5 ms·

In its long term effect this fraud is similar to serial rape. But that's also true of serial seduction under false pretenses. Should the punishment for these th

In its long term effect this fraud is similar to serial rape. But that's also true of serial seduction under false pretenses. Should the punishment for these things also be similar? I don't know. From a Darwinian perspective even the death penalty is insufficient, since reproducing copiously is worth dying for. The only effective punishment would involve also killing or sterilizing the resulting children ... which is entirely unacceptable from our cultural perspective. So to a Darwinian insemination doctor this may be something like a perfect crime, in that there is no prospective punishment that outweighs the benefits.

buboard 7y ago
> From a Darwinian perspective even the death penalty is insufficient, Darwinism has no bearing on legal matters. In fact the entirety of laws are opposed to darwinism Plus we re probably the last generations that care for darwinism? It won't take long before it becomes normal to engineer your children.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- hirundo 7y ago
  > Darwinism has no bearing on legal matters. To a Darwinian rapist / insemination fraudster / seduction fraudster, this is a kind of loophole that he can slip through. Modern law doesn't sufficiently incentivise him to desist.
  - buboard 7y ago
    It would be fun to see seduction outlawed. What would be the punishment for seductors and seductees?
    - hirundo 7y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_(tort) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_(tort)
      - andrepd 7y ago
        Love it. That short page is absolutely filled with "gems" (for lack of a better word).
      - buboard 7y ago
        It appears the seducer would pay with monetary damages and the seducted would pay with a life in disgrace
        ZoomZoomZoom 7y ago
        So, a marriage? /s
- tarunupaday 7y ago
  >Darwinism has no bearing on legal matters. While some laws are created to protect the weakest; a lot of inheritance, marriage and family laws follow their rationale directly from Darwinism.
  - buboard 7y ago
    If there was one in the past, it certainly doesnt exist today. Marriage laws seem to have evolved to laws protecting the mother and ensuring the child can grow sufficiently comfortable.
  - staticman2 7y ago
    Marriage and family laws predate Darwin and have nothing to do with "Darwinism". They are products of, in anything, human social psychology.
    - DoctorOetker 7y ago
      With Darwinism he obviously doesn't mean the field of study, but rather the subject of the field of study, which was already happening way before Darwin's discovery of it, shaping among other things human social psychology...
    - philwelch 7y ago
      Marriage and family laws are based upon centuries-old cultural traditions that evolved and survived to the present day by virtue of promoting their own survival. That’s Darwinism. The fact that they predate Darwin is as meaningless as the fact that Earth’s orbit around the sun predates Copernicus.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  Capital punishment is/was considered a deterrent because we are programmed to attempt to avoid premature death by natural selection. That's not to say people always understood this or even that today it is the way most people think about it, but at least according to a mechanistic/biological view of behavior, that is the basis. Note that natural selection did NOT necessarily put a desire to pass on our genes into us, since that wasn't necessary. It simply put such things as a desire to continue living, a drive to care for children (which can easily be transferred to non-biological children, and we can easily ignore that drive for biological children that we don't bond to), and a drive to have sex.
- SantalBlush 7y ago
  >In fact the entirety of laws are opposed to darwinism I don't see how this is true. Can you explain this position?
  - buboard 7y ago
    starting with killing competitors, all egotistical traits are darwinian. If anything, laws exist to stop us from that
    - SantalBlush 7y ago
      Do you mean to suggest that cooperation is not a Darwinian trait? Or that social animals are not a product of natural selection? Because I'm pretty sure that is false.
- philwelch 7y ago
