Politics Thread 6

[OrangeRKN]

The point is that you should avoid conflating technical and moral arguments. The moral argument is the one that matters - saying "it doesn't work" at best means you're now narrowing the debate to a small slice of similar concepts (your definition of eugenics). The moral argument is wider reaching, has wider implications, and is not reliant on changing technological or scientific capability - and cannot be so easily redirected. That's where these proponents of eugenics should be shut down.

[Moggy]

Dawkins is often on the wrong side of debates he wades into that are simply not his specialism. Vast swathes of the scientists working in the field of genetics have strongly argued the case that, regardless of the moral/ideological aspects of the debate, the science simply does not backup this position that it "would work".

Yep.

I guess it would technically work if you sterilised every single black person. But that destroys his “facts ignore ideology” argument as the only reason to do it would be ideological.

The only other way to make it work is to expand beyond recognition what eugenics actually is. Again though that brings ideology into it, why would you be pushing a narrative that changes what eugenics means? We could pretend positive-Nazism means building autobahns, but why the strawberry float would anybody want to do that?

[Lex-Man]

Dawkins is often on the wrong side of debates he wades into that are simply not his specialism. Vast swathes of the scientists working in the field of genetics have strongly argued the case that, regardless of the moral/ideological aspects of the debate, the science simply does not backup this position that it "would work".

Surely this is his area of specialism? The selfish gene is all about inheritance.

Also he is right in a very narrow way. You could increase the variance of certain traits in the human population in the way we do with animals.

The problem is that he's narrow focus seems to miss the point it would potentially have disastrous outcomes for the human race.

https://royalsociety.org/people/richard-dawkins-11316/

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and expert in animal behaviour.

[Jenuall]

He's an evolutionary biologist not a human geneticist. The only scenario in which he is "right" is one that is pointless.

"well if I remove all of the factors that make the debate important and ignore all of the possible consequences of what this action would result in then you can do eugenics so boo to you all! P.S. I don't think we should, probably... although I'm pro abortion of children with down syndrome and think allowing them to be born is immoral and I think that we should be generally aborting kids all over the shop to eliminate birth defects even though that wouldn't work and again would have wider repercussions. Oh hey have I told you my views on date rape and "mild paedophilia"?"

For someone who is supposedly a "great communicator" he puts his foot in more gooseberry fool than a farmer with a field of diuretic cows.

[OrangeRKN]

We could pretend positive-Nazism means building autobahns, but why the strawberry float would anybody want to do that?

Probably to reduce congestion and increase transport links

[Moggy]

We could pretend positive-Nazism means building autobahns, but why the strawberry float would anybody want to do that?

Probably to reduce congestion and increase transport links

Induced demand would suggest that isn’t true. And also was nothing to do with my point.

[OrangeRKN]

When moggy responds seriously to your joke post

[Moggy]

When OR spends his morning defending eugenics before making a “joke” about Nazis.

[Jenuall]

[captain red dog]

He's an evolutionary biologist not a human geneticist. The only scenario in which he is "right" is one that is pointless.

"well if I remove all of the factors that make the debate important and ignore all of the possible consequences of what this action would result in then you can do eugenics so boo to you all! P.S. I don't think we should, probably... although I'm pro abortion of children with down syndrome and think allowing them to be born is immoral and I think that we should be generally aborting kids all over the shop to eliminate birth defects even though that wouldn't work and again would have wider repercussions. Oh hey have I told you my views on date rape and "mild paedophilia"?"

For someone who is supposedly a "great communicator" he puts his foot in more gooseberry fool than a farmer with a field of diuretic cows.

I think this is a general problem with Twitter. It's very difficult to effectively communicate anything meaningful on the medium, and very easy for what is said to be taken out of context or misunderstood. I read his initial tweet, and I didn't read anything into it that suggested he supported the idea of eugenics. However, if you don't tend to follow him, or aren't familiar with how he sometimes tends to think aloud on there, I can see how it would come across as inflammatory.

If I was a celebrity or somehow famous, I don't think I'd be on social media, it just doesn't seem worth the hassle. Maybe there is a reason famous people used to communicate through PR agencies.

[Jenuall]

He's an evolutionary biologist not a human geneticist. The only scenario in which he is "right" is one that is pointless.

