Sociopath Community

He's not making an anti abortion argument.

He's making an anti choice  argument.

As in: the state should decide whether each individual fetus is to live or die, based on genetic testing for w/e attributes the state deems 'better.'

business idea: if we somehow monetise abortion (stemcells from foetuses?) then we incentivise lower class people to do them + more people will be fucking, which will increase oxytocin and make the world a better place as a whole. the latter is more of a hyperthetical but I'd like to hear your thoughts on a lucrative abortion industry

that was supposed to be hypothetical but i am on phone and no longer wish to soil my post with the ugly orange edited message thing

AppleGenius said: 

As such, I surmise that letting breeding run rampant will destroy our planet and our people, both at a small and large scale, and that Humanity as a species rather than as the Hallmarks of individual idiocy ought to be steered harder by people who know what they're doing, rather than having people with genetic issue be pushing that onto the next generation just so that they can enjoy their own lives selfishly.

If you don't want breeding to run rampant, then aren't you pro-choice? 

Xena said: 

He's not making an anti abortion argument.

He's making an anti choice  argument.

Bingo, from the basis of opposing the initial premise:

The Premise:

Turncoat said: 

For the sake of this debate, what position are you tackling Pro-Choice from? 

AppleGenius said: 

The perspective of choice. Im not going to say a fetus is not a human or that killing a fetus isnt killing a person. 

Xena said:

As in: the state should decide whether each individual fetus is to live or die, based on genetic testing for w/e attributes the state deems 'better.'

Indeed. 

Rather than make the argument that all life is sacred, the argument of overabundance being handled through forced sterilization too is an Anti-Choice argument. 

@AppleGenius: If going about this from within the framework of Anti-Abortion movements otherwise gives me too much of an advantage over how broad it is as a countermovement over it's legality, I guess I could try arguing within the handicap of a "Right to Life" foundation instead. If it's for the sake of argument though there's otherwise a lot to work with here that opposes the premise of "Pro-Choice", but if not just let me know. 

Disclaimer: This post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of Turncoat nor the Sociopath Community administration.

AppleGenius said: 

I mean if people can have the option to abort making babies, then aren't we getting less breeding?

We've seen what happens when a nation tries a One-Child Policy; Flooded adoption programs and gender favoritism that ultimately set their society back rather than fixing their population problems. It simply offset the balance by leaving the choice in their hands when they could have taken it a step further to otherwise truly fix the problem. 

We've seen time and time again that people cannot be trusted to keep it in their pants, even with the presence of birth control, condoms, vasectomies, you name it, as a bandage for a problem that, frankly, needs surgical attention. Keeping them alive also fills our adoption agencies with the damages of foster children who are at high risk of dragging society down, likely spawned by druggies or other life failures that then become someone else's burden to raise. How can we expect our nation, any nation, to become better if the childhoods of the lower to middle income bracket continue to drag all but those too big to fail down? Even for the miraculous exception where someone's adopted and all went well, it doesn't address the surplus, the overall larger issue that even extends to the everyman through their taxes. 

Imagine for a moment, a program similar to semen collection and egg implantation as we already know it, but handled on the government dime with the hopes of a better, brighter tomorrow, one where every person is born into a pre-designated role, a caste system of sorts based on their genetic advantages rather than the failure we continue to see from a surplus of people in conjunction with filtering out the majority of people over their apparent uselessness. If it turns out their parents are only fit as breeding stock and not as mentors, they could be adopted by people who are proven fit, maybe even licensed, to raise a child. From this we'd have a generation of best and brightest who need not sink into Nihilism in favor of feeding the societal construct in a way that leaves those deemed fit to exist much happier than we otherwise are now. 

In short, why should we have an abundance of physically and mentally sick people who need to suckle on the teet of Big Pharma holding back our potential, accruing more debt, and otherwise piling risk towards those with ideal genetics that could stop them from proliferating as Darwin intended? Do you see an importance in every man, woman, and child for some reason? Isn't that unrealistic, especially when we're constantly shown examples of people failing way more often than their success? Our necessity for this many people becomes outdated by the year over having their menial jobs easily replaced by machines, and beyond that the number of people you need to maintain store fronts is otherwise proportional towards one's population rather than being a hard numbers requirement. 

