Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

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.

Okay, let me re-phrase the premises to account for what you said:

0. We are in the pre-eugenics era.

1. You allow for a world without choice (eventually).

2. To the best of your knowledge, 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).

The argument is still virtually identical, applies, and is unchanged. Are you fine with these premises? They should address your concerns.

Regarding third point: Why do you think viewpoints do not matter? What you do and don't like as an individual has everything to do with the debate, because we're talking about subjective views. We will have an entirely different debate if you believe that genocide is good and medical care is bad, than if you believed the opposite.

I would argue that the only way we can have a debate over viewpoints is that we agree to certain premises and subjective views. Otherwise the best we can do is list cons and pros and hope that whoever is reading agrees with us. There will be no logical pathway to demonstrate the fallacy of the logic of the other person, if subjective views and personal preferences do not count in a debate about an entirely subjective viewpoint. The only way I can possibly show someone is wrong is by adopting their framework.

I'm fully happy with you being able to "retract" and "modify" your opinions, given that you acknowledge doing so transparently. For example, if you now want to change the 3rd premise by changing your opinion on the subject-matter, I'll happily go along with it.

That's all fine and good, but you haven't given any reason to believe that Pro-Choice is better. 

My starting point is that unless there are good reasons to restrict individual freedoms, we should allow for individual freedoms. So I don't need to give reasons to justify not restricting individual freedom. If that was the starting point, we'd be completely screwed regarding everything. It would be like stating that I need to prove that there is no God to counter an argument for God.

Your only argument is only that it might fail,

No; I said that according to your own premises it will probably fail, and we're talking about the potential destruction of the human society. You said you don't like idiocracy. Therefore, it follows that you're working against yourself.

The crux of the argument is: By advocating for no free choice, according to your own premises, you are advocating for people to take away your will, against your will.

If you do not like me applying it to you specifically, you can replace the argument with:

"By advocating for no free choice, the person is advocating for people to take away their will, against their will."

so in conclusion you see Nihilism as the better alternative?

Could you elaborate? I don't understand what nihilism has to do with my viewpoint? I'm merely pointing out that your argument is self-contradictory in that it is working against the person utilizing the argument. To my knowledge, I am not adopting a nihilistic viewpoint, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

You have yet to actually argue why your idea is better,

I don't believe I do, for reasons stated above.

As I stated before, either we stay with Pro-Choice and accept that we've failed

But you're not addressing my argument. Do you agree or disagree with it? Or do you agree with it but think it's irrelevant because all pro-choice possibilities for your eugenics plan will cause certain ruin? If that was your stance all along, then I'll be happy to debate it, although I think it's a much more difficult stance to argue for than what you've debated thus far.

AppleGenius said:

 

Turncoat said: 

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.

Okay, let me re-phrase the premises to account for what you said:

0. We are in the pre-eugenics era.

Yes, the steps towards being in a eugenics era have essentially just begun. Our state in this timeline is arguably a transitional one rather than the end of a former transition. 

1. You allow for a world without choice (eventually).

Yes, on the premise that even if it's usurped by Mr. A that it could potentially build into a rebellion, one where the most capable traits surface in the form of a revolutionary black sheep that could undo Mr. A's damages, and further to express that it's worth taking chances at all rather than simply giving up and ending up with Mr. A's conclusion through apathy, through the constraints of not being overtly constrained otherwise. 

Our current model has no one being challenged by the status quo, nor does it offer them a place to go towards Collectivist principles, but rather keeps them separated through sheer oversaturation of subcultural demographics. If we stick with it we will simply rot and die, as it's through freedom that we cannot accomplish anything, while if we build towards larger constraints we will end up with people trying that much harder by default in one way or another. Accepting that those within the system could destabilize it in favor of making a new one is no different than the canon of Science itself. 

The illusion of choice is just a pacifier, and I think it's about time we grow up. 

2. To the best of your knowledge, you have no good evidence to think your choice will be selected.

Comparative models over a timeline's still enough to form conclusions, or are you going to say that any model of probability ought to be thrown out? 

