No, actually, I think I get the point of all of this discourse really fucking well, and most of those low-IQ masses get it too, and you're just uncomfortable with the game-theoretic strategy we have opted for in responsehttps://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/1275721667126460418?s=19 …
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @RafFaithfull and
Several things you’ve said above demonstrate that you don’t know basic evolutionary theory.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @humbug1994 @RafFaithfull and
Evolution is a lie, God created Adam and Eve from dust in the Garden of Eden in the year 4004 BC
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @RafFaithfull and
Constantin Marcato Retweeted
Yup, just like seeking a mate with positive attributes doesn’t increase the likelihood that your offspring will have these attributes. (Hint: all of evolutionary theory rests on this truth) https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/1275999655025733632?s=21 … https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/1275999655025733632 …
Constantin Marcato added,
This Tweet is unavailable.3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @humbug1994 @arthur_affect and
You embarrassingly tried to strawman it by using language like “this will guarantee her kids...”
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @humbug1994 @arthur_affect and
We're mixing several things together here: (1) picking a mate because you like them (2) wanting your kids to inherit some of the things you like about them (3) believing in objectively "good" traits (the "eu" in "eugenics") that you're deliberately "breeding for" in your kids
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @vjpsyverson @humbug1994 and
He’s not mixing any of those things
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RafFaithfull @humbug1994 and
Your hypothetical: "If a woman wants to have babies with the smartest and most attractive man she can find..." I'm trying to extract the reason why. Some of the reasons seem to me like they'd conceivably be creepy; others, not. That's what I'm trying to unmix.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vjpsyverson @RafFaithfull and
"Eugenics" is a CONSCIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM It's not a general description of things that happen in the world, and by diluting it down like that you're engaging in Scott's favorite fallacy, the motte-and-bailey fallacy
2 replies 4 retweets 48 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @vjpsyverson and
Moreover, the statement that "everyone engages in eugenics *whether or not they know it*" is itself an expression of the eugenicist belief system and therefore not falsifiable except by falsifying eugenics itself
3 replies 3 retweets 33 likes
It's like a Christian saying "Even the unbelievers in their perversity give glory to God" It's vacuous nonsense
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @vjpsyverson and
If I actually took your assertion seriously then *everything* is eugenics and "dysgenics" does not exist The human brain is an evolved, deterministic system like everything else in the world and all of it is just evolution working itself out, including me saying I'm against it
2 replies 1 retweet 29 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @vjpsyverson and
So then what's the point of arguing about it What's the point of seeking "eugenic" policy, all policy is equally eugenic because it's all the result of actions taken by evolved organisms Come on, this is lazy dorm room debate garbage
2 replies 1 retweet 17 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.