Lesbians leading the way in eugenics

[Ben Kenobi]

I believe that Christ died on the cross, and rose from the dead three days after being buried in the tomb.

I believe that he is the Son of God, and that he was both God and man.

I believe the counter arguments (ie, he didn't die, the disciples stole the body, etc) to be less compelling than him dying and rising again.

I'm amused by nihilists who comment on how unbelievable Christianity is, while accepting the existance of Caesar and Alexander.

[Heraclitus]

How is this a reply to my post? It is obvious that children of intelligent people are also more likely to be intelligent. My problem is you without a thought connecting poverty and un-intelligence in the same sentence, and thus saying that children of poor people are less likely to have a genetic inclination towards intelligence. Since (I presume) the variation of social status and wealth over the generations is smaller than the variation in intelligence, that doesn't make sense.

Not nesecarily, you see their failure to properly control for afluence is a flaw in the study, I didn't explicitly say this was due to genetics, if you notice I also mentioned the Lesbian couple attending the library (an environmental factor) and lviing in a good neighbourhood. I was primarily contrasting the two examples.

As to poverty and inteligence, this depends on how meritocratic a society is, it also probably has a few envirnomental feedbacks. I'm not nesecarily saying there is a large difference once one controls for this, but you must admit that a slight difference probably does exist even in rigid societies.

The bit about choosing the ex-convict as the father was the much bigger reason I presented her as an example of low inteligence.

[Heraclitus]

I believe that Christ died on the cross, and rose from the dead three days after being buried in the tomb.

I believe that he is the Son of God, and that he was both God and man.

I believe the counter arguments (ie, he didn't die, the disciples stole the body, etc) to be less compelling than him dying and rising again.

I'm amused by nihilists who comment on how unbelievable Christianity is, while accepting the existance of Caesar and Alexander.

I'm not going to argue against Christianity per se, but I will argue against your reasoning. Why do you think Maniac is a nihilist? There a few workable models besides nihilism for atheists (the simples one being "not thinking about the point of life too deeply", other options include secular humanism, transhumanism, familialism, existentialism and of course various overman philosophical approaches).

[Hauldren Collider]

Heraclitus, you are a giant infected clit.

[Heraclitus]

Do smart people done sperm?

I think the average donor is probably average. In any case this isn't about hte average donor.


Here in Slovenia you get to pick somone who looks like the infertile dad and that's about it, you can find out their level of education and a few health related facts but that's it.

In America its a buisness, much more info is available. All you need is for just a few donors to be above average and people will buy up their sperm.

[Heraclitus]

Heraclitus, you are a giant infected clit.

You aren't really presenting a coherent argument as to why artificial insemination where people routinley select people with high SAT scores isn't eguenics.

You seem to oppose eugenics. Do you also oppose letting parents choose the sperm donor based on things like LSAT or height?

[Al B. Sure!]

LSAT? Are they all lawyers?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not going to argue against Christianity per se, but I will argue against your reasoning.

Nihilism has some phenomenological problems. Ie, if you trust nothing, then how can you make cogent observations about the world. It's not exactly a programme requiring deep thought.

But it does ask questions, as to how can we know truly what has occurred is the truth? It points out just how much we rely upon authority in order to function in the world. It sets the table as to the steps that a philosophy must follow in order to be considered true.

I would argue that nihilism is correct in most of the questions that it asks, but draws the wrong conclusion from them. It argues that there is, in fact, no truth, based on the problems with all of them, including empiricism. I would argue that the problems we see are because we were not made for this world, and our attempts to reconcile our heads with what we see are doomed to fail because we were made for somewhere else. We can't, "make it fit" because we simply cannot do so.

There a few workable models besides nihilism for atheists, secular humanism

Secular humanism is crap. The belief that humanity has been corrupted by outside forces is false. Hobbes has it correct by arguing that mankind is fundamentally flawed. You can't eradicate evil, because evil is a part of all of us.

transhumanism

Assumes evolution works only one way. It's just as flawed as empiricism is, which assumed that progress is inexorable.

familialism

Is crap, because it assumes that the 'nuclear family', a term not defined itself since the '40s, applies to older family structures. The model has pretty much always been extended families.

existentialism

Is a corruption of Kierkegaard (whom I like quite a bit), and (Neitzsche). Neitszche assumes that truth, even of yourself is unreliable, rather then assuming that what I believe is correct, because it is what I believe. It's just relativism wrapped up in a palatable package. It's useless for making any form of ethical system.

For an atheist, it's really only Neitzsche alone. He's the only game in town.

[Heraclitus]

LSAT? Are they all lawyers?

Some of them are. And people can find out the occupation of the donor and pick on that criteria as well.

I also used LSAT since it correlates with IQ pretty well. Things like MEAP, NLSY MCAT can also be ok proxies.

[Al B. Sure!]

What about GRE and GMAT?

[KrazyHorse]

GMAT is a joke

[giblets]

Secular humanism is crap. The belief that humanity has been corrupted by outside forces is false. Hobbes has it correct by arguing that mankind is fundamentally flawed. You can't eradicate evil, because evil is a part of all of us.

Ben doesn't seem to know what the term means.

[q=Wikipedia]Secular Humanism is a secular philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects supernatural and religious dogma as the basis of morality and decision-making. Secular Humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives.

Secular Humanism (capital "H") is distinguished from various other humanisms. Though Secular Humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion, or God, that is not to say it assumes humans to be inherently or innately good. Nor does it present humans as "above nature" or superior to it; by contrast, the Humanist life stance emphasises the unique responsibility facing humanity and the consequences of our ethical decisions.[/q]

[Heraclitus]

GRE

Also correlates pretty well if I recall right.

GMAT

Don't recall hearing this ever mentioned as a reliable proxy.


To add another example WISC quite logically correlates with IQ.

[Ben Kenobi]

it assumes humans to be inherently or innately good

Yes, it does. Look at Voltaire, Rousseau, etc. All the founders of secular humanism assumed that human NATURE is inherently or innately good and that society, or some other outside force is evil, and corrupts people. This is why they are so bent at 'fixing society', because if you fix society you can fix what's wrong with men.

Hells bells, Neitzsche even makes this argument as to why he rejects secular humanism.

Your definition reduces secular humanism to:

"God is bad, leave me alone to play in my room". Zero bit compelling. If I wanted a philosophy that was to be the absence of religion, I'd go with nihilism, TYVM.

[Maniac]

As to poverty and inteligence, this depends on how meritocratic a society is, it also probably has a few envirnomental feedbacks. I'm not nesecarily saying there is a large difference once one controls for this, but you must admit that a slight difference probably does exist even in rigid societies.

Sure. But if you favour eugenics, I feel you should support left-wing meritocratic equal-chances policies rather than the right-wing plutocratic vibes I'm getting from you in this thread.

It's useless for making any form of ethical system.

Truth is truth regardless of whether it's useful to make an ethical system that can work for all society. Why is it so hard to hold whatever moral values you have without needing to justify them with Christian "facts"?