Is it more abhorrent then subjecting the kid to a lifetime of being unwanted, poverty, neglect and poverty? We cannot force a parent to want their child and the impact of neglected children should not be forced upon everyone else. Regardless of the reason then, if someone thinks they should get an abortion then they’re probably right.

Yes but those who get abortions should be executed

If they’re just not going to be born at all we might as well just make the have it and send the kid into compulsory military service

I mean really why not, Id rather be force conscripted at birth than not be born at all

Those who get abortions tend not to have the greatest lives themselves and dont see it as a choice they’d prefer to make, rather one that by carelessness, poor planning or circumstance they’ve been forced into making. Executions dont bring justice here and it robs society of otherwise productive members who’ve made a poor choice.

Military service is an honour not a dumpster to deal with the dregs of society. It requires a willingness to volunteer for members to be effective at all and even then the modern battlefield is complex and requires advanced operations to be conducted in order to achieve the delivery of an effect, an extra body can be just as easily a liability as an asset here. Either the person is an effective member of society, in which case they can just as productively enter any field, or they arnt in which case we need to investigate how to provide them the tools and training they need to perform. The military is not the place to do the latter.

No, those children forced in would be trained to be career soldiers from birth

It’s not a labor camp it’s military service

It’s like social relief programs but the government actually gets something good out of it instead of just dumping money away

If anything they would be the best treated, most well trained soldiers, cultivated from birth to serve the fatherland

And who is doing that training? It’s not like state guardianship isn’t a thing, but it’s arm of rotating foster care is the most infamously poor way of raising children who will go on to be effective citizens. As it stands this system is largely incapable of producing citizens who can achieve the level of intellectual, physical and moral exertions that are required of our military members. In what way do you see extending and adding to this burden as in anyway capable of improving on this result?

```Those who get abortions tend not to have the greatest lives themselves and dont see it as a choice they’d prefer to make, rather one that by carelessness, poor planning or circumstance they’ve been forced into making. ```
It has nothing to do with planning and everything to do with hedonism, this is why sex before mariage is considered a sin.
```Executions dont bring justice here and it robs society of otherwise productive members who’ve made a poor choice.```
Productive? The only productive thing here to do was to give the child his life. She's not that productive even by your standars you stated above.
You misunderstand the nature of death penalty as it serves as a deterrent. You're not going to keep murdering your women and they are not going to abort children in spite of the penalty. What an absurd proposition.

```Sex before marriage is considered a sin```
Good stuff. It’s happened though and god hasnt seen to do much about it so I dont see why I should pay to enforce his designs.

```executions and justice```
As any small business owner will tell you the same work that can support one person really well cant support two people to anywhere near the same degree. Especially in the earlier parts of their lives. Once established theyre often able to have a few kids comfortably but as a teen or young adult theres no chance of the child receiving the support they need.
Your missing the point that abortion itself is a deterrent and its not something people want to do. The people who get knocked up and need abortions falsely believe that its not going to happen to them... until it does. The death penalty would only serve to drive abortions underground where women would be forced into riskier procedures which only magnify the harm or be forced into the bare minimum of effort into raising a child they will only come to resent.

I dont believe abortions are a good thing. I find them repulsive and wrong. I only find bringing a child into the world who cant be cared for as they should be even more repulsive

```Good stuff. It’s happened though and god hasnt seen to do much about it so I dont see why I should pay to enforce his designs.```
You missed the point. The teachings wheather you believe it or not teach that in a state of uncertainty (with marriage being a safe state of being) you shouldn't have sex, why? because it can lead to even graver sin like abortion or raising a defective offspring (parent missing).

