Does anyone else think that paying for games is debasing and contemptible?

Yes comrade, games should be free

Have you ever made a thing before? Like an actual finished, polished product that you were proud to show to other people? Because it doesn't sound like you have.

People put in lots of work to write, edit, market, and playtest the rule manuals and lore. Their labor and other expenses need to be compensated if we are to expect a supply quality products.

I mostly agree on the paid GMing though. I would feel debased to pay for it, but I think it's becoming a necessary way to ration a limited supply of skilled GMing in the face of growing demand. Good GMing is an extraordinary amount of skilled and emotional labor, so it makes perfect sense that some should need compensation to be convinced to do it. For me? I could afford to pay, but I'd sooner take up the mantle of GM again than pay someone for it.

>Paying to have structured fun is like paying to sing a song or paying to go to the bathroom.
user, do you think bathrooms are built for free? Someone pays for that stuff. Similarly, while you don't have to pay to play a game, why would anyone be obliged to offer you rules and settings for free? If you don't want to pay for that stuff, ypu can always just come up with your own homebrew. You aren't entitled to the fruits of others' labor for free, though.

So do you only play paper chess? Or kick a bundle of clothes and call it soccer? Maybe the gas bloated corpse of an animal? Do you only drink water when you have drinking games? What about the glasses? Or are you drinking water from a stream? This is a very dumb post.

The stupid thing is, if you really are in a position where you can't afford to pay for games, it's still the best era we've ever lived in for gaming, even if you morally object to piracy. There are fantastic complete RPG's free online, print and play board games, board games that don't need to be printed at all... If you really do object to the very idea of specialisation and distributing work, the foundation of modern society, you can still enjoy tabletops. It doesn't stop you being an idiot, but you can still set aside your 'burn it all down' anarcho primitivism and play a board game without supporting the structures you apparently dislike despite them being massively beneficial to you in almost every way.

what the fuck even is money, we live in a world where there's enough for food everyone to eat

Because all that food is produced unevenly and logistics is fucking expensive.

You're not entirely wrong, we're living in an era of plenty where there should be more than enough to go around, but the problem is the massive accumulation of wealth at the top end of society, which actively devalues the remaining wealth as the mega-wealthy indulge in accumulation for accumulation's sake despite having more wealth than they could hope to spend in a lifetime many, many times over.

>what the fuck even is money
More than just food
>we live in a world where there's enough for food everyone to eat
And if we give everyone enough food to eat, suddenly we've got another 5 billion people shitting everything up, and almost none of them contributing to society in any meaningful manner besides existing; I'd rather only have two billion people that exist and contribute, rather than nine billion people that only exist, and one billion that exist and contribute.

So the fact that you were born with every possible privilege in this world means that you somehow "contribute more." And your solution is the passive genocide of those born without access to food or a good economic position via starvation and diseases that were cured a century ago. Neat.

>like paying to sing a song
This happens.

>or paying to go to the bathroom
This happens too.

Buy some better analogies, semi-literate.

He's probably one of the people who still believes in the lie of meritocracy.

>So the fact that you were born with every possible privilege in this world means that you somehow "contribute more." And your solution is the passive genocide of those born without access to food or a good economic position via starvation and diseases that were cured a century ago. Neat.
Correct; life isn't fair, and it's a waste of resources to try an make it fair, and some random shmuck in Africa is only ever going to matter to his local village.
We could spend all those resources on bringing the 3rd world up to 1st world standards.
Or.
We could let the 3rd world do it's own thing without support or interference and instead invest those resources into the 1st world.

I do find it funny how you think that letting those countries revert to a sustainable population rather than being artificially propped up by the destructive altruism of the west counts as "genocide"

Nah, I just think making the 3rd world a humanitarian pet project is a disgusting waste of capital. The average plebe from any given 1st world nation is more productive than any random 3rd world prole by orders of magnitude.

>We could spend all those resources on bringing the 3rd world up to 1st world standards.
>Or.
>We could let the 3rd world do it's own thing without support or interference and instead invest those resources into the 1st world.
But we don't do either of those things.

