4 ms·

>you might have had a point about spending on education for mentally disabled people far outpacing that for the average student, but adding in the part Do you

>you might have had a point about spending on education for mentally disabled people far outpacing that for the average student, but adding in the part Do you discredit an idea because of the person espousing it? If so, go hang out with normies who read gossip mags. >you might have an ulterior motive beyond fixing the education system. My ulterior motive is a society where the productive people are unleashed to be as great as they can be, and the lazy/incompetent aren't given things at the expense of better investments. >I also want to point out that you included teaching to read in you list of things parents should be doing and not the teachers. Yeah, I want to live in a society with a norm of parents reading to their children and participating in their child's development. The expectation that only teachers are responsible for an individual's education is the reason we can dump so much money into the system and have little to show for it.

lovich 9y ago
You can just say eugenics. Hiding your argument behind vague terms like "My ulterior motive is a society where the productive people are unleashed to be as great as they can be, and the lazy/incompetent aren't given things at the expense of better investments." when one of the things you mention is food, just makes your argument seem weaker. If you really believe in it back it up
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  I donate to planned parenthood, I do back it up. I raise the point in internet discussion, I do back it up.
  - lovich 9y ago
    Just to clarify, do you donate to planned parenthood cause you support people having a right to an abortion and/or access to other health services, or do you do it so that there are less undesirables in the world?
    - alexanderstears 9y ago
      I don't support the right to an abortion, but I do support abortions. My motivation for donating to planned parenthood is altruistic - if the mother doesn't want the kid, society really doesn't want the kid and doesn't want the mom to have a kid. Society can't be more invested in the kid than their parents. Ideally we'd tie (reversible) sterilization with welfare participation but the horseshoe of fundies / progressives make that neigh impossible. And I don't support eugenics at all. I just think that the social contract should have an 'out' and there should be a place in the world where we can put the undesirables (a la Australia). This is why we need to colonize mars (and other planets). There should be enough societies that people can find one that works for them and that societies can isolate themselves from factions they don't want. Look around, liberalism is failing and doesn't offer a credible alternatives to tribal politics. The only way we can make tribal politics safe is to reduce friction in interactions which means more space.
      - lovich 9y ago
        How can you state that you don't support eugenics, but you want to take a set of people and put them in a more hostile environment. That is going to kill off people, in the set you defined, which is eugenics. Your idea about there being enough societies that people can find one that works for them has some merit, but I don't see how that fits with you choosing another group and moving them to an area with less resources. That's not people choosing a society that works for them, that's conquest and exile
        alexanderstears 9y ago
        If you think taking away resources (which people are not entitled to) is tantamount to murder, then every regime that collects taxes is murderous. Your definition of 'killing people off' is asinine and lacks nuance. I'm not strong enough take your points seriously, so allow me to take them to absurd conclusions: Right now, you're taking oxygen out of the air and depositing CO2. Right now, people are dying from polluted air and lack of oxygen, are you responsible for their deaths?

lovich 9y ago

You can just say eugenics. Hiding your argument behind vague terms like "My ulterior motive is a society where the productive people are unleashed to be as great as they can be, and the lazy/incompetent aren't given things at the expense of better investments." when one of the things you mention is food, just makes your argument seem weaker. If you really believe in it back it up

alexanderstears 9y ago
I donate to planned parenthood, I do back it up. I raise the point in internet discussion, I do back it up.
- lovich 9y ago
  Just to clarify, do you donate to planned parenthood cause you support people having a right to an abortion and/or access to other health services, or do you do it so that there are less undesirables in the world?
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    I don't support the right to an abortion, but I do support abortions. My motivation for donating to planned parenthood is altruistic - if the mother doesn't want the kid, society really doesn't want the kid and doesn't want the mom to have a kid. Society can't be more invested in the kid than their parents. Ideally we'd tie (reversible) sterilization with welfare participation but the horseshoe of fundies / progressives make that neigh impossible. And I don't support eugenics at all. I just think that the social contract should have an 'out' and there should be a place in the world where we can put the undesirables (a la Australia). This is why we need to colonize mars (and other planets). There should be enough societies that people can find one that works for them and that societies can isolate themselves from factions they don't want. Look around, liberalism is failing and doesn't offer a credible alternatives to tribal politics. The only way we can make tribal politics safe is to reduce friction in interactions which means more space.
    - lovich 9y ago
      How can you state that you don't support eugenics, but you want to take a set of people and put them in a more hostile environment. That is going to kill off people, in the set you defined, which is eugenics. Your idea about there being enough societies that people can find one that works for them has some merit, but I don't see how that fits with you choosing another group and moving them to an area with less resources. That's not people choosing a society that works for them, that's conquest and exile
      - alexanderstears 9y ago
        If you think taking away resources (which people are not entitled to) is tantamount to murder, then every regime that collects taxes is murderous. Your definition of 'killing people off' is asinine and lacks nuance. I'm not strong enough take your points seriously, so allow me to take them to absurd conclusions: Right now, you're taking oxygen out of the air and depositing CO2. Right now, people are dying from polluted air and lack of oxygen, are you responsible for their deaths?