```As any small business owner will tell you the same work that can support one person really well cant support two people to anywhere near the same degree. ```
I really don't care for the economic argument. It's been shown that people don't want to sacrifice their lifestyle to make room for the baby (giving up smoking, giving up late nights with friends, drinking etc). No one said it was easy and the family is usually there to help (extended family).

```I dont believe abortions are a good thing. I find them repulsive and wrong. I only find bringing a child into the world who cant be cared for as they should be even more repulsive ```
So? Keep the hedonistic lifestyle of the millenial and allow abortion even if it's wrong because not caring for a child is worse?

Preaching to the converted re: people shouldnt have unprotected sex outside of a stable relationship. I agree. Unfortunately people do dumb shit and we have to figure out what their decision space looks like that being done.

Given people dont want to and are shown to not make sacrifices for the baby isnt it therefore reasonable to trust that when someone says they dont want the child at all that they’re very likely to follow through on that? Extended family helping isnt sufficient when the actual parent is taking no responsibility at all.

Caring for a child while having an income insufficient to support it and whatever lifestyle the parent chooses to continue is not only wrong, its stupid. Expecting that giving birth to a child will suddenly cause them to become responsible and able where previously they were not is delusional and while its a depressing conclusion its also the best realistic outcome for abortion to be sought in those instances. I cannot force people to change or take care of their kids in the proper manner, knowing that, its better where the person feels as if they are unable to have that child they are able to seek an abortion

```Preaching to the converted re: people shouldnt have unprotected sex outside of a stable relationship. I agree. Unfortunately people do dumb shit and we have to figure out what their decision space looks like that being done.```
They shouldn't have sex at all outside a stable replationship. The excuse that people just do dumb shit is no excuse, they should know better and the psychology of self-acceptance is cancerous in that regard. It's a problem that needs to be addressed and not just shrug your shoulders and work around it.

```Given people dont want to and are shown to not make sacrifices for the baby isnt it therefore reasonable to trust that when someone says they dont want the child at all that they’re very likely to follow through on that? ```
It's like saying "I don't want to get drunk but I want to keep drinking". Eventually it's going to happen and what then? Just kill the kid?

```Caring for a child while having an income insufficient to support it and whatever lifestyle the parent chooses to continue is not only wrong, its stupid.```
Life is plagued with risks, raising a child is one of those and usually a worthwhile one.

```Expecting that giving birth to a child will suddenly cause them to become responsible and able where previously they were not is delusional and while its a depressing conclusion its also the best realistic outcome for abortion to be sought in those instances.```
Why do you punish the child for the parents shortcomings. How absurd is this? This is in no way a realistic option as you claim it to be . Highly immoral and wrong, I advise you to reexamine your wordview if this is somehow a reasonable compromise to you.

``` I cannot force people to change or take care of their kids in the proper manner```
Oh, yes you can.

```the excuse people do dumb shit is no excuse```
I agree. I’m not excusing the action. I just dont see a viable alternative.

```its like saying i dont want to get drunk but I want to keep drinking```
Yes it is. In the same way that the person is either going to get drunk or stop drinking the person will either stop making stupid choices and act responsibly or get an abortion. The third alternative is they take the third alternative which is even less responsible of having the child, keeping it and doing absolutely nothing for it. The most repugnant choice of all.

```life is plagued with risks```
And when entered into voluntarily you are right. Many people who decide to take care of the kids do make significant sacrifices in order to do so and grow up substantially because they have to. These arnt the people getting abortions however. The people getting abortions are unwilling to do that.

```you punish the child for the parents shortcomings```
No. The child cops a negative outcome due to the parents shortcomings I agree but crucially at this junction there are no happy endings and this is the least negative outcome. Unfortunately reality can be a harsh and nasty place where no good options exist and you are only left with the least bad. This is not reasonable, the reasonable thing to do would be to wrap it up or keep it in your pants. I cant and dont want to go around interrupting every fucking bunch of teens getting off and pry them apart to put a dommy on the guy. Failing that, we deal with the situation as is.

```yes you can force people to take care of their kids```
Cool. You’ll be able to fix the foster care system then and get back to me

***if*** there was some ability to ensure people were in a stable relationship before being able to conceive or able and willing to properly care for it id be open to the idea of implementing that

```No. The child cops a negative outcome due to the parents shortcomings I agree but crucially at this junction there are no happy endings and this is the least negative outcome.```