True, but if we were going to do either, it'd be better to do the latter.
As it stands now, we invest just enough resources into the third world to prevent a malthusian collapse, all the while their swelling population consumes more and more, without actually putting enough into it to bring them to sustainable, first world standards.

Of course, actually doing enough to advance their societies and nations would probably just be called "neo-colonialism", so it's a lose-lose anyways.

Actual disgusting human being that can't look at another person as something other than their usefulness. Your utilitarian approach makes you worth much less to the world in my eyes than anyone else who isn't "contributing as much"; you happen to willingly forget that all those numbers you mention are people just like you or me. Do us all a favor and reconsider your views or die.

...Except capitalism is all about investment. If you actually care about the global economy, then the idea of creating more productive workforces in third world countries and enabling them to start contributing to the global economy should make perfect sense to you, if you have any degree of long term thought.

>He believes in the population explosion myth

It helps to look up statistics rather than repeat bullshit.

>FB_IMG
Thanks for letting me know I shouldn't take your post seriously.
> people just like you or me
hahahaha faggot

Oh, I'm aware that they're people, they're just useless people. If I have to choose between useful people and useless people, I'll go with the useful people, because they're both equal except for their usefullness.

If all people are equal, (and they are, right?), then they must be judged according to other metrics.

See, you're making two major assumptions.
One, that I support a global economy as it is now.
Two, that those 3rd worlders have to be the ones to contribute, and that the 1st world can't continue to grow.

Of course user, shoveling free food into a culture that does nothing but shit out a dozen more babies absolutely can't go wrong.

>all people are equal
no he said all human life has value, the inequality lies in the fact that all people don't have equal access to resources and opportunities

If you want to favor usful people, you should go for those who manage to make something of themselves in 3rd world countries and let those 1st worlders who rest on their laurels go.

>If all people are equal, (and they are, right?), then they must be judged according to other metrics.
While luck indeed is a metric, being born with a silver spoon isn't much of an achievement.

The kind who want at least a loose guarantee that a certain degree of effort has been put into the campaign.

Good capitalism is letting bubbles burst

youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348

>the problem is the massive accumulation of wealth at the top end of society
Have you ever had a job, user? 'cause I can just about guarantee you, the reason you're eating, drinking, living with a roof over your head and have a computer to shitpost with is because some rich bastard is paying either you or someone you rely upon in exchange for labor. That aside, the rich being rich has little to do with unequal distribution of food; Bill Gates isn't funneling billions into buying every potato on Earth, but he is giving jobs to many many schmucks who consentually rely upon him for a fair exchange of work and buying power.
>the mega wealthy indulge in accumulation for accumulation's sake
I didn't realize bringing space travel into the private sector is "accumulation for accumulation's sake". Probably because to me, that looks more like the first sign that more advanced technology is going to start working its way down the food chain, same as TVs, air conditioning, cell phones and all the other goodies that would've been either impossible or very difficult to acquire before the time we're living in.

Things are gonna get real fucked in china in the coming years, yeah?

Exactly; the fact that they're all human has some level of value, and so they much be judged by how useful they are.
Tough shit that the 3rd worlder doesn't have access to the same stuff a 1st worlder does, but he's objectively less useful than the 1st worlder because of it.

Even 3rd worlders who make something of themselves are often less useful than 1st worlders, and even then, we DO take in exceptional 3rd worlders as immigrants.
Perhaps that's a reason why the 3rd world is so shit, because we keep taking in those who have the innate drive and capability to improve it, rather than leaving them there.

And as much as you want to meme about it, 1st worlders actually tend to do something with that "silver spoon"; having ready access to public education and modern infrastructure don't make them intrinsically lesser people after all, user :^)

>Kurzgesagt
You might as well have linked directly from reddit.

Look up the statistics, and look up the comments by economists. There are ethical business people who put money back into economies, but more and more wealth is staying confined to a small bubble of the ultra-wealthy, actively devaluing the wealth in circulation and harming the function of capitalism as a system. A few examples doesn't change the overall systemic problem.