Success need not just be for the exceptional, the lucky, or the exceptionally lucky, but rather for every man, woman, and child who is deemed worthy of the next generation by more than merely one's supposed right to exist. We not only would stop the chaos we call "choice" that's ruining us time and time again, we'd root out the undesireable traits that hold us back through gouging our taxes and distracting our scientists towards waste-of-time cures for problems we could simply eradicate. We'd even have an easier time with essential needs like producing enough food to live, rather than ruining our planet and subjecting people to needless levels of toil to compensate over it, and we could scale back our reliance on factory farming and sweat shop production from having less of a need for things in abundance (it'd even scale down Supermarket waste production, a pretty serious problem here in the states). 

Why subjugate the majority to a purposeless existence when they could simply never exist in the first place? Do you think non-existence hurts or something? The sacrifice would only need to be done once, then it just becomes a matter of upkeep. 

Wow, I never knew you had such horrible views Turncoat.

Disclaimer: This post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of Turncoat nor the Sociopath Community administration.

If you want to take this a step further, as a point of reference in modern cartoons I'd like it if you watched Rick and Morty's ninth episode of their fourth season titled Childrick of Mort (it's wiki page) as a comparative reference. If you need help finding it I can likely PM you directions for being able to see it. 

Once you're done with it (if you bother), I want you to imagine the same challenge that Rick and Beth were stuck facing... but with the majority of your people being closer to Jerry's subjects, the "Unproductives". 

What is the point of living an unproductive existence when the burden of it simply never has to be? Quality of life ought to be more paramount than making Humanity into a bigger mound, and the only mistake made by Beth and Rick's society that otherwise left it untenable was over allowing the Unproductives to exist at all. 

Disclaimer: This post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of Turncoat nor the Sociopath Community administration.

Ah ok, I never thought you'd come up with an argument like that, which is why I was confused at first. I never imagined you would sidestep the life vs death argument, that never even crossed my mind.

I think I understand. You are arguing that if the government is in charge of abortions, then it will be beneficial to the society, because we could choose to have only productive individuals and abort the ones determined to be likely failures. So you're advocating for something similar to the Rick&Beth system in that episode where they get rid of the failures and only keep the successful workers (but now people are weeded out through abortions).

However, in that case you are killing the person and you are immoral. In fact, you are advocating for genocide. A fetus is a human being with a unique life of their own. By forcing women to abort, you are effectively killing another person.

Therefore, unless you want to advocate genocide, I think you should change your mind.

I also have other issues with some of the things you said (not all, I agree with some of it), but let me see what you think of the above first.

AppleGenius said: 

However, in that case you are killing the person and you are immoral. In fact, you are advocating for genocide. A fetus is a human being with a unique life of their own. By forcing women to abort, you are effectively killing another person.

Therefore, unless you want to advocate genocide, I think you should change your mind.

Fetuses die either way, the only difference that remains here is over how it's handled.

For those alive who don't otherwise serve a purpose towards our future beyond being a cash crop for the 1%, we could just let them live out the rest of their lives otherwise sterilized. If their means of reproduction is itself taken from them through mandatory vasectomy programs or drugging their tap water, they can still have all the sex they want as slaves to the pleasure principle until the day they die. Even without a physical mate the advancement of Teledildonics, Virtual Reality, and other sexual business ventures could make this transition into a surprisingly smooth one. We already see Japan trivializing the love and sex paths in the name of convenience, it's even memed about cross-culturally through Waifu references, which paired with how Hentai can condition people away from real life people is proof of concept that people don't necessarily need to live out procreative aims to otherwise be happy. Hell, even the modern developments of the LGBTQ+ prove that procreation and family rearing can be whatever society conditions us towards accepting. 