  That’s like saying we’re the last generation that cares about gravity. Darwinism is part of how the world works. It’s not something to be accepted or denied or supported or opposed. It’s just reality, and at most it’s a constraint to work around. If you try to fix society by pretending that Darwinism doesn’t exist, that’s like trying to build a house by pretending that mold and water damage don’t exist.
  - buboard 7y ago
    There is no invention on the horizon that will counterweight gravity, as opposed to genetic engineering.I think it's fair to say that procreation will not determine our genetic future, but the choices of genes that the people of the next few generations will make. And people's vanity may compel them to perpetuate their own genes, but given the opportunity people always choose the best possible genes for their kids (i.e. choose healthy sperm donors with generally considered "higher genes" - i.e. Danes). The OP describes a system where darwinism is used to determine how to punish people. i.e. darwinism is the source of law. That's not happening.
    - philwelch 7y ago
      I don’t know or believe that genetic engineering is anywhere close to ready for those kinds of purposes any more than waterproof materials are ready for house builders to stop worrying about drainage and other basic principles of water damage. And we’re a hell of a lot farther along in terms of waterproof materials! In fact I think it’s slightly more likely that you’ve been suckered into a scam perpetrated by Danish men for reasons that are plainly obvious from a Darwinist perspective ;) Seems like more of a crackpot Nordic eugenic superman theory to me.
      - buboard 7y ago
        embryo selection is already a thing today, and there are already crispr'd humans. Considering the pace of genetic research it's not unreasonable to expect that genetic selection of traits will be available within 20-50 years. Whatever scam the danism men are running , it's working https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a6134/danish-sperm-donors/ https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a6134/danish-sperm-donor...
Dude2030 7y ago
Did you know France banned paternity tests?
- lota-putty 7y ago
  French can't be trusted with fidelity in marriage?
haihaibye 7y ago
http://veryshortscifi.blogspot.com/2015/08/not-even-their-own-molecules.html?m=1 http://veryshortscifi.blogspot.com/2015/08/not-even-their-ow... Ghengis Khan was the world's greatest Dad, in sheer numbers. Well, he was, 'til this creep started getting off on actual reproductive success. Sicko. Got his jollies breaking into sperm banks. They caught him of course, but not before he had fathered over 700 children. That we could identify. Not all of his sons felt the need. Some were really nice kids. Normal families. But some of them... Sperm bank security improved, of course, til our present levels which are pretty much impregnable. But those guys weren't the worst - an engineer working for a clinical DNA printer hacked the machine to randomly sprinkle some of his bases into everything that went through. Weird, huh? But it sort of made the kids equivalent of distant cousins or so. There were 11 months of births before it was discovered. It wasn't even his own molecules that were involved, I don't know - I think it makes it worse
- aluren 7y ago
  The Genghis Khan thing doesn't really say much - there's a statistical near-certainty that liteally everyone today is descended from every single human that 7000 years ago (whose line didn't die out obviously).
  - opportune 7y ago
    That’s assuming that the human population is well-mixed; it should be obvious that e.g. aboriginal Australians and native Americans will not have a common ancestor that close by For example suppose you have two containers filled with elastically colliding particles. Over an arbitrarily long time you can say that each particle has surely collided with every other particle, however if each container is closed then clearly particles from one container will not have collided with those from the other container over any amount of time
    - aluren 7y ago
      >That’s assuming that the human population is well-mixed Yes that's why I took the conservative estimate of 7000 years, otherwise with the panmixia hypothesis it only goes back 3000 years or so.
aluren 7y ago
There should be a moratorium on invoking evolution unless you're an evolutionary biologist. It's quite telling that whenever I read the word 'Darwin' on this site I immediately go 'aw shit, I'm not going to like this' and it never fails.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Would you like to share with us where the parent poster made an error?
thefounder 7y ago
>> serial seduction "under false pretenses" So should we punish 90% of men?

