Sociopath Community

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat said: 

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat said: 

AppleGenius said: 

Ok fair enough, that answers how you would go about advocating for your system, but it doesn't answer why you think it was your model that was selected from the competing pool of systems advocating for eugenics or other self-propagating ideas that remove free choice (that would alter the state of affairs more or less permanently).

That's always a risk though. Should we not pave the way towards progress simply because something might go wrong? How things are now isn't working, and in response to it we see people mobilizing.

If it's past the point of eugenic snowballing, ideally the people going towards newer systems would be doing it from a more informed stance. I'm not going to sit here and say this is the only idea, the best idea, and that it will forever withstand the test of time when the sciences are about adapting as more becomes known within it's canon. A structure where our best and brightest can steer the next generation of replacements as a matter of nationalist pride should be steered by teams of scientists who have humanity as a species held as it's most paramount focus. 

If you think your idea will not be selected as the best idea, then according to the prior probability, you have now ruined the society and lost, as the society is dominated not by scientists but people with a different agenda from yours, and being evolved in an entirely different direction without the option of anyone being able to steer it back.

In other words, your idea did not work.

Does having a chance of failure at all mean that it must be a bad plan?

No, but since you have both admitted to the necessary conditions for your plan to probably fail, and because that failure implies the reduction of the human society to permanent idiocracy or other plans we both agree are bad, then yes it's pretty bad.

I didn't say that it'd probably fail, I said that failure is within the range of probability. 

Either way, you're effectively asking me if I'd rather take a gamble for the human race's future or simply watch it die to it's own vices. If it's between not trying at all, or trying with the chance of failure? I'm going to go with the option that opposes the Nihilism of the modern age rather than perpetuate it. 

We need to work that much harder so that no one else wins, and to accomplish that we need to rid them of choices. Rather than assume it's lost by the merit of what happens if it does, we need to instead ensure that this doomsday never comes to pass through any means necessary. 

That's what your competitors think. They have already won, and you have lost. You admitted you do not have the best plan. Given the number of competitors, the prior odds are stacked against you.

About as confident as any other system could potentially be, based on it's promises of a tomorrow that fixes today.

Which means that you're probably incorrect, based on the prior probability, and so you have lost.

I fail to see what this has to do with abortion rights. This isn't about if it'd win, it's about what is right and what would be necessary to win. 

There are existing demographics with similar ideas and high levels of wealth and power that we'll need to partner up with in the meantime, so banning abortion even before Utopia and before Mandatory Military School is of great benefit towards the Fascistic Eugenics Agenda. 

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.

Turncoat said: 

I didn't say that it'd probably fail, I said that failure is within the range of probability. 

If there are N competing plans that and you say each plan has about equal chance of winning, including yours, and you don't think your plan is the best plan, is your plan probably going to win? If it is not probably going to win, is it probably going to lose?

How is Choice "the best plan" rather than a social swamp of stagnation?

Choice is not the "best plan", and in fact not a part of those N plans (which include idiocracy). However, it is within your best interest to advocate for choice if you want your eugenics program to be implemented.

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat said: 

I didn't say that it'd probably fail, I said that failure is within the range of probability. 

If there are N competing plans and you say each plan has about equal chance of winning,

I didn't say that though. 

and you don't think your plan is the best plan,

It's the best plan I've seen so far, and should someone provide for me a plan that tops the Fascistic Eugenics program then why would I hold onto this one? 

is your plan probably going to win? If it is not probably going to win, is it probably going to lose?

How quickly are you imagining the No Freedoms thing being enacted? We haven't even finished normalizing these concepts yet and each concept is going to have to be rid of one at a time rather than all at once (making abortion merely one of many stepping stones). 

A step at a time, it's not like people have to vote for their new life policy tomorrow and that's that. They need time to adjust to it, see it for the beauty and truth that it represents, before people will be willing to sign away their rights in the name of it. We also need to rid of what is currently standing in the way of progress, which ironically are the progressives themselves. Just like how their labor unions hold back the release of future advances, so too do they hold back humanity's progress by catering towards the individual rather than the culture. 

