Impeach this Buffoon
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (101)
sorted by:
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.
Their lineage is not "icky", it's just statically much more likely to be harmful to society. Debating resource allocation isn't "nasty stuff", it's just uncomfortable for people sheltered from reality. Abandon this childish language and grow up already.
These are the families future children are most likely to need protecting from, you can't talk about wanting to protect people without having any real intent to deal with the predators. If some of them are willing to destroy themselves by their own hand, at the very least don't step in their way. A lawman who spends all day in his basement philosophizing on how utopia should look like does far less good for society than one who applies accurate statistics to racial profiling and stops many violent crimes. Our intent as civilized folk, should be to attain results that strengthen and support civilization, not spend our lives penning the most righteous and useless vanity project in town.
You either accept and adapt to reality in order to master it, or you ignore it and wait for the day it inevitably victimizes someone you actually care about, even if that's only yourself
We are simply not compatible. You're seeking maximum statistical optimality without a shred of spirituality or humanity. You talk of likely outcomes like a lolbertarian talks about GDP--as if efficiency was the over-arching goal. I used "icky" because it's childish, because your position here is very stunted. In your schema, all this "humanity" stuff is just externality. This is either stupid or sociopathic, neither or which interests me, not even as casual conversation.
No thanks man. I'll side with decent civilization. You go have fun with pogrom-ing or whatever. Being actually good comes with tangible benefits--you're less likely to get guillotined or colombian neck-tie-ed by those undesirables and browns you kicked because you didn't like the cut of their chromosomes.