Table of contents
Abortion
The 3 rights I’ve discovered(with some definitions).
Definitions:
Normie Position (NP): A position you would be an idiot if you did not agree with and the vast majority of people strongly agree with. Some examples of NPs: Murder should be illegal, rape should be illegal, theft should be illegal. Saying “abortion should be legal for rape victims” is close to the normie position, but about 15% of the US population disagrees with this, so it’s not quite there.
Biting the bullet (BTB): The opposite position of the Normie position. Defending rape or murder would be an example of BTB.
Right to Fiscal Autonomy (RTFA): The right to not have to subsidize other entities. An example when the NP is pro RTFA: Theft should be illegal and every normal person agrees with this. Note, few believe in this right absolutely (like taxation), but everyone supports the right to fiscal autonomy to some extent; otherwise people would be okay with theft (not taxation; but theft (if you believe there is a difference)). You should not be forced to subsidize a thief because you have a right to fiscal autonomy to at least some extent.
Right to Bodily Autonomy (RTBA): The right to not do anything with your body that makes you feel uncomfortable. An example when the NP is pro RTBA: Rape should be illegal and every normal person agrees with this.
Right to life (RTL): The right to not be killed by homicide, starvation, or any other cause of death. An example when the NP is pro RTL: Homicide should be illegal and every normal person agrees with this.
What do I think about this
The transitive property states that if P_0=P_1, P_1=P_2, … , P_269=P_270, P_270=I_0, then P_0=I_0.
P_0= A pregnancy at conception, P_1= A 1 day old pregnancy, etc. I_0=Newborn Infant.
Therefore, a zygote should get treated like an infant unless the equation is wrong.
However, let's say a zygote IS a human being
If a zygote is treated as a human being, then that would mean I could legally agree with a wife to make 100 zygotes, store them in a freezer, and get tax credits for 100 kids as if I had 100 kids.
However, I did some research. Here are the terms for collecting a child tax credit:
“The credit is worth up to $2,000 per child, and it can help reduce your tax bill.
To claim the credit, your child must be under the age of 17 (or 24 if they are a full-time student) and must live with you for at least half of the year.”(How Much is the Child Tax Credit for 2023, 2024? (filemytaxesonline.org)). A zygote in a hospital freezer wouldn’t be living with either parent, so they are disqualified from tax credits. Home freezers probably aren’t good enough to keep zygotes alive.
Burning building argument
The argument that if you are in a burning building and you had to pick between saving an infant and 1000 zygotes, it’s BTB to pick the 1000 zygotes.
This I agree with. However, this is only because the zygotes won’t develop into anybody else unless a woman gets pregnant with one of these zygotes.
If the situation was, “Assuming artificial wombs get to the capability where they can bring even a zygote to term cost free, would you rather save 1000 of these zygotes or one infant.”, I would pick the 1000 zygotes. If you told me to pick between saving 1001 non pregnant women or 1000 pregnant women, I would pick the 1000 pregnant women.
Just as if I were to say, “Would you rather save two 5 year olds that you know are going to die on one month or one 5 year old that you know will live to be 95.”, then pretty much everyone would pick the ladder.
The fear that you would have to ban surrogacy if a zygote is a human being
Surrogacy is already banned in many states (including many states with left wing abortion policies), so it’s a position many people already have:
Cite that claims a zygote is a human being
The dualistic origin of human tumors - PMC (nih.gov)
“Life starts with a zygote, which is formed by the fusion of a haploid sperm and egg.”
“The human life cycle, from zygote to adult organism”. If it was believed that a human life starts at any other point (10 weeks into pregnancy as an example), the quote would say, “The human life cycle, from 10 weeks into pregnancy to adult organism”
So a zygote is a human being.
“But bodily autonomy of the woman” you may say.
I address this claim later in this section of the presentation.
The 3 rights I’ve discovered(with some definitions).
Definitions:
Normie Position (NP): A position you would be an idiot if you did not agree with and the vast majority of people strongly agree with. Some examples of NPs: Murder should be illegal, rape should be illegal, theft should be illegal. Saying “abortion should be legal for rape victims” is close to the normie position, but about 15% of the US population disagrees with this, so it’s not quite there.
Biting the bullet (BTB): The opposite position of the Normie position. Defending rape or murder would be an example of BTB.
