Is that a rare Varg Vikernes?

Quote from: Azendac on December 04, 2016, 09:24:09 PM

Quote from: Flee on December 03, 2016, 12:43:01 PM

Some voted because they can't stand foreigners or because "british jobs for british workers", while others realized how important cheap migrant workers are for British businesses.

Trying to defend endless immigration with "it's good for the economy" is a moot point, you've got your priorities backwards. The economy exists to serve the people not the other way around. Brexit was fundamentally about whether or not Britain would remain a white country, or if it would become a paki/arab/polish mess, anyone saying they voted leave for any other reason is just being PC to avoid harassment and cries of racism.

Now I never expected Brexit to be allowed to happen by Brussels, or even the Tories. What I expected and continue to expect is it to give justification to a Frexit, Italexit, Grexit, etc. etc. When half the Union is voting to leave, and at the same time Russia ends the war in Syria but the "refugees" don't go back (why else is it called the migrant crisis? migrant implies they're going to stay in Europe, refugee implies they'll eventually go back), you'll have a situation that can only be solved with a dissolution of the EU.

Yes, the economy will tank, and we'll all feel it for a few years, that's a small price to pay when the alternative is Eurabia (especially considering the economy will bounce back anyway)

Couple of things
1. There is nothing wrong with the polish, they integrate well and work hard, what more can you want from immigrants?
2. The pakistani/indian population here far preceeds the EU and again, short of a few issues with some of the more recent ones (i.e Rotherham) they aren't really a problem for the UK. Sikhs and Hindus at least, Islam being Islam is where a lot of the integration issues come from in that region.
3. The EU has very little to do with the recent migrant hordes (in terms of the UK, what they are doing to their own countries is appalling) because britain doesn't have to take any of them in even if we were still in the EU.

Net migration is ridiculously high here regardless of where it comes from though, it would have been better to clamp down on it 10 years ago instead of flipflopping until it's reached this stage.

1. Consider the effect it has on Poland itself, this is one of my more reasonable gripes with "skilled immigration" you take the best people out of a country that needs them far more than you do, and then if they settle down and have kids, their children will regress to the mean and be like the normal people of the country they came from, not the "cream of the crop" like their parents. Siphoning polish talent to Britain and siphoning pound sterlings back to Poland, is only going to make them dependent on continued immigration to the UK. Similar to how Mexico earns more money from it's immigrants sending money back home, then they do from their entire oil industry. The poles have to go back, they're killing Poland if they stay.

2. I'm well aware that this goes back several decades, Camp of the Saints was written in 1973 after all. The point i'm making is that politics has a certain amount of momentum/inertia to it. Once one idea gets popular traction, related ideas become much more easily accepted, this is the basis of the overton window. You give people a taste of telling the government to fuck off, and you see everyone around you doing the same thing, and then all of a sudden you can succesfully campaign on changing things that have stayed the same for decades. And also, it really doesn't matter which country they're coming from, here in New Zealand the problem is Chinese (both immigrants, and speculators and foreign investors) and Indians. My opinion is still the same, they're killing us and they have to go back, even if they came here legally.

3. It should be clear by now that I want the EU gone, though I'm still quite partial to some kind of official co-operation between EU states. The whole world benefits when Europeans aren't killing eachother so anything that keeps it that way is a good thing, but that requires Europe to stay European.

I'll also say that I tend to think on a larger time scale than you might be assuming, do you all remember the reports a few years back of "all of europe, america, and oceania, will have white minorities by the 2040's" ? that's sort of the scale i'm thinking here. So even if you say "well there's actually not many immigrants now, and they don't commit that much crime anyway" it doesn't change the fact that assimilation means they'll be sticking around and having kids and grandkids, and nobody has yet made a compelling argument for ethnic cleansing to me.

Quote from: Azendac on December 05, 2016, 12:29:02 AM

Quote from: 「Prime」 on December 04, 2016, 11:43:45 PM

If people are still fucking around and ejaculating away their lives in meaningless degeneracy, then it's still a bad thing.

And it's not the government's place to decide that.

