just something unrelated to the specifics in the autism threads I started, but still relevant to me:
I think it is extremely important and good if people who do not like a thing are not forced to participate in the thing. The fact that this makes good economic/darwinian sense also, and selects for the best of the best to prevail, is very central to my thinking on this.
If I didn't think I was right, I wouldn't want to exit, would I?
Even to my opposite position this SHOULD make sense but I've come as far as to just assume maliciousness from an ideology for which it is not so.
>The baker does not want us to pay him money to bake the gay cake? WE MUST SUE HIM AND FORCE HIM TO PARTICIPATE
>The atheist does not want to go to church? We must force him to either lie or be killed
Both of these are kind of stupid. You can switch the roles around both ways and it stays stupid. Why does a fag want to pay money to someone who hates him? It doesn't make sense.
Why should Christians want atheists to go underground and stay in their community? It doesn't make sense.
I think you can see that this is correct, and that I am not just naive about things by looking at the consequences. The new ideologies forced upon people have basically completely annihilated sympathy or loyalty to the system, even amongst those that agree. You have a HUGE percentage of people who just "have to go along with" a whole catalogue of complete nonsense, and therefore are unwilling to expend energy to defend or improve the system in any way. Therefore, everything is going to bits.
In essence, you want your enemy to exit, at virtually any cost, instead of remaining within as an infiltrator.
I think it is extremely important and good if people who do not like a thing are not forced to participate in the thing. The fact that this makes good economic/darwinian sense also, and selects for the best of the best to prevail, is very central to my thinking on this.
If I didn't think I was right, I wouldn't want to exit, would I?
Even to my opposite position this SHOULD make sense but I've come as far as to just assume maliciousness from an ideology for which it is not so.
>The baker does not want us to pay him money to bake the gay cake? WE MUST SUE HIM AND FORCE HIM TO PARTICIPATE
>The atheist does not want to go to church? We must force him to either lie or be killed
Both of these are kind of stupid. You can switch the roles around both ways and it stays stupid. Why does a fag want to pay money to someone who hates him? It doesn't make sense.
Why should Christians want atheists to go underground and stay in their community? It doesn't make sense.
I think you can see that this is correct, and that I am not just naive about things by looking at the consequences. The new ideologies forced upon people have basically completely annihilated sympathy or loyalty to the system, even amongst those that agree. You have a HUGE percentage of people who just "have to go along with" a whole catalogue of complete nonsense, and therefore are unwilling to expend energy to defend or improve the system in any way. Therefore, everything is going to bits.
In essence, you want your enemy to exit, at virtually any cost, instead of remaining within as an infiltrator.
