Authoritarian Sub-Types

[Grayman]

I find within me both extreme liberal and extreme authoritarian views.

In one hand I believe critical thought and the freedom to make up your own mind should be protected at all costs. It is instrumental to human growth and success and is the only path to the truth.

On the other hand I believe forced sterilization would benefit humanity and prevent the destruction of our environment and strike a blow to disparity.

How do I define this? Socially Authoritarian, Intellectually Liberal?

 

[Hadoblado]

Conflicted?

Contrarian?

What good would a label do you? Seems pointless.

It's all well and good to believe forced sterilization could benefit humanity, but do you believe anyone should have the power to implement it? It would be the people in charge who got the keys to this tech right? How much do you trust them? Would you pull the trigger yourself?

 

[TBerg]

Non-totalitarian fascism of the Julius Evola variety appeals to me. Darwinian mechanisms can also arise naturally rather than as a result of paternalistic coercion.

 

[bvanevery]

How do I define this? Socially Authoritarian, Intellectually Liberal?

Cognitively dissonant. Suggest you examine why you want this deep control over other people's lives. Probably a repressed emotional issue for you. Was true of the last "Fascist-fantasizing" friend of mine. In his case, a horrible relationship with his parents and his sister. His eugenics and "people need to die" stuff, was very much a form of self-loathing. He couldn't help "acting out" his emotional trauma.

Society has moved on for now. Last of the states performing forced sterilization, stopped doing it in the 1970s. They are still paying reparations.

I say "for now" because humanity may get to the point where the population overfloweth on the planet, and all sorts of social norms change. But we're not there yet. Not by a long shot. It'll take a few hundred years, assuming no new technological advances.

 

[Grayman]

Cognitively dissonant. Suggest you examine why you want this deep control over other people's lives. Probably a repressed emotional issue for you. Was true of the last "Fascist-fantasizing" friend of mine. In his case, a horrible relationship with his parents and his sister. His eugenics and "people need to die" stuff, was very much a form of self-loathing. He couldn't help "acting out" his emotional trauma.

Society has moved on for now. Last of the states performing forced sterilization, stopped doing it in the 1970s. They are still paying reparations.

I say "for now" because humanity may get to the point where the population overfloweth on the planet, and all sorts of social norms change. But we're not there yet. Not by a long shot. It'll take a few hundred years, assuming no new technological advances.

What isn't logical about it? We regulate guns because they are dangerous. Do you give dangerous and mentally unstable people guns? Do you give them children?

The law protects me from such people and I think children deserve such protection as well.

How can a person argue that it is a human right for a man to rape women and impregnate them with their children?
How can a person argue that it is a right for a woman to deform a child for life because they needed their drug?
How can a person argue that it is their right to have a child or multiple children just to neglect them, abuse them, molest them, and toss them into fostercare where they grow up feeling unloved and unwanted and often damaged?

You can sit there on the couch and pretend that I am broken but really you are the one suffering from cognitive dissonance. Really it is you who has fallen prey to societal programming where you accept the entirely immoral and necessary just so you can say that bearing children is a human right. You have been taught through fear that to regulate such horrendous and irresponsible behavior is to step on peoples human rights, but these are not rights. You believe in the slippery slope because you were brought up to believe it and yet we regulate rights all the time when they are abused and used to the determent of the rights of others. How can you argue that one has the right to bear children while also ignore the many rights of that child who is born?

I am far from broken and I am very much healthy and suffer no trauma that would send me in this direction. I believe what I believe because I believe that all of us in this community are responsible for protecting the rights of those who cannot stand on their own or speak for themselves within our own society. For this reason I believe that children deserve us to stand for them and speak against and take action against those who damage their future and a chance at happiness.

I came to my conclusion not through experience but through the prioritization and organization of my most fundamental morals. I came to my conclusion through rationalizing.

 

[bvanevery]

What isn't logical about it? We regulate guns because they are dangerous. Do you give dangerous and mentally unstable people guns? Do you give them children?

Newsflash: people have the means of production of more people. They don't come out of a factory. Humans aren't property or tools, and it isn't basically your thing to make a decision on. At least, not according to the United Nations presently. In future centuries it may change, as it has changed in certain isolated resource enviornments in the past, like Easter Island. But we're nowhere near that.

How can a person argue that it is a human right for a man to rape women and impregnate them with their children?

Not many people do so. I've only heard it from some right wing pro life types. I think it's safe to say that you're changing the subject, and the point isn't relevant to the original subject of forcibly sterilizing people.

