Are Social Darwinists psychopaths?

[Genivaria]

Please fix your quote so it doesn't look like I'm the one saying that garbage.

Oops, sorry - edit en route.

Thank you.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Taken at such a level of generalisation, the poor and stupid are outbreeding the smart and rich.

They're not. Intelligence, as with all phenotypic expressions, regresses towards the mean in natural populations.

Apart from what populations have different means (Nigeria is outbreeding Japan) that doesn't imply that the mean is somehow fixed. It just damps the rate of change versus the zeroth order calculation.

You have claimed that the smart and rich are outbreeding the poor and stupid.

No I haven't.

Yes you have.

[Olerand]

Again, I fail to see how the welfare prevents the wealthy capitalist from procreating to his heart's desire.

I think you're just stalling at this point. I clearly explained how it works and the fact you don't even acknowledge I wrote anything worthy of rebuttal suggests you don't have one.

I see the welfare State alleviating the negative aspects of social Darwinism

Once again, welfare state society is just as socially Darwinian as free market society. It just has different winners - basically, antisocial bums instead of useful people.

I don't see an argument. I don't see how the capitalist is losing? Who is preventing him from procreating with his young wife, and a slew of other women?

Again? How? How are the wealthy or middle class prevented from procreating to their heart's desire? If a rich man was envious of a poor man and his numerous bastard children, who is preventing him from siring an equal and greater amount (considering that he can personally afford to have an entire town of offspring, and that is not including the child subsidies)?

As for your understanding of middle class relationships... Where do I start? You will benefit from the welfare State's largess, its child support, just as the poor will, at least in France. In addition, you will have your own income. And finally, that's not how a relationship works. Do you genuinely believe that human relations are built on a "this poor man on welfare" will... what? Provide me with more monetary benefits than this middle class man?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It seems like you read a post that said "differential birth rates determine what ideologies are adopted", when I actually wrote "ideologies partly determine differential birth rates". Of course it does work both ways but that isn't what I wrote.

I mean, I read what you said, but the way it comes across is that you seem believe that people who believe one way reproduce and they now have children who believe the same way they do to perpetuate the system they grew up under.

That's not really how ideas work.

If that is not what you wanted to say, perhaps you can explain it further so we can all understand what you mean by this whole "society is going to favour certain types of people breeding over others" to mean that "ideologies influence differential birth rates", and how does that relate to your assertion that the poor and stupid are outbreeding the rich and smart you just made above.

[The Widening Gyre]

Apart from what populations have different means (Nigeria is outbreeding Japan) that doesn't imply that the mean is somehow fixed. It just damps the rate of change versus the zeroth order calculation.

It rather neatly disproves your Lamarckist paradigm of intelligence inheritance though. If two people with low intelligence reproduce and their offspring are more likely to be closer to the mean intelligence than they are (ie more intelligent), then people with low intelligence are not going to swamp the world with idiot children.

And you're quite right about the mean not being fixed. As measured by intelligence testing, it's been increasing for most of the 20th and 21st century across the world. Which directly contradicts the theory you're positing - we should be seeing the opposite, with what you're proposing.

Yes you have.

Kindly point out where I said it.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

I think you're just stalling at this point. I clearly explained how it works and the fact you don't even acknowledge I wrote anything worthy of rebuttal suggests you don't have one.


Once again, welfare state society is just as socially Darwinian as free market society. It just has different winners - basically, antisocial bums instead of useful people.

I don't see an argument. I don't see how the capitalist is losing? Who is preventing him from procreating with his young wife, and a slew of other women?

Again? How?

Well, this is what I wrote:

The very wealthy? No. The middle class? Yes. If a single mother can earn the median income by manufacturing children (as they were recently limited to in the UK to howls of protest from the left), guys who earn less than the median income can't compete with the state financially for women, while guys who earn just a bit more than the median income are only marginally valuable financially. They might be desirable for other reasons but their incomes are no longer a serious factor. In the past, their incomes would have been seriously valuable on the marriage market.

