I thought the post above mine where the whole deterministic thing was written was in jest. So was mine.

 

For some folks, not being a fan of Corbyn = Tory.

 

lol "extremely outdated theory". the argument over whether or not genetics matter was decided decisively in favour of genetics way back before your parents had left diapers.

this guy gets it.

 

I tried following the thread. But the title buffoonery swamps my ability. It's not Ye Olde. It's The Olde. The Y is actually þ (the letter, thorn) but looks more like . Hence, the shift from th to y. Infidels, the lot of you.

Now, is that genetic coding or elementary school grammar instruction abuse that drives such posts?

 

Because if you title a thread 'þe Olde' you look like a right proper twat

 

Only because of þe inconsistency.

þe olde Dursley debate þread

 

Let's go with that.

 

Take your moralising and shove it. The operative part of the first post was the term “Hard” genetic determinism, which was the joke. The moderate hypothesis has broadly travelled true. Though I’d wager that your definition of important environment is probably too broad.

Edit: The broad heritability of all traits is neither here nor there wrt racial superiority or all that other bunk. To get from A to B requires some pretty sketchy value judgements in regards to what society should value and the relative inportance of various characterics. The linking of the two ideas says much imo

 

Having both seen and read it, Harry comes across a lot better in the live action. Reading the script, Harry comes across as a bit of a douche. In the live play, it's clear that Harry is a fairly normal father and it's Albus Severus who is an unusually ungrateful, angsty teenager.

 

Does it justify telling your son that you wish that you were not his father?

 

Well, the audience certainly has sympathy with Harry for saying it by that point, since you've had to sit through an hour of Al's #FirstWorldProblems. I wouldn't say it "justifies" it, whatever that means, but neither the narrative nor Harry seeks to argue that Harry saying it was a good thing; Harry immediately considers it a mistake, a rash statement in the heat of the moment.

 

You just plain don’t know what you’re talking about. A) There was actually three forms of the genetic determinism arguement. Hard, moderate, and weak. Which is why in the original post I ‘hard’ was used. If you had even a cursory knowledge of this you’d know that. B) the heritability of complex traits varies depending on the trait, but is generally in the ball park of 70-50%. C) You do realise epigenetics is how the environment mediates genetic expression and thereby phenotype. So therefore it doesn’t make sense to list out factors affecting phenotype as genetics, environment, epigenetics. You can just say environment and genetics.

Of course you were moralising. You took a joke playing on the ridiculousness of one of the themes of Harry Potter secretly being genetic determinism coded in by the presumably eugenicst JK Rowling and used it to grandstand on how the genetic determinism hypothesis is equal to being nazi.

 

This just in, humour is subjective. More at eleven.

I don't know, I didn't read this as humorous or intended as a joke. And your spitting fire (over several technical posts to establish your intellectual authority) at someone for 'misunderstanding' it as serious doesn't give me the impression that you thought it was a joke, either. Just saying.

To be clear, not calling you a nazi. Just suggesting, if it was a joke you might want to look at how you play up the humour - because realistically I just think you wanted to look clever and were annoyed at someone calling you out on it.

 

Authors note: sarcasm

The joke was the ridiculousness of me calling JK Rowling of all people a genetic Determinist, and then bullshitting textual reasons for this. Pretty obviously a ridiculous position to stake out given common knowledge of Rowling and Harry Potter.

But whatever, i see your point sperging our about the ‘estoric’ minutiae certainly overshadowed any joke to be found. Though something that is covered in a first year Bio or Psych class is hardly someone flexing their intellectual muscles.

To avoid misunderstandings In the future i’ll make sure to leave an authors note at the top of a comment to indicate different fonts for sarcasm.

 

I draw the line in between abuse and strict parenting at the impact the alleged abuse has on the child. Since Harry didn't really act like an abused child, I can't call the Dursleys abusive.

 

There is (the overtly obvious ones). I meant if there's a grey area, it depends on how it impacts the child.