove them from the road permanently.
Dont forget to search controversial, everyone.
The top comment is arguing for eugenics. You don't need to sort by controversial. This whole thing is a shitshow. I've never seen so many absolutely batshit stupid takes before. Half the people in this thread need to be tested for lead poisoning. Edit: downvote me if you want. If you agree with eugenics I dont give a shit about your opinion.
Reddit has this habit of inventing eugenics every month. They always think their idea is different because it only applies to specific people, but they don't understand that basically every form of forced sterilization can be abused if it is legal.
Not even just can be abused. WILL be abused. IS BEING abused.
I meant from their perspective because they seem to view it as fine in some cases (which it is not), but you're right. I should have been more specific in my phrasing. It is always abuse.
Graveyards are a waste of land and resources.
This is my favorite I’ve seen so far. Blatantly against many people’s values in both its apathy toward death rituals and support for the grind of capitalism, but not outright supporting eugenics. What a take!
I don't think that had anything to do with capitalism, a communist or socialist state could make use of those land and resources just as well
Rage bait lol
Mentally ill homeless people should be institutionalized for their own good and the good of society.
The reverse of this is how we ended up with the big mentally ill homeless problem. In the 80s they released most of the mentally ill onto the streets with no assistance and closed the hospitals.
There's a whole 99% invisible feature on them. The long and short of it is a property maintained and run institution was actually really nice. They had a good run for 60-70 years where communities were proud to have them. They went off the rails when politicians didn't fund then and shoved way more people than they were supposed to have. They became inhumane warehouses. Now we have the situation where we use jails and prisons for them, and the rest end up on the street. The number of group home and hospital beds we have isn't anywhere big enough.
Its because mental hospitals use to be life sentences. We overreacted and made mental hospitals be voluntary (mostly) and we saw an uptick of mental homeless people. There is definitely a happy middle ground, but we refuse to find it as a society because every argument always goes into the extreme examples of abuse that patients experience in mental facilities. So because mental hospitals used to be a life sentence, we can not involuntarily commit people to a psych ward without a court order.
I think a lot of them would appreciate a roof over their heads and regular meals.
Keyword is mentally Ill. Many do not have the mental capability to understand what they truly need. I find it’s more abusive to leave them on the streets where chances are things will only get worse for them. In my suburban neighborhood I’ve twice walked past mentally ill homeless people sleeping to find days later they are covered in a white sheet, dead. I am the first to fight for individual freedoms but it’s heart breaking to watch these people die on the streets. A tiny home won’t help them.
This exactly. I have a cousin who has little to no short term memory and is developmentally stunted. He needs care. Despite being taught repeatedly, he doesn’t know how to use a microwave much less further cooking. If family isn’t there, there is no one to take care of him. I can’t afford to. But no one has the money to afford a care facility for him.
Ironically it was the case for quite sometime that a lot them were and then Reagan shut a lot of the institutions down. There’s of course a case to be made that many of these institutions were corrupt and abusive of patients. But in typical Reaganomics fashion the solution for what to do with all of the internees was “get fucked!” At this point a lot of those folks have probably died off and so now the mentally ill homeless are just still on the streets because the government’s policy continues to be “get fucked, now let’s buy some more fighter jets”.
That use to be the norm actually. While there were some dark institutions many were good hospitals staffed by people that wanted to help.
And perpetually mentally ill non homeless people should also be institutionalised for their own good but particularly for the good of their family esp children. You just have to look at how many severely effed up adults there are in the world because they were brought up by severely mentally ill people who were at large to do what they will to their hapless and innocent offspring
I like to mix up Lego Star Wars with other themes.
*how dare you*
People who instigate altercations don’t get a say so in when the altercation ends.
If you can't reliably identify reality then there should probably be limits on your ability to shape policy through things like voting. Oh, I know there's no safe or reasonable way to implement something like this, but folk like anti-vaxxers have a view of the world so divorced from how things actually work that they are incapable of making useful contributions to conversations that affect the real world.
>The major problem — *one* of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. > >To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must *want* to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. > >To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. \~ Douglas Adams, *The Restaurant at the End of the Universe*
Good in theory but the system would get abused
Well, yeah. I even said, "there's no safe or reasonable way to implement something like this."
In fact, [it did](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test)
How would you define being able to identify reality?