To an extent yes, people aren't so dumb that they need the government to take care of everything for them, but there is a few points to be made. The government should not be actively encouraging promiscuity, or really anything that hampers having children, because that leads to societal collapse. The government also has a responsibility to limit to some degree people's/corporation's ability to promote such ideas to certain people, we already censor child oriented media for obvious reasons, they can learn about that stuff when they're older. And since we're talking western society here, it has always been part of our philosophy that government acts in some way as a role model for the people (the current world governments failures doesn't invalidate the past), be they consuls, emperors, kings, clergy, kaisers, you get the picture.

So to an extent, the exact amount is still up for debate, the government does have an obligation to decide on more personal matters.

I'm not ignoring contraceptive measures either, as that supports my argument. We don't have a significant number of people who have unprotected sex then turn around and get abortions because people who don't want kids get UIDs, tube tied/vasectomies, and have protected sex. That is entirely my issue with your argument: this proposition that abortions are bad because it means that people will just have huge orgies of bareback sex. This is the exact opposite of what is happening: people who are aware of how to prevent pregnancies don't get pregnant, and those who want or need to get rid of a pregnancy will do so regardless of its legality.

Before I go further, let me ask you this, what is the thing people fear more than anything else in the world? It's actually quite simple, it's anything that can't be undone. The classic fears are death, illness, bankruptcy, loss of relationships. All things that largely cannot be undone. Now the thing about people is we build our lives around trying to predict future events, which includes avoiding events that can't be undone. Now let me ask you, can pregnancy be undone? can you uncreate a life? can you go stop being a parent after becoming one? These are seriously big questions that everyone has to ask themselves at some point, and for most of human history the answer to all of them has been "No" (infanticide doesn't count, you have to carry that baby through to birth before snubbing it).

Now given that every culture on earth developed around this line of thinking, and then suddenly you were given a way to answer those questions instead with "Yes, you go girl", do you think this would have major effects on society? Do you think young pubescent girls fully understand the implications of this change? Do you think society should encourage this complete inversion of values? Now this is only half the argument I'm making, because this issue of abortions comes after the issue of sexual promiscuity. You're again focusing on the technical details of abortion and contraceptives, and not the actual issue of "should society be so promiscuous?". Which is why I explicitly stated this in my first post, that is the real issue here that everyone avoids talking about, because answering it in the negative, that we shouldn't be like this, means repudiating centuries of "progress". We have to go back to the Enlightenment and then pick a different course. That's a much bigger topic than "should I get an abortion?".

And as for the vent, yes, if only because society has been historically prudish. But thinking that it means we'll end up in a Brave New World scenario because of it is like saying that the gay marriage ruling in the US means that the pedos and dog-fuckers will be next. Look at the events surrounding it rather than it itself: western responses to regressive cultures, societal warming to non-heterosexual relationships, feminist ideals becoming accepted by western culture, the shrinking number of religious-extremists (sans radical islamists), etc.

The proble here is that you look at how sexually conservative we were in the past, and instead of asking "why?" you dismiss it as something to outgrow and move away from, that's a very enlightened point of view and ties back to my above paragraph, that the issue of abortion stems from centuries of intellectual development that nobody talks about. Now as for the pedos:
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/17/im_not_a_monster_a_pedophile_on_attraction_love_and_a_life_of_loneliness/
As for fucking animals:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3634998/Sex-acts-pets-OK-Canadian-Supreme-Court-long-doesn-t-involve-penetration.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352779/Bestiality-brothels-spreading-Germany-campaigner-claims-abusers-sex-animals-lifestyle-choice.html
A few years ago you would have had a point that i'd agree with, but the culture has changed pretty rapidly this past half decade, to the point that what was once a conservative conspiracy theory is now legal reality. As for feminism, that's declining along with SJWs. Religious extremism is only going to get worse until the immigration issue is dealt with. And the T in LGBT seems to be most peoples Tipping point of rejectig the whole thing. Again, this is just noticing trends.

It's not like we will all just wake up one day and said, "you know what we need? Nudity at 2pm." Unless some sort of precedent occurs for it, it won't. And I'm sorry, but legal abortions are not affecting that level of promiscuity; referring back to the article in the previous post, abortion rates where it's legal are consistent (if not slightly lower) with those where abortion is prohibited. If banning it won't change the figures anyway, then it can only benefit society by remaining legal; if it happens, at least it's safe.

Of course the culture didn't change overnight, If you want me to I could pencil down a roadmap of important events, we could simplify the matter by starting and ending with the Frankfurt school, as both the story after it and the prelude to it writes itself really. I hope you can see where I'm coming from tho.