So you ignore the facts because you don't like the source? Shows how in touch with reality you are.

The one thing I don't understand about the ultrarich is why they stockpile so much goddamn money. What the fuck are they gonna spend it on? If they're not gonna spend it, what's the God damn point?

You have a point about brain-drain being an issue in developing countries

There's actually some interesting research into how excessive wealth can actually be harmful for people without the drive or passion to invest it in something, reaching a point where all they're doing is increasing numbers for the sake of increasing numbers, adding to the growing problem of global inequality, where less and less capital is free to move and generate growth in the wider economy.

>Why can't I provide my own materials? As for the rules, rules are intangible and can be copied with a whisper.
Alright. Grab a big fat journal, a hundred pens, a plane ticket to WotC's HQ, and start scribing a rulebook they have on display or something, all the tables, all the considerations, the lists, the formatting, all of it. Write it down yourself. Information is free, after all. The means of which you share this information, however, is not.

What you're paying for when you buy a rulebook isn't the liscence to play tabletop games, it's the preparation and presentation, you're paying for all the rules in a physical object so you don't have to have a 300 page rule book in your mind, maybe more material if you're a DM. You're paying for something to go to when you don't feel like asspulling. You're paying for all of this information prepared and presented in an easily readable, searchable, and neatly ordered format. Even if you wanted to just hear the rules, not have a copy to refer to, you'd have to pay for the audiobook or lecture.

>So you ignore the facts because you don't like the source? Shows how in touch with reality you are.
I dislike the source because that channel is actively biased and DUDE I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE tier.

Regardless, it doesn't change my point; even if Africa is in stage one of demographic shift, the same resources can be put into expanding first world nations.
Why go through all the trouble of developing the third world when they can just be left to die off to sustainable levels, and then move into the now pretty much empty regions with an already developed populace and the infrastructure to support it?

Where the fuck does this idea that Richfags are Scrooge McDuck even come from? Nobody who isn't your paranoid uncle just "sits" on money; the ultra-rich's money is either in assets, where it's part of the economy, or it's in stocks or investment, which is part of the economy, or it's in banks (which themselves don't just sit on the money and loan it out), and thus also part of the economy.
There's no giant vault for rich-people money that just sits there and rots.

Makes sense. Watching numbers get bigger is tge entire reason why people still play WoW and PF, and it’s not impossible for some people to do that with money instead of levels or DPS.

Wow. It's easy to think that belief in capitalism is a cynical pragmatist's thing, but this is naive, starry-eyed idealism if I've ever seen any.

Because human beings are empathic, social creatures, not calculating sociopathic monsters?

economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/06/economist-explains-11

>Because human beings are empathic, social creatures, not calculating sociopathic monsters?
Sounds pretty inefficient to me, and a bad case of sunk cost syndrome.
Why can't I be empathetic and social to just people who are useful, and stop having the useless poorfags suckle off the rest of the world's productivity?

I bet you think NEETs have a right to their autismbuks.

I think the universal basic income is a good idea because all evidence points towards it being good for the economy.

>fuck paying for things and having a functional society and sheit

>Games are something humans have always done.
So is sex and yet people pay for that.

>UBI
I've literally been arguing with a memeing commie this entire time, whoda thunk.

Are you really so politically misinformed that you don't know the difference between a socialism and communism? The former can coexist perfectly happily with capitalism, both elements forming part of a greater whole that benefits the entirety of society.

More like
>I'm 14 years old and don't understand how anything works

>Sounds pretty inefficient to me, and a bad case of sunk cost syndrome.
Ah, you're a teenager! Sorry, I should've realized that earlier. I'm sure you'll get over that edgy "humanity is dumb and useless" phase of yours eventually.

Why can't I be empathetic and social to just people who are useful, and stop having the useless poorfags suckle off the rest of the world's productivity?
Because that's not what being empathetic and social means, basically.

You're paying for the time and effort put into polishing the rules, building the world, making the environment, so on.

Also, you actually do need to pay for the chart to perform a music piece publicly.