Right to Fiscal Autonomy (RTFA): The right to not have to subsidize other entities. An example when the NP is pro RTFA: Theft should be illegal and every normal person agrees with this. Note, few believe in this right absolutely (like taxation), but everyone supports the right to fiscal autonomy to some extent; otherwise people would be okay with theft (not taxation; but theft (if you believe there is a difference)). You should not be forced to subsidize a thief because you have a right to fiscal autonomy to at least some extent.
Right to Bodily Autonomy (RTBA): The right to not do anything with your body that makes you feel uncomfortable. An example when the NP is pro RTBA: Rape should be illegal and every normal person agrees with this.
Right to life (RTL): The right to not be killed by homicide, starvation, or any other cause of death. An example when the NP is pro RTL: Homicide should be illegal and every normal person agrees with this.
The conflict in American society is when these 2 rights are at odds with one another. In the situation of abortion, it’s RTBA vs RTL. A normie could back either one of these positions, but neither abortion position is THE NP; they both are merely A NP.
What I’ve discovered (after thinking about abortion a lot).
So by the transitive property, since RTFA>RTBA and RTL>RTFA, this means when it comes to the parental obligations for the children they chose to create, RTL>RTBA, which justifies an abortion ban whenever a pregnancy contains a human being.
Now onto what the snowflakes would say, (Not every left winger or pro choice person is a snowflake, but there are those that are).
“People who can’t get pregnant should stay out of the abortion debate because they don’t know what it’s like to be pregnant and have trauma from pregnancy. So we should legalize abortion up until the moment of birth”(what you would logically believe if you were a RTBA absolutist even in the context of what parents need to do for their children).
If you were logically consistent, you would also believe:
“People who aren’t tobacco addicts should stay out of the stealing for drugs debate because they don’t know what it’s like to be a tobacco addict and endure all that trauma from not getting their fix and suffering from withdrawal. So we should legalize stealing for drugs(what you would logically believe if you were a RTBA absolutist even in the context of what parents need to do for their children)”.
If the 2nd argument doesn’t make sense, neither does the first.
The kidney argument (or anything similar enough, like the corpse argument)
The belief that RTBA>RTL when it comes to the obligation for a parent to donate a kidney to their child/the belief that forced organ donation is bad. The NP agrees with you on this.
So there are 3 BTB claims and your going to have to pick one of them. They are:
I think (and I think this is the NP), the least bad bullet to bite is #1. Pretty much any parent would willingly give their child a kidney to survive and only 1% of organ donors even donate organs (because they have to die in very ideal conditions for their organs to be useful).
“Banning abortion will lead to kids being messed up in the foster system”
You can’t murder someone for suffering without their consent no matter how intense the suffering. Otherwise this justifies murdering homeless people (which I don’t agree with and I think is the NP on this issue).
“Every pregnancy is a threat to the mother’s life”
Consider the following situation:
Kids are gross; everyone knows this. Babysitters are exposed to so many germs from kids that can get them killed (even if the chance is very small). Does this justify their right to kill the kids they are babysitting?
If the woman didn’t want to take the chance, then she shouldn’t babysit
Using this logic
If a woman doesn’t want a pregnancy, then she should make sure her boyfriend has a functioning vasectomy with pre vasectomy sperm stored in a hospital freezer before they have sex.
Penalty for abortion
It is totally unrealistic to treat abortion as murder and punish it with the death penalty or life imprisonment. A better penalty would be community service performed after your job (performed by both parents of the aborted baby). It’s all that is plausible given how common abortion is and the fact that bodily autonomy should be considered (otherwise, the penalty would have to be the death penalty).
This punishment factors in bodily autonomy as well as the need to prosecute for unborn homicide.
“Pro life men should get a vasectomy and endure multiple sperm tests before they have sex” you may say
This may come as a surprise; but I 100% agree with that, assuming enough sperm samples can be collected to have as many kids as you could realistically want, assuming that the sperm can be frozen in a way that doesn’t cause them to die, assuming that the hospital’s freezer doesn’t break down. They are risks, but small risks.
I think it makes more sense to give every 15 year old guy a vasectomy at the doctor’s office, collect whatever sperm samples he might need, and have him have a 100% chance of enduring 3 days or so of testicular pain over the ⅓ chance that a female ends up with an unwanted pregnancy that produces 9 months of pain and often 18 years of raising an unplanned kid, either by herself or with a boyfriend that she never intended to be her husband, but now has no choice really and has to stick with the guy or become a single mother.
