Politics

[tuto99]

Hey Tut's,

Considering is not sarcasm, where exactly did you got lost?

Hi.
Generally I get bored (No offense) after the first paragraph, so I don't really know where I get lost.
I also skim read.

[unl0cker]

Perfectly normal and understandable Tuto.

After all, you are just a kid. You ARE 100 times better than me when I was your age. Do not underestimate yourself.

I'd say that if you are skim reading and at the same time getting bored after the first paragraph, then is right there were you are getting lost.

In a few, I said that communism is impossible because it relies on everyone to be at their very best morals. If a little group in this impossibly good society becomes "rogue" the whole system is doomed to fail. Considering today's world, and yesterdays too, this is impossible. Even for a small society of say a few thousand people.

Communism is a regim that could work IF everyone was morally Jesus like. No one I know is not even close to that. (doesn't matter if he Jesus was real or not, I'm using the idea of the morals he suposed to have as a framework)

So, this is what I said.

[tuto99]

Perfectly normal and understandable Tuto.

After all, you are just a kid. You ARE 100 times better than me when I was your age. Do not underestimate yourself.

I'd say that if you are skim reading and at the same time getting bored after the first paragraph, then is right there were you are getting lost.

In a few, I said that communism is impossible because it relies on everyone to be at their very best morals. If a little group in this impossibly good society becomes "rogue" the whole system is doomed to fail. Considering today's world, and yesterdays too, this is impossible. Even for a small society of say a few thousand people.

Communism is a regim that could work IF everyone was morally Jesus like. No one I know is not even close to that. (doesn't matter if he Jesus was real or not, I'm using the idea of the morals he suposed to have as a framework)

So, this is what I said.

Thanks.
So, what makes communism impossible to achieve with that group of demoralized people?

[unl0cker]

Because at it's core a communist regim tries to "balance" classes. More like an abolition of classes if you will. Now tell me if this is possible.

And I'll edit this because I just had an epiphany about it.

I'd say... I'd say communism is an utopia because to archive it, a nation must first have  a tyrant to implement it, then, after all pieces are in place and working, the tyrant must step down and join the "uniclass".

Well, they always forget about this last phase uh?! And the whole "uniclass" thing goes down the drain.

Want to reeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaly create a communism regim? Abolish all sorts of money first. No need for it in this regim. Right?!

Is there any money in it? Not communism as the book prays then, just tyrants at their "best".

[Bla]

You told me 11 days ago you expected to reply to my argument in an email the same day, I still haven't received any reply. Anyway if you want to start another argument, let's go.

Our discussion was getting nowhere, as you failed to recognize you were wrong when you were wrong!

Then why did you write this below?

Ill email it to you, and you post in full.

Anyway lol, I could say the same. You failed to recognize you were wrong, even though I explained how you were wrong.

If you find a loophole in my "expressions" like I did with yours, I'll accept and try to argument over that.

Your loophole is to claim that it is rational to take an argument serious which has a false premise.

But to say an elephant is a dog, when I just prove that it's weight is outside of the dogs weight boundaries, is a no no, it's what is called useless discussion. So I lost my apetite for the topic and kinda gave up...

That is extremely vague, please explain the symbolic language.

The "problem" with gay people and their hate for God and religion is in my opinion based on the fact these stupid religions prosecuted their layer of society to the maximum possible extent.

I agree, except I don't consider it a problem, although I think you are sadly generalizing too much. But evil religions have done enough harm. They should disappear from the surface of Earth now, we do not need more of this pollution.

And when you people talk about 1%... wtf can't you guys do math? It is WAY less than that. 1% of 6Bi is 60 Millions. No... 90% of the wealth is held by at **most** 50k ppl. That makes 90% of the wealth on the hand of 0,00001%. And that is the reality... and people fight over what? Who's the enemy? Wake the hell up guys!

I find it funny that you say that as an anti-communist. What is your solution to the wealth distribution problem even?
Anyway multiple problems can exist at once, the fact that you can find new problems doesn't mean we should ignore all other problems.

None of those countries ever achieved communism, most of them were socialist, ruled by a communist party.

None will ever...

Communism under:
[...]

You were the one who said it did.

it is an UTOPIA. By the time we get to the state of mind/being/elevation required to archive what the manifesto states, I rather go with another utopian system. One in which bright intelligent for practical matters minds lead, and the rest follows, which is what Plato suggested as perfect system (also an utopia).