This plot takes a series of steps, of developments, ones that can piggyback pre-existing agendas. While I cannot speak for it's odds being good if it were to be proposed in it's entirety right now, I can say that people are already warming up to it, and that all they might need is some time with the right nudges. 

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.

Turncoat said: 

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat said: 

I didn't say that it'd probably fail, I said that failure is within the range of probability. 

If there are N competing plans and you say each plan has about equal chance of winning,

I didn't say that though.

I derived it from what you said:

Turncoat said:

On a level from 0% to 100%, how confident are you that your system will eventually be accepted by the people over the competing models (including idiocracy, which all lead to undesirable outcomes according to you)?

About as confident as any other system could potentially be, based on it's promises of a tomorrow that fixes today.

So you do not have any evidence that it would win? Wouldn't the fact that you're about as confident that your idea will win as any other system imply about equal probability? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

and you don't think your plan is the best plan,

It's the best plan I've seen so far, and should someone provide for me a plan that tops the Fascistic Eugenics program then why would I hold onto this one?

Because it's ultimately a subjective preference.

is your plan probably going to win? If it is not probably going to win, is it probably going to lose?

How quickly are you imagining the No Freedoms thing being enacted? We haven't even finished normalizing these concepts yet and each concept is going to have to be rid of one at a time rather than all at once (making abortion merely one of many stepping stones). 

A step at a time, it's not like people have to vote for their new life policy tomorrow and that's that. They need time to adjust to it, see it for the beauty and truth that it represents, before people will be willing to sign away their rights in the name of it. We also need to rid of what is currently standing in the way of progress, which ironically are the progressives themselves. Just like how their labor unions hold back the release of future advances, so too do they hold back humanity's progress by catering towards the individual rather than the culture. 

This plot takes a series of steps, of developments, ones that can piggyback pre-existing agendas. While I cannot speak for it's odds being good if it were to be proposed in it's entirety right now, I can say that people are already warming up to it, and that all they might need is some time with the right nudges.

So are you then saying that your plan will win the competition?

Okay let me re-state the problem. There are N competing plans, and you have no good reason to think that your plan will win the competition. Based on the prior odds, in lieu of better evidence, are you likely going to fail or win?

I fail to see what this has to do with abortion rights. This isn't about if it'd win, it's about what is right and what would be necessary to win.

It has to do with your plan of limiting choice and implementing a eugenics program to drive a subjective preference, so I am effectively countering it by pointing out how the plan does not work. Your argument is an anti-choice argument. Mine is an anti-anti-choice argument, and you have committed to a sufficient number of premises to derive its necessary conclusion -- irrespective of whether you believe your plan works or not.

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat said: 

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat said: 

I didn't say that it'd probably fail, I said that failure is within the range of probability. 

If there are N competing plans and you say each plan has about equal chance of winning,

I didn't say that though.

I derived it from what you said:

Turncoat said:

On a level from 0% to 100%, how confident are you that your system will eventually be accepted by the people over the competing models (including idiocracy, which all lead to undesirable outcomes according to you)?

About as confident as any other system could potentially be, based on it's promises of a tomorrow that fixes today.

So you do not have any evidence that it would win?

It's an ideology that'd have as much odds of winning as what's behind it, no differently than how we saw the LGBTQ+ and right wing militias take off. Therefor, rather than look at it's odds of winning as it appears today based on the mere existence of competing ideologies, we should be looking at how cohesive the mindset is and what current agendas are and aren't worth working alongside along the way. 

This debate isn't about if we should or shouldn't have abortion legalized as a matter of how likely this philosophy will reach it's end game in the short term, but rather we need to look at what we must do to help steer us there. During each stage of this process there are separate reasons as to how it's otherwise beneficial to ban abortion, whether it's for the financial and social backing in stage one, feeding flesh into the war machine for stage two, and it's irrelevancy by stage three. I've also gone on about how the presence of choice is itself an affliction even outside of fascistic eugenic aspirations even. 