Beyond this I have otherwise already argued against Choice even outside of my paradigm, and while I may not like Mr. A's appropriation of the tools I still see that risk as better than simply taking it up the ass like we otherwise are now. If failing this conclusion is near identical to continuing the path we're already on, why not aim for Utopia instead of giving up on our fellow man? 

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

I don't like it, but where we are now is the beginnings of either the same thing or something worse. I'd rather risk it than accept defeat, and every day that I log onto social media sites I see that I'm not alone, far from it. We both need to prepare for the future as the world turns increasingly conservative in the wake of modern progressive insanity, and that in conjunction with how we're advancing scientifically and technologically, in conjunction with people swearing off of this world in favor of being off the grid, going their own way, awaiting the next apocalypse with baited breath, drooling over the notion of civil war... you need to get with the times and see that this path is a likely reality if sociological trends are anything to go by. 

Even if the F.E.A. fails, outside of them it's still been argued as a better option by comparison to allowing people to have not just the freedom to abort, but the freedom to plan their lives, their own individual lives, around it. They need to plan for the greater whole, not just themselves, or we'll just cannibalize one another. 

The argument is still virtually identical, applies, and is unchanged. Are you fine with these premises? They should address your concerns.

You've so far in this topic ignored many things in favor of an autistic lack of imagination. You argue that my uncertainty over it having an undeniable chance of victory as a victory of your own while continuing to not promote the laurels of your own stance. 

Even if the F.E.A. isn't right, banning abortion is still more right than otherwise. The freedom of "choice" has idiots procreating while supposedly intelligent people wait until the last minute to birth one child from old sperm and faulty eggs. Perhaps if the intelligent among us didn't have that choice we'd see a better, brighter future, rather than watching your average run of the mill hillbilly produce 10 children who will themselves produce 10 more. 

Regarding third point: Why do you think viewpoints do not matter? What you do and don't like as an individual has everything to do with the debate, because we're talking about subjective views.

What I do and don't believe is independent of the knowledge itself, much like we've seen out of trannies defending the right already. I don't necessarily have to believe in this to argue in it's favor, I just have to notice that enough people are already leaning towards it through one path or another. It's arguably inevitable if no one stops it's current rate of growth, as we can see through Leftist fear campaigns that only empower it through granting it the modern equivalent of martyr status. 

We will have an entirely different debate if you believe that genocide is good and medical care is bad, than if you believed the opposite.

Rather than debate from the premise of my beliefs, doesn't it make more sense to report the facts? Those exist outside of me with more than enough others to build a platform of consistency from. 

History does no care about our feelings, and neither do sociological trends nor projections for the future. 

I'm fully happy with you being able to "retract" and "modify" your opinions, given that you state it honestly.

Much like a lawyer under the influence of a truth serum might admit, I can't promise honesty in the sense of reporting what I'd prefer, but I can promise effort and integrity when it comes to reporting what this world is currently dealing with. 

Whether I do or don't believe in this has no bearing on what is effectively my client, and your repeated aims to make it about me rather than the debate at hand distracts from it's validity. I shouldn't have to believe in something in order to argue in it's stead, and neither should you. 

For example, if you now want to change the 3rd premise by changing your opinion on the subject-matter, I'll happily go along with it.

At the moment, I'd only change my stance here from your stance being too difficult to argue for the sake of giving you more of a sporting chance, or from you proving that mine is otherwise unrealistic in ways that I can't otherwise deny. 

The rest will be in the post following this one, as I'm otherwise running out of characters as I go through this post a piece at a time. 

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.

It seems like we don't agree that subjective views matter in a debate about viewpoints. However, I don't feel like I will have much to debate about in that case.

It was an interesting debate, I learned some about eugenics, and got some new food for thought. Some of the arguments you made were pretty compelling reasons in support of eugenics. Thanks.

AppleGenius said: 

That's all fine and good, but you haven't given any reason to believe that Pro-Choice is better. 

My starting point is that unless there are good reasons to restrict individual freedoms, we should allow for individual freedoms.

There are, and I've presented multiple that expand outside of the F.E.A. 

So I don't need to give reasons to justify not restricting individual freedom. If that was the starting point, we'd be completely screwed regarding everything. It would be like stating that I need to prove that there is no God to counter an argument for God.

Freedom lends to apathy and apathy is death. 