I'm just curious, do you resent your parents for not giving you the life you wanted? Why do you feel this incessant need to focus on the quality of life for the child, to give him the best of the best. Just a smooth sailing until he's 20? How about until he's 30. He must have everything. Not struggle on his own like you did or his parents did. Not learn how to live and operate in a society because that's also a struggle.

```Unfortunately reality can be a harsh and nasty place where no good options exist and you are only left with the least bad.```
No, killing an unborn child is not the least bad option.

@CronoSaturn yeah it's called religion

Instilling the fear of God into people and an ultimate authority is one way to do it. It will by large fix the problem. However it's a generational endeavour and it will take many years before the damage is reversed

```do you resent your parents?```
I feel ive had, and continue to have, a very good and productive life. My parents were core to providing that. I struggle to see how someone would be able to achieve the happiness and growth I feel ive attained without support and love from their parents, biological or otherwise. It’s because i hold that in such high esteem that I struggle to see how jumping the hurdles that life frequently presents can be expected to be achieved without that.

```religion will cause people not to have sex out of wedlock```
Feel that tact has been tried. History doesnt show it to have a good batting record

Maybe this time it’s different, but somehow i doubt it

are u the only sibling?

I am not

you sure sound like one or maybe just someone who is going to be happy with just one token child

Well im not and being perfectly candid in terms of kids I’d need to find the right girl first before really coming to a conclusion as to what the family situation would look like

Your thoughts on that are your own but in any case i dont feel my points hang on me as a person

on another note

Should ICE exist, yes or no? Personally I think it should and that attempts or wants to abolish it are stupid.

Is that a serious question? I doubt there’s anyone in this server who’d actually want to abolish ICE

I mean, we have a neoliberal

You’re better off starting a debate with a simple assertion than a presupposed opposition.

Like, here’s my assertion: Peace is a form of psychosis that is induced through the perception of sameness in others; the interests of the individual become projected (with positive reinforcement) onto one’s similar peers, which leads to the individual and the collective being simultaneous in form and function.

Think of what a family is, in its essence, and how it backs my position

A family is, in name and genetics, in a state of perceived oneness. They’re functionally similar as well, if you start going into biological determinism.

Religious have a perceived oneness that is rooted in their understanding of the soul.

And, this is why a multiracial, multicultural society, cannot ever know peace.

@The Big Oof id actually go against my grain here and support ice. All for controlled immigration.

and caustic "sameness" of type is not "sameness" of goals. an extreme level of sameness leads to a scarcity of the resources needed to achieve the same ends and after a certain point becomes destructive. Consider in nature you also see symbiotic relationships, clownfish and anemones, lichens and the various domesticated fauna that man has accumulated. Fuck, by number your body contains about the same amount of non-human cells

here functions complement eachother and those distinct traits allow a greater efficacy of co-operation. this too has a limit but multicultural, multiracial societies do and have known peace and seem to dominate compared to their peers

I never said that this was perpetually sustainable, I said it was the natural dynamic

There is no utopian philosophy

as i've demonstrated though its highly possible for highly dissimilar things to co-exist, even co-evolve for eons. This refutes your point that peace can only occur as a type. Your digestion is not possible without the thousands of bacteria in your gut. Need I say more?

Bacteria are not subject to psychosocial tendency

Their existence is little more than a chemical reaction

The illusion of free will aside, you’ll find that in the presence of an “Other,” a group will compete for resources and land and selective capability

All humans require the same resources, our “diversity” does nothing to mitigate the same issues of resources established in your opposition to my claim

And if anything, minority drains on the economy demonstrate that they accelerate the crisis you project onto my assessment of an ethnically consistent and monocultural society

end of the day psycho-social tendancies are the product of chemical reactions. especially if we consider genetics. There's no reason to expect the "other" will compete any more or less than one's own group without an understanding of what dictates the "other" as such. Your assertion also defeats itself, either humans are all the same, in which we require the same resources and you assert should also co-operate, or we are different, so there is some divergence in needs
also studies show cultural minorities tend to improve, rather than detract from economic performance.

What study is that? You can pull economic statistics of what various demographics pay into taxes and who spend the taxes; with the blacks (for example) costing hundreds of millions and the whites sending roughly 30 million dollars in surplus

Perhaps we can look at prison industrial complexes and their drain on society as well? And what demographic necessitates them?

https://www.oecd.org/migration/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf
http://www.ub.edu/searchproject/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/WP-5.6.pdf
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/18112-kane-rutledge_updated.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b507c88e5274a73380f7b3e/The_Relationship_between_Ethnic_Diversity___Development-__A_Diversity_Dividend_Kirk__Stein___Fisher_21.6.18.pdf

Is there any chance that you can pinpoint me to points of relevance? A screenshot maybe?

Even quoting the dynamics or phenomena that validate the position is fine

This is of course, assuming you’ve read the study.

Though, I suppose this is in its entirety, a tangent.

The economics were less the topic than the premise of conflict and the lack thereof