>We could spend all those resources on bringing the 3rd world up to 1st world standards

No, we cant. That literally isn't possibe. It isnt just a matter of will and resources.

>It's not REAL communism
Both are cancerous, socialism just marginally less so.
Nobody has a right to exist for existence's sake, they must justify it through contribution to society at large through the creation of value, and it is imperative that the economy reflect this.
Being a mere consumer that money moves through does not create value.

>Ah, you're a teenager! Sorry, I should've realized that earlier. I'm sure you'll get over that edgy "humanity is dumb and useless" phase of yours eventually.
Where'd this come from, user? I obviously don't think that, otherwise I wouldn't care about wasting resources on the 3rd world that could be put to better use for the people of the 1st world.

>Because that's not what being empathetic and social means, basically.
>"You have to like and be friendly with everyone or else you're a sociopoathic monster"
Whatever you say, hippy.

>Being a mere consumer that money moves through does not create value.

...So you actively don't understand the system you're claiming advocate. Okay then.

>Why do I have to pay for tendies mommy always brought them for free

>Thread on Veeky Forums turns into debate over the role of government
So anytime you guys want to get back to the actual thread...

It literally doesn't, and the fact that you've presumed me to be some consumerist hypercapitalist is insulting to the extreme.

Giving NEETs just enough money to not die while they do literally nothing else does not create value; at best, it doesn't destroy it either.

I can understand paying for a GM if you want a group of serious people tired of monkeyheaded players or GMs who fool around too much. So, you pay with the hope the pay gate will keep them out. Unfortunately you will get like-minded individuals, but also the shitters who are so bad "free" games won't take them.

Well, that's correct, a universal basic income also needs to include a basic amount of money for going out and engaging with the community or buying small amounts of luxuries, so that their expenditure can further stimulate the economy. Which, again, from the data available at least in my country, would add to growth and be more than worth it for everyone involved, even a higher rate of corporation tax being offset by more wealth in the population and faster growth.

What you advocate doesn't actually appear to be pragmatic capitalism which focuses on maximising growth and caring for the economy, you appear to be entirely concerned with punishing the poor, disabled or mentally ill for being born into their situation.

>Well, that's correct, a universal basic income also needs to include a basic amount of money for going out and engaging with the community or buying small amounts of luxuries, so that their expenditure can further stimulate the economy. Which, again, from the data available at least in my country, would add to growth and be more than worth it for everyone involved, even a higher rate of corporation tax being offset by more wealth in the population and faster growth.
Pure Keynesian trite! Literally taking money from the economy to give it to people who do nothing with it save for spending it and consuming goods and services is nothing more than breaking windows to support a window repair shop.

>What you advocate doesn't actually appear to be pragmatic capitalism which focuses on maximising growth and caring for the economy, you appear to be entirely concerned with punishing the poor, disabled or mentally ill for being born into their situation.
And what a future that would be, with no poor, disabled, and mentally ill. How wonderful a society where everyone contributes, and everyone is capable.

>Nobody has a right to exist for existence's sake
But that's literally the only reason anyone has to exist. I mean, it shouldn't be terribly controversial, but probably is, that there is no greater purpose behind existence. Insofar as it holds meaning, that meaning comes from fluffy and vague human emotions, including our species typical sense of empathy, which is precisely the thing that makes helping 3rd worlders seem worthwhile.

>And what a future that would be, with no poor, disabled, and mentally ill. How wonderful a society where everyone contributes, and everyone is capable.
You do realize that you can't actually get rid of poverty and mental illness by punsihing the poor or mentally ill, right, user? Or disabled, for that matter.

I could only see myself paying to play in a campaign if the GM is running the game full time, coordinating several dozen players all in a carefully intertwined, living, breathing world, taking care to make every player action impact the world in some small way.

>one cheapskate OP wants everything for free
>leads to socio-economic drivel about why the world is fucked to justify being a cheapskate
I mean, seems par for the course for here. Some people will take up any bullshit argument they can fabricate to justify being a shitty person.