Utopia is a pretty useless concept, because it simply means a very desireable society and is mostly used because of its negative connotations as in, if you call something an utopia, you think per definition that it is impossible to achieve. I wrote that I agreed that communism is an utopia in the sense that it is desireable. Ok, let's move on and stop the name-calling. Formulate some arguments instead of shouting "utopia".

So if anything the death count would be related to the economic system of socialism and not communism.

ERRRRR Wrong. Bullets to the back of the head, gulag atrocities, ethical cleansing ARE not economical problems. These are the product of totalitarian systems.

My point was that you should put your blame on a socialist economic system and not a communist one if you wanted to blame either for the deaths. I did not claim either. I agree with you that those examples are not economic problems but rather results of bad choices taken by some leaders who had too much power. So I don't put my blame on socialism.

Charts are, as Al Gore knows, as precise as the data AND the presentation they have. Showing me  population grown charts doesn't wipe anything from my head other than shrinking of population numbers.

I'm just giving you an example of where the introduction of capitalism has resulted in millions of deaths. If you want to ignore it, that's completely up to you.

You GOTTA understand that, ALL socialist communist fascist regims were backed financially by  western nations, including the US. Hell, England practically MADE russia. What does this tell you? No need to be the sharpest knife in the drawer to see what's going on here.

This is starting to become so hilarious I'm not even sure where to start. Ok, I'll ask you to show the sources backing up your statements. Specifically showing that all socialist countries, including USSR, were backed by western nations.

About the evidence, showing me a chart is not evidence. I won't back anything up for you! No you won't get that easy. Go research and you'll find it. Just like I did. IT IS IMPERATIVE YOU DO!

If you ask for evidence, having the means of getting it yourself, then it is just like TV: This or that?! Now if you go find for yourself, you'll end up wondering about this, that, those, here, up, down, big, small, that too, and this too, and maybe that one too. Makes the synapse in your brain go wild, the way it should be!

I made the chart based on the source shown at the bottom of it. It links to an Excel spreadsheet which lists all the sources of the data in the first sheet.
Anyway, if you don't take my chart serious, then why do you expect me to take your claims serious when you did nothing but shout some numbers? What if I say 30 million people were killed because of capitalism in USA, 40 million in Canada, 5 million in France, 3 million in Germany? What are you going to do? Go research and find out? You're welcome to, but you simply fail to understand that if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove what you say is correct, nobody else. So when you say those numbers, it's you who has to link to the evidence that shows you are correct. I thought we were discussing at a level above 5th grade elementary school.

I'd say... I'd say communism is an utopia because to archive it, a nation must first have  a tyrant to implement it, then, after all pieces are in place and working, the tyrant must step down and join the "uniclass".

But why should communism require a tyrant to be implemented?

[TheMooCows]

The "problem" with gay people and their hate for God and religion is in my opinion based on the fact these stupid religions prosecuted their layer of society to the maximum possible extent.

I agree, except I don't consider it a problem, although I think you are sadly generalizing too much. But evil religions have done enough harm. They should disappear from the surface of Earth now, we do not need more of this pollution.

I think you are generalizing too much as well. I agree with much of what you say, but for me not on this topic. Religion gives people hope, especially if their lives are not too great. They can at least have the hope of maybe an afterlife. Don't get me wrong-I am an atheist. I don't buy into any of that religious bullcrap but I have learned to respect those who do. 90% of people who are religious are fine-those 10% are the ones creating the problems. But I am getting sidetracked-we can't just take away the hope that religion can supply.

[tuto99]

I have always respected anyone that had beliefs that contradicted mine, but there are religious people that are fucked up. Ever heard of the Westboro Church?

[TheMooCows]

yes, but with all thins you have to take the good with the bad.

[Bla]

I think you are generalizing too much as well. I agree with much of what you say, but for me not on this topic. Religion gives people hope, especially if their lives are not too great. They can at least have the hope of maybe an afterlife. Don't get me wrong-I am an atheist. I don't buy into any of that religious bullcrap but I have learned to respect those who do. 90% of people who are religious are fine-those 10% are the ones creating the problems. But I am getting sidetracked-we can't just take away the hope that religion can supply.