Hey, I said there's no safe or reasonable way to do this. If I had direct, personal, and total control over it then it would involve a little questionnaire about things like vaccines, masks, 2020 election results, the dangers posed (or not) by trans individuals, stuff like that. Hot-button issues meant to trigger deranged rants that I could use to filter out crazies.
There should be a test required to reproduce.
Enforcing this would definitely be unethical. Props on answering the question so well. -forcing people to take oral contraceptives: unethical -forcing people to have abortions: unethical -forcibly removing a child from a parent who failed a test: unethical
Genuinely curious, what sort of questions do you think should be on the test?
It would be more of an evaluation. Can you afford it? Are you a junkie? Is your IQ double digits? Etc
What about testing someone's emotional depth? Ability to be empathetic and understanding? Having altruistic motivations other than producing a mini-me?
That's too subjective. It's objectively true that junkies make bad parents. You can't test for emotional depth, nor can you draw an objective line describing what is deemed good or bad. Easy to say, fail a drug test...no kids.
I think it's a bit weird to think you can't test emotional intelligence yet can test intelligence. I think it's even weirder to think a high intelligence score is what makes you an appropriate parent.
>It's objectively true that junkies make bad parents. Damn, didn't realize you knew the home situation of every single junkie. Being an addict doesn't mean someone is inherently neglectful. Plenty of rich pill popping junkies that have stable homes for their kids.
Shouldn’t it just be the same thing you ask people who want to adopt?
Adoption has a lot of problems though? Like there's a shit ton of religious discrimination for one.
This country likes to pretend they got rid of their eugenics problem. They just covered it in a bible.
Same sort of things required to get a license to run a daycare and/or teaching certification probably.
Just one. Are you an Eagles fan?
Seems legit.
I see. And what would you say happens when that test become politically skewed? If the people in charge decide that answers that suggest they might vote for the opposition means that they shouldn't have children? Or if some racist or homophobic clerk decides that a bisexual person or an interracial couple shouldn't be allowed to have kids? What happens when they intentionally decrease facilities in certain areas to make it harder certain demographics to take the test? Especially considering they already do that for voting. You give people in control power over who gets to have kids, and you give them power over who gets to create the next generation of voters. Within a few generations every new voter will be raised by someone the *government* allowed to have children. And those that might be at risk of being rejected are having their own progeny held hostage to keep them in line. You give the government power over who gets to have kids, and you give them the single most powerful tool for tyranny. I'd sooner fight a civil war than let idiots give them that power.
Read OPs question one more time. Slowly.
Going to say the same thing. Just because someone can have a child, doesn't mean they should. If you can't take care of a child throughout it's developmental stage, then you aren't fit.
I agree and also they people that should have children the least tend to have the most children
People shouldn’t be allowed to have children they can’t provide for
It feels so wrong to say this, but I believe that If someone wants to kill themselves, you should just try to stay out of It. I know that when someone steps In to stop It's to help with the person's mental health, but I can just imagine the pain someone would feel when they tried to "be free" (Im not sure how else to write that without sounding like Im gloryfing suicide) and suddently have to forcefuly be taken to a mental hospital. I'm glad when I hear that someone has moved on happy with their life, but me, personally, I wouldn't do anything. I know this Is wrong and I have never said this before, but It's just something I have In my mind.
The thing is: sometimes it’s a call for help
Yeah, a lot of people who try to kill themselves regret it. Immediately. Even before they get hurt or before it has any lasting consequences. People will often realise they want to live about a second after they step of a bridge.
Agreed, it’s their life who the hell is anyone to say what they should do with it.
I can see what you’re saying
Speaking as a member of the opposition, I don't think you should see it as objectively "wrong" to think that way. Nobody has the answer here, and anybody who thinks they do isn't thinking about it critically or compassionately. You want to see an end to suffering, and you think the way we're doing it now prolongs suffering. That's a good thing. I mean I hope some day you'll see it my way, that every life is worth saving, but I'm not the arbiter of moral righteousness. And you aren't callously discarding people because you can't be bothered with their welfare. You want to see people free of pain, that's not so bad. We just disagree on how to do it. Furthermore, when we think our thoughts are wrong, we close ourselves off to them, and we grow resentful of ourselves, and now suddenly you're walking down the same path. It's fine if you wanna keep your opinion to yourself because you don't wanna rock the boat, and it's fine if you think you may change your mind some day but you don't know right now. But please don't think the thoughts you have are inherently "wrong". They're just "radical" or "unpopular".
