It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I was born in poverty. The principal of my primary school made sure we had shoes by buying them herself. When I was 13 - - my mom married a millionaire. I've been on both sides.
Successful people. You still have issues separating Success and money. You do not become successful without hard dedicated work. The power people of the world are not sitting on their ass playing video games. What they decide is of importance - - - may not be what you decide is important.
Originally posted by Gorman91
They damn well better consider what I think as important important to them, or they're out of a job when they get in my way.
And those brain waves are not all that different than any animal out there with intelligence. There's no differentiation between the ability of a crow and a newborn in terms of mental capacity.
Sentience is the ability to feel, be conscious, and most importantly, have a subjective experience. A new born cannot. It is all automated. A new tablet for new code and instructions to be inscribed upon. This, as you've happily ignored, is the reason you are wrong.
Wealthy people who procreate in the first world take more resources that could be diverted to the poor in the 3rd world. They take water, they take food, they take rights. They make the 3rd world stuck in the 3rd world as their governments become dependent on wealth from the 1st world.
Ergo, the sins of the rich are just as bad as the sins of the poor. There is no difference.
Once again, justify not doing the same to the 1st world and the very rich. The ability to pay for your kids does not change the fact that your purchases make the parents of the poor unable to help their kids.
The well being of the poor is kept unable to be reached by the rich.
Then why is it hard to believe in quality without destruction of reproductive freedom. It IS possible for every human being to live in a sustainable, good house and be fed well and educated well and have good water to drink. It simply takes time and money.
Slaughtering the poor, or the rich, is not the answer.
We can conserve the world's environment without needless sacrifice of who we are.
Stop being a hypocrite and offer the termination of your life for the benefit of your planet. It's just a selfish to be aware it's selfish to have so many lives on the planet and yet not give up your own life, thereby saving the planet of having to support your existence.
Yes, I agree. The difference boils down to specieism, nothing more. Again, your point?
No, a newborn is sentient, also a foetus since around 5th month is most probably sentient. They have subjective experiences and feelings.
If they take more than their justified share by stealing, then it is corruption and needs to be fought. In the same way that reproduction crimes happening in third world need to be fought.
And we need to fight both, if we want to progress.
Purchases give people jobs and money, they help everyone.
The wellbeing of the poor is kept unable to be reached by corruption (both of rich and poor) and by reproduction anarchy of the poor diluting their already small share of resources even further.
By all means, do so. I just believe that with absolute reproductive freedom, this goal is much harder to achieve, if it is even possible.
Nobody wants to slaughter anyone.
So who we are? I dont subscribe to unconditional reproduction anarchy being a core part of who we are at all. We are rational beings, that is the core part of what it means to be human. And controling reproduction in accordance with circumstances seems very rational to me.
But nobody here is talking about killing anyone. We are talking about reproduction responsibility and control, not killing those already born.
This species has a right to freedom. You're point?
No, they don't. Their brains have not yet even learned how to make decisions. Babies do things automatically. They don't choose to grab, their hands just grab from an automatic response. They don't choose to eat, they just do. This is why they cry. They don't understand how to decide not to respond to emotions, pain, feelings, etc etc. They have no capacity to understand anything. They can just auto-respond and that's it. Not until upper cognitive development of around 4-7 years of age do they have the ability to choose. When they have been taught that the way they react automatically is not the only way.
No, they shouldn't. They have more money, and the right to consume more as a result. No doubt, fewer poor means they will consume even more.
We need to not fight if we want progress.
Sweatshop jobs so they can't afford an education and breed more? GENIUS!
The corruption is the result of wealthy who buy politicians. The poor have nothing to do with it.
Yes, exactly. Why is that bad if freedom remains?
You do, even if it's done cleanly through sterilization and birth limits. It's still slaughter.
Only some are rational. We are everything, everyone, every possibility. There is no human identity. And for that reason, your opinion on reproduction has no right to be forced on the natives int he jungles of Africa and New Zealand, on the farmer in Ireland, or on the emperor in Japan. You're opinion can only be put forth upon yourself. No one else.
When you limit the growth or down right sterilize a population, you slaughter that culture, that way of life. You are killing them.
Control is irrelevant. Control is evil. Get lost if you want to control. All you will find is a rifle in every corn field, and an uzi behind every project.
Killing those already born? There's my problem. I do not want killing of anyone before or after they are born. I do not want wholesale control over the free people of the world. I do not want you telling me what to do. See what happens if you do. And then you will have a slaughter on your hands, as the free people of the Earth die. Blood will be on your hands. Good luck managing the World with a billion fewer people with your sweat shops. All you will do is cause those who support you to disown you, and even more slaughter and fracture to begin.
Simply put, I wouldn't mind having crap quality of life for the sake of freedom. Because freedom allows me to improve myself and quality. Control does not. Sacrificing freedom for quality is not a choice. it is enslavement. And I do not buy into that.
The freedom's you listed are freedom's people extend beyond themselves. And therefore are wrong. I have always stood by this fact.
Yes, it does. But it is not forced.
So long no one dies or gets irrefutably damaged, the methods and conditions are not yours to judge right or wrong.
A child is under their parents care. Their opinion is null.
And there are other ways. The child and parent simply are poor and barely get by without government money. They do exist, you know.
You are nothing more than a 1% investor of a company called the Federal Government. You have no say, only an opinion that the majority holders listen to. You do not control nor prevent anything but by your advice and opinion. You have no power beyond that. Quite frankly, you are simply not that important. And you have all the right in the world to stop investing in the system and leave.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Parents who can take care of their children have no guarantee of actually doing so. All you are really doing is needlessly cutting off a group of people because of their quantity of wealth. Hollywood has proven that having money doesn't make you a good parent. The only fair way to go about it is to arrest the parents when they screw up. You cannot assume.
The poor don't breed, die off, and so america's corporations lobby and via for more immigrants to pay less.
So sorry, but everyone has the right to breed. Says so right there.
The blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, AND right after mentioning promoting the general welfare and common defense.
It's pretty clear what America is about. And you're not getting it.
Laws may be full of assumptions, but that doesn't make it right, nor mean we should continue to do that.
It is also not important to be accurate. If just one goes against it, you have no right to assume a minority based off a majority. This is called dictatorship.
No, my assumptions on immigration are not baseless. Even now the next wave is beginning from Africa and the middle east. Immigration waves always bring poverty. And when the poor die off, they don't die off, all that happens is others take their place. Your assumptions of the poor are baseless when one actually looks at history. Do me the favor of proving how I am baseless.
Public opinion is enough for you to suck it up and live with it. It's inaction versus action. Inaction in this case, minority doesn't suffer. Action, minority always suffers.