Where I am, it looks like the Asians are the ones going into STEM courses, btw.
Chinese go for the engineering and biz degrees, while the Indians go for the maths and hard sciences.
There are a lot of South Asians in health sciences as well.
My anthro classes were full of white women, with about a 3 to one ratio of women to men.
Obama was an excellent president, and deserved the title.
how was he an excellent president? he was a neoliberal war hawk who was essentially republican in nature, even his much touted healthcare bill came from a republican think tank, are you for republican policies then?
Obama was an excellent president, and deserved the title. Treating him like a fucking shoe shine monkey is just stupid.
How. He lied about everything he said he was going to do. He campaigned heavily on the stance he would legalize weed and bring troops home from Iraq.
Instead he continued DEA shutdowns of medical marijuana dispensaries, sent more troops to Iraq, started 2 extra wars, and started drone striking civilians in the middle east.
What did he actually accomplish that was so great? Be black while in office?
InB4 the supreme court legalized gay marriage, not Obama.
2015. And don't tryta tell me that bc the Supreme court have the final say, that a win for gays has nothing to do with the politicians who table the legislation.
Just bc Julie Payette signs off on our new laws doesn't mean she was the one responsible for them.
And he did not lie. He actually did make huge steps toward implementing universal healthcare.
But he was blocked by Bitch McConnell and the boys at every attempt to fulfill said campaign promises.
He also inherited a mess of enemies from previous administrations, going all the way back to Carter arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan, thereby creating the tangle of war and ugly politics over there.
Then came 2 Bush administrations, and don't even get me started on the mess they made in the middle east. At least Obama was able to cut off Bin Laden's ugly head. Whether or not 2 more will grow back in its place remains to be seen.
Are you even old enough to remember 9/11, little girl?
And srsly, Obamaphones for the poor were an awesome idea.
lol you think Pumpkinhead was better?
Pumpkinhead did nothing but troll his way through the win he cheated Hillary out of.
His behaviour during the COVID crisis was world class idiotic, and his constant tantrums are embarrassing for over half your population.
I've known mentally ill homeless people with better self control and better manners than that weirdo.
Not that I care, bc it was a stupid promise to begin with, but Pumpkinhead only built a few hundred feet of that Humpty Dumpty wall.
And he shits his pants lol
I guess we'll be voting for a eugenics program @ SC :D
I don't actually have much against a eugenics program. I think it sounds all fine and good. However, I'm not so convinced that you're making an anti-choice argument, as much as a pro-eugenics argument. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. For the anti-choice part of your argument, I argue that you contradict yourself. It is in fact in your best interest to advocate for choice.
Most of this is in response to your thoughts on the idiocracy experiment and your disagreement with it.
Suppose that Mr. A wants a program that will make the human population stupid and easy to control through selective breeding. He wants people to have no choice over the subject matter. Over time, the system will reach an equilibrium point and acceptance by the people.
You also want a program that changes the human population's genetic material, but with a different end-goal. In particular, you want people to become smart and healthy. However, in Mr. A's view, you do not have a say in the subject matter. The only reason you have a say is because you have the option to choose.
To prevent people like Mr. A coming up with really shitty ideas and ruining society, it is in our collective best interest to protect the idea of free choice. Thanks to it, we have fantastic ideas such as your eugenics program come into existence.
On the flipside, by opening free choice up for debate, you are inviting stupid and dangerous ideas like Mr A's idiocracy experiment that can ultimately damage the society permanently and limit great ideas such as yours. In a world, pre-eugenics era, where free choice can be easily tossed aside based on a person's subjective preferences, your idea needs to compete with all the other ideas and come on top in order for humanity not to be destroyed permanently (`destroyed` in your view). However, if you are confident that this will be the case, then you will no longer need to limit free choice because people will buy into your eugenics program anyway.