buboard 7y ago

> From a Darwinian perspective even the death penalty is insufficient, Darwinism has no bearing on legal matters. In fact the entirety of laws are opposed to darwinism Plus we re probably the last generations that care for darwinism? It won't take long before it becomes normal to engineer your children.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hirundo 7y ago
> Darwinism has no bearing on legal matters. To a Darwinian rapist / insemination fraudster / seduction fraudster, this is a kind of loophole that he can slip through. Modern law doesn't sufficiently incentivise him to desist.
- buboard 7y ago
  It would be fun to see seduction outlawed. What would be the punishment for seductors and seductees?
  - hirundo 7y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_(tort) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_(tort)
    - andrepd 7y ago
      Love it. That short page is absolutely filled with "gems" (for lack of a better word).
    - buboard 7y ago
      It appears the seducer would pay with monetary damages and the seducted would pay with a life in disgrace
      - ZoomZoomZoom 7y ago
        So, a marriage? /s
tarunupaday 7y ago
>Darwinism has no bearing on legal matters. While some laws are created to protect the weakest; a lot of inheritance, marriage and family laws follow their rationale directly from Darwinism.
- buboard 7y ago
  If there was one in the past, it certainly doesnt exist today. Marriage laws seem to have evolved to laws protecting the mother and ensuring the child can grow sufficiently comfortable.
- staticman2 7y ago
  Marriage and family laws predate Darwin and have nothing to do with "Darwinism". They are products of, in anything, human social psychology.
  - DoctorOetker 7y ago
    With Darwinism he obviously doesn't mean the field of study, but rather the subject of the field of study, which was already happening way before Darwin's discovery of it, shaping among other things human social psychology...
  - philwelch 7y ago
    Marriage and family laws are based upon centuries-old cultural traditions that evolved and survived to the present day by virtue of promoting their own survival. That’s Darwinism. The fact that they predate Darwin is as meaningless as the fact that Earth’s orbit around the sun predates Copernicus.
robbrown451 7y ago
Capital punishment is/was considered a deterrent because we are programmed to attempt to avoid premature death by natural selection. That's not to say people always understood this or even that today it is the way most people think about it, but at least according to a mechanistic/biological view of behavior, that is the basis. Note that natural selection did NOT necessarily put a desire to pass on our genes into us, since that wasn't necessary. It simply put such things as a desire to continue living, a drive to care for children (which can easily be transferred to non-biological children, and we can easily ignore that drive for biological children that we don't bond to), and a drive to have sex.
SantalBlush 7y ago
>In fact the entirety of laws are opposed to darwinism I don't see how this is true. Can you explain this position?
- buboard 7y ago
  starting with killing competitors, all egotistical traits are darwinian. If anything, laws exist to stop us from that
  - SantalBlush 7y ago
    Do you mean to suggest that cooperation is not a Darwinian trait? Or that social animals are not a product of natural selection? Because I'm pretty sure that is false.
philwelch 7y ago
That’s like saying we’re the last generation that cares about gravity. Darwinism is part of how the world works. It’s not something to be accepted or denied or supported or opposed. It’s just reality, and at most it’s a constraint to work around. If you try to fix society by pretending that Darwinism doesn’t exist, that’s like trying to build a house by pretending that mold and water damage don’t exist.
- buboard 7y ago
  There is no invention on the horizon that will counterweight gravity, as opposed to genetic engineering.I think it's fair to say that procreation will not determine our genetic future, but the choices of genes that the people of the next few generations will make. And people's vanity may compel them to perpetuate their own genes, but given the opportunity people always choose the best possible genes for their kids (i.e. choose healthy sperm donors with generally considered "higher genes" - i.e. Danes). The OP describes a system where darwinism is used to determine how to punish people. i.e. darwinism is the source of law. That's not happening.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    I don’t know or believe that genetic engineering is anywhere close to ready for those kinds of purposes any more than waterproof materials are ready for house builders to stop worrying about drainage and other basic principles of water damage. And we’re a hell of a lot farther along in terms of waterproof materials! In fact I think it’s slightly more likely that you’ve been suckered into a scam perpetrated by Danish men for reasons that are plainly obvious from a Darwinist perspective ;) Seems like more of a crackpot Nordic eugenic superman theory to me.
    - buboard 7y ago
      embryo selection is already a thing today, and there are already crispr'd humans. Considering the pace of genetic research it's not unreasonable to expect that genetic selection of traits will be available within 20-50 years. Whatever scam the danism men are running , it's working https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a6134/danish-sperm-donors/ https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a6134/danish-sperm-donor...

Dude2030 7y ago

Did you know France banned paternity tests?

lota-putty 7y ago
French can't be trusted with fidelity in marriage?

haihaibye 7y ago

http://veryshortscifi.blogspot.com/2015/08/not-even-their-own-molecules.html?m=1 http://veryshortscifi.blogspot.com/2015/08/not-even-their-ow... Ghengis Khan was the world's greatest Dad, in sheer numbers. Well, he was, 'til this creep started getting off on actual reproductive success. Sicko. Got his jollies breaking into sperm banks. They caught him of course, but not before he had fathered over 700 children. That we could identify. Not all of his sons felt the need. Some were really nice kids. Normal families. But some of them... Sperm bank security improved, of course, til our present levels which are pretty much impregnable. But those guys weren't the worst - an engineer working for a clinical DNA printer hacked the machine to randomly sprinkle some of his bases into everything that went through. Weird, huh? But it sort of made the kids equivalent of distant cousins or so. There were 11 months of births before it was discovered. It wasn't even his own molecules that were involved, I don't know - I think it makes it worse

aluren 7y ago
The Genghis Khan thing doesn't really say much - there's a statistical near-certainty that liteally everyone today is descended from every single human that 7000 years ago (whose line didn't die out obviously).
- opportune 7y ago
  That’s assuming that the human population is well-mixed; it should be obvious that e.g. aboriginal Australians and native Americans will not have a common ancestor that close by For example suppose you have two containers filled with elastically colliding particles. Over an arbitrarily long time you can say that each particle has surely collided with every other particle, however if each container is closed then clearly particles from one container will not have collided with those from the other container over any amount of time
  - aluren 7y ago
    >That’s assuming that the human population is well-mixed Yes that's why I took the conservative estimate of 7000 years, otherwise with the panmixia hypothesis it only goes back 3000 years or so.

aluren 7y ago

There should be a moratorium on invoking evolution unless you're an evolutionary biologist. It's quite telling that whenever I read the word 'Darwin' on this site I immediately go 'aw shit, I'm not going to like this' and it never fails.

deogeo 7y ago
Would you like to share with us where the parent poster made an error?

thefounder 7y ago

>> serial seduction "under false pretenses" So should we punish 90% of men?