• Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    That’s your own flawed interpretation. The premise of the movie is about social “devolution”. Basically, an inverse of the normal social motivators occurs, where society no longer values concepts like intellect or education, and begins valuing things like fame, and risk taking behaviour.

    Damn, you must be a Yogi, if you’re that great at bending over backwards to make a point.

    The concept of intellect is inseparable from the concept of nature vs nurture.

    lol, wut?

    The eugenics based argument is that mentally disabled people shouldn’t have kids because they believe their illness will be passed down to their children.

    That included the “mental illness” of “feeble mindedness” and “promiscuity” of Carrie Buck. “Feeble mindedness” was once determined by IQ tests, btw. Noticing a pattern already?

    Eugenics is a part of a long line of debunked “racial science”, and is meant to be applied in the aims of isolating a certain type of people from society.

    Yes, so far, so good

    It’s not applicable to an entire society with different ethnicities being affected the same

    Why not? Where in the handbook of eugenics does it say that it has to be explicitly racist? The whole idea of the “wrong people” having “too many” kids leads to a “degeneration” of society is the basic justification behind negative eugenics!

    Lol, there are only two “smart” people in the movie, and one of them is a former sex worker… They also have three kids.

    I’m talking about the setup. You can see the IQ of the smart couple in the beginning.

    The important part which you are ignoring is what could possibly explain the social devolution of every single person in a country within 500 years.

    I’m judging by the internal logic of the movie, not on the real world. I know that the real world doesn’t work like that at all. 🙄

    You are just being willingly obtuse, or are just really ignorant at this point.

    No, you! /j

    I’ve provided rebuttals for all your examples, and youve failed to do the same for mine

    I disagree

    other than saying I’m “cherry picking”, which really isn’t an argument.

    You’re misrepresenting the movie by cherry-picking, which invalidates your arguments.