Effectively, the odds of it happening are more of a social campaign, and as such rather than pinning one specific timetable onto it with only one set of odds we'll need to be more adaptive. I don't need evidence over if it'll win, rather I need manpower through similar enough demographics. 

Rather than stay fixated on it's odds, it's better to focus instead on what will improve said odds. You as of now have yet to provide me a reason as to why Pro-Choice standards are better, while I have otherwise practically written a book about it's flaws in contrast to Collectivist values. 

Wouldn't the fact that you're about as confident that your idea will win as any other system imply about equal probability? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

They have as much of a chance of winning as those behind their ideologies, much like we see clashing now between the left and right on US soil. We didn't need everyone as one body of people to start the slippery slope of allowing people to marry anything they want, we didn't need 100% of people to have abortion rights as is disappear and reappear like a Jack-in-the-Box, we just need enough people to make this idea become a reality, and that can be done through propaganda programs. 

This must be done as a series of steps, and one of the first steps that'll get us towards Utopia is banning abortion. When choice is no longer in the individual's hands we will have the potential to have individual importance replaced with that of the collective. 

and you don't think your plan is the best plan,

It's the best plan I've seen so far, and should someone provide for me a plan that tops the Fascistic Eugenics program then why would I hold onto this one?

Because it's ultimately a subjective preference.

Everything's subjective if you look at it that way, but I believe that it is our responsibility as a species to help ourselves become stronger, become better, rather than poison ourselves through degenerate practices being normalized in it's place. 

Face it, we either take a risk and potentially watch it fail, or we don't take a risk and accept failure. Pro-Choice in this case equates to giving up on Humanity as a whole, and I think we can do better than that. We should not have to lay down and surrender towards the suppressive nature of PC culture while contradictionally calling ourselves "free". 

Freedom isn't real, it is the snake that eats it's own tail, and we need to accept that and move on to better ideas. 

is your plan probably going to win? If it is not probably going to win, is it probably going to lose?

How quickly are you imagining the No Freedoms thing being enacted? We haven't even finished normalizing these concepts yet and each concept is going to have to be rid of one at a time rather than all at once (making abortion merely one of many stepping stones). 

A step at a time, it's not like people have to vote for their new life policy tomorrow and that's that. They need time to adjust to it, see it for the beauty and truth that it represents, before people will be willing to sign away their rights in the name of it. We also need to rid of what is currently standing in the way of progress, which ironically are the progressives themselves. Just like how their labor unions hold back the release of future advances, so too do they hold back humanity's progress by catering towards the individual rather than the culture. 

This plot takes a series of steps, of developments, ones that can piggyback pre-existing agendas. While I cannot speak for it's odds being good if it were to be proposed in it's entirety right now, I can say that people are already warming up to it, and that all they might need is some time with the right nudges.

So are you then saying that your plan will win the competition?

I'm saying that it's worth getting to the point of posing a more rigorous competition in the first place. As is our own freedoms are killing us, literally killing us. 

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: 

Okay let me re-state the problem. There are N competing plans, and you have no good reason to think that your plan will win the competition. Based on the prior odds, in lieu of better evidence, are you likely going to fail or win?

I'd need to see what those plans are to even know if I would be sticking to this one or not, to see what plans can be partnered up with, what plans are the opposition... it's too up in the air. I would however say if I were to compare the demographics of yesteryears to the directions people are erring now that the odds steadily increase in this philosophy's favor.

To get to the point of Utopia however, we must instead address today's problems a step at a time in a way that builds towards the Utopian endgame... rather than pushing all of it at once at an unsuspecting public. After enough decades of Mandatory Military School and Collectivism, we're bound to see people who want the best for their people rather than themselves. 

I fail to see what this has to do with abortion rights. This isn't about if it'd win, it's about what is right and what would be necessary to win.

It has to do with your plan of limiting choice and implementing a eugenics program to drive a subjective preference, so I am effectively countering it by pointing out how the plan does not work. Your argument is an anti-choice argument. Mine is an anti-anti-choice argument, and you have committed to a sufficient number of premises to derive its necessary conclusion -- irrespective of whether you believe your plan works or not.

