Vox Day has responded to the release of that video interview. Once again, he’s weasely: he’s now saying he was ambushed, that it was supposed to be all about gamergate, and Pakman surprised him with other questions. But he says some more things that irritate me.
But that’s how they play the game. I’m not the least bit upset or annoyed about it. I could have shut it down once it became clear that David Pakman had set up a bait-and-switch, but I was interested to see just how far he would take us off subject. I find it amusing that the headlines are focused on my supposedly "controversial statements" when saying that some races are smarter than others is no more debatable than saying that some races are taller than others.
And I am not stating unequivocally that homosexuality is a birth defect for the obvious reason that we don’t know with any degree of certainty that it is an immutable condition determined at birth. But if it is, then what else would you realistically call a condition that significantly reduces the odds that a creature will be able to propagate its genes?
Two stupid things from ol’ Teddy Beale:
It makes no sense to talk about the height of “races”. People within a racial group have a range of heights — you can’t simply judge individuals by an average of a group, especially when the metric is something so incredibly sensitive to environmental factors during development.
It’s the same story with IQ, whatever it is. So he’s actually correct: racial height makes about as much sense as racial intelligence, i.e., neither do.
Homosexuality is a birh defect because it
significantly reduces the odds that a creature will be able to propagate its genes? That argument is idiotic.
First, show me that it actually does reduce fertility. Significant numbers of heterosexual people have no interest in having children — for instance, Theodore Beale is 46 years old, and seems to have failed to reproduce. Shall we argue that being a racist asshat is a birth defect? Also, many gay people with a desire for children manage to reproduce. It turns out the bulk of the work of generating, producing, and raising children is not driven by sexual desire!
Second, there are other things that reduce fertility, in a statistical sense: education and wealth, for example. Should we regard intelligence as a birth defect then? How about all those wealthy Republicans? The Koch brothers, between the two of them, only have four children; my parents, lower middle class Democrats, had six. The fitness of two of the richest people in America is lower than my parents, who were probably in the bottom 15%.
Finally, if we want to get really fundamental, sexual reproduction itself must be a birth defect. Populations are limited by the fact that only half their members actually produce offspring — males only produce gametes. We could double our growth rate if we were all functional hermaphrodites!
Another fundamental ‘birth defect’ would have to be multicellularity. Look at us slow, clumsy human beings: we have to go through this elaborate process of development to even be able to reproduce in about 15 years. Years! And even then we only spawn two or three children, on average. There are bacteria that can divide every hour. In 15 years, which is about 130,000 hours, they could produce 2130000 progeny.
The bottom line is that if you’re going to use the metric of maximum rate of propagation of genes, then heterosexual human beings are total failures already.
I really am unimpressed when people with no knowledge of biology try to rationalize their prejudices with biology. The only good thing about it is that it makes them look really stupid.