I will not have sex until I get a vasectomy, and I would like it if a bunch of females called themselves, “VASCOWs” (VAsectomy and STI Clean Only Women) to put more pressure on guys to prove they have vasectomies and are STI free before they end up having sex. The guy also has an incentive to agree to this because if he gets a vasectomy, yeah; he’s in 3 days of pain and he has to do some sperm tests, but after that, he can have unprotected sex much more freely and not worry about getting the girl pregnant or catching any STIs. The male equivalent would be VASCOM.
I think a vasectomy before sex, enforced by VASCOWs is a silver bullet; it addresses the fear of maternal pain from unwanted pregnency while ALSO preventing the homicide of the unborn.
Trans links
Key:
Rating: 0- Satire. 1- Fox News/CNN and similar. 2-Center mainstream media. 3- Non partisan and a little reliable, but not .edu/.cdc/.gov. Ex: Scientific American 4- .edu/.cdc/.gov
Definitions for a woman and why I don’t believe them
The only definition I think makes sense:
If you have more female points than male points, your a woman. Point combinations are below:
Government reform
Primaries should be abolished and every politician should run in one big general election. It should be just one general election with up to 10 candidates (but the aim would be to gradually let more into the race) and people rank the candidates with a Rank choice voting method.
You may be thinking, “How can I pick between 10 candidates?” That’s because your not thinking about who the 10 candidates are. A sample list of who may run in 2024 are the following:
With knowing who the candidates are and a rough idea of how even some republicans, democrats, and libertarians are different from one another, it becomes a lot easier to rank the candidates ideologically by your preference.
All voting would take place online so big lines don’t build up when voting. Voting day is July 4 instead of November 8 for president; August 4 would be for governor races, September 4 for Federal House of Representatives, October 4 for State House of Representatives, November 4 for Mayors, and December 4 for City Council people. There is no senate; as in the federal government, the senate represents all states equally, even if one state has 100x the population of another, and at the state level, the senate is basically the house but for bigger areas.
Every candidate would be required to have a list of policy positions they would fight for that encompass all of the following beliefs:
Rules for what would classify as the top beliefs for Americans
2. The belief must be framed in a way that someone looking at the belief can’t tell if it’s a right wing or left wing belief. An example, let’s say abortion is your top belief and you say your top belief is, “Reproductive rights” or, “The right to life”. Neither one of these would be accepted because politicians can tell where people stand who say their top belief is either of these. You would have to say your top belief is “Abortion” so politicians know that abortion is a big issue for a lot of people if abortion gets into the top 7, so it encourages them to be more honest with their position. If your pro choice and abortion is your #1 issue, you wouldn’t want “Reproductive rights” being in the top 7 because if it is, politicians are possibly going to make their abortion talking points more pro choice than they really are (the same is true if you have, “Protecting the right to life” as your top issue and it makes it into the top 7) to try and win your vote even though they might not agree with that. As a voter, you want your politicians to be as honest with their policies as possible so you can make the most informed call when you vote. Pew research and other polling organizations should be banned from polling people because it would influence the talking points of politicians even if the politicians don’t follow through with their talking points. They should run on their honest opinions and if their positions are popular enough, they win and should enact those positions to the best of their ability. If not, the country gets someone better by the standards of the American people.
Every 4 years right after an election, the top issues for people are cleared and will be cleared for 2.5 years and you can’t put in your top issues for this 2.5 years; after which, you can put in your top issues (because they can change a lot; in 2020, COVID was easily in the top 7 for most people, now it’s probably not). People would be allowed to rank their top issues for a year. After that, they still can put their top issues in and make changes, but at this point, politicians will use whatever the results were at year 3.5 to figure out what big issues are important to Americans. There would be seperate pages for their issues for seperate elections
People would be encouraged, but not obligated to rank out all their candidates because if they just have Candidate A as their #1 and no other candidate and they get eliminated because of Rank Choice Voting, it would be like if they didn’t vote.
It would be a requirement that all votes they do must be correct and the justification must be unique. An example of an incorrect vote would be if someone’s first option was RFK because RFK supports vaccine mandates. It’s incorrect because RFK does not support vaccine mandates.
