(+)Eugenics, Yea or Nay?

[JBeukema]

So you're back to negative eugenics... compulsory negative eugenics, at that...


Positive eugenics would simply replace the gene with a 'known good' or repair it when the couple decided to have a child.

No shit, Sherlock.

NOW, what do you do in the meantime?

How about not forcefully sterilizing or killing people and trying to cope with the fact that the world isn't perfect?

or do you TRY to prevent the pain and suffering you've already seen,

Through forced sterilization?

why isn't it a Bad Idea to have it happen BEFORE-hand,

Let's see... where has that led in the past?


The Holocaust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and do ALL WE CAN, with what we DO know, to prevent the suffering and/or pain caused by this?[/quote]

 

[JBeukema]

We have effectively wiped out ever species of banana except the one that is most commercially profitable, and that is in serious danger as a result of disease. Great example there.

Extraordinary Things About Bananas



Even if it were true, what would you point be?

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-100960421.html
allAfrica.com: Africa: Diseases Threaten to Wipe Out Bananas in Sub-Saharan Region

It is true, and the point is that mutations happen in other species, and by selecting 'favorable' traits you sometimes eliminate other traits that might be necessary to deal with other diseases. We are not capable of thinking of everything, and cannot predict the future.

okay... and?

Who's advocated making all of humanity one homogenous group in this thread?


You keep attacking positions nobody's taken. Are you dishonest or just stupid?

 

[fyrenza]

Genius is an abnormality, should we eliminate it?

Abnormality is how we evolve, and adapt to new environments.

Well, I thought that it was also a given that we'd be looking to eliminate the HORRIBLE things,

not EVERYthing that is different/abnormal, you know?

 

[JBeukema]

Address the issues I already raised. What if, despite all the testing, someone is born with one of these genetic defects?

What about it? People die despite out best medicine, diseases stll exist- does that mean we shouldn't try?

After all, labs are imperfect and make mistakes, it is inevitable that it will happen. Does your perfect society simply kill off the mistakes?

You're a fucking moron.

I already debunked your bullshit

No, you ignored it, and still are.

you really should read the posts before making a bigger fool of yourself

Eugenics has always been about improving genes through various programs, and the best way to to that has always been eliminating defective stock from the gene pool

Fail. Even if you remove 'defective stock', you've done nothing. The only way to increase the prevalence of favorable traits is by, you know- spreading them around. See: selective breeding.

Now, show me where the definition,

The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.

​

and killing someone is the only 100% effective way to remove them from the gene pool. But keep thinking eugenics is a new idea, or that it is something pretty. It isn't, it is just another form of racism, only dressed in pretty clothes and a psuedo-scientific justification.

says anything about ' eliminating defective stock from the gene pool'. Also, learn to read, as the title clearly says '(+) Eugenics...'.

+ is commonly used to stand for 'positive'. Hence, the thread title reads as Positive Eugenics..' If you don't know what positive and negative eugenics are, you really shouldn't try to tell other people about the matter.

But keep thinking eugenics is a new idea, or that it is something pretty. It isn't, it is just another form of racism

Right... because wanting to ensure that if I or my partner possess an allele that, if inherited, could cause our child to suffer from a horrible disease, that that chld does not iunherit that particular allele, is 'racist'. Wanting to ensue that, if my partner and I are both benefit from heterozygouse advantage, that our child does as well, instead of that child suffering from Tay Sachs or hemophilia is 'racist'.

Right...[/quote]

 

[fyrenza]

Through forced sterilization?

I might make a lot of enemies, here, for saying this,

but in the case of Translocated Down's Syndrome?

Yes.

They are innocent children, that are incapable of making those sorts of critical thinking decisions,

and I happen to feel like it would not be in their best interests, nor society's, to have them procreate.

***

I'm truly sorry that this thread has devolved into some sort of Out In The Ozone convo,

what with all of the illogical hypotheticals that are being thrown into the mix.

JB? Could you state a Particular Instance for us, please, since we seem to be a little lost about your Exact position?

I've brought two scenarios to the table, for discussion, but the focus is totally off, and just sort of bouncing around, right now...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

classical doctrine?

A liberal. a 20th century liberal

so not classical doctrine, but one who coopted the term and supports welfare and government interventionism in the market?

coopted? Did the Democrats and the Republicans today coopt their respective parties? Anachronistic definitions are quaint, yet irrelevant. We live in the 21st century, not the 1800s.

I know the crazy, fringe libertarians have tried to revive the meaning as a cover for their conservative economic ideas, but that dog won't hut here. It appears libertarians of the later 20th century tried to revive the old meaning of the term liberal, as a way of coopting liberalism as a cover for conservative libertarian economics.

Government intervention is the market is a broad term with very little meaning. Most economic theories support some kind of government intervention in the market -- it's called regulation. Welfare? Welfare is a liberal principle, not a libertarian one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Genius is an abnormality, should we eliminate it?