```By looking at the forest and not the trees, we have tried to identify relationships between
immigration and economic performance in the United States since 1980, a period of surging
immigration. Instead of focusing on micro-level data, we used macro-level state variables. We
confirmed a positive national relationship between immigration and GDP growth ```
hoover institute
``` Such observations suggest that ‘ethnic identities in themselves are not the
source of problems; it is the way these identities are organised to share the benefits of growth that
can cause social unrest’ (Madhoo and Nath, 2013). ```
uk publishing service
```Migrant workers make important
contributions to the labour market in both
high- and low-skilled occupations ... At the same time, immigrants represented about a
quarter of entries into the most strongly declining
occupations in Europe (24%) and the United States
(28%). In Europe, these occupations include craft
and related trades workers as well as machine
operators and assemblers; in the United States,
they concern mostly jobs in production, installation,
maintenance and repair. In all these areas,
immigrants are filling labour needs by taking up
jobs regarded by domestic workers as unattractive
or lacking career prospects```
oecd report on migration

Okay but what is the data that supports those claims

At least for the first two, still reading the third paragraph

comparing variations in immigrant shares across states and economic performance in the hoover inst. paper, comparisons between nations, meta-studies and before-after comparisons of policy decisions oriented around migration in the konung int. paper published by the uk, country comparisons and before - after studies in the ub/ eu paper

Mechanisms include an introduction of new ideas, higher levels of risk tolerance and entrepreneurship, higher levels of absolute participation, ability to draw on a global pool of talent and higher willingness to take up unattractive positions

immigrants typically draw on welfare at a lower rate than natives, though also contribute to public infrastructure at a lower rate then natives due to lower wages

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/430936573647781898/539396912084680714/serveimage.png?width=859&height=484

source?

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/430936573647781898/539397118914461706/serveimage.png

This one has the source in the picture

Looks like a census

For the first one

http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/3397/1/Salat_12_PhD.pdf

mfw 80% of somalis in Sweden are unemployed lol

Why would they be

they benefit by getting funds from the government.

He's trying to argue the multiracial and multicultural societies are more financially viable and dominate other societies

Nothing to do with the US having enough resources to put out more food than can be consumed by the population without overworking the land lol

Mfw one of your niggas aka a gang member dies and you're a wanted criminal and so are most gang members so now you cant have the welfare money

Mfw 13% of the population is too large when you consider that the elderly and very young aren't committing the rapes and murders

So it's more likely that 6% of the population is committing 50% of the crimes

And to boot, BLM has destroyed millions upon millions of dollars worth of public and private property

Not to mention that the GDP is influenced by population and interest, not by produce, and so it has no correlation on the quality of life, nor the labor power of a demographic, nor can there be any correlation drawn between a specific demographic and the GDP

It just denotes the growth of a population and the interest of the central bank undergoing "controlled inflation"

@Προμηθεύς {Caustic Dreamer} going through multiple publications coming out of the SIPP data set but the US census bureau does not make a discernable effort in making its data consumable (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp/data/datasets.2008.html) with the majority of its data released purely as data files which I think youd agree is unreasonable to ask me to process
Going ahead can we assume that peter molyneux's head in the corner does not make a viable source?

