Reproduction is an essentialist value? What do you even mean by that?
They were specifically asking silly questions, yes.
You can believe that, but the logical consequence of that is that people do not have intrinsic value.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Essentialism is the idea that objects in reality have fixed and determined attributes that are necessary (essential) to their existence.
If you believe that reproduction has an intrinsic value which is external to any value placed on it by people, that is an essentialist position. You are arguing that reproduction necessarily has value irrespective of context or human engagement.
The problems with this are incredibly numerous. But fundamentally, they come down to the difference between belief and truth. Believing that something has a value independent of your own perspective does not make it true, because you cannot ever leave your own perspective in order to validate that claim.
Why is that a problem?
Is extrinsic value not enough for you?
You kept reducing purpose to reproduction and then you complained when they paraphrased what you said, you called it silly. They gave you so many chances to stop reducing down to reproduction
(I would guess Buyetyen meant to say essential vaule, Ill let them reply.)
I hope in all the time I talked with you that I have gotten the message across that reproduction should be limited to those who want to do it.
So if you mean 'people do not have intrinsic value' here is about parents and carers... no, I'm specifically making intrinsic value being a necessary prerequisite for reproduction
If you mean the person being born not thinking they have intrinsic value, no. I'm no antinatalist. And enough of them have been born under current traditions, so I don't think any of this is related
As has already been explained, essentialism is the idea that things have a definitive purpose. Your rhetoric ascribes reproduction as an essential part of being human, but that's just not true. People can choose not to reproduce and some just plain can't. We are not born with a purpose, we just are.
If you want to argue that reproduction is essential, than those who choose not or can't are less human as a result because they're not fulfilling their essential role.
That still doesn't necessarily follow. A grouping or concept of "people" can have intrinsic value without individual elements having intrinsic value. "People" can have it, whereas "a person" might not.
Though personally, I don't see much value in the idea of "intrinsic value" at all. People have value, and individual persons have value, but it ain't intrinsic.
Isn't plaid, like, super lesbian though? Is this one of those 'accidental allies' moments?
It's regarded as the most lesbian of all the textile patterns, at least according to my latest copy of the Gay Agenda.
Gingham is a close second.
Plaid is considered manly, if you're into Grunge, or one of those guys that "live in the wilderness and off the fat of the land".
TLDR: Neptism is bad, and is a huge problem in society.
Yes, I did include a tweet of an article about nepotism in Hollywood, but I am not here to talk just about that. I am here to talk about the revolt against nepotism in general. I would argue this will eventually transform into a debate about parental advantage and even goes to all birth-related benefits.
How does this relate to me? Basically, I got lucky with my birth, I had a business owner uncle, and many government officials that were relatives in my family. I was also born in China which even in the 1990s was a rapidly rising middle power. I then through an aunt was able to go to the US as an immigrant. This is basically luck on top of luck that many people don't get. Then when I came to the US I have forced to take a crash course on government paperwork due to having to translate of which I would argue 50% was my effort, and 50% was my parents providing me with a comfortable standard of living. This training helped me become a much better analyst and helped me read between the lines, and look at things that many people who rely on others in the immigrant community didn't have. Then I went to a wealthy school district due to said parents I believe it's like the top 5% of public and private schools, and then to the best college in my city(OSU). Then I got my job through connections by my dad then I got my job today. And that's not even adding many advantages like home-cooked meals, and education-focused parents. I am however middle class just like my parents so I am not exceptional, and given the downward trend of upward mobility, it's not that surprising.
My point is this. It's very likely 90% of your life is modeled by your environment, who raises you, and basically, most of your environment is your community and your family. I was very lucky, I would argue my lack is at least better than 95% of people on the planet if not more. This article talks about Hollywood, but a more interesting conversation would be about every middle-class job, and up. Other than edge cases of either very unlucky people or absolute prodigies, your life is determined mostly if not entirely by luck. Is that the best system, I would argue it hurts innovation, and radically so, but I don't know how to fix it just in the US let alone in the world. Fixing it in the US alone would cause a revolt and or white and likely Asian flight in whatever states try to do so, and fixing it in congress would enable gridlock. The only advantage I could see to nepotism is the faster creation of institutional knowledge at a very young age for children which could be replaced by mentorship at a young age.
We must absolutely get rid of this, and I see it as the biggest problem facing the world that isn't a great filter for events like climate change or nuclear war. You can't expect teachers to solve everything and paper over birth differences. People talk about universal healthcare which is best used for the prevention of bigger problems and edge cases like cancer and likely crises like pandemics or the Green New Deal which is basically an energy revolution in response to a crisis, or even free college which means your equal to many people(not including ivy leagues) only after you had to get a good grade in high school and or already be in a top 5% or 10% public school like me. Literally, no one is talking about Neptism for everyone which I find strange. There are kids that are born who are smarter than me who if given my advantages could easily become upper middle class or even be the next Tesla(the inventor not the company), I know many kids who were born upper middle class. (ex. their parents were accountants), and became upper middle class again(they do computer programming a skill only .5 to 1% can do), could you imagine what a motivated, hard-working, and or smart kid in an actual meritocracy could do? We could have multiple Von Neumanns running around.
