The Abortion (that is this) Thread

[crimsonfloyd]

This is where it makes no sense. You are talking as if abortion or Plan B does not exist. A woman has to make a conscious and deliberate choice to keep a child. The man has little to no part in that decision, but is financially responsible and arguably socially. You have never given an answer to that outside of "Women make decisions, men don't. Sorry bros, but wrap your dick up and deal with the consequences. Except women don't have to, because they have a financial safety net."

I think that answer is sufficent. When it comes to abortions, women make decisions, men don't (or at least shouldn't). If you don't want to deal with the scenario that is out of your control, handle the scenario that is in your control appropriately.

 

[Zephyrus]

Play nice, Augusto. This is a warning.

 

[Dak]

IQ can change a lot at a young age, which I would hypothisize demonstrates the importance of early education. It can vary to a lesser degree (around 5 points) in adulthood. And no, someone with an 80 IQ (borderline retardation) isn't gonna become a rocket scientist, but that doesn't mean they can't make a contribution to society.

I haven't seen anything that suggests more than a 15 point swing either way from something like a "baseline g", which is a lot if you are near one of those thresholds if you will, but not something that is going to dramatically alter the life of someone (by itself). It's also not common at all. There's a baseline intelligence and then there is knowledge. The ability to process information versus the holding of it.

Of course people with varying levels of intelligence can make social contributions, however it is the case that below certain thresholds the contributions are both unlikely as well as most often limited when they occur. This was the group of people most aided by the industrial age and most harmed by its end.

 

[arg]

crimsonfloyd lost all credibility when he said a welfare [censored for zephy] with 5 little welfare turds are more valuable to society than a successful computer scientist lmao

 

[crimsonfloyd]

crimsonfloyd lost all credibility when he said a welfare [censored for zephy] with 5 little welfare turds are more valuable to society than a successful computer scientist lmao

You lost all credibility when you showed you couldn't grasp the theory of evolution.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

God you are so fucking uneducated on so many subjects.

 

[arg]

careless reproduction =/= evolution

an animal developing a thicker fur coat over time in a freezing environment is the latter

a welfare [censored for zephy] producing welfare turds to get more welfare is the former

happens in nature too. sometimes you have to thin the herd to save it. in order to save humanity in a time of limited resources, some (e.g. welfare people, the poor/diseased in africa, the horde of arab refugees on boats to europe) have to die.

 

[Matt]

Arg, you are full of shit. Go back to Asia or something.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

careless reproduction =/= evolution

an animal developing a thicker fur coat over time in a freezing environment is the latter

a welfare [censored for zephy] producing welfare turds to get more welfare is the former

happens in nature too. sometimes you have to thin the herd to save it. in order to save humanity in a time of limited resources, some (e.g. welfare people, the poor/diseased in africa, the horde of arab refugees on boats to europe) have to die.

You're full of ignorance and racism and like most bigots, you are irrational and therefore unable to grasp the truth. (Fitting to this conversation, there studies suggest a correlation between racism and low IQ). You don't get evolutionary theory and are too embedded in hate to apply the theory objectively, so there's no point in wasting more time discussing this with you.

 

[arg]

you're the one whose objectivity is clouded by bullshit like compassion and human rights. i base my arguments on realism, practicality and economic principles. you can't bear the truth of them and resort to name calling, fucking funny haha

 

[HamburgerBoy]

idgi, what did arg say that suggests he doesn't "get evolutionary theory"?

 

[rms]

Seems like crimson is using a very broad definition of evolution but I don't think I can be bothered "debating" with him anymore.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Oh, I missed this quote

More idiocy from you. There's no such thing as "devolution" within biology. Its a psuedoscience term that uneducated idiots use. You clearly don't understand the theory of evolution, so let me explain it to you. One is "evolved" if they are fit for their environment. One is defined as "fit for their environment" if they produce offspring that are capable of reproducing. Someone on welfare who has 5 children is far more fit than a billionaire who has no children.

