1. For those who say they are "totally against eugenics", are they in favor of dysgenics?
If it is against the healthiest, most intelligent and/or sensible becoming the majority of a population, then is it for or indifferent if the opposite pattern happens?
2. From the food we eat, the neighborhood we live in or would like to live in, the people we live with, etc., etc., we are always trying to select what we consider to be best for us. Therefore, a good part of our choices could be considered, in a certain way, as "intentionally eugenic".
Even those who delude themselves into thinking that human beings are extremely moldable by their environment also seek to select people in their lives based on what they consider to be the best. Their biggest difference in relation to those who are not deluded about this is that they believe in an unlimited power of social engineering, of improving people through social interventions, a thought that is, in a certain way, "eugenic", instead of giving themselves defeated, accepting that differences in behavior and intelligence are more intrinsic and can only be "resolved" with the application of some legitimately eugenic mechanism of reproductive selection.
3. "The university has always been an environment of free thought and scrutiny of current common sense"
Reality: it was never literal or exactly like that... Quite the contrary, as it has also been the place where tyrannies of thought have been fostered, transmitted and imposed...
4. "Eugenics is unethical because it violates individual rights"
In fact, individualism, like collectivism, is extremist and radical and not sensible or considered, as many think, precisely because it gives total decision-making power to the individual, while the most balanced thing is that this power is shared and that this distribution is rationally mediated by context.
4.1 All extremism starts from the imposition of practically absolute rules, without exception
This is the case with individualism.
4.2 This individualist ideology seems to preach a kind of supremacy of the individual
As if their rights were sacred, even when they overlap with collective well-being or even in relation to their own well-being.
4.3 "We must treat people as individuals"
Also...
But we also need to treat each other based on the groups to which we belong or identify, since it is common for us to express, whether we know it or not, whether we like it or not, their behavioral tendencies.
There is no need to exclude one approach for another if they are complementary.
4.4 Still on the idea of a one-child policy or a limit of two children for people with proven low cognitive ability (with an average IQ of 90 or less/commented on in the previous list of thought crimes)
... access to sterilization would be facilitated and they could be encouraged with financial rewards, preferably lifelong compensation offered by the state.
5. Pathological lying is like a psychological reaction of escaping from reality, subconsciously preventing the individual from falling into a depressive state, acting as a psychiatric self-treatment of a "homeopathic" nature, in which an illness is treated with supposedly controlled doses of the same evil that causes it, a "little" of madness to avoid greater "madness", which would be depression.
Because ideological fanaticism, including religious fanaticism, would be a contextualized manifestation of pathological lying, of a predominant escape from reality, generated by the dominance of the subconscious over the conscious, that is, of non-homeopathic doses of irrationality.
6. The cultural left has defined itself as the defender of the arts, but...
... low quality or questionable music; doodles, paintings and installations devoid of complexity, realism or beauty; poems without rhythm, meaning or depth...
Defender of the arts, demeaning them???
7. Football fanaticism or "footballism" could be considered a specific and strong symptom of intellectual retardation, especially in men
8. There are those who see horizons but cannot see their own feet (excessive idealists)
And there are those who only see their own feet (excessive pragmatists)
9. The greatest enemy of the most rational is not the anti-intellectual, even if he is one of the most irrational types, but the pseudo-intellectual, precisely by pretending to be him, by disputing or occupying his space of voice and action
10. Much of politics is quackery. A handful of cults or sects posing as serious policies, as evidence-based measures and philosophical pondering
11. About the predator instinct
Why do animals of species X feel a great predatory attraction towards animals of species Y?
Perhaps, because they present constitutive aspects of their bodies and their brains (or nervous systems), products of evolution, which make them specifically and highly reactive to the individuals in question.
sa species, in a sense of predation.
And also because they shared the same ecological niche for a long time, which may have contributed to this specific reaction, just like our variation in taste for food.
12. The left, on average, is well intentioned, but stupid. The right, on average, is ill-intentioned, but smart
"Traditionally", right represents the predator (also the parasite) and left represents the prey. The predator, in nature, is smarter than the prey, which at least recognizes its own oppression
But there are also parasites and predators that are born from prey...
Our greatest tragedy, our heroes are not smarter than our executioners
12.1. The right tends to use honesty as a means to legalize evil. The left tends to use dishonesty to advance primary or seemingly compassion-based policies.
