@Matt504 wants to explain why he wants Black people to be sterilized

[Barnett114]

Me and Matt don't always agree but you have to have coherent arguments when debating with him. He will challenge your beliefs in a respectful manner, sadly most people respond emotionally.

 

[Thurgood Thurston III]

In the interest of discussing the actual matter, can someone explain the negative aspects of impeding an adult from having further kids when they have proven they cannot take care of the existing ones?

There's the chance their fortune changes and they acquire the resources to provide for their children in a meaningful way, but what about in the case they don't?

What's the benefit in leaving a child's life to society when we as a whole will never love and raise that kid as our own? Child rearing is an immense responsibility that requires a lot of sacrifice. Why are we comfortable in letting adults skirt that responsibility?

Because it's a basic human right. We shouldn't be comfortable letting adults skirt that responsibility, but taking away the ability to procreate is evil.

This sort of thing is perfect for abuse.

 

[NZA]

In the interest of discussing the actual matter, can someone explain the negative aspects of impeding an adult from having further kids when they have proven they cannot take care of the existing ones?

There's the chance their fortune changes and they acquire the resources to provide for their children in a meaningful way, but what about in the case they don't?

What's the benefit in leaving a child's life to society when we as a whole will never love and raise that kid as our own? Child rearing is an immense responsibility that requires a lot of sacrifice. Why are we comfortable in letting adults skirt that responsibility?

the fact that cacs are always using the state to do racist things is reason enough, quite frankly.

in the abstract:
everyone in existence today - even rich and powerful cacs, descend from some population that was in dire straits at some point in history. from a strictly Darwinian perspective, a snapshot of the material condition of a population today is not all the information needed to assess who should breed and who should not. when given time, fortunes have shown they tend to change for humans more often than not.

the only benefit to genocide of poor people is to the ego or guilty conscience of the present day rich. that is not to say that family planning for poor people should be ignored, but sterilization is too extreme when free access to other forms of temporary birth control that allow poor people to decide to have a kid at a more opportune time or to limit the number of children to a more manageable number would suffice. but one thing is certain - that poor person must be in control of its use, no other entity.

 

[Thurgood Thurston III]

this puts the existing children at an extreme disadvantage, their welfare has a single point of failure. If a parent decides to abandon their child, that person is free to start a new family with no obligations to the children they've already created.

Make it only apply to children that are born AFTER the rules are changed.

 

[analog]

1) Not necessarily. Different societies had and have different paradigms in place when it comes to the modalities of children care. In some, it is a role that lies on the entire family structure, in others, the whole village. Sometimes, there is dedicated segment of society that takes the role of raising the youth until they become adults.

In western societies, it is mostly the responsibility of the blood parents. I don't think that it should be that way, but I think it’s nothing more than one perspective.

2) For that to be, you'd have to set in stone and in law, that this unique perspective I described above is not only absolutely valid, but of a superior importance than the universal principle of creating life as an inalienable right. It is a violation even if you have had children already. That's stripping away a fundamental right, and confining it within the bounds of a limited perspective.

In addition, we'd have to agree on what "taking care of" means, and here lies another significant part of the issue. Is there an objective way to decide what it means?

Because it's a basic human right. We shouldn't be comfortable letting adults skirt that responsibility, but taking away the ability to procreate is evil.

This sort of thing is perfect for abuse.

the fact that cacs are always using the state to do racist things is reason enough, quite frankly.

in the abstract:
everyone in existence today - even rich and powerful cacs, descend from some population that was in dire straits at some point in history. from a strictly Darwinian perspective, a snapshot of the material condition of a population today is not all the information needed to assess who should breed and who should not. when given time, fortunes have shown they tend to change for humans more often than not.

the only benefit to genocide of poor people is to the ego or guilty conscience of the present day rich. that is not to say that family planning for poor people should be ignored, but sterilization is too extreme when free access to other forms of temporary birth control that allow poor people to decide to have a kid at a more opportune time or to limit the number of children to a more manageable number would suffice. but one thing is certain - that poor person must be in control of its use, no other entity.

Great points.

It hurts to see so many children brought into a situation that's less than ideal, and although I initially agreed with the notion of forcing a cap through mandated contraceptives/sterilization, I've since realized this'd only be a band-aid and not address the underlying problems that lead to it. Proper education, and economic opportunities would naturally address this like in most developed nations with ever decreasing fertility rates...

