The Abortion (that is this) Thread

[Nephilim96]

I can't tell who to side with because it's all tl;dr

 

[arg]

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

Social Darwinism is fucking brilliant, thank you for bringing it up, Hamburgerboy. it makes me happy to find out that without even specifically reading about it, i think the same way as intellectuals from the late 1800s who formed such a badass school of thought with a solid basis on sociology, biology and economics.

Another of these social interpretations of Darwin's biological views, later known as eugenics, was put forth by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, in 1865 and 1869. Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, the same could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social morals needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision in order to avoid both the over-breeding by less fit members of society and the under-breeding of the more fit ones.

In Galton's view, social institutions such as welfare and insane asylums were allowing inferior humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more "superior" humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with "inferiors."

In 1883, Sumner published a highly influential pamphlet entitled "What Social Classes Owe to Each Other", in which he insisted that the social classes owe each other nothing, synthesizing Darwin's findings with free enterprise Capitalism for his justification.[citation needed] According to Sumner, those who feel an obligation to provide assistance to those unequipped or under-equipped to compete for resources, will lead to a country in which the weak and inferior are encouraged to breed more like them, eventually dragging the country down. Sumner also believed that the best equipped to win the struggle for existence was the American businessman, and concluded that taxes and regulations serve as dangers to his survival.

that's fucking cool. these dudes are smarter than you, crimsonfloyd. i bet their IQs are 160+

 

[HamburgerBoy]

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.

Traditional evolutionary theory is irrelevant to begin with in the context of this discussion. crimsonfloyd was the first to bring up evolution and fitness in reply to arg saying an unwanted fetus will likely develop into an unwanted and unproductive human. I'm not arguing in favor of the idea that the wealthiest and most powerful are therefore the most fit, I'm saying that crimsonfloyd's argument that a welfare mother with five babies is more valuable because she is "more fit" is nonsense, particularly because we live in a complex social system where individual fitness takes a backseat to maximized quality of life. Additionally, I'm saying that to apply the concept of fitness in this case does make parasitism relevant. If collecting welfare makes a person maximally efficient at reproduction, it encourages the perpetuation of traits that further promote said behavior. Biologically we shouldn't have to worry about that because sloth is more learned than biological, but in the sense of social evolution (certain behaviors contributing to a better, healthier population), it's absolutely counter-productive and degenerate to support welfare babies.

 

[Einherjar86]

Social Darwinism is equally irrelevant. It's an embarrassingly fallacious and misinformed system, and there are plenty of other far more intelligent ways to assess inequality - and I'm not just talking about leftist/progressive models. Social Darwinism really should just be abandoned. It's a system of values, and it appeals to nature in an ideological sense, not scientific.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No, it's relevant when we're discussing value to society and when someone incorrectly tries to use the concept of evolution to insist that reproduction is the most valuable aspect of society.

 

[Einherjar86]

So, appeal to a fallacious institution to correct a fallacious claim? Sounds reasonable.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Do you find it unreasonable that some people are more valuable to society than others? Do you find it unreasonable that some destructive behaviors in society are self-perpetuating in a way that are effectively inheritable, family-linked traits?

 

[arg]

the social darwinists have been right all along! look at america today. the economy is in shambles. the average national intelligence is getting dumber. europe will soon be in the shitter too with the arab invasion.

if social darwinism had been applied, the country would be better. the world would be better. the reason it's not widely accepted is because most humans are weak, sympathetic, left-wing liberal sheep.

and it will only get worse because they run the government and will continue to do so because they have all the weak people voting them in.

we need a new hitler. we need a new holocaust.

 

[Einherjar86]

Do you find it unreasonable that some people are more valuable to society than others?

Yes. Value isn't absolutely measurable, and it often comes down to what people/groups of people identify as valuable. Donald Trump might employ a large number of individuals, but this doesn't make him more valuable than someone who owns a small local business. Production is not the sole reason for value. I'd be willing to bet that, if you did a poll on whether Henry Ford or Martin Luther King Jr. were more "valuable," it would be close.

