So apparently JonTron is a racist

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

And since nobody's responsible for their genetics, and also nobody's responsible for the environment they were born into - right? - and since there is no third category of human behavioral causation... or, wait, is there a third category of human behavioral causation, aside from genetics or environment?

Yes. It's called the Mind/Body split. Whereby emotions are considered at best a facilitator or instigator of human behaviour and agency. That thoughtful agency can be separated from crude sensory feedback.

If not, then I will leave you glorified rocks to continue in your ritual bashing and ostracization of JonTron, for there would be no human agents present to talk to.

JonTron is a fucking idiot. What more needs to be said or proven by this point? There's no need to 'bash' more than pointing out if you want to talk about this stuff, you should have the intellectual honesty to at least attempt to engage with the information available and not merely pretend you having the capacity to say something means that you should.

Knowingly spreading disinformation is a moral failure.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Just stop feeding the guy. It's exceedingly clear there's no point in arguing with people like him.

If you think your shitty "questions" aren't more than enough to imply what your beliefs and claims (don't act as though you haven't made them) are then I'd suggest you get yourself checked for your 'genetic aptitude.' Or perhaps your 'inherited behaviors' of being an ass.

 

[SimpleFool]

Snip

Comparing humans to dogs doesn't tend to alleviate conflict.

Sometimes, alleviating conflict is not the point of an observation, but to point up relevant similarities so that reasoning upon them might be possible.

The vast variety of dog breeds is as a result of human beings, human differences are not.

I'm not sure that is the case. The variety of ethnic features arose somehow, and the most plausible explanation for their origin is inherited genetic variation, is it not? If not, then whence cometh the clearly inherited physical traits that they may be distinguished by, and which appear to be highly correlated with ancestry?

People are a product of their environment only.

I am not sure that this is the case. And if it were the case, how can any man be punishable for doing that which was thrust upon him by his environment?

A black man in an educated and successful environment will do just as well as his peers, proof? Me.

But isn't this to say you cannot claim any credit for your accomplishments, since they were thrust upon you by virtue of the environment you were born into?

Whereas a white man in a racist environment grows up with the simple minded belief that other races are in some way inferior, all while demonstrating his own inability to think with reason and rationality.

But that takes us back up to what I asked before: if I am solely a product of my environment, then how can I be morally blameworthy for anything I do, since it was all a necessary logical consequence of the environment I was born into?

 

[Story]

You know, there have been many a people on this thread that have provided calm and collected responses to the JonTron debate. Many either don't side with him or don't care, and some are disappointed fans of his. I don't see this really as a bashing as you claim it to be.

From what I've seen over the past couple of days, if you're critical of Jon and take issue with the things he said you're just a hysterical SJW crybaby who wants to destroy his career because what he said was actually reasonable if you interpret it in a highly selective way that nobody actually elaborates on but insists is 100% "not racist", it's just "the hard truth".

Yeah you're right I've noticed this on Reddit too. That's why I say The Escapist has had one of the more civil responses.

But It seems like being an intense fan of anything will produce this type of response. Defending your favorite entertainment, group, company ect. is all well and good but not acknowledging those negative criticisms or worse dismissing them is not good for the thing you're trying to defend either.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Well, either humans are subject to evolution or they are not.

If they are, then if physical traits are heritable, it is not beyond possibility that behavioral traits are also heritable.

If behavioral traits are heritable, then it may be the case that behavioral traits have actually been inherited.

If behavioral traits have been inherited, then it may be the case that disparate human social outcomes might be the normal outcomes of human economic behavior.

Contradict away, if you feel to.

Fine, I'll bite.

Humans are heavily interbred, recent inequalities have arisen over a period of time that is extremely limited on an evolutionary scale, there are numerous other far more significant factors in understanding human behavior, etc.

So now, make a fucking statement.

 

[SimpleFool]

And since nobody's responsible for their genetics, and also nobody's responsible for the environment they were born into - right? - and since there is no third category of human behavioral causation... or, wait, is there a third category of human behavioral causation, aside from genetics or environment?

Yes. It's called the Mind/Body split.

I'm not clear on how this is different than genetics, or environment, or some combination of the two. Is it not the case - it is a question - that the mind is a supervenient phenomenon of the brain? And is not brain solely the product of genetics and environment? And if mind does not supervene upon the brain, whence the mind?