"well if I remove all of the factors that make the debate important and ignore all of the possible consequences of what this action would result in then you can do eugenics so boo to you all! P.S. I don't think we should, probably... although I'm pro abortion of children with down syndrome and think allowing them to be born is immoral and I think that we should be generally aborting kids all over the shop to eliminate birth defects even though that wouldn't work and again would have wider repercussions. Oh hey have I told you my views on date rape and "mild paedophilia"?"

For someone who is supposedly a "great communicator" he puts his foot in more gooseberry fool than a farmer with a field of diuretic cows.

I think this is a general problem with Twitter. It's very difficult to effectively communicate anything meaningful on the medium, and very easy for what is said to be taken out of context or misunderstood. I read his initial tweet, and I didn't read anything into it that suggested he supported the idea of eugenics. However, if you don't tend to follow him, or aren't familiar with how he sometimes tends to think aloud on there, I can see how it would come across as inflammatory.

If I was a celebrity or somehow famous, I don't think I'd be on social media, it just doesn't seem worth the hassle. Maybe there is a reason famous people used to communicate through PR agencies.

Yeah it's a form inherently ill equipped to support the kind of conversation that a lot of these topics require.

[Lex-Man]

He's an evolutionary biologist not a human geneticist. The only scenario in which he is "right" is one that is pointless.

"well if I remove all of the factors that make the debate important and ignore all of the possible consequences of what this action would result in then you can do eugenics so boo to you all! P.S. I don't think we should, probably... although I'm pro abortion of children with down syndrome and think allowing them to be born is immoral and I think that we should be generally aborting kids all over the shop to eliminate birth defects even though that wouldn't work and again would have wider repercussions. Oh hey have I told you my views on date rape and "mild paedophilia"?"

For someone who is supposedly a "great communicator" he puts his foot in more gooseberry fool than a farmer with a field of diuretic cows.

I think this is a general problem with Twitter. It's very difficult to effectively communicate anything meaningful on the medium, and very easy for what is said to be taken out of context or misunderstood. I read his initial tweet, and I didn't read anything into it that suggested he supported the idea of eugenics. However, if you don't tend to follow him, or aren't familiar with how he sometimes tends to think aloud on there, I can see how it would come across as inflammatory.

If I was a celebrity or somehow famous, I don't think I'd be on social media, it just doesn't seem worth the hassle. Maybe there is a reason famous people used to communicate through PR agencies.

Yeah it's a form inherently ill equipped to support the kind of conversation that a lot of these topics require.

He's also basically like the main character from Curb Your Enthusiasm in that he can only really except his own narrowly defined view of the world and seems not to understand the way certain things are viewed by the general public.

[Lex-Man]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -racial-iq

This guy seems much worse that Dawkins IMO.

Boris Johnson’s spokesman has refused to say whether the prime minister thinks black people have lower IQs on average, or agrees with eugenics, after No 10 hired an adviser with highly controversial views.

In a tense briefing with the media, the prime minister’s deputy official spokesman declined several times to distance Johnson from the views of his adviser, Andrew Sabisky, who has suggested “enforced contraception” be used to prevent the creation of a “permanent underclass”.

Labour has called on No 10 to sack Sabisky, who is believed to be contracted by Downing Street under Johnson’s de facto chief of staff, Dominic Cummings, to work on special projects.

[Jenuall]

Yeah that's a fair point - we shouldn't be getting sidetracked from the fact that what sounds like an utter strawberry floating dick head is now contracted as a government adviser.

[Dual]

He's an evolutionary biologist not a human geneticist. The only scenario in which he is "right" is one that is pointless.

"well if I remove all of the factors that make the debate important and ignore all of the possible consequences of what this action would result in then you can do eugenics so boo to you all! P.S. I don't think we should, probably... although I'm pro abortion of children with down syndrome and think allowing them to be born is immoral and I think that we should be generally aborting kids all over the shop to eliminate birth defects even though that wouldn't work and again would have wider repercussions. Oh hey have I told you my views on date rape and "mild paedophilia"?"

For someone who is supposedly a "great communicator" he puts his foot in more gooseberry fool than a farmer with a field of diuretic cows.

I think this is a general problem with Twitter. It's very difficult to effectively communicate anything meaningful on the medium, and very easy for what is said to be taken out of context or misunderstood. I read his initial tweet, and I didn't read anything into it that suggested he supported the idea of eugenics. However, if you don't tend to follow him, or aren't familiar with how he sometimes tends to think aloud on there, I can see how it would come across as inflammatory.