13. Intelligence and behavior are “non-physical” traits
But specific brain constitutions that reflect reactive or behavioral and perceptual or intelligence patterns are also "physical traits."
14. The difference in perception and understanding of objective reality between the most rational and the least is comparable to the difference between a human being and a non-human animal
15. The legitimate fool is not the one who does not know, but the one who does not know that he does not know.
16. About "reparations for African slavery"
"White people need to pay reparations to black people"
So, mixed race people who are "half black and half white" only have to pay half??
Poor white people also have to pay and even rich and middle class black people??
However, much of the blame for the social problems of black Africans and their descendants in the diaspora, such as poverty and crime, lies with "them" (those directly responsible), because, on average, they present intrinsic characteristics of behavior and intelligence that disadvantage them socially, even more so in complex societies. This is not an apology for racism, white supremacy or Nazism. It is just an important part of this reality that many, for ideological reasons, do not want to accept.
And the ideal would not be to "make amends for the supposed legacy of slavery", but to put an end once and for all to exorbitant social inequalities, which don't just affect black people.
16.1. "Racial quota systems are necessary, because they are mechanisms that seek to repair the effects of the 'legacy of slavery' and 'structural racism', factors responsible for the differences between whites and blacks"
Reality: racial quota systems are based on a "good" social pseudoscience, on the false idea of causality between abstract terms, such as 'legacy of slavery' or 'structural racism', and social and other differences between whites and blacks. Because the main factor responsible for these differences are the intrinsic and statistical differences in behavior and intelligence between ethnic-racial groups. In other words, if there is a disproportion of poor black people, it is not because they have supposedly been or continue to be socially excluded, but because the majority of them do not present psychological characteristics (such as prudence) and cognitive characteristics (high cognitive capacity) that favor them in the future. professional and economic sector. This means that, obviously, there are black people with favorable characteristics, as well as white people and other groups lacking them, if we are talking about statistical group variation.
Not that poverty is justified only by the intrinsic characteristics of individuals, because the imposition of low wages and high costs of living, in short, of arbitrary measures that complicate the lives of the working class, also plays an important role in perpetuating extreme social inequalities.
This does not mean that the evaluation and selection system for federal universities and/or public positions is completely meritorious, in the sense of being strictly based on evidence or the best approaches. That is why I have already proposed changes to it, particularly regarding the emphasis on the assessment of general knowledge, directing the focus to knowledge specific to the chosen area. I even believe that, following this change, there would be a natural increase, without the need for quotas, of students from other racial groups at universities and those hired in the public service.
Even so, it is a fallacy to believe that all professional and social fields need to present proportions of racial groups consistent with the national or local demographic composition, or more "balanced", if the most important thing is selection based on merit of ability, which is independent of this .
And as for social and racial differences, the biggest problem is not that there are few black dentists or lawyers or a majority of white dentists and lawyers, but that there are such large social differences, especially among people who are in great need, with income and assets. insufficient, even if they are hardworking and honest, and exaggeratedly well-off people.
17. 3 ways to say the same thing: from the most wrong to the most right
1. "All black people are violent" (explicit and therefore racist generalization)
2. "Black people are more likely to
violent behaviors" (partial or vague and implicit generalization)
3. "There has been a statistical disproportion of black (men) involved in violent behavior" (emphasis on demographic/cutout, leaving no room for generalizations)
18. About changing the race of fictional characters in films and other artistic works due to ideological motivation
Self-declared progressive: "he's just a fictional character, who doesn't exist. What's the problem with changing his race??"
Me: "so if it's just a fictional character, why change his race??"
Self-declared progressive: "it is important that character Y is from race X and not from Y so that children of race X feel represented or identify themselves"
Me: "but if it's just a fictional character, why worry about his race or that children of race X won't feel represented if the character is of another race??"
Me: "We identify with animals and sea sponges in cartoons. Why think that children of race X wouldn't identify with a fictional character of race Y"??
19. "White lies" can be very cruel
Because if you say that an aesthetically "ugly" person is very beautiful, you can exacerbate their "ugliness" for yourself, for others involved, and for themselves. The ideal is to emphasize what the person stands out for positively and avoid exaggerations or "torn" compliments in relation to what they don't stand out for or what they do, but negatively.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário