Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

What if laziness was genetically determined?

blueberry_crepe
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 11:28:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
My question is specifically aim at "SELF-DESCRIBED CONSERVATIVES." How would your views change if HYPOTHETICALLY, laziness was determined by genetics in the same way that blindness is determined. To reiterate, I'm not saying in this HYPOTHETICAL (I keep emphasizing this because a common counter I get is "that's not how the world is now." I don't care how the world is now. That is not relevant to my question) situation, laziness is genetically predisposed like alcoholism. I'm saying in this hypothetical situation, laziness is genetically determined like some blindness or like Down Syndrome.

How would this change your views? In welfare? etc.

Full disclosure: I am a pure determinist, which means I don't believe in free will at all i.e. I believe this hypothetical situation is how the world exist now. But this isn't relevant to my question anyway. I also don't intend to debate this position, but just to see how your views would change.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 12:03:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 11:28:31 AM, blueberry_crepe wrote:
My question is specifically aim at "SELF-DESCRIBED CONSERVATIVES." How would your views change if HYPOTHETICALLY, laziness was determined by genetics in the same way that blindness is determined. To reiterate, I'm not saying in this HYPOTHETICAL (I keep emphasizing this because a common counter I get is "that's not how the world is now." I don't care how the world is now. That is not relevant to my question) situation, laziness is genetically predisposed like alcoholism. I'm saying in this hypothetical situation, laziness is genetically determined like some blindness or like Down Syndrome.

How would this change your views? In welfare? etc.

Full disclosure: I am a pure determinist, which means I don't believe in free will at all i.e. I believe this hypothetical situation is how the world exist now. But this isn't relevant to my question anyway. I also don't intend to debate this position, but just to see how your views would change.

As a Libertarian I believe I don't even owe the disabled a check (disability), so my views wouldn't change.
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 1:32:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 11:28:31 AM, blueberry_crepe wrote:
My question is specifically aim at "SELF-DESCRIBED CONSERVATIVES." How would your views change if HYPOTHETICALLY, laziness was determined by genetics in the same way that blindness is determined. To reiterate, I'm not saying in this HYPOTHETICAL (I keep emphasizing this because a common counter I get is "that's not how the world is now." I don't care how the world is now. That is not relevant to my question) situation, laziness is genetically predisposed like alcoholism. I'm saying in this hypothetical situation, laziness is genetically determined like some blindness or like Down Syndrome.

How would this change your views? In welfare? etc.

I'm assuming we have pre-defined ways of knowing who actually has such defects and can avoid allocating resources for them in this world you speak of.

Well honestly, if they don't obtain a genetic defect that will infringe on my rights and can still function in the society without excessive aid, then I would remain a conservative. However if the majority couldn't function without welfare and it's predetermined who will need it, then I don't think the private sector could handle this by themselves. If this is the case, then I would lean towards a more liberal view for governmental assistance. In which the government would have files/records of everyone (by state) who will obtain such genetic defects and send aid to each state based on the number of predetermined defects.

This is kind of off topic but

Ideological labels such as moderate, liberal, conservative, and libertarian are somewhat flawed because people don't always vote on issues that align with their political ideology. People change their views from one issue to the next based on the circumstance/sisuation.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 3:55:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 11:28:31 AM, blueberry_crepe wrote:
My question is specifically aim at "SELF-DESCRIBED CONSERVATIVES." How would your views change if HYPOTHETICALLY, laziness was determined by genetics in the same way that blindness is determined.

I would say that you have just made an extremely compelling argument for eugenics. #liberalfascist

rofl
Tsar of DDO
blueberry_crepe
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 8:06:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 3:55:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/14/2013 11:28:31 AM, blueberry_crepe wrote:
My question is specifically aim at "SELF-DESCRIBED CONSERVATIVES." How would your views change if HYPOTHETICALLY, laziness was determined by genetics in the same way that blindness is determined.

I would say that you have just made an extremely compelling argument for eugenics. #liberalfascist

rofl

ConservativeAmerican: Is that a libertarian view? Or is it just one view a libertarian could have? I wasn't aware that one of the views of libertarians was not even helping handicaps.

YYM: How is that a case for eugenics? I didn't say anything about killing/sterilizing the genetically lazy...

I also agree that labels are dumb, but I felt using "conservative" was the most practical way to reach my target audience,
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 8:20:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 8:06:22 PM, blueberry_crepe wrote:
At 8/14/2013 3:55:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/14/2013 11:28:31 AM, blueberry_crepe wrote:
My question is specifically aim at "SELF-DESCRIBED CONSERVATIVES." How would your views change if HYPOTHETICALLY, laziness was determined by genetics in the same way that blindness is determined.

I would say that you have just made an extremely compelling argument for eugenics. #liberalfascist

rofl

ConservativeAmerican: Is that a libertarian view? Or is it just one view a libertarian could have? I wasn't aware that one of the views of libertarians was not even helping handicaps.

YYM: How is that a case for eugenics? I didn't say anything about killing/sterilizing the genetically lazy...

It's YYW, not YYM...

I was being sarcastic...

I also agree that labels are dumb, but I felt using "conservative" was the most practical way to reach my target audience,
Tsar of DDO
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 10:03:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 8:20:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:06:22 PM, blueberry_crepe wrote:
At 8/14/2013 3:55:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/14/2013 11:28:31 AM, blueberry_crepe wrote:
My question is specifically aim at "SELF-DESCRIBED CONSERVATIVES." How would your views change if HYPOTHETICALLY, laziness was determined by genetics in the same way that blindness is determined.

I would say that you have just made an extremely compelling argument for eugenics. #liberalfascist

rofl

ConservativeAmerican: Is that a libertarian view? Or is it just one view a libertarian could have? I wasn't aware that one of the views of libertarians was not even helping handicaps.

YYM: How is that a case for eugenics? I didn't say anything about killing/sterilizing the genetically lazy...

It's YYW, not YYM...

Whatever you say YYM...
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 10:08:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It depends on what you define as "lazy". Is it one that has high-time preference? One that finds no intrinsic value in doing work. One that is ill-motivated via external incentives . Do any or certain incentives matter?

The problem with laziness, is its a poorly defined word.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
blueberry_crepe
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 2:01:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 10:08:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It depends on what you define as "lazy". Is it one that has high-time preference? One that finds no intrinsic value in doing work. One that is ill-motivated via external incentives . Do any or certain incentives matter?

The problem with laziness, is its a poorly defined word.

YYW: Sarcasm still has to make sense. It's not just saying anything you want that isn't specific. Yours wasn't specific to my post. Yours is like if I said "1+1=2," then you said sarcastically "you just made a good case for why 1+1=3." I mean, what does that even mean?

darkkermit: Lets define "lazy" as "no willpower to work hard." We assume it cannot be corrected by drugs or therapy.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 3:21:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Eugenics doesn't imply fascism. In fact, everyone practices a kind of eugenics as part of their choice of mates, and are no less eugenicists for being oblivious to it, or for doing it in an unsophisticated, uncooperative, or otherwise inefficient manner.

That said, one needn't cast laziness as predetermined in order to justify a basic income; every welfare case is, for example, dispossessed of the commons and receiving no land rent as compensation. Also, predetermination doesn't eliminate welfare's perverse incentives; an industrious type can still choose what work to do, including unpaid, under-the-table or illicit work whose lower personal benefits and/or greater risks are compensated for by eligibility for welfare. The notion of predetermination also limits the kinds of indirect benefits that could be justified; the "employer of last resort", subsidized daycare, etc. are premised upon the notion that "laziness" can be overcome by increasing the supply of decent-paying jobs and their complements.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 10:12:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 2:01:10 AM, blueberry_crepe wrote:
At 8/14/2013 10:08:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It depends on what you define as "lazy". Is it one that has high-time preference? One that finds no intrinsic value in doing work. One that is ill-motivated via external incentives . Do any or certain incentives matter?

The problem with laziness, is its a poorly defined word.

YYW: Sarcasm still has to make sense. It's not just saying anything you want that isn't specific. Yours wasn't specific to my post. Yours is like if I said "1+1=2," then you said sarcastically "you just made a good case for why 1+1=3." I mean, what does that even mean?

darkkermit: Lets define "lazy" as "no willpower to work hard." We assume it cannot be corrected by drugs or therapy.

Defining one ambiguous term w/ another ambiguous term. It doesn't answer of my questions above of what is considered lazy or not.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...