As if I were reading a "For Dummies" book, can you explain to me what Nier is about? I vaugely remember a Nier game out on the last console gen.

Without spoiling anything:
A dorky action JRPG with weird characters in a sombre setting, that is about fighting monsters, saving your kawaii daughteru from an illness, bro'ing it up with a talking book and an actual trap, and listening to THE BEST OST IN ALL OF VIDEO GAME HISTORY.

It's a pretty clunky game to actually play but it's got enough things going for it that it developed a cult following, and now half a decade later the original developers team up with PLATINUM GAMES MOTHERFUCKER, to create a distant sequel that doesn't play like ass.

We've had nine fucking years of this twat, and we were on the verge of having him for another 3 since all the opposition parties here are completely impotent, but John "open the floodgates and throw away the" Key, just up and resigned as Prime Minister of New Zealand. I cannot tell you just how happy I am.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11760656

John Key is resigning as Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Key made the announcement at his weekly press conference this afternoon.

The Herald understands Key's wife Bronagh asked him to resign but he later said Bronagh would have backed him going into a fourth term.

Key, his voice shaking with emotion, said he told his Cabinet of his decision this morning.

"This is the hardest decision I've ever made and I don't know what I'll do next."

Key cited family reasons for leaving, saying the job had required great sacrifices "from those who are dearest to me".

His wife Bronagh had endured "many lonely nights" and his children Stephie and Max had been put under "extraordinary levels of intrusion".

Key met his wife Bronagh while attending Burnside High School. The pair married in 1984 and have two children, Stephie and Max.

"Bronagh has made a significant sacrifice during my time in politics, and now is the right time for me to take a step back in my career and spend more time at home."

The National Party caucus will hold a meeting on December 12 to decide the new party leader and Prime Minister.

Key said he would support whoever the caucus chose, but he endorsed Bill English as his replacement.

"Whoever the caucus votes for will have my unwavering support, but if Bill English puts his name forward then I will vote for him.

"For 10 years now Bill and I have worked closely as a team. I have witnessed first-hand his leadership style, his capacity for work, his grasp of the economy, his commitment to change and most of all his decency as a husband, as a father, a colleague and as a politician."

English has not ruled out standing for the top job.

Key said there is no way he could have serve out a full fourth term.

"I do not believe that if I was asked to commit to serving out a full fourth term I could look the public in the eye and say yes.

"And more than anything else in my time here, I have tried to be straight and true with New Zealanders.

"Making the decision to resign has not been easy, and I have no plans as to what comes next in my professional life."

Key said he was looking forward to enjoying a slightly quieter life in and spending time travelling with his spouse.

Key said he was "a commercial guy" and was likely to take up board positions, possibly with companies in Australia.

Unlike his predecessor Helen Clark, he "definitely" had no interest in international politics or a United Nations job.

Key said he could continue living in Auckland and had no plans to move overseas.

He said leaders seemed to stay too long and he felt this was the opportunity to go out on top.

He also said it was the right time to leave, as National were polling at nearly 50 per cent and the economy was growing.

"It leaves the Cabinet and caucus plenty of time to settle in with a new Prime Minister before heading into election year with a proud record of strong economic management," Key said.

"I am hugely confident that National can and will win the next election - just as I as am confident that the caucus has a number of people who would make a fine Prime Minister."

Asked what his legacy would be, Key said stabilising and growing New Zealand's economy after the global financial crisis and weathering crises such as the Canterbury earthquakes.

Key said his main regrets were failing to ratify the Trans Pacific Partnership, not getting the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary opened, and not changing the national flag.

He had "given everything" to the job but had "nothing left in the tank".

Key said that he wanted to thank the Cabinet and Caucus for their loyalty and energy, and his staff for their hard work over these last eight years.

"I want to acknowledge and thank our support partners ACT, United Future and the Maori Party without whom the strong and stable government we have delivered would not have been possible.

"The Board, office holders and members of the National Party have my grateful thanks for everything they have done during my 10 years as their leader.

"I want to thank the people of the Helensville electorate who have returned me to Parliament every three years since 2002. It has been a great privilege to be their MP."

Key will remain MP for Helensville before stepping down closer to the next election.

Key cancelled his weekly scheduled interview with NewstalkZB at the NZME offices in Auckland this morning, and instead was interviewed over the phone from Wellington.

