Things just seem to go around in circles

Post Reply New Topic

It sounds like one of those futuristic science fiction novels. A committee decides which males will breed--the rest are castrated. And, all females are subjected to forced gestation.

Yes.

Such as the part of society that doesn't allow early abortions with no CNS?

Really, the vast majority of your stated preferences would be viewed as fringe. The lions, the forced sterilizations, the not minding dictatorships so long as they're not in America, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

Even your logic on this issue is at odds with a lot of pro-life people because you use a different cutoff point.

So, each breeding male would have a sizeable harem.

Men who were barred from breeding would have no interest in wives and children. Nobody to get their stuff when they died, nor to carry on their trades.

I do dislike certain dictatorships for instance anti-gun tyranny in places like Europe Mexico and Canada. My policy is to dismantle bad dictatorships, the goal is to experiment with different social policies until one ends up working out.


My cutoff point is the only one that makes any sense. A lot of the pro-lifers are bible thumpers even though abortion is never mentioned in the Bible.

That is not implied. Already currently I've heard that 60% of males do not reproduce, many of these males are not incels in the traditional sense. There is no gaurantee that the chosen males would have a "harem" as you say, even without wives they may have girlfriends. Though in an ideal utopia there would of course be much more women than men, resulting in the harems you say.

I agree, Canada needs to become far more lax in our laws regarding weapons, it's unreasonable that they won't allow me to own a homemade nuclear bomb. They also have regulations that interfere with my ability to engage in rocketry, which I swear is only for research purposes.

I'll be a much better pretend autocrat than Romana Didulo; she's hardly a queen without a tiara.

I'm curious how you define dictatorship to include many of the world's most stable democracies.

Its clear you are being sarcastic, but here in America someone said we are allowed to own nukes if we get a nuclear license. Personally I think its a bit much, but I guess it could be useful if there was an EMP or something or NORAD was offline or something. Or if there was a skynet situation and they took over the military, so citizens had to blow up skynet themselves. I think the risks might outweigh the rewards though, for every citizen with a nuke could blow up skynet, that is one more nuke skynet could potentially hack and use against citizens.

For actual countries owning nukes though, there are pros and cons. Nukes are a bully deterrent that makes invasion much less likely. On the other hand, too many nukes could cause extinction of the planet.

America also has reasonable rocket laws (not talking about nuclear rockets). You can make small rockets without a license, for larger rockets you need a license. Also there are sensible rules such as having to notify air control to make sure flights are not nearby. I don't know how draconian Canadian or UK laws are compared to this because I haven't researched much. I wouldn't be surprised if UK made bottle rockets and small rockets illegal though.



Mexico is unstable and has cartels. The cartels get power from gun control. UK and Canada is pretty stable. Most dictators are looking to make something stable, its rebels that try to destabilize. I am fairly sure Canada is a fake democracy similar to America's fake democracy. As for UK I'm not sure. I just know UK is tyrannical and draconian, even if the politicians were supposedly elected and voted into place.

For example even pepper spray is not allowed in UK. The people in charge do not care about you and want citizens to die. They do not want citizens to defend themselves. They have a war on boys and want all males to be beta males. If it was up to them they would ban bows and arrows and ban the book called Robin Hood. There would never have been a robin hood if it was up to them. Its a war on the poor. Japan has extremely strict gun control also. Look up the history of weapon policies. Japan had oppressive weapon policies for the specific purpose of preventing a peasant uprising. Political gun control is a means to oppress the poor and Marx knew this.