I know most religious people aren't evil, I didn't mean to say that. My point is just that some religious ideologies are evil, such as christianity with the deuteronomy and leviticus laws. People who believe in for example Leviticus 20:13, which states gays should be killed, in my opinion do not deserve any respect. A religion which gives no respect can't expect to get any in return. Most people I know don't take Leviticus 20:13 seriously anymore, but the verse will always exist in the Bible, and there is always a threat that people will take it seriously again, like they've done for thousands of years in the past, and which many people still do in non-western, christian countries. I want this threat to disappear, the sooner the better.

As for hope, I don't see anything wrong in risking taking that away. If some people find hope in something which is untrue, that shouldn't hold me back from pointing out that they're wrong. It's their own problem if they find hope in false beliefs - now move on and find hope in the real world. Or whatever. I think it's similar to children who believe in Santa Claus or the easter bunny. I think it's better to reveal the truth to them than letting them live an entire life where they believe in superstition like that. I think it would be sad for people to live an entire life where their only hope is to get a good afterlife, I think they could live a much better life on Earth if they would focus on their life on Earth instead of an afterlife which doesn't exist. But in the end I would never want to treat people differently simply because they believed in an afterlife. I just don't hold myself back from discussing the ideas.
But if their ideas involve not considering me as an equal human being for the way I am, then they can absolutely say goodbye to all respect from me.

Instead of taking the good with the bad, I think you should consider whether the good outweighs the bad. I don't think it does that in the case of christianity at all.

[TheMooCows]

I think you are generalizing too much as well. I agree with much of what you say, but for me not on this topic. Religion gives people hope, especially if their lives are not too great. They can at least have the hope of maybe an afterlife. Don't get me wrong-I am an atheist. I don't buy into any of that religious bullcrap but I have learned to respect those who do. 90% of people who are religious are fine-those 10% are the ones creating the problems. But I am getting sidetracked-we can't just take away the hope that religion can supply.

I know most religious people aren't evil, I didn't mean to say that. My point is just that some religious ideologies are evil, such as christianity with the deuteronomy and leviticus laws. People who believe in for example Leviticus 20:13, which states gays should be killed, in my opinion do not deserve any respect. A religion which gives no respect can't expect to get any in return. Most people I know don't take Leviticus 20:13 seriously anymore, but the verse will always exist in the Bible, and there is always a threat that people will take it seriously again, like they've done for thousands of years in the past, and which many people still do in non-western, christian countries. I want this threat to disappear, the sooner the better.

As for hope, I don't see anything wrong in risking taking that away. If some people find hope in something which is untrue, that shouldn't hold me back from pointing out that they're wrong. It's their own problem if they find hope in false beliefs - now move on and find hope in the real world. Or whatever. I think it's similar to children who believe in Santa Claus or the easter bunny. I think it's better to reveal the truth to them than letting them live an entire life where they believe in superstition like that. I think it would be sad for people to live an entire life where their only hope is to get a good afterlife, I think they could live a much better life on Earth if they would focus on their life on Earth instead of an afterlife which doesn't exist. But in the end I would never want to treat people differently simply because they believed in an afterlife. I just don't hold myself back from discussing the ideas.
But if their ideas involve not considering me as an equal human being for the way I am, then they can absolutely say goodbye to all respect from me.

Instead of taking the good with the bad, I think you should consider whether the good outweighs the bad. I don't think it does that in the case of christianity at all.

WAIT A MINUTE...Santa isn't real?

[tuto99]

I think you are generalizing too much as well. I agree with much of what you say, but for me not on this topic. Religion gives people hope, especially if their lives are not too great. They can at least have the hope of maybe an afterlife. Don't get me wrong-I am an atheist. I don't buy into any of that religious bullcrap but I have learned to respect those who do. 90% of people who are religious are fine-those 10% are the ones creating the problems. But I am getting sidetracked-we can't just take away the hope that religion can supply.

I know most religious people aren't evil, I didn't mean to say that. My point is just that some religious ideologies are evil, such as christianity with the deuteronomy and leviticus laws. People who believe in for example Leviticus 20:13, which states gays should be killed, in my opinion do not deserve any respect. A religion which gives no respect can't expect to get any in return. Most people I know don't take Leviticus 20:13 seriously anymore, but the verse will always exist in the Bible, and there is always a threat that people will take it seriously again, like they've done for thousands of years in the past, and which many people still do in non-western, christian countries. I want this threat to disappear, the sooner the better.