Coupling this with the right propaganda alongside normalizing the aforementioned rhetoric, we could end up with a "prevention is the best cure" sort of mentality. Much like we see from the more self awarely mentally ill and those disillusioned by the state of modern society for one of it's many reasons, people can elect to not spread their traits towards the next generation while otherwise living out the rest of their lives as relics of a former time. They need not an hero for the cause, they just need to help in maintaining it as it transitions towards it's ideal state from the decay that it once was. With sites like Chatturbate and PorhHub in the wake of modern introversion, people may end up not even missing "the chase" so to speak. 

Feasibly, people could be seen for their genetic advantages over others during early schooling. Based on this period of their lives they could sterilize the children in secret while otherwise spreading non-physical sex practices like we've seen from movies like Barbarella, then have everyone send in their eggs and semen from convenient tax-supported home kits to labs at key points in their lives while otherwise only fertilizing the ones that passed the tests (allowing for the citizens to not have to know if their traits were or were not deemed inferior for the sake of morale). We could even forcibly consider the use of chastity cages for the sake of maintaining order. 

The key to fixing this problem is to address people's entitlement towards the production of life. The very same propaganda machine that tells people to seek love could be reworked to otherwise discuss utopian principles. If they see the state of society as not worth putting life into beyond those who have the proven Messiah stats to potentially fix it through being passively fed dystopian media, they're bound to take up more of a problem solving attitude as the expectation of a shitty tomorrow becomes a normalized expectation, and if not, convince them to take up vices until the problem phases out naturally. The entire population need not be treated equally when it comes to one's capability as breeding stock, but rather more like how horses are bred. We've shown our ability to do this towards the animal kingdom and even our own food, so why not people? 

People already "let scientists do the work" for most things in life, why not take this idea towards designer babies being raised in ideal settings? 

Disclaimer: This post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of Turncoat nor the Sociopath Community administration.

Okay, so no abortion, but only forced sterlization and chastity cages.

Basically, you're advocating for a dystopian society that sterilizes people based on faulty genes. By doing so, we block those genes from propagating. In return, this would then boost the overall welfare of people and technology, bringing about a utopia of perfect people living in harmony. 

I actually don't take that much issue with a dystopia like that. I imagine it would be mostly the people whose genes can't propagate who would take issue with it.

However, why not have the same utopia come about naturally without the sterilization being forced? You even say that we could easily convince people of the benefits in such a way that they would come to accept it.

AppleGenius said: 

Okay, so no abortion, but only forced sterlization and chastity cages.

Don't forget the propaganda programs, many of which could easily be modeled off of existing ideas. 

Abortion ideally would never need to be discussed again, but for emergency cases it could be administered by a licensed government official who otherwise represents the Eugenics program. For all other cases and purposes they'd be illegal, as we wouldn't want people with ideal genes to not procreate unless their gene coupling is otherwise unideal. In time the entire process of abortion could become a thing of the past once the need for them phases out, once people's potential to have children in the first place becomes more of a controlled measure through initial prevention, and by the end game Abortion ideally won't even be an argument anymore, let alone having their recklessness in the face of superior structure be treated as an unalienable right. 

We're better than the principles of The Jungle, we need not leave our sex lives there while we otherwise ascend beyond it. People already don't want to create more life beyond the room to make it into a vanity project these days, so we might as well turn it towards something productive rather than further ego masturbation that otherwise prologues the modern black pilled belief that to be human is to otherwise suffer.

I believe in Humanity's ability to trivialize it's own sexual drive, and there's even modern examples of it's potential. Even promoting a new drug that lowers libido while otherwise increasing the perception of life satisfaction (marijuana for instance) could help with getting this off the ground. 

Basically, you're advocating for a dystopian society that sterilizes people based on faulty genes. By doing so, we block those genes from propagating. In return, this would then boost the overall welfare of people and technology, bringing about a utopia of perfect people living in harmony. 

I actually don't take that much issue with a dystopia like that.

