He’s not mixing any of those things
-
-
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 -
Replying to @arthur_affect @vjpsyverson and
It's like a Christian saying "Even the unbelievers in their perversity give glory to God" It's vacuous nonsense
2 replies 1 retweet 31 likes -
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 -
Replying to @arthur_affect @vjpsyverson and
The definition of "eugenics" relies on the "eu-" The belief that there is such a thing as a generally applicable definition of "good genes", and then *acting* on that belief by having a policy preference that "good genes" be propagated and "bad genes" be eliminated
3 replies 2 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @vjpsyverson and
There are individual people who do make a conscious decision to make their "mate selection" choices based on that set of beliefs -- "I married her because she comes from good breeding, I'm confident our children will be healthy and talented" -- and as common as this is, it's bad
2 replies 2 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @vjpsyverson and
But there are also lots and lots of people who don't think this way, and would be shocked and offended at being accused of thinking this way
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes
There are even people who are deliberately "dysgenic" -- "Society considers my hereditary disability a highly negative thing but you know what I have the right to have biological kids anyway" If there weren't, eugenicists would see no need to implement "negative eugenics"
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.