As for hope, I don't see anything wrong in risking taking that away. If some people find hope in something which is untrue, that shouldn't hold me back from pointing out that they're wrong. It's their own problem if they find hope in false beliefs - now move on and find hope in the real world. Or whatever. I think it's similar to children who believe in Santa Claus or the easter bunny. I think it's better to reveal the truth to them than letting them live an entire life where they believe in superstition like that. I think it would be sad for people to live an entire life where their only hope is to get a good afterlife, I think they could live a much better life on Earth if they would focus on their life on Earth instead of an afterlife which doesn't exist. But in the end I would never want to treat people differently simply because they believed in an afterlife. I just don't hold myself back from discussing the ideas.
But if their ideas involve not considering me as an equal human being for the way I am, then they can absolutely say goodbye to all respect from me.

Instead of taking the good with the bad, I think you should consider whether the good outweighs the bad. I don't think it does that in the case of christianity at all.

You bombed it perfectly! That is how I feel for everything about religion. XD

[unl0cker]

I think it's similar to children who believe in Santa Claus or the easter bunny. I think it's better to reveal the truth to them than letting them live an entire life where they believe in superstition like that.

This is the way my wife thinks, and she spoiled my kids fun. Entire life? I think the first 8 and more joyful years of our life's does not classify as "entire life".

Despise the MEGA unchristian and corporative core rituals of Christmas and Easter, I strongly believe kids must be kids, and we should let their fantasies and imagination run as wild as possible.

[tuto99]

I think it's similar to children who believe in Santa Claus or the easter bunny. I think it's better to reveal the truth to them than letting them live an entire life where they believe in superstition like that.

This is the way my wife thinks, and she spoiled my kids fun. Entire life? I think the first 8 and more joyful years of our life's does not classify as "entire life".

Despise the MEGA unchristian and corporative core rituals of Christmas and Easter, I strongly believe kids must be kids, and we should let their fantasies and imagination run as wild as possible.

But don't we let them do that already?

[Bla]

This is the way my wife thinks, and she spoiled my kids fun. Entire life? I think the first 8 and more joyful years of our life's does not classify as "entire life".

Despise the MEGA unchristian and corporative core rituals of Christmas and Easter, I strongly believe kids must be kids, and we should let their fantasies and imagination run as wild as possible.

But we're talking about adults here who believe things like that, not just kids. It would be similar to if children believed in Santa Claus and the easter bunny for their entire lives. I think it's healthy for adults to have a connection to reality.

[Darvince]

On the converse, I think it's healthy for adults to have a connection to their imaginations, as a god figure does not clearly sever all connection they have to reality. For example, my mother is very religious, especially recently, but she doesn't constantly talk about how she is going to go to heaven or something like that; she feels she should try to do good for the world while she is alive.

[atomic7732]

Yes, but their imagination is perceived as a reality to them. Generally imagination has a distinction from the real world unless you're like... insane or you're a young child while the brain is still developing. It might be good for some people, but definitely not others. In my opinion I can understand something more like deism. Deism was more like what my mom and I believed than any established religious sect, but it had an influence on our perception of the real world (for example, we didn't believe in evolution, though we were not exactly 7000 year old Earth creationists). But the problem with that is, when you've gone that far with it and it's so detached now, what is even the point anymore? You might as well not even believe.

(also isn't this delving a bit more into religion than politics, guys?)

[Naru523]

Unrelated to the general discussion that's going on right now, but this is interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23954514

[unl0cker]

Oh no! Entire lives NO!

This is for kids to help develop their little brains. Are there any adults that still believe in Santa? I find that hard to believe, kinda uber weird.

When we grow up, thats is a different "game". Grown ups must know what these are there for, and what is the real meaning behind these rituals.

Grown ups waiting for Satan Claus? No, that's social lobotomy.

[blotz]

i think you meant "story" not "game"

[vh]

petition obama for gun surgery

this is an urgent matter

http://www.reddit.com/r/shittyaskscience/comments/1kvbjl/if_guns_are_better_than_knives_then_why_dont/cbsyzmq

[vh]

Abortion

at first glance this seems to be a relatively simple question

Is the baby/fetus sentient? If yes, then it has the right to live and cannot be aborted. If no, then the sentient mother can decide.