 

[Grayman]

Newsflash: people have the means of production of more people. They don't come out of a factory. Humans aren't property or tools, and it isn't basically your thing to make a decision on. At least, not according to the United Nations presently. In future centuries it may change, as it has changed in certain isolated resource enviornments in the past, like Easter Island. But we're nowhere near that.

Not many people do so. I've only heard it from some right wing pro life types. I think it's safe to say that you're changing the subject, and the point isn't relevant to the original subject of forcibly sterilizing people.

When you can look past your nose let me know.

 

[bvanevery]

When you can look past your nose let me know.

There are a million ways to clown this, and unsubscribing from this thread is a really good option, but for the moment I'm going to try taking you seriously. Do you assert:

- that people are in fact property?
- that people are merely tools for other people's use?
- that you've heard lots and lots of people arguing for male rapists having a right to the progeny?

If you don't assert any of these things, then your "look past your nose" comment is an irrational deflection. If you do assert one or more of these things, that makes your views... interesting. Like a levitating frog is interesting.

Oh, BTW: the Second Amendment exists so that we can dispose of authoritarians like you, if need be. Keep that in mind.

 

[Grayman]

- that people are in fact property?
- that people are merely tools for other people's use?
- that you've heard lots and lots of people arguing for male rapists having a right to the progeny?

You really have no understanding of my worldview.

The hypocrisy! Children are not just property and not for your use and enjoyment. They are still human beings. You don't have the right to just throw them into this world and let the world swallow them.

You actually believe that your rights are the only rights that matter?

For every right given to one you take away from another. For your right to own land another cannot walk upon that land. For your right to drink that water another cannot drink of that water. How many have lost their right to life so that you might have the right to speak today? You think so simply. You have been programmed so well.

Rights do not come without responsibility and that responsibility is to our community and the rights of all as a whole. How selfish are you that you think your right to birth children trumps the right to the community to a greater happiness from disparity? How selfish are you that you think your right to bear children is more important than the child's right to happiness?

You truly don't believe that every action you take has consequences and those consequence stifle the rights and needs of others? Do you never look past your nose?

You think I kid you? I kid you not.

 

[Grayman]

I remember now. Freedom is not given. It is only shared. It is finite.

I am Authoritian with most things outside the mind because there are no rights outside the mind. There is only shared liberty.

Infinite liberty only exists within the mind until those thoughts are brought into our shared reality. My mind is is the only thing that is truly my own.

 

[bvanevery]

The hypocrisy! Children are not just property and not for your use and enjoyment. They are still human beings. You don't have the right to just throw them into this world and let the world swallow them.

So your solution to the general problem of potentially being born into a cruel, cruel world, is to forcibly sterilize certain adults. You also feel qualified to judge which adults should be the ones sterilized, and able to predict which children will have a miserable life. Have you noticed the chasm of reasoning between the stated problem and the morality of your 'solution' ? Care to construct a bridge of reasoning as to why this is a good moral path to undergo?

But I predict your reasoning is purely emotional and knee-jerk, with no substantive thought about implementable policy at all. Sounds a lot like one of Trump's campaign platitudes actually. There's no actual policy, there's just a soundbite that makes the electorate feel a certain way.

Given what a pushbutton this "children" issue is for you, I'm willing to guess that your childhood had some big disasters in it. Which are making you think "never being born at all" is a really good idea to embrace.

 

[Sinny91]

Even if it was the "emotional knee jerk reaction of an abused child", does that make his opinion any less relevant or more?

 

[bvanevery]

Even if it was the "emotional knee jerk reaction of an abused child", does that make his opinion any less relevant or more?

People who aren't playing with a full deck, who earnestly try to convince you that virgin maidens need to be thrown into volcanoes for the world to keep functioning properly, must be opposed and marginalized. They do not hold valid opinions for the structuring of society. This is why we have the Second Amendment. If the crazy people ever get into power, we have the means to kill them, and be done with their insanity.

The kind thing to do is convince the person that their idea is in fact crazy. If they cannot be convinced, then we draw up laws which constrain their behavior. If they break those laws, we jail them. If their transgression is serious enough, like they take life in the name of their crazy beliefs, then we might execute them. Which depending on the quality of the trial, may solve a problem. Systemically though "guilt vs. innocence" causes problems, so it may be wise to lock them up and throw away the key.

Padded cell optional.

 

[Grayman]

People who aren't playing with a full deck, who earnestly try to convince you that virgin maidens need to be thrown into volcanoes for the world to keep functioning properly, must be opposed and marginalized. They do not hold valid opinions for the structuring of society. This is why we have the Second Amendment. If the crazy people ever get into power, we have the means to kill them, and be done with their insanity.