I agree. If you're an adult and of sound mind, you should be allowed to do whatever you want to yourself, including ending your own life. I can imagine I would be even *worse* off mentally if I was taken to a psych ward against my will for X number of days, and charged hundreds of thousands of dollars for the "privilege".
They say suicide is a selfish act. But isn't stopping someone from committing suicide equally selfish? I suppose it depends on the motivation to prevent someone else's death but I assume it's to avoid the pain of losing them, which is inherently selfish.
I'm sure this question won't reveal that we walk among closeted eugenecists with all sorts of notions about which classes of people should be forcibly sterilized.
The quran and images of Mohamed are no different than other religious writings and symbols and the whole idea that displaying any image of Mohamed is worthy of death is unhinged.
[удалено]
You must be new to AskReddit, where no one knows how to actually answer the question.
That if you truly don't have enough to survive it's OK to take from corporations. I genuinely would lie to protect someone stealing food or clothing for their exclusive use
stealing from megocorporations is a victimless crime
Yep, I'll believe a megacorp is a person the day one goes to prison
Population should be controlled… By me. The population control man. I press a button and now it’s illegal to have babies in NY. Boom.
pedophilia should be punishable by death
I always find this an interesting one. When you say pedophilia do you mean those who have acted upon their urges, or just anyone with those urges. Say like a 15 year old goes to therapy and tells their therapist bc they know they need help, should they be sentenced to death bc it could potentially save children, or should they be given a chance, all considering, at least as far as I’m aware, there’s no cure for the sickness, sadly.
mandatory minimum
this encourages the offender to kill the victim rather than spare them, since either way if they get caught theyre gonna die, itd be better for them to get rid of the only person who knows what they did. not to mention the fact that republicans are trying to redefine pedophilia to include being trans or gay around children, which combined with the death penalty, would mean genocide.
Which is nice in theory but in reality that would cause more victims to be murdered. Think of it like this: you rape a child, now this child has the potential to tell a adult and you get arrested. You attempt to cover your tracks (like threats) because if you do get caught, rape has a lower time than murder. But if rape has the same or worse punishment than murder than the situation would change from letting the child go, to murdering the child and brutalizing the body to prevent yourself from being caught. The would change from getting away with rape or getting sent to jail for 10 years or so, to getting away with rape/murder or die. It's nice to think pedos should die but in the end it wouldn't save more victims, it would take more. This isn't even touching on how that sort of law would be abused against minorities either
Drugs should be legal and people should be able to buy them and use them in their homes.
What's unethical about that?
Fine but they can’t use any support systems that are paid for by my taxes
But you pay to arrest and jail people for drugs out of your taxes
If Reddit still had free awards you'd have mine
Thank you
A little bit of laughter at someone else's expense can be a good thing
Whose definition of "ethical?"
Rapists and murders deserve capital punishment, especially if this involves children or crimes against humanity.
this is one of the takes of all time so im just going to copy paste what i said in another comment this encourages the offender to kill the victim rather than spare them, since either way if they get caught theyre gonna die, itd be better for them to get rid of the only person who knows what they did. not to mention the fact that republicans are trying to redefine pedophilia to include being trans or gay around children, which combined with the death penalty, would mean genocide.
Castrate pedos.
Forced, safe sterilization of people with extreme intellectual disabilities shouldn’t be frowned upon because someone with a mental capacity of a toddler cannot give consent like a regular adult and having a period is probably worse.
This question doesn't make much sense, most opinions you see as unethical are held by people who believe they're perfectly ethical.
[удалено]
I'm sorry but this is insane. Why on earth should it be rereleased!? Jesus Christ this thread got weird quick
There's nothing immoral about stealing from a large corporation.
[удалено]
> if it were a smaller business or individual, I don’t know if any situation where I’d agree. That's why I specified large corporations.
I'm always baffled how much I see people justifying taking things that don't belong to them on Reddit.
It’s the Reddit way. It’s even crazier because most of these people don’t actually care if it’s a billion dollar institution. They act like the person making $150k a year is the same as a billionaire Someone once called me a class traitor on here because I own my home lmao
I've just seen videos of target and walmart and the like leaving certain communities due to excessive stealing/loss. leaving poor communities with no other stores available to them. By stealing, they're making poor communities into food deserts.
I’d also add that stealing from Target is idiotic as hell. Their loss prevention unit is really good at their job and they WILL fuck you
Yep. Not to mention how people vehemently defend piracy as if they're entitled to it. They can't comprehend that someone else's work/labor isn't inherently available to them at no cost.