Maybe you could, again, read it? Reply maybe?

If a rich man was envious of a poor man and his numerous bastard children, who is preventing him from siring an equal and greater amount (considering that he can personally afford to have an entire town of offspring, and that is not including the child subsidies)?

Again, the very rich can afford that. Middle class people cannot. A middle class person will get hit by child support that will take away all his income. Bum has no income anyway, or it's income coming from the state, so he doesn't care.

Middle class and bum class have different evolutionary strategies. Bum class strategy is, basically, woo the middle class daughters for a night or two and run off, leaving their families to support the babies. Middle class strategy is produce stuff to support a family. The idea behind the welfare state is that the bum class evolutionary strategy does not exist, everyone is following the middle class evolutionary strategy, just some people have less money because of totally random reasons unrelated to their biology or choices. The effect is to give bum class all the evolutionary advantages of the middle class, while retaining their own distinct advantages, so that bum class breeds out of control. Problem: while middle class can sustainably breed out of control, because middle class pays its own way, bum class depends for its own success and survival on being just a small parasite on a large middle class host. Like ebola, the weaponised bum class of the welfare state is going to kill its host and itself along with it.

Compassion!

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Apart from what populations have different means (Nigeria is outbreeding Japan) that doesn't imply that the mean is somehow fixed. It just damps the rate of change versus the zeroth order calculation.

It rather neatly disproves your Lamarckist paradigm of intelligence inheritance though. If two people with low intelligence reproduce and their offspring are more likely to be closer to the mean intelligence than they are (ie more intelligent), then people with low intelligence are not going to swamp the world with idiot children.

And you're quite right about the mean not being fixed. As measured by intelligence testing, it's been increasing for most of the 20th and 21st century across the world. Which directly contradicts the theory you're positing - we should be seeing the opposite, with what you're proposing.

I mean, his idea of how ideas propagate seem to be odd enough, so I dunno how much is this going to stick.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Apart from what populations have different means (Nigeria is outbreeding Japan) that doesn't imply that the mean is somehow fixed. It just damps the rate of change versus the zeroth order calculation.

It rather neatly disproves your Lamarckist paradigm of intelligence inheritance though. If two people with low intelligence reproduce and their offspring are more likely to be closer to the mean intelligence than they are (ie more intelligent), then people with low intelligence are not going to swamp the world with idiot children.

Huh? That doesn't follow at all. Mean reversion just means the rate of change is lower than otherwise. If fertility increases with decreasing IQ, you are still going to see a decrease in the mean over time.

Yes you have.

Kindly point out where I said it.

You said that I was wrong to believe that the poor and stupid are outbreeding the rich and smart.

[Olerand]

I don't see an argument. I don't see how the capitalist is losing? Who is preventing him from procreating with his young wife, and a slew of other women?

Again? How?

Well, this is what I wrote:

The very wealthy? No. The middle class? Yes. If a single mother can earn the median income by manufacturing children (as they were recently limited to in the UK to howls of protest from the left), guys who earn less than the median income can't compete with the state financially for women, while guys who earn just a bit more than the median income are only marginally valuable financially. They might be desirable for other reasons but their incomes are no longer a serious factor. In the past, their incomes would have been seriously valuable on the marriage market.

Maybe you could, again, read it? Reply maybe?

If a rich man was envious of a poor man and his numerous bastard children, who is preventing him from siring an equal and greater amount (considering that he can personally afford to have an entire town of offspring, and that is not including the child subsidies)?

Again, the very rich can afford that. Middle class people cannot. A middle class person will get hit by child support that will take away all his income. Bum has no income anyway, or it's income coming from the state, so he doesn't care.