However, it gets more complicated.

A man declares that he wishes to be revived and return to sentience before falling into a coma. Ten years later, technology has advanced enough that he can be saved.

Now we have a man who is not sentient, and can either be killed or brought into sentience, and a baby who is not sentient, and can either be killed or brought into sentience.

It is reasonable that the man should be brought back to life, it would be unethical not to, in my opinion. Thus, so should the baby be kept alive, even against the wishes of its mother.

However, there is a difference between the man and the baby. The man was alive beforehand, and the baby was not. The man declared that he wanted to be revived, but the baby could not. After pondering over the matter, i've personally concluded that as long as the majority of humans would rather be alive than never have been born (which i think is true), then there is a good chance that the baby, when brought into sentience, would have wanted it, and there is no reason that the man should be brought into sentience while the baby should not.

Thus it seems that, in my opinion, the baby should be brought into existence even if it is still not sentient.

This creates several dilemmas though:

What about a brick? why should the baby be brought into sentience but the brick not? Two obvious answers are: the baby is alive, and we do not have the technology to bring the brick into sentience. However, there is reason why something not alive should not be brought into sentience. Life can reproduce, metastatize, and a bunch of other things, but by no means does this make it special or exclusively deserving of sentience. There is no reason why the brick being not alive should exclude it. If we do not have the technology to bring the brick into sentience, we should be working on it: logically, we have as much responsibility for bringing the brick into sentience as the baby. Although this technology is far away, i believe current attempts at modeling the brain and simulating artificial intelligence do count. So we should make bricks sentient

Why stop at a brick though? Why not make everything sentient. Is the ethical goal of humanity to make as many conscious beings in the universe sentient as possible? This seems a bit strange, but is the conclusion i've come upon: babies should not be aborted, everything must become sentient.

However, what if you say that the man in a coma shouldn't be brought back? Maybe a vegetative person, with no sentience, does not need to be revived in order to be ethically correct. This also leads to some problems. While you're sleeping, brain activity is still going on. However, you are not conscious. You can't think, therefore, arguably, you aren't. Is there any difference between killing the man in the coma and you during a sleep? I don't see why.

So, what do you think?

[Darvince]

The man in a coma and the fetus differ in one other fundamental way too: the fetus has a sentient carrier, its mother. Do you value a single current sentient being or a future with two sentient beings more?

There is also a difference between the man in a coma and you asleep: when you are asleep, not all your sensory inputs are off, just your vision. Since your vision is the best one, you lose that strong connection to reality and fall into unconsciousness. Meanwhile, many more sensory inputs are off in the man in a coma, such as hearing, smelling, hunger, thermoception, and others such as need to pee. This means that something, such as someone stabbing you, or a person walking into your room, might wake you up as those cause you to receive a large amount of sensory input.

On a similar note, what is consciousness? Is it only the ability to think? Or does it include a variety of sensory inputs, making it impossible to observe or see?

[atomic7732]

It is reasonable that the man should be brought back to life, it would be unethical not to, in my opinion. Thus, so should the baby be kept alive, even against the wishes of its mother.

The major problem here is you are completely ignoring the mother, who is already alive, as Darvince pointed out. If the child wasn't wanted, it could be neglected, or the mother was irresponsible in the first place, or doesn't have the capability to, why should we assume that the child will even have a good life until it's an adult, or it can actually discuss things with the mother. Why should we assume that it would like to be brought up this way?

The man declared that he wanted to be revived, but the baby could not.

I think it's just as simple as this. The fetus cannot have ever thought about it, therefore its non-existent opinions/wants are invalid (they don't even exist!).

[unl0cker]

I think it's just as simple as this. The fetus cannot have ever thought about it, therefore its non-existent opinions/wants are invalid (they don't even exist!).

Then if someone is being fooled, this someone then has no rights? Consider you are being controlled financially and socially. Have you no rights then because you not aware of the situation? Or because you are not mature enough to do so? I don't think so.

This (to me) is a no brainer. It is a life. If you as a woman don't want to be pregnant, today there are  n number of ways to avoid that pregnancy. If you ARE pregnant, you have a LIFE inside of you, and despise you being the mother of that life, you have no right to end it.