The kind thing to do is convince the person that their idea is in fact crazy. If they cannot be convinced, then we draw up laws which constrain their behavior. If they break those laws, we jail them. If their transgression is serious enough, like they take life in the name of their crazy beliefs, then we might execute them. Which depending on the quality of the trial, may solve a problem. Systemically though "guilt vs. innocence" causes problems, so it may be wise to lock them up and throw away the key.

Padded cell optional.

The greatest right we have is the right to live and without this right we can not exercise any of our rights. You can legitimize the theft of the greatest right I have and yet you think it is absurd to legitimize a lesser right that many can and do live without. You seem to lack reason. How do you validate such a contradictory belief system?


You lack creativity if you cannot think of one legit instance in which to sterilize as a consequence of criminal activity so that you might prevent further damage.

 

[Grayman]

Even if it was the "emotional knee jerk reaction of an abused child", does that make his opinion any less relevant or more?

His parents probably took turns touching his peepee in the bathtub so now he is so damaged that he thinks everyone is mentally ill who disagrees with him.

Bvan logic

 

[bvanevery]

The greatest right we have is the right to live and without this right we can not exercise any of our rights. You can legitimize the theft of the greatest right I have

What I wrote above isn't about theft of your life. It's about jailing you if you can't follow the law, and executing you if you take someone else's life. Pretty simple stuff. Basically the rule of law, over and above your personal fantasies and idiosyncracies.

and yet you think it is absurd to legitimize a lesser right that many can and do live without. You seem to lack reason. How do you validate such a contradictory belief system?

Actually being specific, puts the lie to your argument. Forced sterilization is physically restraining someone, knocking them out with a general anaesthetic, and putting them under a surgeon's knife. That is violence inflcited upon the person, plain and simple. It also always carries with it a small risk of death. To inflict such violence upon anyone in society, there better be a darned good reason for it. You have provided none. Furthermore, any reason you could provide, has already been covered in the US courts and has been decided already. You're a loon up a creek without a paddle.

You lack creativity if you cannot think of one legit instance in which to sterilize as a consequence of criminal activity so that you might prevent further damage.

I have actually known some criminals fighting for custody of their children. You know what the funny part is? The guy coming out of jail was the responsible one. The drug addicted mother was the irresponsible one.

Forced sterilization has no place in a socety whose legal system operates upon the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". You have to actually have children and screw it up, before those children can be taken away by child protective services. And that does happen.

The only reason humanity as a whole will ever change their mind about forced sterilization, is if we are really coming close to severely overpopulating the planet, and we invent no other mitigating technologies. We're not even remotely there yet.

The history of eugenics and forced sterilization is ugly, mainly a proxy for racism and white supremacy.

His parents probably took turns touching his peepee in the bathtub so now he is so damaged that he thinks everyone is mentally ill who disagrees with him.

You have little actual demonstrated talent for logic on this issue. All you've offered so far is emotionalism and deflection.

 

[Grayman]

You have little actual demonstrated talent for logic on this issue. All you've offered so far is emotionalism and deflection.

You can hardly call the organization of morals and values as 'logical'. I only intended and thought I had claimed that it was rational and a result of the prioritization of my morals. I am not going to go through the tedious effort of convincing you that sterilization is good by creating my own legislature and presenting it to you. I am trying to convey my system of thought. This was originally about my internal workings that lead me to authoritarian type views. Of course there is a 'feeling' component to my internal workings. I am not fully a robot... yet.

Out of curiosity what are your views on CPS?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I find within me both extreme liberal and extreme authoritarian views.

In one hand I believe critical thought and the freedom to make up your own mind should be protected at all costs. It is instrumental to human growth and success and is the only path to the truth.

On the other hand I believe forced sterilization would benefit humanity and prevent the destruction of our environment and strike a blow to disparity.

How do I define this? Socially Authoritarian, Intellectually Liberal?

"human growth and success"
"truth"
"prevent the destruction of our environment and strike a blow to disparity"

If these are your goals then I think utilitarian sums it up nicely, but if you wish to ponder the semantics I think you should clearly define what you mean by liberal and authoritarian.

Again, if those are your goals you could also support higher taxes for multi-child families or tax breaks/grants for people who abort and abstain from pregnancy. You can offer free/subsidized birth control to citizens and educate them on the benefits of child-free adulthood. Population control doesn't have to be an invasive infringement upon rights.

 

[QuickTwist]

Grayman, I read the first few comments that bv made and I don't agree. Almost any two ideas can coexist as long as there is logical backing in an explanation. I encourage you to think about these two seemingly opposing views and rationalizing logically how it would makes sense. Consider this an exercise of exploring relating ideas. Should be a fun thing for you as an INTP.