latest

Nazi Germany serves as a benchmark of evil, but I think American women are worse. In Nazi Germany, the Nazis had to pick particularly sadistic members of society to operate the concentration camps. The only crime of the average German was to look the other way. If the average German had been forced to see the suffering of the Jews in the concentration camps, they probably would have had second thoughts. Compare this to American women. The average American woman not only tolerates the suffering of single men, but actively contributes to it with their provocative dress. If confronted by the suffering of single men caused by sexual deprivation, the likely reaction of American women would be to giggle. In Nazi Germany, most Germans were not active in torturing people, but in Feminazi America, most women are active in torturing men. I do not think such women deserve any sympathy if they are raped, any more than Nazis convicted of war crimes deserve sympathy if they were punished.

The rape of most American women is justified because there is no other legal means for many men to get sex in America. This is similar to the reason that I feel Robin Hood was justified in stealing from the rich. In England at the time, there was no social mobility, and the poor had no other way of getting enough money other than to steal. What is normally a crime becomes justified when alternative means of meeting a person's basic needs are denied.

But saying rape is justified is a weaker statement than saying American women deserve to be raped, so let me explain this. Is a starving person justified in stealing from a rich person? I think so. Does the rich person deserve to be stolen from? Not if the starving person's condition isn't the rich person's fault. In fact, in this case, the rich person would be justified in defending his property from the starving person. Here we have two people in conflict, each of whom is justified in his actions, and neither of whom deserves this conflict. But now let's look at the case where the starving person is starving because of actions by the rich person. In this case, not only is the starving person justified in stealing from the rich person, but the rich person deserves to be stolen from. This is why Robin Hood is remembered as a hero, because not only did he provide for the poor who were in need, but he also stole from the rich who were the cause of the poor people's poverty, and therefore who deserved to be stolen from.

My argument regarding rape is the same, just applied to sex as opposed to wealth. An American woman who dresses provocatively and opposes legal prostitution is a cause of sexual starvation among single men in America, and therefore, not only is her rape justified, but she deserves to be raped.

Should handicapped people be aborted and or euthanized?

The answer is, undeniably: Yes.

They should be.

Now, allow me to explain.

People, regardless of gender, who are born with either a mental disability or a physical disability, that is of such a degree it has been socially proven to hinder normal common functions, should not be allowed to suffer through a life of misery at the hands of care-takers and or sitters.

Not only is someone who is mentally handicapped or physically handicapped a drain to society, to tax-payers, and to their own family members and “friends” who are forced to care for them each day, but they, themselves, will suffer a lifetime of meaninglessness and agony.

This has to end.

The simple solutions for this would be to:

A) Test for hindering disabilities, and upon finding one, have the child aborted at the mother’s permission (which should be greatly encouraged or even lawfully mandated).
B) Have any child who manages to be born in a way that evades abortion euthanized as soon as possible, in order to keep them from straining not only society, but their own family as well.

Men should take no roll in this decision. And, they should have no interaction with the process of aborting or euthanizing the handicapped child; for multiple reasons:

A man performing an abortion of this sort, which slightly reflects a Spartan-esque ideology, would be doing nothing more than posturing and inflating their masculinity, as they are then, by extension, the official executioner of a life which they did not birth, and physically cannot birth.

Only women should be the official “executioners” or “doctors” who perform these ceremonial procedures, because, if a woman were to do it, it would be an act of kindness by the very inherent nature of that which is female. They would be, essentially, putting a life out of its misery so that it did not have to suffer. Unlike a man, who would only be asserting his dominance over said life, which he cannot ever even hope to produce; due to lacking the necessary genetic components for giving birth.

If a male or a female is found, in the womb, to be disabled, or are able to be born with a disability, which would, in the future of their life, cause an economic, mental and physical strain on their family, and even society as a whole, they should be aborted or euthanized.

That is my verdict on this important issue.

Thank you for your consideration!