Your only argument is only that it might fail,

No; I said that according to your own premises it will probably fail

I didn't argue that though, you're putting words in my fingers. 

We're talking about the potential destruction of the human society. You said you don't like idiocracy. Therefore, it follows that you're working against yourself.

When failing the F.E.A. is indistinguishable from leaving things as they are now, we have to do something. 

The crux of the argument is: By advocating for no free choice, according to your own premises, you are advocating for people to take away your will, against your will.

I am, as my distaste towards the constraints will not just be my own. Factor this: 

In Mr. A's model the majority will be stupid, having the rebellion that bubbles forth from it reflecting black sheep traits of intelligence. When the common man is dumber than it's own rebellion it will begin to crumble, it's own enemy construed as too intelligent to understand by it's opposition. 

In the F.E.A.'s model the majority will be intelligent, having the rebellion that risks bubbling forth from it reflect the black sheep traits of stupidity. When the common man is smarter than it's rebels, they will collectively as a society be able to snuff out the problems within the help of their system similarly to Japan. 

Given that stupid people are faster to act while intelligent people take the time to consider their actions, the F.E.A.'s model is more likely to last if not bubble out of the refuse than the other way around. If an adjacent society is allowed Mr. A's model, they will soon see the differences and support will flock towards the F.E.A. instead ala the Red Son model of allowing the US to wallow in it's freedom while the rest of the world moves on. 

If you do not like me applying it to you specifically, you can replace the argument with:

"By advocating for no free choice, the person is advocating for people to take away their will, against their will."

This is true, yes, and will be hoisted by Science our new god, if not one of that time's god's greatest gifts towards man. 

so in conclusion you see Nihilism as the better alternative?

Could you elaborate? I don't understand what nihilism has to do with my viewpoint? I'm merely pointing out that your argument is self-contradictory in that it is working against the person utilizing the argument. To my knowledge, I am not adopting a nihilistic viewpoint, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

To accept the Pro-Choice agenda is to accept the world we're already in now. 

 

As I stated before, either we stay with Pro-Choice and accept that we've failed

But you're not addressing my argument. Do you agree or disagree with it? Or do you agree with it but think it's irrelevant because all pro-choice possibilities for your eugenics plan will cause certain ruin? If that was your stance all along, then I'll be happy to debate it, although it's a much more difficult stance to argue for than what you've debated thus far.

What pro-choice possibilities are you imagining, and where did I state that the F.E.A. would ruin humanity through it's potential failure in a way that's worse than where we're already headed through our believed freedoms? 

Even if the F.E.A. fails, it still lays the groundwork for others to make superior plans while Pro-Choice will simply be stagnation. We cannot guide ourselves, we need the help. The longer we live within Pro-Choice constraints, the less we'll get done and the more we'll end up weakening ourselves. Even if you compare the recent past to now, people have never been as easily triggered as they've been in a world of choices, and that only exists over their perceived entitlement towards them. 

Freedom only looks as good to people as it makes for allowing their own lives, and we're seeing it break down as people piss other people off over these other people's own freedoms clashing their own (such as the near-criminalization of the N-word).

At our core, we want fascism, we want collectivism, but cling to freedom as an outdated principle and over the projective illusion of figuring that the common man must think like we do. As they see that they don't, much like the state of bipartisan politics here in the states, they advocate towards changes more in line with their own views, leading to bipartisan fascism that will eat it's own tail. 

In conclusion, through one means or another we need smarter babies, and rather than take a highly unrealistic page out of Kanye and just give everyone who starts a family tons of cash to effectively bribe people through our own taxes towards childrearing... where all we'll really see from that are poorer economic brackets pushing out even more children to pay for their standard of living (like Octomom), we need to found a system where smarter parents have more children at younger ages in a way that won't raise our taxes. 

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: 

It seems like we don't agree that subjective views matter in a debate about viewpoints. However, I don't feel like I will have much to debate about in that case.

It was an interesting debate, I learned some about eugenics, and got some new food for thought. Some of the arguments you made were pretty compelling reasons in support of eugenics. Thanks.

No problem, and if you ever want to revisit it I'm open to it. These views are liable to be even more fleshed out as I keep researching the trends of the modern day. 

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.