Middle class and bum class have different evolutionary strategies. Bum class strategy is, basically, woo the middle class daughters for a night or two and run off, leaving their families to support the babies. Middle class strategy is produce stuff to support a family. The idea behind the welfare state is that the bum class evolutionary strategy does not exist, everyone is following the middle class evolutionary strategy, just some people have less money because of totally random reasons unrelated to their biology or choices. The effect is to give bum class all the evolutionary advantages of the middle class, while retaining their own distinct advantages, so that bum class breeds out of control. Problem: while middle class can sustainably breed out of control, because middle class pays its own way, bum class depends for its own success and survival on being just a small parasite on a large middle class host. Like ebola, the weaponised bum class of the welfare state is going to kill its host and itself along with it.

Compassion!

Reply to what? You keep making the assertion that the middle class are harmed. But they benefit from the health, education, and subsidy benefits that the poor benefit from too. Except they actually even have their own income in addition. So, how are they harmed?

As for the rest of your post... Hum... OK... Um... Hum... I don't see middle class girls being involved in this situation. But knowing your views of this issue, I don't see how we can come to a middle ground either.

And again, the middle class girl will benefit from the welfare State too. Just like the poor girl, she and her middle class family will receive child subsidies from the State, send her child to a free school/very affordable university, and receive very affordable healthcare. And even social housing if she needs it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't see an argument. I don't see how the capitalist is losing? Who is preventing him from procreating with his young wife, and a slew of other women?

Again? How?

Well, this is what I wrote:

The very wealthy? No. The middle class? Yes. If a single mother can earn the median income by manufacturing children (as they were recently limited to in the UK to howls of protest from the left), guys who earn less than the median income can't compete with the state financially for women, while guys who earn just a bit more than the median income are only marginally valuable financially. They might be desirable for other reasons but their incomes are no longer a serious factor. In the past, their incomes would have been seriously valuable on the marriage market.

Maybe you could, again, read it? Reply maybe?

If a rich man was envious of a poor man and his numerous bastard children, who is preventing him from siring an equal and greater amount (considering that he can personally afford to have an entire town of offspring, and that is not including the child subsidies)?

Again, the very rich can afford that. Middle class people cannot. A middle class person will get hit by child support that will take away all his income. Bum has no income anyway, or it's income coming from the state, so he doesn't care.

Middle class and bum class have different evolutionary strategies. Bum class strategy is, basically, woo the middle class daughters for a night or two and run off, leaving their families to support the babies. Middle class strategy is produce stuff to support a family. The idea behind the welfare state is that the bum class evolutionary strategy does not exist, everyone is following the middle class evolutionary strategy, just some people have less money because of totally random reasons unrelated to their biology or choices. The effect is to give bum class all the evolutionary advantages of the middle class, while retaining their own distinct advantages, so that bum class breeds out of control. Problem: while middle class can sustainably breed out of control, because middle class pays its own way, bum class depends for its own success and survival on being just a small parasite on a large middle class host. Like ebola, the weaponised bum class of the welfare state is going to kill its host and itself along with it.

Compassion!

I had forgotten how painful it is to argue with you given every topic you participate in ultimately ends up with you shitting on the poor and calling them "idiots" while calling us in the middle class and above the "smart ones", even when we may not know as much shit as the poor man does about life.

[Genivaria]

They're not. Intelligence, as with all phenotypic expressions, regresses towards the mean in natural populations.

Apart from what populations have different means (Nigeria is outbreeding Japan) that doesn't imply that the mean is somehow fixed. It just damps the rate of change versus the zeroth order calculation.

No I haven't.

Yes you have.

Yuh huh!

How childish.

[Scomagia]

I think Social Darwinism has obvious appeal to Psychopaths as an elegant means of justifying their perception of reality. I think it can appeal to a far wider group of people, as well, who are perfectly capable of compassion.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You said that I was wrong to believe that the poor and stupid are outbreeding the rich and smart.

The refutation of your argument doesn't mean that the opposite and equal notion is true.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Well, this is what I wrote:


Maybe you could, again, read it? Reply maybe?


Again, the very rich can afford that. Middle class people cannot. A middle class person will get hit by child support that will take away all his income. Bum has no income anyway, or it's income coming from the state, so he doesn't care.

