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 -
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
Yes there are traits that are genetic that display fitness, and are thus desirable. Height for men, hourglass shape for women.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RafFaithfull @arthur_affect and
Right, because those are totally useful correlates of genetic fitness for surviving in the modern human world & thus we should be selecting for them???
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @vjpsyverson @RafFaithfull and
(that was sarcastic, sorry in case that was unclear)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vjpsyverson @arthur_affect and
People can do whatever they want. I’m not not making a normative claim, I’m making a descriptive one
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RafFaithfull @arthur_affect and
no, you miss my point! if it's not a decision undertaken *deliberately* to increase the frequency of a "desirable" trait in the population IT'S NOT EUGENICS it's just sexual selection
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @vjpsyverson @arthur_affect and
What’s your definition of eugenics
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
If I fall in love with someone with a serious, life-threatening hereditary disability and we have sex and she gets pregnant and we decide to keep the baby and the baby grows up to also have this disability, was I engaging in eugenics
-
-
-
Replying to @RafFaithfull @vjpsyverson and
Good, then many many people do not engage in "interpersonal eugenics", making your statement that everyone does plainly false QED Now you've lost the debate and have to log off
1 reply 1 retweet 19 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.