 

[Dizchu]

I'm not sure that is the case. The variety of ethnic features arose somehow, and the most plausible explanation for their origin is inherited genetic variation, is it not? If not, then whence cometh the clearly inherited physical traits that they may be distinguished by, and which appear to be highly correlated with ancestry?

He meant that humans didn't deliberately breed with the specific intention of producing offspring with specific traits. Yes we inherited traits from our parents and their parents and so on, but they didn't deliberately plan it out.

Though you know who did have this plan in mind? I dunno, there was this group of people in the mid-20th century, you've probably never heard of them. They tried to engineer the perfect race by eliminating "contaminants" in the gene pool, nothing major though.

 

[SimpleFool]

Well, either humans are subject to evolution or they are not.

If they are, then if physical traits are heritable, it is not beyond possibility that behavioral traits are also heritable.

If behavioral traits are heritable, then it may be the case that behavioral traits have actually been inherited.

If behavioral traits have been inherited, then it may be the case that disparate human social outcomes might be the normal outcomes of human economic behavior.

Contradict away, if you feel to.

Fine, I'll bite.

Humans are heavily interbred, recent inequalities have arisen over a period of time that is extremely limited on an evolutionary scale, there are numerous other far more significant factors in understanding human behavior, etc.

So now, make a fucking statement.

Well, I don't see where you've contradicted me. Simply saying that in your opinion some stuff matters more than other stuff is not helpful.

Incidentally, I'm staring at an ad at the bottom of the screen here for "23andMe," exhorting me to "Find [my] roots" and telling me "[My] DNA comes from around the world." I wonder if they're right, and if they are, if it matters.

 

[SimpleFool]

The vast variety of dog breeds is as a result of human beings, human differences are not.

I'm not sure that is the case. The variety of ethnic features arose somehow, and the most plausible explanation for their origin is inherited genetic variation, is it not? If not, then whence cometh the clearly inherited physical traits that they may be distinguished by, and which appear to be highly correlated with ancestry?

He meant that humans didn't deliberately breed with the specific intention of producing offspring with specific traits. Yes we inherited traits from our parents and their parents and so on, but they didn't deliberately plan it out.

Though you know who did have this plan in mind? I dunno, there was this group of people in the mid-20th century, you've probably never heard of them. They tried to engineer the perfect race by eliminating "contaminants" in the gene pool, nothing major though.

Yes, I remember the Eugenecists, such as Margaret Sanger, who started Planned Parenthood with the explicit goal of reducing the number of blacks being born, or so says Google: http://studentsforlife.org/planned-parenthood-and-racism/

Is it true? Who knows.

Also, I'm not particularly convinced people didn't deliberately plan out certain features in their offspring, selecting their mates to maximize the probability of their children inheriting them.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Well, either humans are subject to evolution or they are not.

If they are, then if physical traits are heritable, it is not beyond possibility that behavioral traits are also heritable.

If behavioral traits are heritable, then it may be the case that behavioral traits have actually been inherited.

If behavioral traits have been inherited, then it may be the case that disparate human social outcomes might be the normal outcomes of human economic behavior.

Contradict away, if you feel to.

Fine, I'll bite.

Humans are heavily interbred, recent inequalities have arisen over a period of time that is extremely limited on an evolutionary scale, there are numerous other far more significant factors in understanding human behavior, etc.

So now, make a fucking statement.

Well, I don't see where you've contradicted me. Simply saying that in your opinion some stuff matters more than other stuff is not helpful.

Incidentally, I'm staring at an ad at the bottom of the screen here for "23andMe," exhorting me to "Find [my] roots" and telling me "[My] DNA comes from around the world." I wonder if they're right, and if they are, if it matters.

In my opinion? If you leave a human being in a cave they won't even learn that fucking is a thing they're supposed to do. They struggle to learn the idea of language. Environment isn't a more significant factor because of my opinion, it's a more significant factor because it fucking is.