But the bigger point is that it's really pointless to make these kinds of claims because there isn't any kind of objective quantity of value behind these figures. And when it comes to models such as Social Darwinism, you find that certain kinds of figures are valued/privileged over others. This isn't scientific, it's purely ideological.

Do you find it unreasonable that some destructive behaviors in society are self-perpetuating in a way that are effectively inheritable, family-linked traits?

No, I don't find it unreasonable that children in impoverished households will act similarly to their parents. But here's where I have a problem:

Social Darwinism doesn't say that social conditions and circumstances will continue to influence the way that people behave - this is actually the leftist argument, that society has effects on how we behave.

Social Darwinism explains the poverty of families by saying they are somehow meant to be there, that there is something genetically inferior about them. That is pure hogwash and intellectual bankruptcy, and the field of epigenetics is not strong enough to substantiate such a view.

we need a new hitler. we need a new holocaust.

Either you're trying to be funny and failing miserably; but it's really sad because I don't think you're joking. And it's depressing to think about how dejected and directionless you must feel to say things like this.

 

[arg]

social darwinism is an ideology with a factual basis.

do you deny that more babies = more resource consumption?

do you deny that investing in an innovative start-up tech firm that could generate millions and create jobs and make even more lives better is more productive and rational than giving money to poor fucks who'll just eat it and shit it out?

sure it's not a pure science. doesn't mean it's not correct. it's certainly better than lovey-dovey leftist bullshit. that's not science either. tell me, why do you think the latter is better?

 

[Einherjar86]

social darwinism is an ideology with a factual basis.

do you deny that more babies = more resource consumption?

do you deny that investing in an innovative start-up tech firm that could generate millions and create jobs and make even more lives better is more productive and rational than giving money to poor fucks who'll just eat it and shit it out?

sure it's not a pure science. doesn't mean it's not correct. it's certainly better than lovey-dovey leftist bullshit. that's not science either. tell me, why do you think the latter is better?

Social Darwinism observes certain facts/scenarios at work in the world and then draws purportedly causal ties between factors without proper evidentiary support. It perceives cause where there is, most likely, only correlation. Furthermore, it uses its own conclusions to rationalize the wholesale rejection of large groups of people when there is absolutely no reason to do so. It's purely a means of rationalizing angst toward the lower classes (which is exactly what you're doing).

I don't deny that more mouths equals more consumption; but I do deny that this means those mouths at the bottom of the caste system should die. That is nothing more than a sensationalist and reactionary response.

As far as investing in a large tech firm goes, let's think about this:

Efficiency does not necessarily mean employment. We like to think that continually reinvesting in companies means that, as they grow, they will hire more people. But think about this: if a company has a bad year and manages to get by without hiring new people, then that means that they've figured out a way to be more efficient without hiring more employees. Let's say the following year they do really well; they might hire some new people, but they won't use all their gains to hire new people because they will have learned how to produce the same amount without new bodies taking a paycheck. So that money will go into their own bank accounts, or to their current employees' bank accounts, or back into their investments. Businesses are efficiency machines, not hiring machines.

That said, what if companies that were able to increase profits but chose not to hire new employees decided to invest that money in urban infrastructure, in housing for the homeless, or in programs to help the unemployed find work? In my opinion, that would be more productive than the company simply reinvesting in themselves, and could actually lead to higher employment nationwide.

I don't know what you mean by "lovey-dovey leftist bullshit"; in my opinion, the way to getting people jobs is through a market economy, albeit one that is monitored and regulated. I don't endorse a social Darwinist ideology that merely rationalizes a cutthroat business strategy and justifies the wholesale extermination of certain groups. That is quite obviously absurd, irrational, unethical, and mostly importantly it is unnecessary; it's not even a disaster waiting to happen, it is a fucking disaster.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I don't know about social darwinism, but we need to do something about all the young males that grow up with too much testosterone for them to focus on anything involving any intelligence and who have no successful males to control them at home.

