Now that I'm thinking about it - the whole genetic-determinism argument has kind of a motte-and-bailey thing going on.
-
-
I do think you're motte-and-baileying between "Look at this racist fascist crazy person" and "Well, the research is so complicated that nobody can be SURE this is wrong"
-
I don't know how to argue that I'm motivated more by wanting to be able to discuss scientific research on important topics without being called fascist than by desire to hurt poor people for fun. Seems crazy to me to believe opposite.
-
Your papers agree that something called "criminality" or "antisocial behaviour" is hereditary without bothering to consider how either of those terms are constructed. That's my whole point. You can't get around that just by reasserting the original statement.
-
I don't know why it seems crazy to you that I would suspect you of arguing in bad faith. That seems like special pleading to me. You assume leftists are arguing in bad faith basically all the time.
-
I'm trying to put myself inside your head now. I guess if you think that most people aren't really racist any more, it would seem ridiculous to you that I would even suspect you of being some kind of crazy out-there scientific racist.
-
Whereas in my mind it's like - ah, biological determinism, I know this. For the last couple hundred years, anyone who's said this has been about to do something horrible to the lower classes. I guess this guy could be an exception, but why would I assume that?
-
I agree that fascist is an overstatement. I should have said "guy who is either a basically decent person with some silly ideas or an insane racist, I've never been table to tell and it's puzzling"
-
this is all just a huge distraction from the central question about criminality btw
- 4 more 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.