(Referring to the "Third Side of the coin" argument Anton LaVey presents in Satan Speaks)

I recently applied this principle in a paper for a college course on Biomedicine.

I wrote on the topic of voluntary sterilization of male and female drug addicts, with cash incentives of $300.

I argued that it is a pragmatic position to support such a program: the alternatives could be forced sterilization, or just letting drug addicts continue plopping out kids as they will.

Paying addicts to be sterilized doesn't interfere with individual freedom, and still gets the social good of fewer unwanted children born addicted to crack. It's to the benefit of those kids as well.

Here's the website from a charity that does it, interesting:

http://www.projectprevention.org/

Of course I have a much more hostile attitude to drug addicts than this charity does, but their presented face makes sense, regardless of whether or not it reflects the internal ideas of the organization.

I don't want to stray into politics here, but just saying that a private charity doing this is a good thing and makes sense, and most importantly here is an example of third-side perspective.

Not overbearing force or failure to act, but monetary persuasion: gets the job done, doesn't piss people off. (Too much. Some people are still pissy about exploiting the poor drug addicts *rolls eyes*)

Care to share an example of you taking a third-side perspective on an issue? (Meaning "issue" very broadly; the principle of the Satanic third-side has broad applicability.)

I just want to share an example of how I constantly apply this particular Satanic principle in my life.

Because as some of you already know, I live in a very aggressive culture towards Satanism and everything different, there are no compromises about it.

By avoiding the Fifth Satanic Sin. I managed to blend in and practice the religion of the majority, and play their game and also beating them at it. I think this have been really useful to me.

I don't have to fight a losing cause, I don't have to stand by the side and watch. I'm actually involved in changing my own world to the better.

Now, I'm happier because each and every day passes, my vision becomes clearer.

By the way, drug addicts should be allowed to face the consequences of their own stupidity, and of course they shouldn't be allowed to produce any offspring.

HS!

Paying addicts to get sterilized sounds like something I would have suggested with a grin knowing they were just going to jack that $300 right back into their bodies as fast as possible, but not anymore.

I have noticed a large amount of people who do not use drugs but intentionally have a child every year or so to stay on state aid and receive free food and housing. I have even seen people quit jobs because they were making $50.00 too much per check to collect food stamps and free rent.

Sterilizing drug addicts for the sake of slowing their procreation (or whatever reason)initially sounds good but if you would like to take a third side view on that subject, how are they addicted to drugs? Have they found themselves injured in a accident and put on a pain medication regimine for a couple years that has developed into physical addiction where they (with a little bit of help) could be perfectly productive, drug free and have healthy kids? Or did they become addicted to drugs because they came from a broken home and it started as a source of income before it consumed them until they would steal their own grandparents gold teeth just for a fix and they blindly pop out kids with miscellaneous women whom they refer to as bitches and ho's because they do not know any other way of life?

My third side viewpoint is that this suggestion does not fix a problem, it treats a symptom. Totally legalizing narcotics would kill some junkies but it would also create a rise in new ones.

I am not arguing with your suggestion at all. I think people should have to earn the right to reproduce, but I also think most suggestions to "fix" things generally result in treating symptoms when we should be cutting out cancers.

I respect your preference for seeking out the cause rather than the symptom.

But what can anyone, other than the addicts themselves, practically do here?

That is to say, I recognize that not everyone who is a drug addict fits the description of a deranged and murderous crackhead, but I don't see much option for outside forces to break these people's addictions, and then for those same people to not relapse.

Sure you could lock an addict up and wean them off the drug, but unless they themselves want to change, they are going to fall back on that drug.

Treating symptoms of drug addicts' behavior seems most practical to me, especially if it's done by private charities rather than the state.

Unfortunately I feel it is becoming unavoidable for me to start bringing in politics, so I'm going to stop, though I'd enjoy continuing this conversation downstairs or in private messages.