Labour leader Andrew Little has tweeted his well wishes to Key.

New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters said of the resignation: "The fact is that the economy is not in the healthy state that the Prime Minister has for so long claimed, and there are other issues which have caused this decision as well.

"The New Zealand public should have been informed of this a long time ago.

"Clearly the Prime Minister does not believe the superficial polls any longer.

"Contrary to certain perceptions the Prime Minister and his Finance Minister are unable to muddy the waters anymore."

The announcement caught former National leader Don Brash off guard.

"Well I'm stunned, it was certainly not expected by me or as far as I know by anybody else.

"Most people thought the Prime Minister was very keen to get a fourth term and to announce his resignation a full year before the next election is a very surprising development indeed," Brash said.

Brash said he had "high regard" for several members of the National caucus when asked who should be the new leader.

"One I have great respect for is Judith Collins who's got some very strong views and is a very strong person.

"I guess the reason for suggesting that is that I've been disappointed with the eight years of John Key government so far."

Key has led the National party since 2006.

Key built a career in foreign exchange in New Zealand before continued success in the industry overseas.

He entered Parliament in 2002 as National's representative for Helensville. In 2004 he was appointed Finance Spokesman for the party and succeeded Don Brash as party leader in 2006.

Key led his party to win the election in November 2008 and repeated the victory in 2011 and 2014.

Key has governed the country through the recession of the late-2000s, formed the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in response to the aftermath of the 2011 Christchurch Earthquake and created a much-protested policy for the partial privitisation of five state-owned enterprises.

Key has also withdrawn the NZ Defence Force from Afghanistan and worked to establish the TPP with the United States.

LOL at him saying this is for family reasons, he had no qualms with his daughter becoming a whore:

Well Reapy, there's a several thousand year long story that I could tell you detailing why the world is what it is today, but the short version is that before the internet, most all people would die before ever learning about the mistakes they've made in their life, let alone being able to fix them.

Fortunately we now have a piece of technology that has absolutely no historical parallel or precedent, a machine that can transfer infinite amount of information to anyone on the planet, and allow anybody anywhere to talk to anyone else, the internet.

We've only had a few decades with this technological miracle so of course we haven't managed to undo thousands of years of mistakes, but I can assure you my friend, we're trying, and we're going to make it. We're all going to make it.

Also shoot me an email sometime, I got pretty worried about you not responding, thought you might have relapsed.

Quote from: Azendac on December 04, 2016, 11:07:25 PM

I'll get to these later on, but since I reply to everything this could very easily blow out to a three post reply if you post such short answers like that.

I have finals to study for, so I'll respond to this post in full sometime tomorrow or maybe even later if you're still interested.

But I did want to respond to this bit because I think it's important to get out of the way:

The length of my responses to individual points tends to be proportional to the respect I have for the question. If I feel a question deserves a long enough answer, I'll give it one. If I think the question is stupid, expect a one word answer or less. I'm willing and able to elaborate on any and all of my opinions, but not if I think the question insults my intelligence.

All good man, I just hate getting pinged for "ignoring points" or feeling like a hypocrite for calling out others, so I try to respond to everything brought up. I don't want to drag this on for too long though since I really do get bored of long discussions online pretty quickly, I'm more of an in-person kind of guy.

Before I get to this, I've actually spent a fair bit of time thinking about anti-natalism, and I've accepted is as a valid solution to "the human condition" or however you wish to phrase it. Although I accept it only as a mathematically trivial solution: Killing all the players does in a sense prevent them from ever losing the game, but does nothing to help a living player win, so to speak. Of course, it's an open question about whether a non trivial solution even exists, and it could very well not, but calling it quits just there is boring to me.

Yes, people should be held responsible for their actions.

Abortion is one of the most responsible decisions a person could ever make.

In the case of aborting a disabled or otherwise retarded child, yes it's very Eugenically responsible. In the case of aborting because "oops forgot the condom", then it's a case of having your orgasm and eating it too. It's allowing someone to make incredibly poor plans and decisions (with all the contraceptives available and knowledge of female menstrual cycles, you have no excuse for getting pregnant on accident). Very irresponsible in that case.

The repercussions are social ostracization--that's all there needs to be.

Yes but unfortunately we don't do that very much anymore.

Absolutely not.

Do you have any reasoning beyond it being axiomatically bad? As in, "should society encourage abstinence oriented anti-natalism?", you've got some room for creativity here.