Hrm... Put a pen in that. I'll look for the specific statistics while continuing the discussion

Or you can

Idc how this goes about lol

That being said, are you going to ignore my assertions made after the fact?

I'm objecting your sourced "rebuttals"

I sourced a paper that discusses how Somali migrants had major illiteracy issues and a drastic unemployment rate

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

Did not take me long to find Stephan's source

It's like he had a video on youtube that was about this subject, and had sources in the description

Keep in mind that this source is pro-immigration

They're just, in a fit of cognitive dissonance, perfectly fine with highly-expensive social programs with low returns

Your economic approach betrays you

https://www.vera.org/publications/price-of-prisons-what-incarceration-costs-taxpayers

id be willing to accept that migrants would use economic supplements to a higher degree than native born citizens but I don't see that as a economic hinderance on the economy as a whole as its as the paper you've now sourced states, low income employed not unemployed groups. your earlier source while identifying problems with literacy issues and unemployment rates among some groups shows that this was not shared by the entire somalian immigrant population, and identifies that positive impacts would be attained should the "resisters" of assimilation into swedish society be identified prior to entry into the country. An approach which would mirror my own suggestions.

your last paper is just that prisons cost money

Who are in the prisons?

39% white people, 40% black people and 19% hispanics in the US

How are 13% of the population the largest percentage of people in prisons

And how are they responsible for so much cost

Is it possible that this multiethnic scenario is actively cost-inefficient

african americans are exposed to higher levels of poverty and have less developed communities. this is only to be expected given the only fairly recent achievement of full civil rights and even so african americans do not represent a tax deficit

So here is my rebuttal

Why are most countries in Africa unable to sustain themselves without billions of dollars in financial aid from the US, let alone other European countries

They've had civil rights since the get-go

Why is Mexico a third world country in almost every part of it?

If entire countries of Africa cannot sustain themselves economically, producing drastic deficits on the US that they will never repay

Why am I supposed to believe that blacks have any potential to produce wealth in the US?

Same story, different area

You're a capitalist, what is the benefit to the US to support the dead weight of these ethnic groups?

most african countries dont receive much aid at all, especially historically. the middle east is currently much higher for example. historically europe is also a huge beneficiary of us aid programs, again to a more prominent degree than africa as africas geopolitical importance is low.
Civil rights have not been equal to african americans from the get go as should be seen from the history of jim crow laws, segregation and slavery in the US.
Mexico is a shit country because its on shit geography. Africa too has a terrible geography.

Japan has shit geography as well, and it's a highly developed first world nation

Russia has shit geography

That's not an excuse

Japan had to be bullied into a first world nation from an Emperor-worshipping island, it wasn't as developed before essential American interference. And even then, due to its island geography, it had little wars and was quite isolated, allowing it to develop on its own.
And Russia, besides having great people, also had and has a heckton of natural resources which it utilized heavily. And still none of these two countries had as many geographical problems or as little geographical benefits as African countries have.

as for aid the payoffs are fairly immediate. aid is typically used to encourage geopolitical effects, not to actually promote the well being of the people the country its given to.
The russian geography on the european side is pretty exceptional, as is most of the european plain and has access to good agricultural land, decent river systems and flat terrain allowing inexpensive infrastructure builds. on the asian side its pretty shit which oddly enough is why you see all the development in russia highly concentrated near europe.
japan has pockets of exceptional areas and exceptional ports, kinda shit until you hit globalised trade which oddly enough is when we saw it come into its own

plus both of these are in the eurasian continental system, the longest east-west landmass on earth

@Kazimir Malevich good points also

The logic you're presenting should suggest that Norwegians are 40 IQ mudrats lol

your logo reminded me of it

Why do you separate the mentally handicapped from the regular students in school?