By not limiting free choice, your idea both comes out on top and you limit the risk of Mr. A fucking up the society. Win-win. Therefore, it is in your best interest to advocate for your idea through free choice. You have no excuse not to, as you even argued that people would support your idea with the right advertisements and propaganda.
If, over time, people come to accept your eugenics program and want to implement laws that limit free choice to ensure stability in a way that helps people converge towards a point where the few outliers that disagree are weeded out, that's fine. However, in that case I would argue that this is then a consequence of people's free choice, and is not an anti-choice argument any longer. In fact, I would argue that this is how we make choices even in the present date -- we make laws based on the information available to us to maximize well-being (or any other goal, for that matter).
Ps. Your view is also anti-Bayesian, as the information accessible to you right now will be different from the information accessible to us in the future. Therefore, to make an absolute statement that something should be unchangeable and enforced is akin to saying that you have maximal information accessible to you, which is of course not correct.
However, I'm not so convinced that you're making an anti-choice argument, as much as a pro-eugenics argument. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. For the anti-choice part of your argument, I argue that you contradict yourself. It is in fact in your best interest to advocate for choice.
Choice is the problem we have now, people can't afford to be given a choice unless we want to watch our species continue to spoil. By leaving choices in their hands as a concept, they will continue to argue over how they have the right to birth babies by virtue of having the right to get rid of them willy nilly. If they can choose to Abort, they can also choose not to Abort, one of many aspects of modern day entitlement that holds back the progress we're truly capable of.
I agree that there is a different issue with my argument however: The timeline. This argument promises a perfect future where abortions would feasibly never even be needed, but why get rid of them before we've reached Utopia will be in the post following this one.
Suppose that Mr. A wants a program that will make the human population stupid and easy to control through selective breeding. He wants people to have no choice over the subject matter. Over time, the system will reach an equilibrium point and acceptance by the people.
How would the system reach equilibrium? I understand acceptance considering that Mr. A'd be dealing with a society of supersaturated stupidity, but that'd come with it's own share of problems through how they cannot sustain themselves without something to parasite off of.
You also want a program that changes the human population's genetic material, but with a different end-goal. In particular, you want people to become smart and healthy. However, in Mr. A's view, you do not have a say in the subject matter.
Factory Farmed Humanity only lasts as long as it's structure, while an Intelligent society even if it's destroyed will echo it's progress towards it's next stage of survival.
If for any reason we need a way to either reverse or change how the sterilization works, we'll need a team of smart people alongside machines to find newer answers in the face of unexpected challenges.
I'd rather have the rats be maze trained than simply know how to press a button.
To prevent people like Mr. A coming up with really shitty ideas and ruining society, it is in our collective best interest to protect the idea of free choice.
'Choice' is what got us here in the first place, and will continue to destroy society's values in the name of degenerate decadence.
Thanks to it, we have fantastic ideas such as your eugenics program come into existence.
Or you could take it a step further towards the WALL-E model: Have the person with shitty ideas be manipulated by machines.
Puppet Kings aren't a farcry from how things are run already, you'd just need machines to be your shadow government. If anything goes wrong with the machines though... then yeah, WALL-E brand stagnation becomes a risk.
On the flipside, by opening free choice up for debate, you are inviting stupid and dangerous ideas like Mr A's idiocracy experiment that can ultimately damage the society permanently and limit great ideas such as yours. In a world, pre-eugenics era, where free choice can be easily tossed aside based on a person's subjective preferences, your idea needs to compete with all the other ideas and come on top in order for humanity not to be destroyed permanently (`destroyed` in your view). However, if you are confident that this will be the case, then you will no longer need to limit free choice because people will buy into your eugenics program anyway.
By not limiting free choice, your idea both comes out on top and you limit the risk of Mr. A fucking up the society.
We need just enough free choice to exist that people can sign away both their rights and the rights of future generations. Once that's done it's just a matter of upkeep not too different from the Golden Handcuffs model we see now, especially if they are convinced that there can't be any other way.