 If we fail to see this, what can be next? Imagine a new born then. All babies are basically empty shells, so can I kill my freshly new born, because is not aware of nothing around? After all it does not have awareness of any social political or any situations whatsoever.

I think this is WRONG... I mean abortion.

[Bla]

I think this is WRONG... I mean abortion.

Do you think it is wrong if the woman is raped?

[Darvince]

How is the fetus life? It cannot experience anything yet, it is still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving, let alone think or experience.

[blotz]

very confusing because i don't know what sentient means

[FiahOwl]

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '110542'.

[vh]

The man in a coma and the fetus differ in one other fundamental way too: the fetus has a sentient carrier, its mother. Do you value a single current sentient being or a future with two sentient beings more?

There is also a difference between the man in a coma and you asleep: when you are asleep, not all your sensory inputs are off, just your vision. Since your vision is the best one, you lose that strong connection to reality and fall into unconsciousness. Meanwhile, many more sensory inputs are off in the man in a coma, such as hearing, smelling, hunger, thermoception, and others such as need to pee. This means that something, such as someone stabbing you, or a person walking into your room, might wake you up as those cause you to receive a large amount of sensory input.

On a similar note, what is consciousness? Is it only the ability to think? Or does it include a variety of sensory inputs, making it impossible to observe or see?

first paragraph: two sentient beings of course. However, i don't see where this fits in. What does the mother have to do with anything? edit: ok atomic elaborated better on it so see that section of the reply if you're interested

second paragraph: sensory input doesn't change anything. pretend being in a coma turns all your cells the color green, and when a machine fixes the green affliction, you wake up. the same machine can't wake up a person sleeping because their cells were not green in the first place. there i've just reverse the situation. the conclusion is that whether sensory input or anything else can turn you into a concious/sentient being makes no difference so the coma and the sleeper are equal

third paragraph: i define conciousness as self-awareness, the ability to percieve. thinking is not part of conciousness - a computer can think.

It is reasonable that the man should be brought back to life, it would be unethical not to, in my opinion. Thus, so should the baby be kept alive, even against the wishes of its mother.

The major problem here is you are completely ignoring the mother, who is already alive, as Darvince pointed out. If the child wasn't wanted, it could be neglected, or the mother was irresponsible in the first place, or doesn't have the capability to, why should we assume that the child will even have a good life until it's an adult, or it can actually discuss things with the mother. Why should we assume that it would like to be brought up this way?

The man declared that he wanted to be revived, but the baby could not.

I think it's just as simple as this. The fetus cannot have ever thought about it, therefore its non-existent opinions/wants are invalid (they don't even exist!).

paragraph one: i am operating on the assumption and the opinion that any life is better than no life. so even being raised poorly is better than having been never born.

if you believe this is not the case, then a fetus should be aborted only when there is a more than half chance that being dead will be better than it's life. however, this gives incentive for potential mothers who want an abortion to act horribly.

paragraph two: there are two men. before going to bed, one man thinks that he would not like to be killed. the other just falls asleep. During the night, criminals raid the house, shoot the man who didn't bother saying he didn't want to be killed. Just like the baby, the man never thought about it, thus his want was invalid.

Now the above argument doesn't make sense to me, thus i don't think yours does either.

How is the fetus life? It cannot experience anything yet, it is still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving, let alone think or experience.

Maybe it isn't life. However, as i explained with the brick, i don't think it matters whether it's life or not.

[unl0cker]

Do you think it is wrong if the woman is raped?

Got sarcasm?! Yes of course not!! But this is BS excuse. The VAST majority of abortions are NOT based on this horrible crime. Is simply because the woman was not careful enough and got pregnant.

Exceptions DO exists. Does not justify the crime of killing an unborn life for personal or professional reasons.

If abortions are legal, then I think mother should be allowed to end the life of her infant from 0 to 1 yr old at her own choosing. After all, there ins't much of a difference between a 6 month old unborn child, and a 6 months old child. A 6 month unborn child it is almost COMPLETE, at least the part that make the child a human, the brain. Still in the "oven" just to grow a bit more.

Bill gates loves abortions... His "charity" is actually directed towards this. How about forceful/not willing vasectomy? That can be good as well. After all, all these african negros won't stop having kids man. Is hateful! How dare they... The world is already overpopulated, and these low life peoples are putting more and more on it. Right?!

We're living in such "gomorrean" times. I mean, let's think this thru.