why would you as a white man, support a subclass of blacks?

it ruins the whole vibe

they wont be happyyou wont be happy

and all metrics of your country go down

and everybody will be unhappy

I do not see what part of "Heavily forested humid environment with moderate summers facilitating farming and cold winters incentivizing human development" as "lol it makes ppl dumb xd".

diversity is weakness

science shows this

time and again

"guns germs and steel" is my favorite for this kinda analysis but you might also get a benefit from "the dictators handbook"
norway also benefits enormously from oil deposits and rich resource deposits and have leveraged these fantastically to make up for a historical lag in european development.
as kaz points out theres no reason to believe that climate effects intelligence and typically what we see is nutrition being the major cause of difference in intelligence between populations. Japan for quite a while had a significantly shorter population until their economy developed to the degree that they could reliably import food. we see much the same with iq differences

you know norway started to benefit from oil in 1970s

and norway was developed long before that, it was poor but it was developed

you cant just change race, thousands of generations of environment conditions went into race

they didnt have rape gangs and massive overpopulating

when you take a race out of that environment, they wont change quick

The environmental demands shape genetic specialization

And dictate what is selectively competitive

thats the whole point

we dont want jungle optimized nogs in our lands

we already live here

and we dont want to pay for their evolution in our lands

@CronoSaturn join VC

diversity itself isnt weakness and science consistently shows that frequently diversity exists to maximise benefit over a wide possibility space. without diversity populations are unable to adapt to changing conditions and are exposed as a monolith to the same perils, diversity allows that monolith to be less exposed and to make beneficial use of niche capabilities.
race is not a largely impactful factor as the growth of asia has shown in accounting for a nations success and is a pretty poor predictive factor in isolation of outcomes

we are under 0 obligation to pay for nogs evolution

your not. your getting paid

"race is not a largely impactful factor as the growth of asia has shown in accounting for a nations success and is a pretty poor predictive factor in isolation of outcomes
"

What are you even saying?

Also genetic specialization is objectively stronger for trait expression than genetic diversity and the dulling of trait expression

You're*

these neegros are a snapshot of all the factors that went into their race

and you cant change the snapshot

without spending alot of resources and time

that would take away from our own welbeing

as white nations

they are frozen in time

just like we are

Your genetic traits, so long as they are selected for, will be passed on forever

They don't go away

historically asians were seen as an inferior and less developed race and the growth of japan, china and korea dispell this notion pretty handily.
race in isolation of other factors is not useful in predicting outcomes as other factors, class, education, upbringing, nutrition, etc are more useful in predicting those outcomes.
genetic diversity is the collection of a number of specialties across a population. Your genes are not effected by who enters or leaves society and visa versa. If you fuck and produce kids then clearly whatever you and your partner have were good enough so you have more of that and on it goes.

and where is this frozen in time bullshit? we're chatting away on discord, some of us on iPhones. I didnt have these growing up

my genetic traits are often the result of blocks of snps which is not how genes are passed on, being an almost random scramble of 50% of my and 50% of the mother's dna. as such theres plenty of traits that will not be shared between me and my offspring. As dominant and recessive traits are also a thing it is fully possible that the child may present traits inherited from me that I don't exhibit.

for example the chances are low that if i have kids they'll agree with me that cilantro tastes like soap

being gay is mental health disorder. The mental health departments must take care of it. There is nothing to be proud of having a retarded mental health, except of the success they achieve in their ignorance!

Mental health “treatment” of homosexuality is ineffective and, as shown by Alan Turing, impacts the the ability for otherwise highly functional members of society to contribute. Such action is counter productive and so our efforts should be directed elsewhere

I leave this here

That’s gross but whether that remains true in the wake of CRISPR remains to be seen. In any case, the efficacy of the current policy is high with lower suicide rates, more active participation and lower anti-social activity (drug use etc). It’s not for me, but I’ve no intent of paying the cost to prevent others.

