People aren't nits. People aren't lice. People are people. Scientifically, spiritually, even genetically, there's no reason to think what makes a human being bad is a result of parental determinism.
Blank slate theory is judeo commie subversion. It isn't a coincidence that niggers are impulsive, violent apes, or that jews are greedy, manipulative, subversive scum. It's written into their fucking DNA.
Then what kind of subversion is unadulterated determinism? It's just as fucking stupid. Genetic heritage gives living things predilections and potential and tendencies. It does not determine behavior, nor does it come anywhere even close to the neighborhood of predicting "good" vs. "bad."
I'm honestly boggled that you and the other guy have managed to wedge yourselves into a head-space where literally all cultivation, all rearing, all education, all training, is worth zero, while chromosomes somehow call all of the shots. It sounds so frankly and obviously stupid. I expect this from subcontinent Indian Brahmins, not white Westerners.
There are a thousand instances of wisdom from our elders of the type: "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree." Even the ancients knew that the son will be like the father.
We also have thousands of instances from our elders about overcoming the patterns and hardships of rotten circumstances or an ill-favored birth. "The ancients," whoever they are, covered both ends of this in depth and breadth.
I'm not sure what kind of bonkers I'm dealing with here. Genetic/biological determinism, obviously. Failure to recognize genotype vs. phenotype? Yeah that too. Biological mechanism?
Just a generally fucked-up, uncharitable attitude, is what I say. It's an insult to anyone who ever achieved despite being given shitty odds. This sort of "You'll never rise above" attitude is how we get to Canada's demonic MAID system.
And two black people can have white kids thanks to albinism. Doesn't make it the norm.
The silly part is pretending all statistical distributions have the same mean, or pretending we live in some post-scarcity utopia where dedicating resources to people most likely to be disgusting reprobates isn't reducing the resources available for raising more people far more likely to be good and decent individuals.
This isn't a matter of norms or statistical means here. We started with, the context is, who gets protected from mutilation and/or death. The answer is people. My answer is, people, regardless whether they're black or poor or Chinese or whatever. In the United States, in the white Christian world, we protect the young, vulnerable, innocent--we protect children and babies from degradations and predations. We don't assign babies genetic probabilities of being undesirable, then say okay you're fair game for whatever from whomever. That's barbarous.
This isn't a matter of norms or statistical means here
Yes, it is, but you're obviously willing to put your head in the sand before engaging with that.
In the United States, in the white Christian world, we protect the young, vulnerable, innocent--we protect children and babies from degradations and predations.
That is objectively not true. We protect some of them, and leave millions more to suffer predation and degradation from all levels of society. Files documenting some of those most high profile failures to protect have been national news for months now so don't pretend not to know that, not to mention the long history of documented failures around the school system, foster care system, etc. Because the truth is the resources aren't there to protect everyone, and if we're not going to protect everyone then I'd chose not spend those efforts first on the genealogies most likely to grow up into future predators, but rather last.
Yes, it is, but you're obviously willing to put your head in the sand before engaging with that.
Whatever you like. I'm not allowing my part to drift into hard eugenicism. You can take that or leave it.
That is objectively not true. We protect some of them, and leave millions more to suffer predation and degradation from all levels of society. Files documenting some of those most high profile failures to protect have been national news for months now so don't pretend not to know that, not to mention the long history of documented failures around the school system, foster care system, etc. Because the truth is the resources aren't there to protect everyone, and if we're not going to protect everyone then I'd chose not spend those efforts first on the genealogies most likely to grow up into future predators, but rather last.
We protect all we know about and can reasonably do something about. "Leaving to suffer" is a matter of knowledge, never a cold calculation of resource allocation. Just because we can't win them all, just because there are failures, doesn't in any way mean our intent, as civilized folk, is to leave babies and children at the mercy of malicious adult behavior, because we've noted their genetic heritage and find it icky.
Kids of bad people can grow up to be good people.
C'mon, you know this. Don't be silly.
Nits become lice.
People aren't nits. People aren't lice. People are people. Scientifically, spiritually, even genetically, there's no reason to think what makes a human being bad is a result of parental determinism.
Blank slate theory is judeo commie subversion. It isn't a coincidence that niggers are impulsive, violent apes, or that jews are greedy, manipulative, subversive scum. It's written into their fucking DNA.
Then what kind of subversion is unadulterated determinism? It's just as fucking stupid. Genetic heritage gives living things predilections and potential and tendencies. It does not determine behavior, nor does it come anywhere even close to the neighborhood of predicting "good" vs. "bad."
I'm honestly boggled that you and the other guy have managed to wedge yourselves into a head-space where literally all cultivation, all rearing, all education, all training, is worth zero, while chromosomes somehow call all of the shots. It sounds so frankly and obviously stupid. I expect this from subcontinent Indian Brahmins, not white Westerners.
Bullshit.
There are a thousand instances of wisdom from our elders of the type: "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree." Even the ancients knew that the son will be like the father.
We also have thousands of instances from our elders about overcoming the patterns and hardships of rotten circumstances or an ill-favored birth. "The ancients," whoever they are, covered both ends of this in depth and breadth.
I'm not sure what kind of bonkers I'm dealing with here. Genetic/biological determinism, obviously. Failure to recognize genotype vs. phenotype? Yeah that too. Biological mechanism?
Just a generally fucked-up, uncharitable attitude, is what I say. It's an insult to anyone who ever achieved despite being given shitty odds. This sort of "You'll never rise above" attitude is how we get to Canada's demonic MAID system.
And two black people can have white kids thanks to albinism. Doesn't make it the norm.
The silly part is pretending all statistical distributions have the same mean, or pretending we live in some post-scarcity utopia where dedicating resources to people most likely to be disgusting reprobates isn't reducing the resources available for raising more people far more likely to be good and decent individuals.
This isn't a matter of norms or statistical means here. We started with, the context is, who gets protected from mutilation and/or death. The answer is people. My answer is, people, regardless whether they're black or poor or Chinese or whatever. In the United States, in the white Christian world, we protect the young, vulnerable, innocent--we protect children and babies from degradations and predations. We don't assign babies genetic probabilities of being undesirable, then say okay you're fair game for whatever from whomever. That's barbarous.
Yes, it is, but you're obviously willing to put your head in the sand before engaging with that.
That is objectively not true. We protect some of them, and leave millions more to suffer predation and degradation from all levels of society. Files documenting some of those most high profile failures to protect have been national news for months now so don't pretend not to know that, not to mention the long history of documented failures around the school system, foster care system, etc. Because the truth is the resources aren't there to protect everyone, and if we're not going to protect everyone then I'd chose not spend those efforts first on the genealogies most likely to grow up into future predators, but rather last.
Whatever you like. I'm not allowing my part to drift into hard eugenicism. You can take that or leave it.
We protect all we know about and can reasonably do something about. "Leaving to suffer" is a matter of knowledge, never a cold calculation of resource allocation. Just because we can't win them all, just because there are failures, doesn't in any way mean our intent, as civilized folk, is to leave babies and children at the mercy of malicious adult behavior, because we've noted their genetic heritage and find it icky.
This is nasty stuff.