Apparently he's unaware that for animals that have hierarchy and social structure, members not participating in reproduction can still improve the fitness of the overall group. I feel confident in saying that the small percent of the world's wealthy industrialists have improved the fitness of the human species more than the peasants actually having the babies. Also, lol @ the idea that welfare doesn't conflict with social Darwinism.

 

[Dak]

Fitness is a tautology now.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Oh, I missed this quote



Apparently he's unaware that for animals that have hierarchy and social structure, members not participating in reproduction can still improve the fitness of the overall group. I feel confident in saying that the small percent of the world's wealthy industrialists have improved the fitness of the human species more than the peasants actually having the babies.

You're just showing how little you understand biology. In biology, fitness simply refers to the reproduction of a certain genotype (or phenotype). Sadly, in America, a lot of people aren't taught this theory correctly and mix it with all sorts of non-biological nonsense or incorrectly apply it as a sort of moralism, which it simply is not meant or capable of doing (research the is/ought fallacy).

Anyway, if you want to learn more about the biological meaning of fitness you can start here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_27

Also, lol @ the idea that welfare doesn't conflict with social Darwinism.

Lol, Social "Darwinism" is at best a unscientific social philosophy and at worst pure pseudoscience. Either way, has no scinetific basis in the biological theory of evolution, let alone implications for biological evolution. The fact that you just brought it up shows you have no business even having this conversation.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Seems like crimson is using a very broad definition of evolution but I don't think I can be bothered "debating" with him anymore.

No, I'm using a very straight-forward, textbook definition of biological evolution. Others are clearly uneducated in the theory and are therefore suprised by the totally non-radical things I've been saying.

 

[rms]

A genotype's fitness includes its ability to survive, find a mate, produce offspring — and ultimately leave its genes in the next generation.

When natural selection acts on mate-finding and reproductive behavior, biologists call it sexual selection.

This seems to counter your point on the "exact" definition of fitness. I just don't get how natural selection is somehow separated in the theory of evolution in this discussion.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You're just showing how little you understand biology. In biology, fitness simply refers to the reproduction of a certain genotype (or phenotype). Sadly, in America, a lot of people aren't taught this theory correctly and mix it with all sorts of non-biological nonsense or incorrectly apply it as a sort of moralism, which it simply is not meant or capable of doing (research the is/ought fallacy).

Anyway, if you want to learn more about the biological meaning of fitness you can start here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_27

Lol, Social "Darwinism" is at best a unscientific social philosophy and at worst pure pseudoscience. Either way, has no scinetific basis in the biological theory of evolution, let alone implications for biological evolution. The fact that you just brought it up shows you have no business even having this conversation.

Read up on inclusive fitness, retard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness

Social Darwinism is absolutely relevant. In many societies, having more children than you can support means your children starve to death or die in some other manner, prior to reaching a reproductive age. A welfare mother is only more fit because we prop her up to have more children; in a real, competitive society more applicable to the concept of evolution, she would not be more fit. It's like calling a corgi more fit than a wolf. The productive class is the one dictating evolution, not natural selection, and their survival is more due to a quirk in human empathy.

 

[Dak]

I'm going to dispute both "classes" of fitness being defended here. In the event of some catastrophic strike to a western nation (especially the US) like an EMP which knocks out electricity availability for 5-10 years, neither the welfare momma nor the arg-like techboy is going to be surviving, in widespread terms. A "mad-max" world in the US privileges a vicious patriarchy which will consist of agricultural and energy fiefdoms in the heartland and marina mobs on the coasts.

 

[Einherjar86]

Let's just be clear here that Social Darwinism is a very specific institution that doesn't just purport to explain the death of children in an insufficient household.

Social Darwinism is a misinterpretation of Darwinian evolution. Social Darwinists argued that accumulation of wealth reflected inherent strength, and that poverty reflected weakness. They did not apply the Darwinian model correctly or appropriately, and redefined concepts (e.g. "survival of the most fit" as "survival of the fittest" - very different meanings). Social Darwinism has little to do with actual evolutionary theory, and (in my opinion) easily lends itself to criticism.