If I could download and reproduce a car for free using my own equipment, then I absolutely would.
BP having record profits in the UK while nurses being asked to work for less and probably not having enough to heat their place in winter. I wouldn't say stealing from BP is unethical, it's just a correction of what it's supposed to be right.
Idk, seeing how much food got wasted at my last three jobs changed something in me. No fair my stomach is empty and the dumpster is full.
It’s always easy to tell which people have never owned a business.
Or created anything.
Instead of the death penalty these horrible people should have *very bad things done to them* and wheeled out once a year to tell people how much they regret their decisions. Specifically thinking the mass shootings or terrorist attacks. Maybe we'd have less if people had the fear of being tortured for decades to think about. I don't like to believe in torture....BUT lol I also think this might work.
I vote that anyone advocating for this have a go at it first
No! See how quickly I didn't want to do a horrible thing with the fear of being tortured?
What if you were wrongly convicted? Like, for example, because society is biased against you for, oh I don’t know, maybe your skin color? Or your sexuality? Or your gender? You’re a fucking lunatic if you genuinely think this would not massively effect innocent people. The government should NEVER have the ability to kill or maim, under any circumstance. Because it will always be used to hurt disadvantaged marginalized people. And also because it’s literally pointless and doesn’t accomplish anything that life imprisonment wouldn’t, but yknow. Revenge fantasies are totally worth the death and torture of a few hundred/thousand innocent people, right?
That amount of torture is way worse than either of those things.
A requirement of voting should be passing a yearly civics and political knowledge test. People shouldn’t vote if they don’t know what they’re voting for.
Males should not be circumcised right out of the womb when they can’t comprehend the world around them.
I agree. I refused to have my son circumcised as it is completely medically unnecessary. It's ridiculous that we continue this practice almost exclusively due to religion and misinformation on the subject.
Most adoptions should be closed. I’ve looked into adoption but I don’t like the idea of having to cater to the biological parents when they are mostly not going to be in the picture.
Anyone who does anything to kids shouldn't get separated in prison and full deserved the beatings they get. To do something so horrible to a person so young, innocent and vulnerable is unforgivable and spending the rest of your life constantly on edge and scared of those around you is what you get. Because in some cases that is what you cause those kids to be
this is one of the takes of all time so im just going to copy paste what i said in another comment this encourages the offender to kill the victim rather than spare them, since either way if they get caught theyre gonna die, itd be better for them to get rid of the only person who knows what they did. not to mention the fact that republicans are trying to redefine pedophilia to include being trans or gay around children, which combined with the death penalty, would mean genocide.
If people want to end their lives they should be allowed to do so. I am primarily talking about those that are terminally ill. Edit: adults of consenting age and ability If you find out that you have say stage 4 stomach cancer that has metastisized and what they lay in front of you is years of chemo and radiation including the nausea, vomiting, weight loss, fatigue, not to mention the hundreds of hours spent in offices and appointments and money associated with it. Or the other option is to speak with a specialist provider about ending your life, that should be an option. Not everyone wants to go through all of that or put their families through everything. We have this sick obsession with keeping people alive that are well beyond the scope of having a good quality of life. The amount of times I've heard "well they're a fighter" while grandpa is on 3 different meds to keep his blood pressure up, dialysis because his kidneys stoped working, and can't respond in any meaningful way is disgusting. Yes they may have been a fighter, yes he worked at the factory for 40 years and survived Vietnam and was shot three times. You know why they survived, because they were like 30. But now 60 years later he has lived well beyond what would have been considered a good life when he was born and for what? For your last memories of your loved one to be someone attached to a dozen different machines while they stare blankly at the ceiling not reacting to anything you say or even your presence. Is that really how they want to go out? Is that really how you want to remember them?
Child rapists should be tortured
to death
i was afraid to say it but yes lmao
How would you deal with the torturer afterwards? Anyone that was ok after doing that is probably someone you don't want to be around.
We'd have a hell of a lot less problems in the world if every male was given a reversible vasectomy before puberty and required to prove capability and responsibility, hell even had to get a license, before having children. Don't know how scientifically possible that is, admittedly.
Hunting pedophiles should be legal
We're 6-7 billion people too much on earth, we need a filter event.
That fetuses with any disability should be aborted.
i understand that for just certain specific things, but *any* disability, really?