What makes it 'dystopian'? 

I imagine it would be mostly the people whose genes can't propagate who would take issue with it.

We're liable to have a GATTACA scenario, yes, but the ends will justify the means in the name of Utopia. 

As tech advances and people become further insulated, it should become easier and easier to keep them in line. Rebellion against "The Machine" is so 80's, people nowadays are looking for something fascistic in lieu of an individual identity from otherwise being raised to hate themselves (NEETs , Emos, Ennui Hipsters, it's the new now, a modern phenomenon to say you don't feel, or care, or are otherwise displeased with the state of the world and our place within it). 

Current propaganda already tries to sell an air of hopelessness and panic in order to steer short-sighted demographics, the country in question would just need to be more like Russia rather than the US Melting Pot nonsense that people have fetishized as the norm we see propagating through tourism, globalism, and the UN Agenda. 

However, why not have the same utopia come about naturally without the sterilization being forced?

How would you propose that it be done? We've seen what happens when it's left up to the individual it's a mess. 

We don't want Idiocracy, and that is otherwise the endgame we're approaching. Mike Judge saw this coming years ago and yet it's still coming to pass even now. We need to do something drastic if we're not to otherwise sink into a state of degeneracy, if we're to otherwise counteract the fall of man doomsday we've penned by our own hand. 

A dumbed down Rome need not be the natural conclusion. 

You even say that we could easily convince people of the benefits in such a way that they would come to accept it.

While propaganda is surprisingly effective, if left on it's own change can be slow if it is not otherwise enforced through multiple means in tandem... if not otherwise backed by sheer luck. Counter-propaganda can then slow down the process even further if the initial narratives are not otherwise given a sense of permanence, even if it's simply through splintering the fascist model into multiple smaller ones to the point of infighting. We see it with religion, we see it with politics, splintering is always a risk that can have semantics lead towards civil war. We cannot rely purely on the contagion of information solely, the meta-narrative must be steered so that the narrative itself may live, and this will require a show of force and financial backing alongside an easy to swallow message. 

We cannot simply race alongside existing propaganda like we're otherwise doing now, that just amounts to chaos and civil war infighting, but rather we must take a page out of The Left's playbook and make the flow of counter-propaganda itself cease. Rhetoric becomes stronger based on it's believed sense of permanence, whether that's through it withstanding the test of time for historical legitimacy (religion, philosophy, culture, a lot falls into 'historical legitimacy'), through establishing what is "normal" through shifting the accepted canon of the sciences, whatever helps it seem to otherwise appear as having always been the case. If children can be raised within this model the sense of permanence could harden even further as it becomes a part of culture rather than merely a subcultural demographic. 

We arguably already have programming going on even within our current model to try to reduce our odds of breeding, but it still leaves it up to them. What would stop the Idiocracy scenario from coming to pass before Utopia hardens if we don't otherwise enforce it? Propaganda is helpful for normalizing concepts, in turn allowing those who endorse the concept to publicly showcase their beliefs while those who disagree are silenced in one way or another, but as long as this remains a Free Marketplace of Ideas we'll see Degeneracy take off through it's promise of vices. Rather than allow all of humanity to crumble towards the pleasure principle, we ought to adapt it as a way of keeping people from stopping the eugenic fascistic agenda. 

We already have people who are starting to see this truth, but it's still not enough not yet not by a longshot. We don't have the time, we need to get this system in place before technology takes over people's lives so that they may help propagate the new status quo. Science has already normalized much of the LGBTQ+ agenda to the point of people sterilizing themselves with experimental hormones, but even that took more than just the proliferation of rumors and information. 

The common man cannot be trusted, but scientists can. If we leave it in the hands of the people as if it were their right, we will continue to see trait distribution run rampant as deformity becomes the norm, while in the hands of eugenics we can cleanse this passive plague, the ticking time bomb of our own genetic destruction. 

Disclaimer: This post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of Turncoat nor the Sociopath Community administration.