The justification for voting for someone must also be unique. An example is if you say your 1st option is RFK and your 2nd option is Ron DeSantis and your only reason is that they both oppose vaccine mandates; what separates RFK from DeSantis beyond that that made RFK #1 and DeSantis #2? Why wouldn’t DeSantis be your #1 option instead? The answer can be as simple as, “I flipped a coin before I came here; heads was DeSantis, tails was RFK and I got tails” (I say this because there are other voters in the US that would do the same thing and get DeSantis, so I don’t think this will impact election results significantly since picking a candidate based on a coin flip is so rare and probably millions of people would be in a situation where they are flipping coins to determine a tie-breaker, so percentages won’t be impacted much), but give a rationale for it.
If someone gives a vote that violates either one of these attributes, the website would tell them what they need to fix and they would fix it to get their vote approved. If both these criteria are met, then a screen would say, “your vote is counted”.
Electoral college
The electoral college should be abolished because it should be whoever gets the most votes win. Republicans are worried that this would produce consistent democrat victories (if the GOP won the popular vote every time they won the electoral college, they probably would agree with getting rid of the electoral college), but there are no more parties anymore at the presidential level. Federal districts that would pick representatives should be drawn based on population, even if that means the same district would be in 2 states; it’s not an issue where at the state level, a district may be in multiple counties, so it can work similarly at the federal level.
Politicians who run in an election should be banned from publicly endorsing someone else
This is because political parties should not exist. Let’s say Abbott runs for president in 2028 and Trump endorses him. That basically would have created the Trump party; whoever runs in 2032 that Abbott endorses would be a continuation of that. If you want to privately vote for someone, fine. But a politician making their endorsement public creates a party, and parties promote group think which is bad for this country.
Like let’s say there is a candidate that is super pro choice and that’s their #1 issue. They should run for president as an independent while talking about pro choice talking points. You think they could run as a democrat, but maybe they also don’t like Affirmative Action and that’s their #2 issue. That person (assuming these were in the nation’s top 7 issues) would have on their section that they are pro choice and anti Affirmative Action.
Additional voting rules
Anyone who passes the Citizenship test should be allowed to vote under the condition that since the last election 4 years ago, they have lived in the US at least 2 of those years (I don’t think someone that passes the citizenship test and then lives in France for 4 straight years should get voting rights in that election). This ALSO includes children. However, the number of votes you get is equal to the number of days you’ve been alive (because more experience means your more likely to make a good vote). So elderly people would have way more voting power than children, but eventually children will get more voting power as they age.
Who I would vote for (rank choice)
The US debt
Biden and Obama got us deeper in debt
When I say that, it is not saying that the Republicans and Trump have been good for the US debt either. I am endorsing neither democrats nor republicans on this issue; they are all part of the swamp.
Both the democratic and republican administrations have gotten us deeper into debt. We need someone from either party that would get us out of debt. I’m not even talking about balancing the budget (which just means we don’t get deeper into debt) or reducing the deficit (which means the debt still grows, but at a slower rate). The entire US debt needs to be paid off 100% and neither party has gotten us close to that goal.
My plan to pay off the entire US debt
Summary to Operation Get out of debt
Here is a more detailed plan of the plan version 2073:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13C09M6rSyjeQKNWXh_hG-9MreNwat2vEZVfO4E1zZKY/edit
Here is a plan for the current year:
Operation Get Out Of Debt - Google Sheets
People no cap have argued that the US debt is a good thing even if there is no plan to pay it off (which somehow is not BTB)
If they really believed this, would they support Abolishing all federal taxation, Doubling federal spending, and funding this by going deeper into debt? The NP(normie position).
Since I have not discovered a better plan to pay off the US debt, it makes sense my plan is the one you should use.
Citizens United
Citizens United argued money equals speech. In practice, it’s led to ordinary people who make $60,000 a year and not having much excess money donating maybe $3 to a candidate they like. Let’s say there are 100,000 of these people all donating $3 to a candidate, so that candidate has $300,000 worth of advertising money. Now let’s say a billionaire really likes a candidate and donates $1 million to that candidate. Let’s say these candidates were equally valid and have an equal chance of winning if their donations are the same, but since the candidate endorsed by a billionaire has more money, they win the election over someone that had way more donations (just from regular people). To me, it sounds like the billionaire’s free speech drowned out everyone else’s free speech. So I think nobody should be allowed to donate more than $200 to any candidate during a presidential election.