But to sum up: symptoms are the only things outside forces can fix. The causes can only be permanently overcome by the addicts themselves. And it is prudent to solve the symptoms in a way that gets the job done without arousing public backlash.

How's this for a Third Side? I have addicts in my family tree. That's some of my ancestors you're talking about.

My third side solution to like, everything:

Reversible sterilization of all people at birth.

No unintended pregnancy.
No abortion.

Reverse procedure criteria: Financial security. Reasonably clean criminal record. Prior agreement on legal custody/support issues. Full genetic testing.

Imagine the various long term problems solved? Fiscal, psychological, legal, medical?

'fucking Utopia.

Y~

I second this brilliant solution.

3rd!

Magistra Ygraine, I am a long time fan of this idea, and have had versions of it myself.

I've often referred to it as "parental licensing". My criteria is slightly different from yours, but on the same thread:

1. Proof financial security. There could be a set amount that a household would need to earn, along with a credit check (to see how much debt is with that household) in order to prove that they can afford the child.

2. No felonies within a seven year period. Truly, I'd say no felonies ever, but I don't think society would go for it, especially when there are enough examples of felons cleaning up later in life and living responsibly.

3. High School diploma or GED equivalent. While I know that there are many examples of high school drop outs going on to start their own businesses and make some considerable loot, this criteria is in there also as an incentive to keep kids in school, and serious about passing their classes. As a high school educator, I'm partial to this one.

I like your added prior agreement to custody and support issues. That too makes worlds of sense.

What I'm unsure of would be the method of sterilization. I don't think that society would go for reproductive surgery on newborn infants (even if they are willing to circumcize many of them).

I've tossed around the idea of a form of birth control in standard drinking water, but the cost might be large, and the chemical logistics of one batch of chemicals doing the whole job without side effects is a tough challenge to work through.

Either way, you are correct in the large benefits it would have. Zero unwanted births would mean a large chunk of social welfare would be lifted. Abortion issues become non-issues. We'd have a society where nearly all children are cared for by homes that wanted them in the first place. Our education level would rise in America by large amounts.

Fucking Utopia indeed!

Thirded.

I'm sure there is potential for abuse and corruption in such a system (as there always is), but I've often thought that the world would be a better place if breeding were more of a privilege than a right.

Four little words: The Maury Povich Show.

On a more serious note--where I presently work, there are a number of mothers who are under 25, and who have four or more children. Because they are young, inexperienced, uneducated, and sometimes traumatized, these mothers can't provide for their kids emotionally, intellectually, socially, and economically, and everyone (and I mean everyone--the kids, their classmates, their kids' teachers, the society) suffers as a result.

Of course, such a system would have to be carefully structured and supervised, so that you don't end up with a situation where the person or the party in power exacts a straight-up genocide against some hated group.

Actually this makes a lot of sense.

Funny how a lot of Christians and other guilt-ridden types are so against stem cell research or human cloning, yet have no problem with free, unregulated, "natural" reproduction.

Of course this would be decried as "oppression".

But we can dream.

Labryrinthine, I wouldn't only sign-up, but I would try and publicly fund such a project!! It's not really even the potential for genetic defects and the potential for lazy ass waste genetic mentalities that should probably not get passed on be passed on. but it is the fact that so much sludge is handed off on "general pricnipal" alone...... I've actually had to modify my ha ha look at the idiots dance while drinking 5 dollar coffee each year because of all the fucking fleas making it hard to "enjoy the masses " a s opposed to having to endure the masses".

People have become so much of a shuffle that I have no time for them unless with like mindedness to share the sheer idiocy of the event.
I think next year we prep and hand out freezing coffee to the black Friday crowed and then we sit in heated tents with a waterballoon slingshot and throw pork snow balls at the people coming out.

Here is the greatest weapon and I applaud your stand. This type of animal will accept the $. Most likely they will repeat or commit another offense to strip away their freedom. So be it!

If animals can be put down then so be the same for the human animal.

HS!