Win-win. Therefore, it is in your best interest to advocate for your idea through free choice. You have no excuse not to, as you even argued that people would support your idea with the right advertisements and propaganda.
Free choice also means counter-propaganda, and as backwards as it seems this is where it'd be ideal to take a page out of North Korea and make sure your people cannot be exposed to such trash.
Poets, journalists, artists, they are the gum in the works when it comes to an otherwise efficient system. Their ideas of freedom must be recontextualized so that they will fight other irrelevant problems instead of the promises of the Eugenics program.
If, over time, people come to accept your eugenics program and want to implement laws that limit free choice to ensure stability in a way that helps people converge towards a point where the few outliers that disagree are weeded out, that's fine.
As long as there's counter-propaganda it becomes that much more of a gamble. The idea of choice itself must be eradicated if people are to become better and... arguably even for if they are to find happiness itself.
A lot of why people are dissatisfied is over having so many options to pick from, to the point of analysis paralysis for many and counting. They need less options if they are to truly appreciate what they have, otherwise they will always sit there talking about how they could have "more", a nebulous concept rather than a consistent one.
However, in that case I would argue that this is then a consequence of people's free choice, and is not an anti-choice argument any longer. In fact, I would argue that this is how we make choices even in the present date -- we make laws based on the information available to us to maximize well-being (or any other goal, for that matter).
I'm sure you've seen how the US's lawmakers are under fire as people insulate further. They end up dissatisfied with their lives, their establishments, and even each other as they see people's opinions schism further and further away from their own.
The modern state of society is fixated around the notion of choice, asking you "what kind of [thing] are you?" on billboards to push the philosophy further through sheer reinforcement and the hypnosis conditioning of dopamine promises. They need less options if they are to be happy, and Abortion is one of the biggest arguments we see the common man having these days. Imagine if that was no longer even something to argue over, if many things could become things not worth arguing over, unless their arguments stem from genius rather than nostalgia and sentiment purely.
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.
Thank you. However, I'm not sure if I correctly explained what I meant, perhaps I wasn't clear. So let me try this a different way:
Let's advocate for no choice. Now, the society decided to go with Mr A's model of maximizing stupidity through selective breeding and plummeted into permanent idiocracy with no hope of return, instead of adopting your model.
Was that a good outcome, in your opinion?
I'm sorry for not addressing your full post, but I think this is important and I believe there's some misunderstanding over what I mean.
I agree that there is a different issue with my argument however: The timeline. This argument promises a perfect future where abortions would feasibly never even be needed, but why get rid of them before we've reached Utopia will be in the post following this one.
As you've brought up, I'm only going on about the endgame, and you'd promote that I allow the freedom of choice so that propaganda can help ease the way towards Utopia. I'd counter that with how much of a gamble that otherwise is and how it raises people towards entitlement issues that lower their perceived quality of life. We need people who are thankful for what they have, not people constantly hungry for more, and for that they need a proper structure that can both condition and discipline them.
We need to ensure that the eugenics program not only gets a chance, but that Mr. A doesn't end up doing too much damage towards the currently existing gene pool that could otherwise prove irreversible. The only way we'll be able to hold such an idea down will take more than propaganda unless we plan to treat this more like a lottery, and through that I propose a change in our societal model.
We've seen already that our current school system is a joke, literally wasting years of people's lives to learn things they will never find a use for. Through generalizing education you're forcing people to learn seemingly irrelevant knowledge that, at best, allows for some people to bridge their otherwise wasteful common experiences. When I'd gone to school Kindergarten through fifth grade I attended a private performing art's school that was able to splice a theater and dance curriculum into their educational program alongside fitness and martial arts programs the likes I've yet to really see done like that anywhere else, and I think that could be taken a step further when it comes to the defense of our nation. Our people are flabby, weak, victim-complex wielding ninnies, and we can already see large droves of people yelling at each other about how they "aren't victims anymore", and if we're to escape this then we need to go further than just having Phys Ed be a requirement...