Yes.

Never.

I'll get to these later on, but since I reply to everything this could very easily blow out to a three post reply if you post such short answers like that.

Which is for the better--except that sluts would still be ostracized, and that's a good thing.

Eh, I don't see how you could balance allowing sluts to get away with anything slutty, and also having everyone ostracize them. Unless I've misread your post, I had to re-read it a few times.

Nope. If anything, women should keep men in line.

Why?

If they both need to be chaste in order for society to function, which I agree with, that is still equality. The freedom for both sexes to do whatever they want with their bodies is also equality.

It would be hierarchical and they'd be chaste for different but similar reasons under what I'm saying. Women because promiscuity permanently effects their ability to be good mothers/wives, Men so that they don't ruin any women. The last time I checked the stats, the effect of a man having over 20 partners is the same as a women having 3. Women are just biologically more susceptible to sexual damage.

Genes should be pissed away, and society should be fucked into oblivion.

What would you say about a hypothetical "anti natalism gene" that turns anyone who has it into you ideologically? There's not much I can really say here.

This has so little to do with hedonism, it's insane. It's more hedonistic to want children. It's less hedonistic to save a child from having a life--which is the greatest thing a human being could ever possibly do.

Okay, now I'm injecting anti-natalism into this. For sure.

Orgasms literally exists as a way to bribe animals into reproducing, it's a drug hit that can only be justified (from a non- anti natalist perspective) by following it up with offspring. Anti natalism has no justification for or against non-reproductive sex.

I can't speak for sluts because I'm not one, but why shouldn't they be able to destroy everything their ancestors "built for them"? Everything our ancestors built for us fucking sucks. If anything, we should make abortions an Olympic sport. Whoever can have the most abortions in a year wins a gold medal. It should be celebrated.(fucking lol, this is as funny as though ancap comics about ending every dispute with a TOW missile)

Because they were only given life on the proviso that they would maintain the things their ancestors gifted them. If our ancestors knew their kids would grow up to destroy everything they'd built, they'd commit infanticide until they got a kid that would play along. From their perspective you're defective, same goes for the gene's perspective. I mean, you don't have any problem with abortion, so you shouldn't have a problem with ancestors aborting would be anti-natalists.

Again, this isn't about hedonism. It is more hedonistic to live in a society where children are wantonly born into a shit world, because you have this ego problem where you want your genes to be spread for generations for some selfish, arbitrary reason.

This statement also implies that society should survive. It shouldn't.

It really goes back to the search for a non-trivial solution to human life. Of course I also hate people that just shit out children without thinking it through (and by that I mean niggers). Call me selfish, but I can just as easily flip this back at you for forcing your moralisms on everyone else. Again, a situation in which society collapses is both boring and trivial, you're just repeating what's already happened and achieving nothing.

No intelligent, rational person cares about the biological "point" of sex, and they shouldn't.

#KillAllBabies.

Conversely, the only rational action for DNA based life is to have kids and make life conductive for having kids

#ImpregnateAllQT3.14s

Quote from: Azendac on December 04, 2016, 10:29:17 PM

I see, but you do realize that there's nothing that makes drugs as a method of solving problems, unique or special A Priori right? The human body is a collection of chemical factories, that operate based on chemical inputs and outputs, so solving it's problems using chemicals isn't necessarily "bad" anymore than solving a software problem with a software update is.

There should be no problems to solve, is my point.

If anything, we should be able to solve our own problems using our own faculties alone.

Would that I could magic my problems away, but that doesn't get you anywhere in real life.
/snark

But isn't using man made drugs "using our own faculties" ? It's solving a problem using a tool that works, we can both agree big pharma tends to fuck this up, but in principle it's just solving a chemical based problem with a chemical based solution. Unless you're drawing the line at injecting things into the human body (which again, isn't A Priori wrong since you solve the problem of hunger and dehydration by ingesting food and water, chemicals).

Quote from: Yang on December 04, 2016, 09:56:33 PM

I feel like people should begin to clarify when they say "drugs" because drugs can be stuff like Tylenol or Ibuprofen, not just weed.

I do hate all drugs, including Tylenol and any other harmless thing out there (I have a special hatred for anti-depressants).

They're just a symbol of human fragility.