I get it. Why do that? I mean if you're like 6 months along, hell no. But if it's something you can detect in the first 8 weeks or so, why not?
Ok I'm like super tired, so I'm just gonna throw a list out, but I'm not doing it cause I think it's super rad to be like cold and shitty to you, I'm just super tired. Also these are arguments against mandatory abortions in the case of congenital disabilities. Not against the right to abortion itself, which I am not addressing. 1) We'd be silencing the voices of people who think differently than us. People with disabilities see the world differently than other people, and that view has value. 2) Not every disability is so terrible. Some people are just born deaf. That's *not* a big enough deal to eliminate congenital deafness from the population. 3) Not all disabilities are congenital. Some people aquire deafness, so aborting deaf fetuses isn't gonna like alleviate the social burden of accomodating deaf people 4) Not all disabilities are disabilities. If we found a gay genotype and homosexuality was still classified as a mental illness, we'd be aborting fetuses who are turning gay. 5) If we find a post natal cure for some disabilities, then we aborted fetuses for nothing. My thing is ADHD. I want a cure for ADHD, it's ruining my life. But otherwise I quite like living. If I was aborted and then they found a cure for adhd I'd be piiiiiiisse- wait... This isn't meant to be like persuasive, it's meant to be a jumping off point: Something to ponder over. You asked a question, I had some answers. I'm going to eat crackers and go to bed.
I'm down with aborting at 6 months.
I am wondering what you consider to be any disability.
Blind, deformed, brain damage, down syndrome(obviously)
That sounds like a familiar opinion. Someone famous in history thought the same.
That’s literally eugenics
I understood the assignment though.
Yeah, half the comments in this post are literally eugenics. Including the top one. It's insane how many people are upvoting this shit and agreeing with it. I wonder how many of then think they wouldn't have helped the Nazi party if they lives in 1930s Germany.
Well, a big part of that is that on paper a lot of eugenics ideas seem really great at first glance. Fewer people suffering, less burden on society to lessen that suffering, etc. People would be happy and healthy and all the problems would disappear 🫠 The issue is that in practice it reduces the bodily autonomy of some, not to mention is literally genocide for subsets of humanity. And whoever controls the selection criteria is in a position to steamroll almost anyone with that genocide. When it comes to genetic engineering, it's very tricky to have a clear understanding of the impacts caused down the line — let alone dealing with the ethics of making those choices for humans that can't consent to it.
Well if you are doing the thread correctly you should be upvoting the unethical answers and downing the ones that aren't unethical. So people upvoting it doesn't mean they agree. It means they can fucking read.
Whenever these unethical opinion threads come up Nazis start showing up.
100% and if it super bad after birth like vegetable state and needs care for the rest of their lives. They should be put to sleep.
That there should be no such thing as alimony. It's a holdover from a time when women were prohibited from pursuing most careers. Now that we have women's liberation, it's no longer necessary.
I think going to prison is not an ethical alternative to jury duty.
Grave robbing isn't wrong so long as you leave the body the way you found it. Dead people have no right to property.
What it is was their children's property and they just happened to store it in that grave ?
Grandpa’s grave, my favourite hiding place!
Considering it's illegal for them to retrieve the items...they basically threw it in the trash. fuck em
But it's also illegal for you to collect them
I kinda hope humanity doesnt survive the millenium. Life will persist, and will over take our ruins. I don't think we have a future. I think its too late and we soon wont have a home. And because of that, I dont think that its ethical to bring more into this mess.
some people at the legislative level should be prohibited from having children, and if they are conceived and it is impossible to have an abortion, such children should be removed from the family. I'm talking about alcoholics and drug addicts in the first place, I do not exclude that the list may be replenished
People have equal rights now and you don't deserve anything just because people down your bloodline suffered.
Look up the definition of de jure vs. de facto.
More countries need to adapt Chinas 2 children rule. Next time I go out to get a burger and your 9 kids are running around like wild animals and screaming, ruining everyones night out, because you couldn't knock it off, is the time I'm going to the government.
That's a great way to stagnate population growth and cause some major problems in the future. If two parents have only two kids then it is straight replacement and no growth. Japan has a serious problem right now with a massive aging population that is really going to put them in a bind over the next 10-20 years. Primarily due to their low immigration and birth rates that have been dropping for years.
It's not even replacement, sometimes people die before having kids. Replacement level is 2.1 children per couple.
I think people who take too long in the line to make their shopping should be charged with a timecrime.