If things keep going as they are over here, I think we'll be very happy to prove you wrong. To say nothing of how UBI will become a necessity with the rise of automation, since there's a real tipping point coming within the next hundred years where the majority of people will become unemployable through no fault of their own.

So you aren't a capitalist, you're a social eugenicist. You're even more despicable than expected.

Honestly, most real points related to the OP were made earlier. In a capitalist system, games are an industry and that drives growth and creates more, better products for people to enjoy. Even if you for some reason do not wish to support that, there are more free games out there than ever and it's trivial to find them, literally just a googlesearch away.

>OP: paying for things is stupid
>you: omg how did this become about government and economics

Does anyone else think that paying for movies is debasing and contemptible?

Paying to view a structured story is like paying to sing a song or paying to go to the bathroom. Watching is something humans have always done. What kind of man pays for that?

>There is no greater purpose behind existence
Nihilistic garbage.

True to an extent, but it can at least be minimized and marginalized as much as possible.

>To say nothing of how UBI will become a necessity with the rise of automation, since there's a real tipping point coming within the next hundred years where the majority of people will become unemployable through no fault of their own.
Then the population must either be reduced over time to minimize useless individuals, or all people must develop skills which cannot be replicated by automation. A society formed purely of academics and philosophers and artists sounds quite nice, don't you think?

>So you aren't a capitalist, you're a social eugenicist. You're even more despicable than expected.
Ah yes, wanting the children of tomorrow to be greater and more capable than the people of today, how despicable!
How dare I dream of a world where no one is born with mental illness, where everyone can provide and enjoy the fruits of civilization fairly.

It does sound nice. And you could achieve the exact same thing through taxing automation and using that money to support people, letting them be comfortable and stable, able to find their passions, drives and creative outlets that they'd never be able to fully explore due to the pressure of working life. Having even more people doing that sounds great.

Of course, your philosophy also eventually ends with the extinction of the human race, since the development of AI will render even those aspects of human beings obsolete. So, good future planning there.

Wanting a better future for humanity is admirable. Attempting to gain it through genocide makes you a monster.

Looping back around to Veeky Forums related stuff, this guys philosophy seems like it would make a pretty good villain for a modern era game.

>Nihilistic garbage.
Okay, user. Then tell me what's the magical source that goves life some greater meaning. I'm not particularly optimistic about your ability to come up with a convincing answer, though, considering that you don't even appear to know what nihilism means. Accepting that meaning for humans comes from humans rather than being something inherent to existence isn't a form of nihilism.

>True to an extent, but it can at least be minimized and marginalized as much as possible.
Nah. Mental illness will, if anything, be aggravated if the mentally ill are punished and denied proper support. With proper support, including financial support, a large portion of people with mental illness can recover enought to become the kind of people you'd consider "useful".

>Then the population must either be reduced over time to minimize useless individuals, or all people must develop skills which cannot be replicated by automation.
Why? How about offering some actual arguments for why the world should be the way you want it to be?

It really wouldn't.
It's a pretty lazy mishmash of villain cliches, most of which were tired decades ago.

>Being malthusian when you're a NEET

Eh, I think you could do something interesting with it. Really emphasise the twisted benevolence angle, the idea that they believe in sacrificing the people of today for the good of the people of tomorrow. Making them a true believer would also help, uncaring of whether they die in the attempt- If they do, then they just weren't good enough, and it's all still consistent with their philosophy. Making them a snivelling hypocrite would spoil it though.

...Although, thinking about it, the best version of this villain has basically already been done by Metal Gear Rising. Senator Armstrong.

>It does sound nice. And you could achieve the exact same thing through taxing automation and using that money to support people, letting them be comfortable and stable, able to find their passions, drives and creative outlets that they'd never be able to fully explore due to the pressure of working life. Having even more people doing that sounds great.
Why would previously useless individuals suddenly become useful if the pressure of survival and competition was taken way from them? All you'd succeed in doing is creating a passive consumer class; a cancerous tumor that is nothing more than an "ethical" money sink.