Middle class and bum class have different evolutionary strategies. Bum class strategy is, basically, woo the middle class daughters for a night or two and run off, leaving their families to support the babies. Middle class strategy is produce stuff to support a family. The idea behind the welfare state is that the bum class evolutionary strategy does not exist, everyone is following the middle class evolutionary strategy, just some people have less money because of totally random reasons unrelated to their biology or choices. The effect is to give bum class all the evolutionary advantages of the middle class, while retaining their own distinct advantages, so that bum class breeds out of control. Problem: while middle class can sustainably breed out of control, because middle class pays its own way, bum class depends for its own success and survival on being just a small parasite on a large middle class host. Like ebola, the weaponised bum class of the welfare state is going to kill its host and itself along with it.

Compassion!

Reply to what? You keep making the assertion that the middle class are harmed. But they benefit from the health, education, and subsidy benefits that the poor benefit from too. Except they actually even have their own income in addition. So, how are they harmed?

I don't know what to tell you - I made a clear and concise argument and your only response is to carefully ignore it.

As for the rest of your post... Hum... OK... Um... Hum... I don't see middle class girls being involved in this situation. But knowing your views of this issue, I don't see how we can come to a middle ground either.

And again, the middle class girl will benefit from the welfare State too. Just like the poor girl, she and her middle class family will receive child subsidies from the State, send her child to a free school/very affordable university, and receive very affordable healthcare. And even social housing if she needs it.

When I lived in Germany I earned the median household income and paid about 50% in tax. So my wife would need to work full time for us to earn what I would have earned alone without tax. I wasn't rich. That is a stupendous harm that would have made it far harder for me to have a family than otherwise.

In fact it is quite hard to imagine what life would be like if I earned twice as much money and women couldn't rely on the state to support their children. I guess successful men would mostly be married by 21 rather than 35.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

You said that I was wrong to believe that the poor and stupid are outbreeding the rich and smart.

The refutation of your argument doesn't mean that the opposite and equal notion is true.

The only other possibility is that they're breeding at an exactly equal rate which seems extremely unlikely.

[Lizulamith]

I fit both, although there is a range

I fall more on the "no feeling" side, I feel no pity for the worse off the same way I feel nothing for my meat or animals that I hit with my car, society and man is driven (Micro) by personal gain and reward (Macro) By the contribution of your efforts to society

Explain to me how giving money to crack babies that will turn into drug dealers helps society, you are enabling a disease

[Soldati Senza Confini]

When I lived in Germany I earned the median household income and paid about 50% in tax. So my wife would need to work full time for us to earn what I would have earned alone without tax. I wasn't rich. That is a stupendous harm that would have made it far harder for me to have a family than otherwise.

In fact it is quite hard to imagine what life would be like if I earned twice as much money and women couldn't rely on the state to support their children. I guess successful men would mostly be married by 21 rather than 35.

And divorce even faster than someone at 35, if the divorce statistics are to believe.

[Olerand]

Reply to what? You keep making the assertion that the middle class are harmed. But they benefit from the health, education, and subsidy benefits that the poor benefit from too. Except they actually even have their own income in addition. So, how are they harmed?

I don't know what to tell you - I made a clear and concise argument and your only response is to carefully ignore it.

As for the rest of your post... Hum... OK... Um... Hum... I don't see middle class girls being involved in this situation. But knowing your views of this issue, I don't see how we can come to a middle ground either.

And again, the middle class girl will benefit from the welfare State too. Just like the poor girl, she and her middle class family will receive child subsidies from the State, send her child to a free school/very affordable university, and receive very affordable healthcare. And even social housing if she needs it.

When I lived in Germany I earned the median household income and paid about 50% in tax. So my wife would need to work full time for us to earn what I would have earned alone without tax. I wasn't rich. That is a stupendous harm that would have made it far harder for me to have a family than otherwise.

In fact it is quite hard to imagine what life would be like if I earned twice as much money and women couldn't rely on the state to support their children. I guess successful men would mostly be married by 21 rather than 35.