But like y'all mentioned, it'd be quite difficult to define and put into law something that would be fair, and would at the same time be ripe for abuse by cacs.

 

[Matriarchy Refugee]

Peddling eugenics is one of the favorite pastimes of smart-dumb types.


These dummies in here trying to tie a basic human right to man made economic conditions.

Thankfully you coli social engineers will never amount to anything important

 

[Wild self]

Peddling eugenics is one of the favorite pastimes of smart-dumb types.


These dummies in here trying to tie a basic human right to man made economic conditions.

Thankfully you coli social engineers will never amount to anything important

Even if economics wasnt an issue, OVERPOPULATION is. America only had 116 million people in it in 1970, but now has close to 350 million in 220. There should be a 2 child limit for everyone in this country, cause habitable land is scarce.

STERILIZATION should be reserved for people like Future or racist CACs and drug abusers, people who actually never SEE their children much growing up.

 

[New Jeruz Jewelz]

Even if economics wasnt an issue, OVERPOPULATION is. America only had 116 million people in it in 1970, but now has close to 350 million in 220. There should be a 2 child limit for everyone in this country, cause habitable land is scarce.

STERILIZATION should be reserved for people like Future or racist CACs and drug abusers, people who actually never SEE their children much growing up.

You guys don’t have a new PF Chang’s or Olive Garden popping up every 5 miles? Space problem? Not really that’s just what they tell you. Stop raping Mother Earth prior to forcing the disenfranchised to pay the space debts of a capitalistic cac society that’s reaping most of the benefits.

Sterilizing folks too Is the Coli on its period because most of these threads hella emotional today

 

[Matriarchy Refugee]

Even if economics wasnt an issue, OVERPOPULATION is. America only had 116 million people in it in 1970, but now has close to 350 million in 220. There should be a 2 child limit for everyone in this country, cause habitable land is scarce.

STERILIZATION should be reserved for people like Future or racist CACs and drug abusers, people who actually never SEE their children much growing up.

The "Overpopulation" myth has debunked many times over.

The west over consumes. It is not overpopulated.

If you have a group of 8 people sharing a pizza, and 1 greedy fukk takes 6 slices, that does not mean there are too many people in the group.

It means 1 person is eating too damn much

 

[Matt504]

Peddling eugenics is one of the favorite pastimes of smart-dumb types.


These dummies in here trying to tie a basic human right to man made economic conditions.

Thankfully you coli social engineers will never amount to anything important

The "Overpopulation" myth has debunked many times over.

The west over consumes. It is not overpopulated.

If you have a group of 8 people sharing a pizza, and 1 greedy fukk takes 6 slices, that does not mean there are too many people in the group.

It means 1 person is eating too damn much

How do you propose we address this pizza problem? If I came to your house and loaded 6 slices up on my plate, I imagine I'd be met with resistance?

 

[DreadBrown]

Me and Matt don't always agree but you have to have coherent arguments when debating with him. He will challenge your beliefs in a respectful manner, sadly most people respond emotionally.

this isn’t true, He seems to prefer trolling people over actually being constructive

thats probably why posters dont fukk with him

 

[Matt504]

this isn’t true, He seems to prefer trolling people over actually being constructive

thats probably why posters dont fukk with him

Most of the complaints either center around this idea that I'm a simp or that I'm anti Black male. It's pretty rare that I troll on here. If I spent most of my time shytting on women, there'd be no issues.

 

[humminbird]

I thought this would be a discussion on if black people should have children in such a racist society.
it's more of a eugenics conversation. so i'm out.

 

[Bossino]

Before I share my thoughts, I'd like to commend most the posters ITT, with the exception of OP (who purposely took @Matt504 out of context) and a few others for having civil discourse. Off the top of my head salute to @Eddy Gordo @analog among others

I'll reply to other posts and give my opinions in my next post

 

[Thurgood Thurston III]

How do you propose we address this pizza problem? If I came to your house and loaded 6 slices up on my plate, I imagine I'd be met with resistance?

It's all about who the pizza belongs to. They can decide how it gets doled out since they own it.

If it were my pizza, I'd make you buy another one. And if you can't pay then you can't eat anything at my house anymore.

This analogy is more applicable to corporations than regular individuals (although we have a hand in it)

Corporations Cause $2.2T in Environmental Damage Every Year