CRISPr wouldn't be able to change your sex after birth though?

nope

crispr works by changing small parts of small sections of DNA in single cells

even if you could use crispr on that scale

you'd still be a male

you cant change fundamental organs and hormone producers that late on via crispr

crispr could be used to change a baby's gender while it's still a single cell though

People also like to forget that trait expression occurs through the interaction between all of the genes

The process of switching your genitals (with genetic surgery) would likely mutate you in all sorts of unpredictable ways

Talk about fun

While *conventionally* crispr works on sections of 5-62 snps in length research has been produced that modifications on the chromosome level can be achieved using more sophisticated systems based off crispr (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5701507/)

Gene therapy on living, non-foetal humans is a thing and while its not crispr and doesnt alter the germline, the fda have already approved some therapies (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fda-approves-first-gene-therapy-targeting-rare-form-of-inherited-blindness/)

Similar therapies have been applied to mice, although less drastic then whole chromosome changes, and have produced gonads from ovary tissue even in adult mice. (http://www.nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature10239.epdf?referrer_access_token=hax10QzzhDI3fcT-mqChgdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M4XOxFUe7RjcK8uhFNlVNMDj2L4Zri-24wu5Him9mFuMe8QXDBn3Zk-Xypue-kSu3wh3hvIqxZpZvQiLeUYxGQjTT4GhRyh9dNR2T40yRCVZDnTo3chBs1BL4qZiZmzRroqJeFWSQS3B4rc6fI02NQKyJwOnhoiXdMiHK62PNK_NZfgjHZppNqWZPDnpCUay9JI6VFJBzEGycmUEkCGiG52a5HKC_-1alGBfuXU8oTcMc8S2AhyoY3Gk4jmJJn3Ps%3D&tracking_referrer=blogs.discovermagazine.com)

Individual traits do not require an interaction with the entire genome and protein sequences can and do express the same traits even when transplanted across species. (https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/30/5256732/scientists-create-glow-in-the-dark-pigs-using-jellyfish-dna)

So end of the day, while the technology is very immature there is substantial reason to believe that fully functional, biological gender swaps could be accomplished as the technology matures. Reports are conflicting, and china is always a dubious source, but tests seem to have been conducted despite ethical concerns on adults (https://qz.com/1185488/chinese-scientists-used-crispr-gene-editing-on-86-human-patients/) and more controversially, on the germline of kids apparently (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-27/china-gene-edited-babies/10556676)

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-casualties-arab-israeli-conflict

Either way, I don't know everything so I could very well be wrong. Thanks for talking to me about this, I've gotta go though. I'll talk to you all later.

second round

government structure idea: an unequal bicameral system, main body: senate: half by popular election from the various counties/states/States; the other half is elected via government (perhaps pre-17th Amendment style idk). all bureaucracy is under the senate, and the senate can delegate its power (not 100% sure on this part tbh). then all laws or regulations must then pass through a vote of what is essentially a Representative democracy in the most primitive sense. i want a large body with middle/working class people being a check on the government. all laws require 50% majority to become law from this body. in addition, this Rep Dem body can draw proposals to give to the senate, if 2/3 majority is achieved, its mandatory that the senate do something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySPriFiZP8g

@Scipio Americanus by elected by govt I presume you mean the bureaucracy? In many ways this is already the most powerful body in government, why do you feel it should be represented in the senate?

https://boards.4chan.org/gif/thread/14367017#p14399126

Thank you for posting a 4chan post in the serious discussion channel, you dumb basterd. @RealBullWhip

@CronoSaturn uhhhhhhh, i was unsure about that one, its rather situational, for instance, the EU would need something like that given its treaty status and powerful establishment (you have to throw them a bone to get them on board unfortunately). A more legitimate reason would be that national/state/province/county etc. wide elections leave out people (ya, know, the ones that lost the elections) and in some cases in might be necessary to have the vote be done in some alternative way.