Ignore what? What is your argument? That the welfare State allows the "bum" to steal middle class mates? I don't know what to tell you because that's not an argument. It's not happening. Middle class girls aren't being lured away from a middle class mate and a middle class lifestyle by a "bum". Like...

I am presuming that this 50% tax is an amalgamation of the social taxes and the income tax, which in return for that, you receive free education from cradle to grave, world-quality public services, affordable healthcare, and familial support benefits (Germany is not as natalist as France, but it does provide nursery services I believe). These are all something that would have come out of your income at a significantly higher rate if the welfare State did not provide them to you, as America so amazingly proves.

So... If women were obligated to be baby manufacturing centers and tied to a "successful man" without the welfare State, that would be a good thing. Hum... Well, I'm not a woman, but I know many women, and I don't... I don't believe that is a situation they would particularly enjoy.

It is... An interesting viewpoint, that's for certain.

EDIT: Not to mention that by dismantling the welfare State, you will have African level fertility rates again, as the "bum" mates with many poor women, and vice-versa, to make as many children as possible to be able to secure a better life for himself in his last years. So...

[Olerand]

I fit both, although there is a range

I fall more on the "no feeling" side, I feel no pity for the worse off the same way I feel nothing for my meat or animals that I hit with my car, society and man is driven (Micro) by personal gain and reward (Macro) By the contribution of your efforts to society

Explain to me how giving money to crack babies that will turn into drug dealers helps society, you are enabling a disease

From your flag, do you identify as a libertarian?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The refutation of your argument doesn't mean that the opposite and equal notion is true.

The only other possibility is that they're breeding at an exactly equal rate which seems extremely unlikely.

It doesn't require a genius to figure out that there are patterns of breeding among people dependent on other things other than whether or not they're poor or rich, which become evenly distributed in the long run.

The problem is not his refutal, is where your assertion fails, and it does on two points in particular: that (1) poor people are stupid and therefore reproduce more, therefore having many children is a sign of a poor and stupid mentality and (2) the implication that being poor and stupid as a parent, according to what you believe is poor and stupid, means the kids of these parents are going to be poor and stupid.

[Genivaria]

The refutation of your argument doesn't mean that the opposite and equal notion is true.

The only other possibility is that they're breeding at an exactly equal rate which seems extremely unlikely.

No that's not the only other possibility actually.
The reality is that the difference between birth rates by social class is not radically different but gradually changes.

This is from a 2014 study.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241 ... in-the-us/

If you directly compare women in a household making 10,000$/year (that's below the poverty line) to a woman in a household making 200,000$/year (that's about 50,000$ more than what the average lawyer makes) you'd see the difference is only about 20 births per 1000 women.

In short both ends of the economic spectrum ARE NOT on opposite ends of the birth rate spectrum, therefore your assertions are debunked.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't know what to tell you - I made a clear and concise argument and your only response is to carefully ignore it.


When I lived in Germany I earned the median household income and paid about 50% in tax. So my wife would need to work full time for us to earn what I would have earned alone without tax. I wasn't rich. That is a stupendous harm that would have made it far harder for me to have a family than otherwise.

In fact it is quite hard to imagine what life would be like if I earned twice as much money and women couldn't rely on the state to support their children. I guess successful men would mostly be married by 21 rather than 35.

Ignore what? What is your argument? That the welfare State allows the "bum" to steal middle class mates? I don't know what to tell you because that's not an argument. It's not happening. Middle class girls aren't being lured away from a middle class mate and a middle class lifestyle by a "bum". Like...

I am presuming that this 50% tax is an amalgamation of the social taxes and the income tax, which in return for that, you receive free education from cradle to grave, world-quality public services, affordable healthcare, and familial support benefits (Germany is not as natalist as France, but it does provide nursery services I believe). These are all something that would have come out of your income at a significantly higher rate if the welfare State did not provide them to you, as America so amazingly proves.

So... If women were obligated to be baby manufacturing centers and tied to a "successful man" without the welfare State, that would be a good thing. Hum... Well, I'm not a woman, but I know many women, and I don't... I don't believe that is a situation they would particularly enjoy.