>Of course, your philosophy also eventually ends with the extinction of the human race, since the development of AI will render even those aspects of human beings obsolete. So, good future planning there.
If man can be replicated in plastic and metal, what use is there for the inferior flesh? The machines would be man, and would supplant him, just as modern man has supplanted his primitive ancestors. I can scarcely imagine how glorious a civilization of machine-men would be compared to our wildest perceptions of utopia.

>Wanting a better future for humanity is admirable. Attempting to gain it through genocide makes you a monster.
The surgeon who refuses to cut away a tumor because it is "part of the person" is only causing harm.

I'm saying it's nihilistic garbage because "we exist to exist" is a meaningless statement of meaning in the first place.

>Nah. Mental illness will, if anything, be aggravated if the mentally ill are punished and denied proper support. With proper support, including financial support, a large portion of people with mental illness can recover enought to become the kind of people you'd consider "useful".
Or they could just not breed.

>Why? How about offering some actual arguments for why the world should be the way you want it to be?
I said it above; it would result in a consumer class.

Wow, rude; you wound me, user.

>implying I'm a NEET

Because people who aren't stressed and overworked and forced to keep doing menial tasks to remain alive, or left in isolation due to social problems, often do manifest those talents? Look at the amazing things a lot of people do when they retire. That potential exists in all people, and all your philosophy does is squander it thoughtlessly.

I'm not talking about transhumanism. I'm talking about the creation of AI. It's very likely we'll create a conscious AI before we're capable of perfectly uploading a human brain, and at that point, by your own philosophy, why bother uplifting those useless humans? Why do they deserve being raised to the standard of the AI, when it could focus resources on enhancing itself instead?

A surgeon cuts away a tumour because it's inherently harmful to the host. You have absolutely no evidence that these people are harmful, just a toxic philosophy full of hate and bile.

All anons are NEETs, user

This is actually the exact kind of villain that is perfect for a game but falls flat in a movie

>Or they could just not breed.
You do realize that, while genes do affect individual suspectibility to various mental illnesses, basically no mental illness is entirely determined by genes? Even something like schizophrenia, which has a very strong genetic and developmental basis, generally requires some kind of an environmental stressor to trigger. Basically, a lot of people who are never mentally ill and who do contribute to the society by your standards are still suspectible to mental illness and will pass that tendency on to their offspring. Mental illnesses also aren't all that rare - a considerable portion of otherwise functional people have depression or even an isolated psychotic episode during their lives.

>I said it above; it would result in a consumer class.
This is a neutral statement, not an argument about the desirability of any particular state of affairs.

>Because people who aren't stressed and overworked and forced to keep doing menial tasks to remain alive, or left in isolation due to social problems, often do manifest those talents? Look at the amazing things a lot of people do when they retire. That potential exists in all people, and all your philosophy does is squander it thoughtlessly.
Survivorship bias; you assume that because some people show great talent during retirement, that all, or even just a majority of people, will also do so.

>That potential exists in all people, and all your philosophy does is squander it thoughtlessly.
And? Why not strive for a people that can also be useful while developing their talent? You're speaking in defense of mediocrity.

>I'm not talking about transhumanism. I'm talking about the creation of AI. It's very likely we'll create a conscious AI before we're capable of perfectly uploading a human brain, and at that point, by your own philosophy, why bother uplifting those useless humans? Why do they deserve being raised to the standard of the AI, when it could focus resources on enhancing itself instead?
A fair point, and you're right, the AI has no reason to do so except out of pure benevolence. However, two things:
Those creating the AI will hopefully not design it to be outright malignant, and it will potentially even be human-like.
Regardless, we're likely going to die anyways; immortality would be nice, but denied immortality doesn't change anything.

>A surgeon cuts away a tumour because it's inherently harmful to the host. You have absolutely no evidence that these people are harmful, just a toxic philosophy full of hate and bile.
They're certainly not beneficial, since they can be easily replaced with people who don't exhibit those flaws.