@Scipio Americanus I see your point but I worry without having a cohesive endstate it’s difficult to do anything but solve problems as they crop up, rather than proactively making improvements. With that in mind, would having seats associated with a set number of people, rather than a geographical boundary, accomplish that better? That way you have representation fitting the popular support as closely mapping as the number of seats allows

@CronoSaturn hmmm, i have thought of something like that, but had no idea how to do it, or even where to start. I would love to hear your input

Basically you would take the population of the electorate and divide that by the amount of seats. As soon as that amount of votes is reached, they’ve gained a seat. No subdivisions, no seats tied to regions

I think this makes sense as regional representation shouldn’t be sought on the federal but the local / state level

@Scipio Americanus how does that sound to you?

*I think this makes sense as regional representation shouldn’t be sought on the federal but the local / state level* @CronoSaturn im sorry, this part doesn't make sense to me :(

do you mean like party voting?

So at this time in the English speaking world representatives are elected to represent a certain region even in national elections

Those seats are allocated to smaller regional electorates which your votes go to and the majority winner of that region gets representation

making for rather safe and moderate voting

albeit, stagnant

Not necessarily and it means that large portions of the populations vote are disregarded. Everyone’s vote who wasn’t the majority in their region goes nowhere

wait.. wtf?

you guys have to vote?

Yes. You pay a fine if you don’t

holy shit

Or you have to justify why you weren’t able to vote.

I think that’s valid

**FUCK IT** ***MAKE THE HOUSE LIKE JURY DUTY***

problem solved

@CronoSaturn i didnt even think that was possible tbh

How so? You’re on the electoral roll, they have to check who you are when you vote and while they do that they record you voted

If you havnt registered a postal vote and you havnt voted in person at the end of the election they send you a fine

i guess i just thought that was a no no, like none secret ballots

The ballot is secret

just an example

So if you donkey vote or scribble in a vote for hitler or whatever then you can’t be fined

lul

You do actually have to go to the voting booth though

ok sorry, i sorta derailed

i just saw that and about did a triple front flip

It seems to be something Americans and Australians have very different views on. Voting is seen a civic duty here and your part in contributing to the electoral process of the nation just as taxes are your contribution to the nations fiscal processes

do you understand why i want the house to be working class people? i want to put people in a position where they are fully engrossed in politics in person, with a well informed opinion, and for these people to see literally every law that gets passed. my state just made like 1700 laws **apparently** in 17 days (facebook, im looking it up now)

i cant find anything... eh, who needs sources right 🤷

I get it, I share the concern of opening up involvement from both directions as the political “elites” are struggling to understand what exactly people want and people are finding politics increasingly difficult to follow effectively

and then a corporation strolls in with money

or worse, the congressmen owns said corporation

Money isn’t even the big factor, it’s the fact that corporations can actually have staff dedicated to a particular interest and really generate a plan around that

You gotta remember that politicians don’t have a large staff compared to the people they represent and that the jobs really broad and insecure

***money isnt a problem*** This is america

Understood, but all the data suggests corruption really isn’t a huge issue in America

The money comes down to having a staff be able to crank out policy year on year

Politicians can’t do that, especially for the range of issues they seek to confront so when a lobbyist walks in as a man with a plan he’s fucking Jesus Christ

huh, really? not what i have seen, but then again, im still young and inexperienced

(not sarcasm)

lul

ya, getting them more supporting staff is now on the agenda *writes down in notebook*

im trying to fix the other problem=the gridlock of having so many people vs reps who arent reps

dear God, i just realized how many people we would have to hire to staff my idea.... it would be astronomical

Well that’s effectively the bureaucracy. Politicians come and go but the bureaucracy remains and they’re the experienced experts that politicians should rely on

Problem is they all represent their department or policy group and they have their own views on how things should be run that may or may not map to the electorate

ya, but they shouldn't actually be making the decision like they do now, just providing there support

i considered that myself

They’re also the ones who make things happen. So if they don’t want something to work, a politician needs to precisely specify what they want otherwise it will be interpreted to suit whatever that dept wants it to be or turns into malicious compliance

came to the conclusion that they can inform people if put in that position

eek

i have to go...

Cya mang

just