Eugenics and Libertarianism -- PLEASE HELP ME DEBATE

[nirgrahamUK]

what is the appropriate methodology to use to arrive at an answer to the challenge…

Do you belive more people become millionaires through the state or idenpendent of it?

[Stranger]

@nirgrahamUK

what is the appropriate methodology to use to arrive at an answer to the challenge…

Do you belive more people become millionaires through the state or idenpendent of it?

It is irrelevant anyway. The people who rise in corrupt system may be corrupt, but they are never dumb.

[luckylad33]

@GilesStratton

Try making your posts coherent in future.

Try not to use fragmented sentences while criticizing a persons grammar in future.

[hayekianxyz]

The incoherent part wasn’t referring to your grammar.

[hayekianxyz]

@Marko

How do you know?

It’s quite obvious.

@Marko

And please stop with the nonsense. Middle class doesnt count as affluent. Affluent is another word for rich. Its a synonym for it. Look it up. If middle was rich they would be called rich, they wouldn`t be called middle.

Yes, middle to upper class individuals are considered relatively wealthy.

@Marko

Is high time preference a crime, Giles?

It usually leads to it though.

@Marko

No I have, but you`ve chosen to ignore it.

How can I ignore what you’ve not shown?

@Marko

I just don`t like those who think they are better as such for being better off.

I’m not one of those though, so what’s the issue?

[Thedesolateone]

@GilesStratton

@Thedesolateone

I have extreme doubts as to whether they are born significantly (or at all) less intelligent. That they receive poorer schooling, have much worse encouragement at home, less access to books etc, are probably more important.

Despite what Marxists say, nature is more important than nurture.

Hmm

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23588962-details/The+secret+of+your+success+10,000+hours/article.do

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1078842/Practice-makes-perfect-Why-takes-10-000-hours-success-according-academic.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/03/31/polgar_ed3_.php?page=2

[Thedesolateone]

@GilesStratton

@Thedesolateone

As a completely valuless point, most “rich” people I know are liberal, whereas the conservatives I know are in general poorer. Many poorer people have socially conservative values.

I’ve noticed the opposite.

Anecdotal evidence vs. anecdotal evidence

@GilesStratton

@Thedesolateone

Most crimes committed are what we would both term “non-crimes” (i.e. drug “offences”). Yes, theft is higher in some poorer neighbourhoods, but this is not necessarily true. In many favelas and townships there is a very low level of acquisitive and violent crime between residents.

You’re from London, correct? I wonder, how often do you walk the streets of Hackney or Brixton at night?

Interestingly enough, I’m going to a friend’s party in Brixton this very night!

[Thedesolateone]

@Stranger

@Thedesolateone

And I know of quite a few, for example the billionaire who set up sports world etc in our country Giles. He is fat, ugly, very very stupid, and there is a good case that he is corrupt. However, he managed to see a niche in the market, exploit it, and build up several hugely successful businesses. And this is in an industry hardly subsidised by government (stolen) money.

EDIT: Mike Ashley is the name, I forgot to say. He own(s/ed) Newcastle United FC as well.

Did he couple with a fat, dumb, obscene woman?

Already answered by someone else, but I believe he at the moment couples with a slim, dumb, attractive woman.

[Thedesolateone]

One last point, when I refer to “rich” I mean upper middle and upper class, so I’m seeing eye-to-eye with you on that respect Giles.

[tacoface]

I just have to get this out -

GilesStratton, I hold basically the same economic views you hold (Hoppean), yet, despite this, I find it puzzling you put so much energy into attacking “alternative” lifestyles, and the people that live them. I don’t live an “alternative” lifestyle, I laugh at people who do, yet I couldn’t care if these people lived in an Ancap society…you sound like you do, it’s as if you have some sort of slurred vendetta against them. I’d like to know just what happened to you for you to hate them so much? Life couldn’t have been that bad for you, could it? Were you bullied?