Do you disprove of all medicinal drugs (in particular anesthesia inducing drugs for surgery)? I think recreational drugs are a complete waste of human life, but I don't see a problem in chemically treating some problems.

Depends on the symptoms, I have a condition that occasionally causes incredible pain, but a single pain killer tablet makes it disappear entirely. I had to put up with it for a few years before realizing how easy it was to treat, so it doesn't even matter that nobody knows what the cause is or how to cur it.

For mental condition though, you're looking at a much bigger issue to solve, reformation of society.

The entire abortion debate always skips over the real question and focuses on a pointless technicality, the discussion here is not "at what point does a fetus become human, and who can claim legal authority over it?", no, the discussion is meant to be "Should people be held responsible for their actions, and should society encourage people to avoid self destructive behavior, especially if it leads to societal collapse?".

Specifically, "Should women face repercussions for being sluts, and should society reinforce traditional family oriented lifestyles?" Because that's all this boils down to, should women be allowed to fuck whoever they want whenever they want with little regard to it's effects on a society, or should a patriarchal authority slap some sense into them and encourage them to get married and have children instead?. All the focus on "but what if she's raped? but what if the baby's disabled? but what if x?" Is a deliberate distraction to avoid talking about the fact that when you encourage abortions for everyone, you change the culture to one where sluts are allowed to get away with anything. That's the effect whether you intend for it to happen or not, it's happened every time in human history going back to fucking ancient Greece where they even made a play about it, this discussion is nothing new and the results always speak for themselves. Now, some common rebuttals:

>but what about men? men can sleep around so why not women?
It's a good question but always asked for the wrong reasons. Men should be held to a high standard since it's their job to keep the women and children in line, but this counter point is always brought up as "men and women are equal, so both should be allowed to be sluts" Wrong, they're not equal, but they both need to be chaste for society to function.

>it's my body my choice, who gave you the authority to control me?
Who gave you the authority to piss away your genes and fuck your society into oblivion? Actions have consequences and the second a society stops thinking about raising families and instead thinks about being a hedonist, is when it starts to decline and ultimately collapse. A slut can only get away with their actions if they live in a society that has been built up over centuries, so that their actions take a while to whittle away at the foundations, in poetic terms you can only destroy what's been created, so tell me sluts, why should you be allowed to destroy everything your ancestors built for you?

>why can't i live an alternative lifestyle that doesn't revolve around kids? where's the freedom in that?
Show me one, just one, society that survived after indulging in all it's hedonistic desires. Pro tip, there isn't. And before you point to any modern country, I'll remind you that Trump wouldn't have been elected and far right parties wouldn't be surging in popularity if that were the case.
—
Really you have to ask yourself, why am I even having sex with this person in the first place? if your answer is anything other than "because I'm growing closer to them so we can better raise our kids together" then you've missed the point of sex entirely and are just thinking with your dick.

korra was a mistake

Cynicism is the next step. Then alcoholism.

Then finally National Socialism.

Quote from: Azendac on November 30, 2016, 03:35:39 PM

For this and abortion I've been of the opinion that it should be allowed under specific circumstances, but not promoted to the whole public as something normal, it's a final solution to a problem with no other easy answer, and letting it become widespread just breaks people's judgement of value.

Well naturally it's not something to promote, but I don't think it's going to make people value life any less if it becomes a 'normal' occurrence. Normal as in, not newsworthy, rather than frequent in day to day life.

Yes and no, I'm less concerned about how much people value life in the abstract given that people are perfectly fine with say, starting a war that will kill millions of people, in order to take revenge for little children being barrel bombed...

But what I am concerned about is when people start building their life decisions around "It's okay to do this otherwise life changing event, because I can just get a doctor to solve it". In any other society in history, a woman deciding to have unprotected sex with multiple men just for the fun of it, would be considered cause to disown her. But now it's just "yeah whatever, get an abortion and an STD check and you'll be sweet famalm".

Same deal applies to euthanasia, if people start thinking "well the worst that happens is that I can end all the pain peacefully, then I guess there's isn't a problem with me doing this otherwise dangerous thing". It messes up people's sense of danger and value of a good life. Moreover, what about the people who want to stay far away from these kinds of things? How are you to raise a child to believe in trying your hardest until the very end, when everyone around them will be telling them they can just legally kill themselves? It's very easy to create a culture of giving up and death, just as we live in a (((culture of promiscuity.)))