If you are going to defend someone you have no or very distant association with like you stated in another reply. Maybe just maybe read what everyone else is talking about, in this chain it would be his email exchange with epstein. Thanks for making ME read that pseudo intellectual shit again so YOU don't have to.
"too many people, so many mass executions of the elderly and infirm make sense is the fundamental fact that everyone dies at some time .make it imporrisbole to ask so why not earilier. if the brain discards unused neurons, why shold socieity keep their equivalent."
"too many people, so many mass executions of the elderly and infirm make sense is the fundamental fact that everyone dies at some time .make it imporrisbole to ask so why not earilier. if the brain discards unused neurons, why shold socieity keep their equivalent
The radical idea of treating individuals in a society as cells and the society itself as a well-organized organism is fascism, or course. Probably the most efficient and rationally stringent way of governance, if someone could pull it off in a sustainable way; and if it is aggressive and expansive, its efficiency makes it a virus that everybody will want to stomp out. Fascism makes romantic doo-gooders like me very uncomfortable"
He dares to explore radical taboo ideas and concludes that it would be fascism, which he is not comfortable with.
So .. I see nothing where he is intolerant of anything. But you seem not tolerant for people daring to explore certain thoughts in general? Even if they reach the conclusion this is not the way to go.
(And maybe even an attempt at dissuading the other person of those concepts)
How billions dieng to famine would be a good thing or culling the elderly and infirm?
Don't even know why I bother answering.