And you seem to hold religious views, and be proud of it. Now, I’m not saying there’s anything particulary wrong with that, but I would’ve thought that most members, especially you, would have been intelligent (rational) enough to discard any dogmatic beliefs…especially since we (you) are all so keen to attack Keynesians, Marxists, Left Libertarians, etc.

And as for the rich being physically, intellectually and morally fit, I don’t know, haven’t spent enough time around rich people. I wouldn’t class myself or my family rich per se, yet I am physically, intellectually, and morally fit, and know that one day I will be amongst the rich. So I guess it’s a fulfilling prophecy. I agree with you there too.

Just some points that have been lurking in the expanse of my mind…had to get it out

[hayekianxyz]

@tacoface

GilesStratton, I hold basically the same economic views you hold (Hoppean), yet, despite this, I find it puzzling you put so much energy into attacking “alternative” lifestyles, and the people that live them. I don’t live an “alternative” lifestyle, I laugh at people who do, yet I couldn’t care if these people lived in an Ancap society…you sound like you do, it’s as if you have some sort of slurred vendetta against them. I’d like to know just what happened to you for you to hate them so much? Life couldn’t have been that bad for you, could it? Were you bullied?

I do not hate those that live alternative lifestyles. What I have an issue with is the fact that the state subsidizes, and to a large extent makes possible, these lifestyles. I do take an issue with a lot of the individuals and the lifestyles they live, no doubt, but not nearly to the extent you make out. My primary issue is with state privileges to these groups.

@tacoface

Now, I’m not saying there’s anything particulary wrong with that, but I would’ve thought that most members, especially you, would have been intelligent (rational) enough to discard any dogmatic beliefs…especially since we (you) are all so keen to attack Keynesians, Marxists, Left Libertarians, etc.

Which dogmatic beliefs are these?

[tacoface]

You seem to hold views historically associated with the Christian tradition - rather dogmatic I believe…I could be wrong though…probably will be.

How old are you by the way?

[hayekianxyz]

18, and there’s nothing dogmatic about it.

[tacoface]

Nothing dogmatic about Christianity? I thought it was the epitome…

[banned]

@tacoface

Nothing dogmatic about Christianity?

Please elaborate on what you mean by dogmatic.

[Thedesolateone]

@GilesStratton

18

You’re 18, and live in the UK. Please don’t say you live in south london?

We’re just about the same person

[Hairnet]

I don’t think the fact that you can genetically test parents means that your children will be super anything. For two reasons.

1. At best such testing would just optimize the genetic quality of newborns which eggs and sperms should go together, and which people “should” have sex together.

2. A baby with desirable traits has alot going for it, but it will be comletely chopped away at by our retarded culture and poor parenting anyway. A baby born without a foot and good parents is better off than Aryan-X-Men_Overmench-9000 with poor parents anyway.

It does not sound like you are talking about Gener Therapy or any other transhumanism topics anyway. Genetic Testing just makes more possible what was already possible through dumb luck.

Homosexuality is not a genetic thing in my experience, with the right tinkering of ones own perception you can be sexually or romantically attracted to any gender.

[hayekianxyz]

@Thedesolateone

You’re 18, and live in the UK. Please don’t say you live in south london?

Nope, I don’t.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Homosexuality is not a genetic thing in my experience, with the right tinkering of ones own perception you can be sexually or romantically attracted to any gender.

Proof? All I’d be attracted to then is images in my head, not the person themselves.

[capitalist]

Although the thread has been derailed a bit, thanks to all for the responses. I have a new discussion question/stance that have been raised by my classmates (not me) for y’all to handle:

I believe that genetic modification (i.e. the production of ‘designer babies’) should only be allowed if it is state sponsored because if it is left to a laissez-faire capitalistic market than the gap between the rich would widen even further because the rich will be able to create genetically near perfect children. This will eliminate the ‘American Dream’ by making it nearly impossible for the children of the poor to rise up in society when competing with their wealthier, genetically perfect counterparts.

I know this argument is wrong, but it is very hard for me to disprove it in one short, 50-minute class period. PLEASE, please, please – somebody help me.

Thanks!!