And great job basing your opinion of the world on a fucking ad. I bet those herbal remedies really will cure cancer too. That being said, actual genetic tests can show you that humans in fact are heavily interbred, as I stated.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I'm not clear on how this is different than genetics, or environment, or some combination of the two. Is it not the case - it is a question - that the mind is a supervenient phenomenon of the brain? And is not brain solely the product of genetics and environment? And if mind does not supervene upon the brain, whence the mind?

Because the dualism of the mind-body problem assumes we're slaves to circumstance? Also, if you boil down things to simply you having a unique spatiotemporal bubble you live through then you're making the argument overly crude.

You are still responsible for your thoughts and behaviour. But ditto it's a social responsibility to make sure members of the community are not sacrificed to things outside their control. Like being born into a poor family. Like having decreased social mobility for commiting a crime without suitable responses of that society to alter the environment that allowed its increased expression.

For example, the codedly racist and stupid affectations people like you display, as does JonTron, is their own moral failings. And if you want to live by them, fine ... but frankly leave the real solutions to people willing to engage with the reality and nature of the task at hand. Not merely justify the systems of continued disintegration of elements of (what should be) a community.

There's real science and solutions to be found and established. And no one should pretend for a minute it will come from people like JonTron.

 

[SimpleFool]

I'm not clear on how this is different than genetics, or environment, or some combination of the two. Is it not the case - it is a question - that the mind is a supervenient phenomenon of the brain? And is not brain solely the product of genetics and environment? And if mind does not supervene upon the brain, whence the mind?

Because the dualism of the mind-body problem assumes we're slaves to circumstance? Also, if you boil down things to simply you having a unique spatiotemporal bubble you live through then you're making the argument overly crude.

You are still responsible for your thoughts and behaviour.

If I cannot choose my genetics, and I cannot choose my environment, and mind supervenes on brain, and brain is determined solely by genetics and environment and thoughts determined by brain chemistry, then what does "responsibility" mean?

We don't hold rocks responsible for falling, do we? How, in your view - and I'm asking for specific details - are people relevantly dissimiar to rocks, beyond being comprised of far more parts (ie, being more complicated - hence, "glorified rocks")?

For example, the codedly racist and stupid affectations you display as does JonTron is their own moral failings. And if you want to live by them, fine ... but frankly leave the real solutions to people willing to engage with the reality and nature of the task at hand. Not merely justify the systems of continued disintegration of elements of (what should be) a community.

There's no code here. If you proceed from assumptions at variance with reality, whatever you hope to build will collapse. That would matter to you if you were a human agent and not a glorified rock.

 

[Dizchu]

Yes, I remember the Eugenecists, such as Margaret Sanger, who started Planned Parenthood with the explicit goal of reducing the number of blacks being born, or so says Google: http://studentsforlife.org/planned-parenthood-and-racism/

Is it true? Who knows.

Ooohhhh boy I think I need a drink.

See being a contrarian is cool and everything, but you haven't really "shown your hand", so to speak. You're "just asking questions" about how far you can take biological determinism and whenever anyone points out flaws in your logic you insist that you haven't committed to any idea.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

If I cannot choose my genetics, and I cannot choose my environment, and mind supervenes on brain, and brain is determined solely by genetics and environment and thoughts determined by brain chemistry, then what does "responsibility" mean?

That's a dumb question and you know it. For starters quite clearly 'responsibility' includes taking on board the general progression of civilization towards the access and dissemination of truthful information. You cannot define 'responsibility' if you arbitrarily separate the individual from the collective. The 'responsibility' for a crime is shared by all members of a community ... that's why we invent safeguards to stop it from happening in the first place to the best of our ability, and try to minimise human suffering.

The real question is whether this is moral or not and whether true, restorative justice can be known.

We don't hold rocks responsible for falling, do we? How, in your view - and I'm asking for specific details - are people relevantly dissimiar to rocks, beyond being comprised of far more parts (ie, being more complicated)?

Because humans can invent things where we don't just fall? That we can appreciate the infinite chasm between self and other and try our best to make peace with it? That unlike inanimate matter there is some ineffable sense of life that is devoid in lower organisms and regular space dust, and that humans can sense the all too weighty burden on their shoulders of knowing we are the universe observing itself?

That we continually, actively seek things that are horrible to/for us ... simply for the quest to feel, because survival and 'contentedness' is not enough?