If I was a celebrity or somehow famous, I don't think I'd be on social media, it just doesn't seem worth the hassle. Maybe there is a reason famous people used to communicate through PR agencies.

Yeah it's a form inherently ill equipped to support the kind of conversation that a lot of these topics require.

Wow. Let me share a few reasons why you are wrong...

(1/75)

[OrangeRKN]

When OR spends his morning defending eugenics before making a “joke” about Nazis.

I strictly only support eugenics when it's attempting to improve on your attempts at debate and reading comprehension

[Jenuall]

He's an evolutionary biologist not a human geneticist. The only scenario in which he is "right" is one that is pointless.

"well if I remove all of the factors that make the debate important and ignore all of the possible consequences of what this action would result in then you can do eugenics so boo to you all! P.S. I don't think we should, probably... although I'm pro abortion of children with down syndrome and think allowing them to be born is immoral and I think that we should be generally aborting kids all over the shop to eliminate birth defects even though that wouldn't work and again would have wider repercussions. Oh hey have I told you my views on date rape and "mild paedophilia"?"

For someone who is supposedly a "great communicator" he puts his foot in more gooseberry fool than a farmer with a field of diuretic cows.

I think this is a general problem with Twitter. It's very difficult to effectively communicate anything meaningful on the medium, and very easy for what is said to be taken out of context or misunderstood. I read his initial tweet, and I didn't read anything into it that suggested he supported the idea of eugenics. However, if you don't tend to follow him, or aren't familiar with how he sometimes tends to think aloud on there, I can see how it would come across as inflammatory.

If I was a celebrity or somehow famous, I don't think I'd be on social media, it just doesn't seem worth the hassle. Maybe there is a reason famous people used to communicate through PR agencies.

Yeah it's a form inherently ill equipped to support the kind of conversation that a lot of these topics require.

Wow. Let me share a few reasons why you are wrong...

(1/75)

I'm here to help you read threads more easily. Reply to any tweet of a thread and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll give you a link back!

[Moggy]

When OR spends his morning defending eugenics before making a “joke” about Nazis.

I strictly only support eugenics when it's attempting to improve on your attempts at debate and reading comprehension

Sounds like you didn’t understand my joke.

But if we are talking about reading comprehension, you might want to research eugenics before spouting off bullshit about it.

[Lagamorph]

Eugenics gave us one of the best Star Trek films at least.

[OrangeRKN]

You stated I defended eugenics when I did no such thing. Please enlighten me on what other "bullshit" you suppose I spouted.

Eugenics is not a strictly defined methodology but a general term encompassing a set of beliefs and practices that extend historically beyond the coining of the word itself, all of the idea and purpose that the human population can and should be controlled with specific desired or undesired genes or traits selected for or against. Selective breeding is one tool that can be used to achieve such goals. Sterilisation is another. State enforcement is an implementation of those tools. Your mistake is to take this one specific configuration of goal, tools and implementation and narrowly define the term eugenics to mean that and only that. There is of course historical significance to such a configuration - most notably, as you identify, with the nazis - but to limit yourself to such a definition is to ignore how else the term is used and only results in you arguing cross-purposes or arguing over definitions, neither of which is a useful or interesting debate to have.

Many modern developments and proponents of eugenics do not strictly adhere to said definition. State enforcement need not be absolute for a policy to be broadly identified as eugenics - for example, financial incentives, availability of medical care and societal pressure can all be leveraged in some proposed implementations. Similarly, with scientific and technological advancement there now exist more tools that can be utilised to achieve the same goal. Screening out genetic defects (as chosen in some manner) is no different, in intended end result, from selective breeding or sterilisation - it is only a different tool with a different implementation.

The tools themselves have no moral inherent value. How they are used and what they are used for is what carries moral value. Morally speaking, debating whether people should be sterilised to prevent them passing on undesired traits, or whether they should be screened and embryos with those traits terminated, is broadly the same argument - the real debate is whether it's okay to select against those traits, and who should do the selecting. As I noted, this is already happening with many genetic diseases, inherited and otherwise.

Which all leads back to my original point - one should not argue against eugenics on technical or practical grounds, because the tools are always changing. It is not a strong or lasting argument to make. One should instead make the moral argument, about what is and isn't acceptable to select for or against, and over who should have the authority to make such decisions. It's in this debate that you can most easily unmask the prejudices and ulterior motives of most proponents.