We need Mandatory Military School.
We'll market it as fitness, self-defense, and a school spirit driven cub scouts. Rather than say it's for nationalist reasons, we'll instead spread the notion of The Chain of Command at a young age so that they can learn proper levels of respect. Having been to a school that offered some of these things I saw it produce more confident individuals, ones who felt like they could defend themselves, and in turn their life choices became stronger ones rather than cultivating the 1%'s profitable sense of helplessness. My school got out at 5:30 which perfectly coincided with the time parents left their 'nine-to-five' jobs (with an after school program that got students even more fit and calculating).
We've already seen with nations like South Korea how mandatory military programs are effective, but I'd argue that starting it at 18 is far too late when compared to how easy it is to learn and absorb information when you're younger (to the point of developing an identity around it even). Kids these days want to learn how to fight and find enjoyment in firing virtual guns, so why not train them how to handle these things for real? They also end up learning martial arts as a culture rather than as individuals, promoting a healthier lifestyle as well as cultivating a nation that could defend itself against muggings or even foreign invasion. While I may not necisarily be a racist, I can say as a matter of race that I'd be less willing to fight a South Korean 1-on-1 than many other races who do not otherwise practice mandatory self-defense.
Christianity has always carried a "get them while they're young" mentality, so why not the military? It's been shown to work and it wouldn't be that hard to market it thanks to the state of modern schooling within our nation of choice having it fall down the shitter. Having the means of helping yourself would also increase the odds of the lower economic brackets showing a willingness to climb out of their setting rather than numb themselves of it.
If we can cultivate a warrior race mentality, one where people are trained as early as the age of five in how to defend themselves, then the idea of self-defense will become an accepted enough canon to reduce violence and increase self-confidence to the point of not having to overcompensate over it's lacking (as we see otherwise within modern decadence).
Now I bet you're asking; "What does any of this have to do with abortion?" Well, the war machine needs flesh, it needs bodies, and while I earlier stated that it's not necessarily a matter of how big you can pile your meat bags it definitely helps with it comes to matters such as foreign occupation in lieu of the technology that could eventually replace them. If we have superior numbers of people who each carry the canon of superior training, then our placing them in other nations will yield something surprisingly self-sustainable compared to what our army is producing now: 
We already see the "choice" model spreading to other nations now, such as what we see happening in Kuwait:
Choice cannot be left in the common man's hands, even over their very own well beings, and if shown that for long enough they will thank the system for who they've become. When you leave it up to them, you really leave it up to the corporations, corporations with decades of graphic design knowledge behind them (watch Mad Men, it's a fucking science), which in time will turn our society further Anarcho-Capitalist rather than Utopian.
Abortion, like many other things, must be taken out of their hands not only for the war machine, but also so that they can let go of the burden, the weight, that follows having to make decisions on your own in place of following guidelines and laws. When people are given the option to do something any way they want even now... what do they do? They look up instructions, they look up guidance, rather than just trying whatever feels natural and hoping for the best.
Once we have occupation in multiple countries as an accepted standard of our might, other countries will model off of Utopia, and through this we can eventually convert the UN towards these principles. We then will have access to a bigger pool of scientists, knowledge, and genes when building up the Eugenics program, and at that point War will potentially become an outdated concept that can be replaced with notions of Space Conquest or War Sport.
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.
Wow wtf Turncoat, I never imagined you could advocate for something so reprehensive. I thought you were more the live-let-live type.
However. Suppose now that Mr A read and stole your idea, implemented his own school army camp with fetuses for food, and humanity is plummeted into permanent idiocracy with no hope of return.
Was that a good outcome, in your opinion?
As you've brought up, I'm only going on about the endgame, and you'd promote that I allow the freedom of choice so that propaganda can help ease the way towards Utopia
No, I specifically pointed out how it is necessarily beneficial for your plan and if you didn't adopt it you would be working against yourself.