Campaigns should be funded consistently with democracy dollars; every 1 month, people can send a $3 voucher for any politician they want (or a combination going to various politicians) if they change preferences by the end of the month, when the next month comes, they can change who gets their donation. This should be the only legal source of funding, and not from corporations or PACs
Campaigns should be funded consistently with democracy dollars; every 1 month, people can send a $3 voucher for any politician they want (or a combination going to various politicians) if they change preferences by the end of the month, when the next month comes, they can change who gets their donation. This should be the only legal source of funding, and not from corporations or PACs; only people that can vote would get the voucher.
Death penalty
The crimes of murder, rape, arson, human trafficking (slavery), and kidnapping all should get the death penalty simply because taxpayers should not be forced to take care of the worst people in our society. Teachers deserve taxpayer funding because without them, students are dumb. Police officers deserve taxpayer funding because without them, our streets are less safe. Janitors deserve taxpayer funding because without them, our schools are filthy.
The only people who should get money given to them by the state are those that make society better. Murderers, rapists, arsonists, human traffickers, and kidnappers make society significantly worse, so tax dollars should not be going to help them survive. These crimes are also so bad that alternative punishments (lashings, community service, fines) I just don’t think are good enough to deal with these serious crimes. So I only think the appropriate penalty for these crimes should be death.
“But what about the fear of killing someone falsely convicted?” you may ask.
Consider the following scenario: If you ask the typical person in this country whether or not they are willing to spend $1/day sponsoring the life of a starving child or else that child dies, most people would say, “Hell no! I’m not raising someone else’s kid!”.
This sets a precedent. If the typical person is unwilling to spend $1/day on the life of a child that never committed any serious crime because the kid is not biologically theirs (when we know the child is innocent), then how does society justify paying $25.2 billion a year taking care of convicted murderers and rapists that are not biologically theirs (when 100% of them are at least believed to be guilty, so nobody knows they are innocent, and 96% of them ACTUALLY committed one of the worst crimes in our legal system)? And when you think of the other ways that money can be spent (like giving the 3.2 million public school teachers and janitors in this country a $7700 a year raise instead of taking care of around 300,000 murderers and rapists and that $7700 a year raise would go to benefit tens of millions of kids every year with better teachers and cleaner schools).
Because of this, it makes more sense to kill convicted murderers and rapists (and the other crimes that I called for executing criminals over).
How to eliminate school shootings in the United States without treading on the right to bear arms
Definitions
The plan
At every school, at every entrance, during the Morning Wave and the afternoon Exodus, school security makes sure everybody entering the school is a student or teacher (teachers show proof they are a teacher with a card or a phone picture of their card). Anyone that isn’t a student or school employee gets rejected.
Anytime in between, anybody that enters has to go through an airport security style room where all their bags and clothes get checked for any guns (and knives).
This can ALL be achieved without any statewide ban on AR 15s, and it honestly makes the AR 15 ban pointless if eliminating school shootings is the goal.
Category/Country | Saudi Arabia(not white) | United Kingdom(white) |
Population | 36.41 million | 66.97 million |
Punishment for theft | Hands get chopped off | .5 to 7 years in jail(where the taxpayer (aka YOU) take care of the thief). |
Thefts per decade (on average) | 2 | 200,000 |
Lets just say, I have tremendous respect for non white countries. I welcome the perspectives of people from non white countries; 100%; including the following perspective. We need more thoughts from non-white countries ran by non-white people in the US. Diversity is a strength, and a time when we should copy non-white people is below:
Healthcare plan
Different types of healthcare
Every American citizen should pay for their own checkups with no price ceiling and 100% price transparency.
Vaccinations should be unconditionally government paid for.
Something that doesn’t make sense
Amazon makes too much money from profit. They can still function though if they cut spending that goes to Amazon employees.
Isn’t that “Amazon spending” going to benefit you?
Oh, it does. But I want other amazon employees to get fired or get a pay cut so Amazon fees can be reduced. Just not me personally.
…
This doesn’t make sense, does it? That’s what I think about the following situation:
Teacher
Government employed doctor who gives free healthcare to the poor.
The government makes too much money from taxes. They can still function though if they cut spending that goes to government employees.
Isn’t that “Government spending” going to benefit you?
Teacher
Government employed doctor who gives free healthcare to the poor.
Oh, it does. But I want other government employees to get fired or get a pay cut so government spending can be reduced. Just not me personally.
If you are a government employee, it goes against your interests to support cutting government spending because government spending creates your job!