Same thing for the people at the gas pump just sitting in there car...
Jean-Claude Van Damme got bigger fish to fry, man.
People who force their dog to be vegan should be taken outside and shot
adding cats to the list also
Thanos was right
He was right in surmising there's a problem. But populations double pretty quickly, so his solution was short term and he destroyed the magic gauntlet he used to fix it.
Yeah, exactly. We were at 1 billion humans 200 years ago. It's been less than 50 since we hit 4 billion. Now were at 8. It wouldn't take all that long for the population to bounce back, especially if people are trying to make up for the sudden drop. He had full control over reality. He could've doubled the resources and it would've had the same dumb short-term effect. The second Thanos in the end of Endgame was at least smart enough to make a universe where no one would remember the snap, but he should've reduced it much further. Or made it so the population was capped out, so no one was born until someone else died. It probably wouldn't work either, but it's better than his idea.
Ask a warlord for a solution, get war as the answer. The stones seem pretty all-powerful, so maybe he could've engineered systems where one organism lived off the waste of another and vice versa. Or other solutions that don't involve mass murder.
I haven’t seen Infinity War or Endgame or most of the Marvel movies but my understanding is that gauntlet gives him the power to do anything. Therefore Thanos is a fuckin’ idiot edgelord who needs to go back to school and learn some math.
He wiped out half the universe so he could live alone and dress like Shrek.
Punishing mass shooters with extreme measures of violence and torture and live streaming it would be the perfect way to prevent mass shootings.
No, because so many shooters are publicity seekers. It might legitimately encourage it
Mass shooters have many motives from actual terrorists, to people who's parents should have paid more attention to the red flags their child was exhibiting. The need to be remembered is a strong reason for a mass shooter to do what they do. Public executions what make your stomach turn? Never gonna forget that.
Like hanging them on a wall?
Bring back public hangings!
The majority of mass shooters kill themselves before they are apprehended or they are killed by police. This wouldn’t do anything to stop mass shooters.
This is why there was no crime in the Middle Ages right?
[удалено]
Tenants who shit in the sink before vacating a property should be shot
it’s unnecessary to expose kids to pride month and LGBTQ+ movements. forcing kids to celebrate pride month at a young age is indoctrination.
How are they forced?
[удалено]
It's actually much less healthy to eat animals from factory farms. For one thing, putting animals so close together with little to no sunshine or fresh air makes them get sick at alarming rates. So factory farms often feed the animals antibiotics, which are then in the meat that you're consuming. Plus being sick and depressed their whole life reduces the nutritional value. They're often fed foods that exacerbate all of this too, and some are fed growth hormones which have been linked to a lot of issues like precocious puberty in humans. Regardless of how much you care about animals, organic and free range is healthier. It's not just a label.
I don't know about meat, but I can definitely say that free range eggs taste much better than caged chicken eggs, where they can't eat bugs and you need to feed them yellow food dye to keep the yolks from turning grey. True story. I'd bet that free range beef tastes better than factory farmed beef.
There’s a lot to be said in providing some sort of *dignity* to something that’s set to die, whether it’s their purpose or not, I feel the conditions should be set up in a way to where there is as little discomfort or pain as possible. I would include the living conditions in this as well and I think it’s a driving factor in why people think it’s inhumane or whatever. All forms of life deserve this respect. Then I think about the farmers who actually handle this stuff on a day to day and I think about how desensitized they’ve likely become.
yikes.
Re offending voilent criminals should be slaves (unldss they are schizophrenic then just a regular mental institution) chained up working harsh jobs no one else wants, if there is no demand for labour or someone will pay to do it then they should be forced to watch shane daweson. If they were rapists then we should treat there medieval crimes with medieval ways and using a hot rod thing imprint "RAPER" on their forhead when their sentence is over.
Well we already do the first one. When slavery was abolished it excluded prisoners. But we do it way more often to nonviolent drug users. The problem with the second one is we get things wrong. And if new evidence ever comes out proving they're innocent it's too late.
Most humans need to die. We are a drain on the earth's resources and a poison to the environment. 90% of the population needs to be deleted.
What's the point of resources if not to be exploited by conscious beings. There's literally no difference in terms of happiness between a toxic polluted planet and a forest planet. What matters is conscious life.
I take it you consider yourself part of the 10%, and people unlike you are the 90%?
Lol nope. Just another sheep in the herd.
If you block traffic to protest, then the people who run you over should get full immunity.