So where are you at neoliberals who want great economic growth, the capitalists who want more successful startups, the engineers who want better team members, and people who want better actors like in the article for blockbuster movies? But only people on tik tok talk about it, which is sad, and represents a roadblock to advancing society.
The problem is that to actually come up with good outcomes you can't just do that, or even what the world bank just does which is check every transaction for fraud. You actually have to go into the field and check roads for concrete quality, and schools to see if children actually attend them for example. That costs even more money, and some things that are politically unfeasible but just plain better like paying farmers to grow their own crops, and feed their countrymen would get the US Corporate farms to revolt against you. All the while reactionaries in the governments plus conservative media outlets and influencers would be hounding you in the press for helping the foreign poors. Plus it comes with its own problems; fewer people are joining non-profits, the peace-corps, and non-stem university grad programs. That's the pool of labor you need to do this, and there are fewer of them due to higher salaries in the private, and better benefits and salaries in the public sector compared to these positions. It's very hard, and every time there is a recession or big political event(like the election of a conservative or non-liberal nationalist) the governments pull back funding. These things are hard.
Okay, this article is really bad, but it's hard to see the framing and how they leave stuff out. Basically, the article argues that meritocracy is bad mostly because of the higher education system while ignoring everything else. They basically argue since schools have legacy admissions, favored admissions by children of people who are already in or working for the school such as professors, bullshit personal essays, hobbies, and large wealthy donors who put their children in these schools like Jared Kushner. What's the problem? It ignores multiple facets of life that also destroy meritocracy atleast in the US.
Basically, it ignores the positive effects of your parent's wealth and their skill passing down to their children, networking from a family's network, and of course your birth circumstances, and the beliefs your family holds. ( on education, and religion for example) All of these can't be solved in so-called anti-meritocracy ways as stated like a more progressive tax system, and a fairer tax system for example, or capital gains taxes being similar if not the same as salary taxes)(I am not making a total list of what all of these could be just look at Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren's policies on their websites)
In my view, equality of opportunity in the best-applied form means people start around the same position but throughout their life don't get paid the same. It basically could mean something like you can immigrate wherever based on everyone knowing roughly similar information, there is a cap on how much you can help your children throughout life(money, time maybe), but that cap isn't dragging society down, it's very hard and even thinking about it gives me headaches) You get paid based on your ability untethered by birth advantages.
Equality of outcome means people get paid the same no matter the skill or ability like a plumber making the same as a doctor who makes the same as a social worker.
Both are utopian ideas but the first one is less so and would function better right now, and the next one would be better in a post-scarcity world like a type one Kardashev civilization.
Like most things, perhaps we should have defined intrinsic value and set it into the background of this topic
Eg. Who is doing the intrinsic valuing? As I see instrinsic as an individual thing, I wouldn't use that term for any group. But Tstorm might be using instrinic vaule like how you are using the term value
Man, here's me thinking it was a hall mark of a wife beater, i.e. the winter version of the singlet
Not once did I do that.
That doesn't even match your own definition one sentence prior.
A) No it isn't.
B) It's a problem because exceptionally few people are happy with that conclusion. You will not find much company saying there is no value in a human independent of what others think of them.
No, it doesn't. Not even a little bit.
Yes, it does. Intrinsic and essential are synonyms.
To believe that reproduction has intrinsic value is to believe that said value is a fixed and determined attribute that is necessary (essential) to reproduction.
If the value of reproduction is intrinsic then reproduction cannot occur without taking on that value (or else it is not actually reproduction).
Everyone is happy with that conclusion. Your entire contribution to this thread is predicated on the idea that the value of human life is contingent on extrinsic qualities (on what that human life does or is capable of, like squirting out babies or defining its identity based on the shape of its body).
What you are trying to say is that most people believe that there is a basic level of value to human life as a principle that cannot be abrogated and functions independently of any judgement of the individual. Even then, I think that's a bit of a dodgy statement but let's assume it's the case. Did you notice the key word there? It was believe.
If the value of something is intrinsic, it wouldn't matter what people "believed" or "were happy with." Things that have intrinsic properties do not require belief or happiness in order to possess those properties.
This argument is actually self-defeating. You claim that the value of human life is extrinsic by pointing to evidence that the value is extrinsically placed on it by people.
Ah yes. My child told me that I never did anything fun with here despite taking her to the pool yesterday and to a park for 3 hours today. Her reply was about as truthful as the one above
Yes, I know. You are too busy worrying about 'being wrong' or whatever. I know this is hard because of your Catholic training and what I am going to say is going to be so unnatural to you - but you need to understand... it's okay to be wrong. Figuring out whether your wrong or not is just a diversion
Anyway, I know I was sick and might have missed this being discussed, but I just want to say -
This whole Twitterfiles misadventure with Taibbi and Wiess leading to the information of right wingers regularly being given preferential treatment by Jack Dorsey on the platform for years being released is just *chef's kiss*
This whole Twitterfiles misadventure with Taibbi and Wiess leading to the information of right wingers regularly being given preferential treatment by Jack Dorsey on the platform for years being released is just *chef's kiss*