It is... An interesting viewpoint, that's for certain.

I'd be hard pressed to tell my girlfriend that she should be glad she's with me because I am more successful than she is and therefore to go make me a sandwich in gratitude without her slapping me across the face and telling me to go fuck myself, honestly.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

I don't know what to tell you - I made a clear and concise argument and your only response is to carefully ignore it.


When I lived in Germany I earned the median household income and paid about 50% in tax. So my wife would need to work full time for us to earn what I would have earned alone without tax. I wasn't rich. That is a stupendous harm that would have made it far harder for me to have a family than otherwise.

In fact it is quite hard to imagine what life would be like if I earned twice as much money and women couldn't rely on the state to support their children. I guess successful men would mostly be married by 21 rather than 35.

Ignore what? What is your argument?

If I have to put it in bold, I will put it in bold:

The very wealthy? No. The middle class? Yes. If a single mother can earn the median income by manufacturing children (as they were recently limited to in the UK to howls of protest from the left), guys who earn less than the median income can't compete with the state financially for women, while guys who earn just a bit more than the median income are only marginally valuable financially. They might be desirable for other reasons but their incomes are no longer a serious factor. In the past, their incomes would have been seriously valuable on the marriage market.

I am presuming that this 50% tax is an amalgamation of the social taxes and the income tax, which in return for that, you receive free education from cradle to grave, world-quality public services, affordable healthcare, and familial support benefits (Germany is not as natalist as France, but it does provide nursery services I believe). These are all something that would have come out of your income at a significantly higher rate if the welfare State did not provide them to you, as America so amazingly proves.

The vast majority of it was just transfers to bums.

So... If women were obligated to be baby manufacturing centers and tied to a "successful man" without the welfare State, that would be a good thing. Hum... Well, I'm not a woman, but I know many women, and I don't... I don't believe that is a situation they would particularly enjoy.

It would be a good thing for society. It constrains some peoples' hedonism for sure - maximising which is not an important social goal.

[Olerand]

Ignore what? What is your argument? That the welfare State allows the "bum" to steal middle class mates? I don't know what to tell you because that's not an argument. It's not happening. Middle class girls aren't being lured away from a middle class mate and a middle class lifestyle by a "bum". Like...

I am presuming that this 50% tax is an amalgamation of the social taxes and the income tax, which in return for that, you receive free education from cradle to grave, world-quality public services, affordable healthcare, and familial support benefits (Germany is not as natalist as France, but it does provide nursery services I believe). These are all something that would have come out of your income at a significantly higher rate if the welfare State did not provide them to you, as America so amazingly proves.

So... If women were obligated to be baby manufacturing centers and tied to a "successful man" without the welfare State, that would be a good thing. Hum... Well, I'm not a woman, but I know many women, and I don't... I don't believe that is a situation they would particularly enjoy.

It is... An interesting viewpoint, that's for certain.

I'd be hard pressed to tell my girlfriend that she should be glad she's with me because I am more successful than she is and therefore to go make me a sandwich in gratitude without her slapping me across the face and telling me to go fuck myself, honestly.

I don't understand how that is a genuine viewpoint held by a genuine human being. Shouldn't the basic compassion and sympathy that you hold towards your women loved ones, whether family or otherwise, really discourage you from wishing this fate on them?

I wouldn't want my mother or any woman that I know to be in such a situation. How could anyone?

EDIT: This just reinforces my belief that extremist liberals and libertarians, as in those opposed to the welfare State, are indeed psychopaths.

[Olerand]

Ignore what? What is your argument?

It would be a good thing for society. It constrains some peoples' hedonism for sure - maximising which is not an important social goal.

And if the middle class couple or the wealthy couple wanted to manufacture children, it is not the welfare State that will tell them not to.

And I have nothing to say to that comment. Constraining hedonism is not something that is within the paradigms of the welfare State, but of an educational system and good socialization into society.