Pro-Choice is apathy, and apathy is death. At least what I'm proposing is an idea at all, one that stems from the growth patterns we already see people falling into in the here and now. Even as I continue to spout this ideology you seem to be the only one shocked by it's premise, further expressing how normalized these ideas have become. 

Imagine me bringing this up pre-2012, it'd not fly nearly as well. 

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.

Yeah I think that sounds all good.

So my reasoning was the following, in case you want to comment on it (not really very motivated to continue past this point, you know how single-minded I am when I disagree on details or logical structure):

Premises:

0. We are in the pre-eugenics era.

1. You allow for a world without choice.

2. You have no good evidence to think your choice will be selected.

3. You don't like people taking away your choice (in this case people implementing systems like idiocracy).

Derivation:

From the first premise, it follows that others can also advocate for a world without choice. You have no good evidence to think your choice will be selected (second premise). Therefore, the prior odds state that probably your choice will not be selected.

Because you are allowing for a world without choice, it logically follows from the above that you are advocating for people to take away your choice. You don't like people taking away your choice (third premise). Therefore, you are working against yourself by allowing for a world without choice.

That concludes my argument.

I guess you can disagree with one or more of the premises, the derivation, or the conclusion -- or ask for clarification. There could also be premises I didn't state which we disagree on but I didn't realize were necessary to list here. However, I am not really sure what part you disagree with, which is why I'm struggling to address some parts of the post. I feel like we're talking past each other.

However, if you agree with the premises, the derivation, and the conclusion, then I think we're more or less done.

AppleGenius said: 

Premises:

0. We are in the pre-eugenics era.

1. You allow for a world without choice.

2. You have no good evidence to think your choice will be selected.

3. You don't like people taking away your choice (in this case people implementing systems like idiocracy).

0. Yes, the concepts are still in the process of normalizing. 
1. Not immediately, but rather through a series of steps. Choice must be earned, rather than be accepted as a divine right of one's birth. 
2. I have factored it's potential and odds, while what you ask for would require me to be capable of divination. 
3. What I do and don't like as an individual is irrelevant to the debate itself, especially when it comes to abortion rights being the first of many important steps. I've otherwise already argued against the evils of abortion, both in the interest of the advancement of and independent of the Fascist Eugenics Agenda. 

Derivation:

From the first premise, it follows that others can also advocate for a world without choice. You have no good evidence to think your choice will be selected (second premise). Therefore, the prior odds state that probably your choice will not be selected.

Because you are allowing for a world without choice, it logically follows from the above that you are advocating for people to take away your choice. You don't like people taking away your choice (third premise). Therefore, you are working against yourself by allowing for a world without choice.

That concludes my argument.

That's all fine and good, but you haven't given any reason to believe that Pro-Choice is better. Your only argument is only that it might fail, so in conclusion you see Nihilism as the better alternative? You have yet to actually argue why your idea is better, simply why this plot has as much risk as other modern agendas, something even the LGBTQ+ can't argue projections for in good faith. 

As I stated before, either we stay with Pro-Choice and accept that we've failed or we try something new and risk failing. Unless you can argue that the chances of success for the Fascistic Eugenics Agenda is 0% after all the material I've covered thus far, and unless you can argue that it failing is worse than continuing the path we're already on, then you cannot hold onto the notion of Pro-Choice beyond selfish attachments to stubborn sentiment. 

Through a world of constraints being made against my model, the potential still remains for a rebellion to bubble where Utopia becomes the goal after the atrocities of Mr. A through the establishment of a common enemy, while a world of supposed "freedoms" and "choices" will simply keep us on factory farmed life support, fighting ourselves, draining our wills, until we destroy ourselves beyond repair. 

Your only argument here is an aversion towards risk, even in light of the sheer weight in Fascistic Eugenic's favor, and I've expressed the problems with Pro-Choice and the opportunity crushing it presents as a positive even if the F.E.A. fails. 

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.

So should I assume this topic is done, or continue waiting anxiously? 

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.