There's no code here. If you proceed from assumptions at variance with reality, whatever you hope to build will collapse. That would matter to you if you were a human agent and not a glorified rock.

No ... I'm patently saying that JonTron is a fucking idiot.

 

[Erttheking]

Well, either humans are subject to evolution or they are not.

If they are, then if physical traits are heritable, it is not beyond possibility that behavioral traits are also heritable.

If behavioral traits are heritable, then it may be the case that behavioral traits have actually been inherited.

If behavioral traits have been inherited, then it may be the case that disparate human social outcomes might be the normal outcomes of human economic behavior.

Contradict away, if you feel to.

Except you've done fuck all to prove that behavioral traits can be inherited. "It is not beyond possibility," is a weak and flimsy argument, because you could fill a hundred thousand tomes with things that are "not beyond possibility," and 99.9999% of it would turn out to be utter garbage. Either prove that behavior traits can be inherited or don't be surprised when no one takes the claim seriously.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

Either prove that behavior traits can be inherited or don't be surprised when no one takes the claim seriously.

Oh, but he's not making a claim, he's just asking a question! /s
I don't get how people honestly think a barrage of questions is a legitimate discussion tactic, they might as well be saying "But why???" over and over again.

 

[SimpleFool]

Yes, I remember the Eugenecists, such as Margaret Sanger, who started Planned Parenthood with the explicit goal of reducing the number of blacks being born, or so says Google: http://studentsforlife.org/planned-parenthood-and-racism/

Is it true? Who knows.

Ooohhhh boy I think I need a drink.

See being a contrarian is cool and everything, but you haven't really "shown your hand", so to speak. You're "just asking questions" about how far you can take biological determinism and whenever anyone points out flaws in your logic you insist that you haven't committed to any idea.

There can hardly be flaws in logic which hasn't been profferred. What I would like to do is figure out if you all who are apparently appopolecting at JonTron are materialists, in which case your moral outrage makes no sense; neither you nor JonTron has any choice in what the universe has imposed upon you; you all would be the moral equivalents of rocks.

And if you're not materialists, then you have to be religious, but nobody's yet appealed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster to prove JonTron is morally reprehensible.

 

[SimpleFool]

Either prove that behavior traits can be inherited or don't be surprised when no one takes the claim seriously.

Oh, but he's not making a claim, he's just asking a question! /s
I don't get how people honestly think a barrage of questions is a legitimate discussion tactic, they might as well be saying "But why???" over and over again.

"But why?" will seem a horrific challenge indeed when the real answer is "because this way I win, my will is done, and you are in my power, and that's all I care about." Parents don't like admitting that to their kids, and it is anathema to a society of equals. Equality and fraternity seem to not be what this "community" is about.

If someone asks why 2 + 2 = 4, they can be answered by reference to the Peano axioms and logic. But there seems to be no axiomatic basis for the moralizing going on around here, only "teh feelz, they am bad."

 

[Dizchu]

There can hardly be flaws in logic which hasn't been profferred. What I would like to do is figure out if you all who are apparently appopolecting at JonTron are materialists, in which case your moral outrage makes no sense; neither you nor JonTron has any choice in what the universe has imposed upon you; you all would be the moral equivalents of rocks.

And if you're not materialists, then you have to be religious, but nobody's yet appealed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster to prove JonTron is morally reprehensible.

Ahh. We're going there I see.

Now, I'm a determinist. I believe that every single event in the universe is determined by prior events and that essentially every action we make is determined by chemical reactions. However it's like the belief that the universe is a computer program and we're brains in vats or whatever, if you assume that everything's just a pointless endeavour you're not gonna get much done. It's a controversial philosophical position but it's one that I can come to terms with.

Yeah you can go down the nihilist route and insist that everything is meaningless but I "choose" not to. As for the argument that this makes every choice valid... well, no. You refuse to acknowledge a key part of determinism and that's consequence. Determinism doesn't mean that no action has consequences, it means that all actions have consequences. And the consequences of Jon saying dumb racist shit is that he gets called racist.

This is an oddly esoteric conversational route to go down though, especially for something as trivial as a guy on Youtube being a dick.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

I think we have the next Houseman. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.938958-Did-the-God-of-the-bible-do-bad-things?page=9#23698796]