Hacker News Reader

Comment by sridca | Hacker News Reader

> Are facts sexist?

No, but yours is not a fact; it is a belief (if it was a fact, it needs no believing in). Your belief is that men are solely responsible for the wiles of humanity, hence your advice being to get rid of them in order to “fix humanity”.

> Men tend to be much more violent than women.

If--note ‘if’--men tend to be much more violent than women, as you say, it does imply that women are capable of violence. Thus a society of full of women is no solution to fixing the wiles of humanity as their female denizens are still capable of violence. If I may ask? Since both men and women are capable of violence, why not get rid of all humanity?

View on HN

> Thus a society of full of women is no solution to fixing the wiles of humanity as their female denizens are still capable of violence.

As ever the perfect is the enemy of the good. A male-free society would be expected to have a much lower violence rate.

> Since both men and women are capable of violence, why not get rid of all humanity?

A robot assigned with the task of setting the harm to humanity to zero would probably recommend this (and so would an anti-natalist philosopher like David Benatar). We have "humanity has to continue to exist" as a boundary condition.

> As ever the perfect is the enemy of the good. A male-free society would be expected to have a much lower violence rate.

How about we consider a different demographic group? It's well known that African-Americans are disproportionately responsible for violent crime in America. Would it be "good" to get rid of them too?

There's no point in responding seriously to this inflammatory post. Sex-selective childbirth (which is legal in the US) and genocide are a false equivalence.

You didn't mention sex selection in your previous posts. You said:

"Labs can make sperm from stem cells, so there's really no need for us anymore."

That statement is ambiguous. You could have been referring to how a post-male, post-genocide society would be able to function.

I agree that sex selection is a much less radical position to take. It's still wrong.

American society is becoming more and more multi-racial. It's not hard to imagine future parents selecting for phenotypes that are strongly associated with various racial groups today. Blonde, or curly black hair, for example.

Do you think it would be advisable for parents to use contemporary crime statistics to decide which "race" they want to pass on to their children? Do you understand why some people who are already alive might consider such rhetoric dangerous?

We're talking about the biodiversity of the human genome here. It shouldn't be winnowed so carelessly based on current societal conditions.

> A male-free society would be expected to have a much lower violence rate.

I did gather that conclusion from your "Men tend to be much more violent than women" belief ... yet, a conclusion stemming from a belief is no more valid than the belief itself. Try contemplating on the nature of violence itself ... as a starting point, look up 'female aggression subtle' on your favourite search engine. Here is just one article picked from a cursory glance: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201401/...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com