>You do realize that, while genes do affect individual suspectibility to various mental illnesses, basically no mental illness is entirely determined by genes? Even something like schizophrenia, which has a very strong genetic and developmental basis, generally requires some kind of an environmental stressor to trigger. Basically, a lot of people who are never mentally ill and who do contribute to the society by your standards are still suspectible to mental illness and will pass that tendency on to their offspring. Mental illnesses also aren't all that rare - a considerable portion of otherwise functional people have depression or even an isolated psychotic episode during their lives.
And, because of this, it's bad to do whatever possible to prevent the spread of genes that could result in mental illness? It's not about total prevention, it's about mitigation and minimization.

>a considerable portion of otherwise functional people have depression or even an isolated psychotic episode during their lives.
Probably because they're either poorfags, or their hard earned taxes are being wasted on poorfags.

>This is a neutral statement, not an argument about the desirability of any particular state of affairs.
It is a distinctly negative statement; consumption for its own sake is the philosophy of bacteria, of lesser life, of cancer.

So you don't really have an argument against it, So your own philosophy is based on a gamble, an assumption you've made that because of their situation those people have nothing to offer, rather than putting in the effort of elevating them and giving them the chance to prove you wrong. Despicable.

I'm speaking in defence of context and circumstance. You would execute people for the situation into which they were born, blindly wielding the axe rather than seeing the ways you might help them express that potential. It's not just abhorrent, it's wasteful.

An AI is informed by the situation that created it. An AI created with your philosophy would wipe out the human race. What does that say about your philosophy?

Do you really think the modern world couldn't exist without the poor? Our industries are utterly reliant on the poor people in the developing world working long hours of hard work for fuck all wages so we can enjoy cheap clothes are electronics. Calling those people a tumour isn't just stupid, it's downright insulting and really shows just how little you understand the world.

>Probably because they're either poorfags, or their hard earned taxes are being wasted on poorfags.
That is one hot opinion. I'm almost glad you're starting to openly argue from emotion and intuition instead of trying to hold up a thing facade of rationality.

meh-tier communism bait. i rate this thread 2 red stars.

Not the dude you've been arguing with but Denmark has been doing pretty good for itself, managing to abort something like 98% of their down syndrome babies. Are they monsters, user? Genuinely curious of your opinion on this.

That's a very different situation, but there are conditions so crippling that you can argue those with them aren't really functional human beings. Aborting them is likely more humane than letting them live and suffer, sad as that is. Although it's also far from an ideal solution. Hopefully gene editing will make that sort of thing unnecessary within the next few decades, letting us screen for those conditions and then cure them in the womb.

So provided some means comes to screen for defects you are in favor of mitigation? Gotcha. Was just wondering.

/thread
It's done, it's over what the fuck are you people doing. You can play the game without the materials, I haven't paid for anything game-related except for collectible stuff since PDFs became widespread.

>I'm speaking in defence of context and circumstance. You would execute people for the situation into which they were born, blindly wielding the axe rather than seeing the ways you might help them express that potential. It's not just abhorrent, it's wasteful.
Woah, woah, hey now, who said anything about execution? They're still people, I just don't want capital and goods to be wasted on them; let them survive by their bootstraps if they can, but there's no need to actively destroy them.

>rather than seeing the ways you might help them express that potential. It's not just abhorrent, it's wasteful.
What's the point, though? Other people born to replace them, and potentially more useful, would have the same likelihood to express the same potential.

>An AI created with your philosophy would wipe out the human race. What does that say about your philosophy?
That you don't understand it.

>Do you really think the modern world couldn't exist without the poor? Our industries are utterly reliant on the poor people in the developing world working long hours of hard work for fuck all wages so we can enjoy cheap clothes are electronics. Calling those people a tumour isn't just stupid, it's downright insulting and really shows just how little you understand the world.
>"yes, we NEED third worlders in near-slavery to support our society!"
What happened to all that talk of automation, user? What happened to all the factories and shops in the first world that used to make all those things? Cheap labor only hurts those providing the labor.

>user, do you think bathrooms are built for free? Someone pays for that stuff.
t.Loren Coleman