The heck does "they got the wrong guy" mean? Is this someone else? Was this recorded after the shooting?
Shout-out to when Rick Perry wanted to abolish the department of energy, not knowing it's responsible for maintaining our nations nuclear weapons, international treaty monitoring for nukes, and nuclear waste management and cleanup.
Texas man think government energy bad. Must abolish.
What do you mean by intelligence? General intelligence has never been scientifically proven to exist. So in that sense: I don't believe in intelligence, either.
That's a hell of a bomb to drop when we're waist deep in the discussion, and quite frankly not a can of worms I have the time to open, so I'm just going to peace out. Thank you for the civil discussion, have a good day!
I refuse to believe thatstupidity is a thing, let alone can be inherited via nature or nurture!
Apologies, I was using "stupidity" as shorthand for "lack of intelligence". Are we in agreement that intelligence is inherited as a mixture of nature and nurture? What I say next does depend on agreement here.
So remember when you said
Not everything inheritaple is based on genes. If two people who love playing the violin get children,I'll guaranteeyou that their offspring will know one thing or two about violins.
Let's say Priddy sterilized someone, they met a partner who also loved playing violin, and they adopted a kid. The sterilization would do nothing to prevent the kid from knowing a thing or two about the violin. Do we agree? Do you see what I mean about sterilization not preventing the inheritance of non-biological traits?
Now swap out "love for the violin" with "deprioritizing education", and you have the seeds for Idiocracy. This works with or without involving eugenics, so you're choosing to look at the movie through the lens of eugenics.
And again: the movie implies heavily that stupidity is inheritable, just like the historical example. Be it via nature or nurture.
My original point was that Idiocracy is an eugencist movie by implying that stupidity is inherited.
Every definition of eugenics that I've seen only discusses inheriting by nature. You have yet to provide a definition that explicitly captures inheriting by nurture as well. The movie does discuss inheritance of stupidity, but is ambiguous about it being nature or nurture. Therefore, the so far uncontested societal definition of eugenics, which focuses just on nature, is only one way to look at how stupidity was inherited. There is the equally valid lens of looking at it through the inheritance of stupidity via nurture.
Choosing to claim that this is movie about eugenics necessitates you either ignoring that stupidity can be inherited via nurture (via deprioritizing of education, etc ), or by applying your own definition of eugenics in order to also include nurture. A definition that you have thusfar been unable to provide authoritative sources agreeing with you on, and that disagrees with the societal definition.
..... sterilization would prevent the passing of genes by that individual by mechanism of no longer having kids. Biologically inherited traits are, by definition, determined by genes. These are facts. You can try to hand waive this away and say "who knows our current understanding of this may change in the future", but that then leaves us with "our current understanding of science informs us that your source did not discuss eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits"
That legal case is once again, about sterilization, which is eugenics by way of preventing traits from being inherited biologically. I'm beginning to think you don't understand what I mean when I ask for a source discussing eugenics outside the scope of biologically inherited traits.
Do you remember how you brought go that if two parents play violin, their kid probably will too? Would it be eugenics to prevent that kid from playing violin? Unless you believe coco to be a movie about the perils of eugenics, the answer should be no. Substitute passing down "a love for playing violin" with "not prioritizing education" and that explains Idiocracy, without eugenics.
You are choosing to explain the outcome of Idiocracy with eugenics and you're choosing to ignore equally valid alternatives.
I've asked multiple times for sources discussing eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits.
Haven't you already given examples with sterilization of indigenous people?
Sterilization is 100% in the realm of biologically inherited traits, as it prevents the passing on of genes, so no, that is not what I'm asking for.
You can genocide people through eugenics, true, but taking kids away is genocide without eugenics as defined by all authoritative sources that I've seen, none of which have been contested.
I'll ask for a 4th(?) time, are you able to share sources that discuss eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits?
If not, then my take away is that you have a personal definition of eugenics that is not shared by society, and your opinions about the role of eugenics in this movie should be considered appropriately.
Ah, so the idea is that candidates for the position are not yet locked in, therefore comparison between party candidates is not valid. I can get behind that.
However in the current environment I don't see many other paths forward. I think the best alternative I've seen was an article floating al franken. My guess is the original commenters worry is that without viable alternatives, it will likely become a Biden vs trump election, and by then we've provided ourselves with enough negativity against Biden to encourage a trump victory. I'd like to see more positive qualities of alternatives be brought up, instead of negatives about the current most likely nominee.
The meme is about Jimmy Carter running as a candidate for election.... The conversation is clearly about an election in which we are comparing candidates for an election.
This isn't "Joe Biden makes a goddamn awful margarita.", in which "Well putin makes a worse one" would be a whataboutism, this is "Joe Biden is too old to run as a candidate in the election". And in an election, you compare candidates, which is not a logical fallacy.
~~Can you go into detail? What's the criticism that you think is being deflected?~~
EDIT: nah, I'm just going to stick with my initial assertion. Comparing two candidates for a position is not a logical fallacy. Do you agree?
There's modern louvre versions that look good.