 

[arg]

Social Darwinism observes certain facts/scenarios at work in the world and then draws purportedly causal ties between factors without proper evidentiary support. It perceives cause where there is, most likely, only correlation. Furthermore, it uses its own conclusions to rationalize the wholesale rejection of large groups of people when there is absolutely no reason to do so. It's purely a means of rationalizing angst toward the lower classes (which is exactly what you're doing).

I don't deny that more mouths equals more consumption; but I do deny that this means those mouths at the bottom of the caste system should die. That is nothing more than a sensationalist and reactionary response.

the correlation is good enough. it does not take rocket science to deduce, based on observation of many groups over many years, that spending resources on certain demographics (welfare, refugees, africans) goes nowhere. it does however, keep them healthy enough to fuck and create more mouths because hey, the government will feed us!

As far as investing in a large tech firm goes, let's think about this:

Efficiency does not necessarily mean employment. We like to think that continually reinvesting in companies means that, as they grow, they will hire more people. But think about this: if a company has a bad year and manages to get by without hiring new people, then that means that they've figured out a way to be more efficient without hiring more employees. Let's say the following year they do really well; they might hire some new people, but they won't use all their gains to hire new people because they will have learned how to produce the same amount without new bodies taking a paycheck. So that money will go into their own bank accounts, or to their current employees' bank accounts, or back into their investments. Businesses are efficiency machines, not hiring machines.

but they do hire, so that's good. as for the excess money, why should the government take it? it belongs in their bank accounts because they earned it!

That said, what if companies that were able to increase profits but chose not to hire new employees decided to invest that money in urban infrastructure, in housing for the homeless, or in programs to help the unemployed find work? In my opinion, that would be more productive than the company simply reinvesting in themselves, and could actually lead to higher employment nationwide.

sure, i agree that some "smart" poor people, who have clearly demonstrated potential, and are responsible family planners, could use a hand. but we shouldn't just give free money for everyone and their babies.

I don't know what you mean by "lovey-dovey leftist bullshit"; in my opinion, the way to getting people jobs is through a market economy, albeit one that is monitored and regulated. I don't endorse a social Darwinist ideology that merely rationalizes a cutthroat business strategy and justifies the wholesale extermination of certain groups. That is quite obviously absurd, irrational, unethical, and mostly importantly it is unnecessary; it's not even a disaster waiting to happen, it is a fucking disaster.

it may seem unnecessary in the short term. sure, their existence won't kill you or me today or next week. but you have to look at the big picture, think 50 or 100 years from now. resources continually dwindling, the wretched and stupid continually multiplying. THAT will be a disaster. when you have a festering disease on your leg, fucking amputate it don't nurture it. wouldn't you rather have a couple million people with good lives over a couple billion all with shit lives?

but i get it, you and crimsonfloyd are ok with that, because you're so full of love and compassion and ethics. doesn't matter if the human race will one day be overpopulated and starving, as long as you see the smiling faces of black kids and refugees. don't stop giving, let's all suffer together and die together, as long as there is love.

 

[RedStorm]

stop. im going to have to close this thread

 

[Einherjar86]

Don't you mean abort it?

...

 

[RedStorm]

ahaha

 

[Zephyrus]

This thread is more of a miscarriage, tbh.

 

[Einherjar86]

It was kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. I created it so we could pursue the argument from the News Thread, knowing full well that it probably would sputter into pure angst and hatred.

I did not anticipate having to counter endorsements of fucking Nazism. Goes to show you just never know some people (that isn't true, I've known arg is a moron for some time now).

I realize that Dak's Batshit Thread is where debate usually happens, but unfortunately it's mostly Dak and me, with an occasional drop-in from Grant, Jimmy, and rms. I think most people avoid it because they figure it's where David and I go to kick sand in each other's faces.

But the truth is I really don't post in it as much as I used to; and perhaps if it was just called the Debate Thread, or something, more people would be apt to transport their arguments there...

 

[RedStorm]

arguing is fun

 

[arg]

i don't like to brag but my IQ is 128, i was in the "smart" class in high school, also have a bs and an ms. i barely read or studied cuz i was a lazy fuck but got mostly Bs and B+s anyway