Abnormality is how we evolve, and adapt to new environments.

Well, I thought that it was also a given that we'd be looking to eliminate the HORRIBLE things,

not EVERYthing that is different/abnormal, you know?

Who defines horrible? Ray Charles was blind, possibly as a result of a genetic abnormality. What if that abnormality also gave him his ear for music?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

classical doctrine?

A liberal. a 20th century liberal

Read: Fabian socialist.

yet another quaint boogy man revived by the house cheap shot artist

 

[Quantum Windbag]

okay... and?

Who's advocated making all of humanity one homogenous group in this thread?


You keep attacking positions nobody's taken. Are you dishonest or just stupid?

You are the one attacking a position no one has taken, I never claimed you wanted to make humanity homogeneous, I claim you are an fool for thinking we can determine all the possible effects of gene therapy. Just because we know a gene is linked to a negative effect does not mean it does not have a positive one, so there is no such thing as positive eugenics. All eugenics is negative, it has to be, or it is not eugenics.

 

[fyrenza]

Genius is an abnormality, should we eliminate it?

Abnormality is how we evolve, and adapt to new environments.

Well, I thought that it was also a given that we'd be looking to eliminate the HORRIBLE things,

not EVERYthing that is different/abnormal, you know?

Who defines horrible? Ray Charles was blind, possibly as a result of a genetic abnormality. What if that abnormality also gave him his ear for music?

Mang, you're sinking back into the illogical hypotheticals.

What if THIS:

He was born WITHOUT the blindness, and could see things so clearly,

that his ear for music made his translation of THAT,

into the hands-down MUSIC OF THE EARTH?

(where people like me didn't actually think he SUX )

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What about it? People die despite out best medicine, diseases stll exist- does that mean we shouldn't try?
You're a fucking moron.

I already debunked your bullshit

No, you ignored it, and still are.

you really should read the posts before making a bigger fool of yourself.

You cannot ignore the negative this simply.

The examples you gave before of bananas and corn are indicative of the problem, when they find out they make a mistake there they simply destroy it. It is impossible to breed animals unless you are willing to cull the unwanted offspring.

I am sure you want to quote the same block of text in another attempt to prove you have already dealt with this, but you have not. Mistakes are going to happen, and enter the gene pool, unless you prevent it. Some of the positive traits you select for are going to turn out to be wrong, like the gene selection in bananas that are making them susceptible to blight. You will be generations into your grand experiment and found you have doomed the human race because you think you are smart enough to think of everything, and will thus doom the future generations to dealing with your arrogance. Eugenics, positive or otherwise, is noting but psuedo-science, and it will never be anything more.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Through forced sterilization?

I might make a lot of enemies, here, for saying this,

but in the case of Translocated Down's Syndrome?

Yes.

They are innocent children, that are incapable of making those sorts of critical thinking decisions,

and I happen to feel like it would not be in their best interests, nor society's, to have them procreate.

***

I'm truly sorry that this thread has devolved into some sort of Out In The Ozone convo,

what with all of the illogical hypotheticals that are being thrown into the mix.

JB? Could you state a Particular Instance for us, please, since we seem to be a little lost about your Exact position?

I've brought two scenarios to the table, for discussion, but the focus is totally off, and just sort of bouncing around, right now...

I can admire you for having principles, and being willing to articulate them, even if I disagree with those principles. It is more honest than trying to argue that + eugenics would never involve sterilization or euthanasia.

 

[fyrenza]

You are the one attacking a position no one has taken, I never claimed you wanted to make humanity homogeneous, I claim you are an fool for thinking we can determine all the possible effects of gene therapy. Just because we know a gene is linked to a negative effect does not mean it does not have a positive one, so there is no such thing as positive eugenics. All eugenics is negative, it has to be, or it is not eugenics.

Yeah, BUT have any of these peeps turned out to ...

be ...

prodigies? savants? Einstein?

err...

ummm...

(that's just me, trying to be funny, when I figure out I'm wrong... )

That's an excellent point.

But, man, I come from a nursing background, among other things, and some of the pain and suffering is so horrible, that I'd truly like to think that we could somehow make it just a little better...

But I'm still not Right nor Left Wing!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are the one attacking a position no one has taken, I never claimed you wanted to make humanity homogeneous, I claim you are an fool for thinking we can determine all the possible effects of gene therapy. Just because we know a gene is linked to a negative effect does not mean it does not have a positive one, so there is no such thing as positive eugenics. All eugenics is negative, it has to be, or it is not eugenics.

Yeah, BUT have any of these peeps turned out to ...

be ...

prodigies? savants? Einstein?

err...

ummm...

(that's just me, trying to be funny, when I figure out I'm wrong... )

That's an excellent point.

But, man, I come from a nursing background, among other things, and some of the pain and suffering is so horrible, that I'd truly like to think that we could somehow make it just a little better...

But I'm still not Right nor Left Wing!!!

Neither am I, I just read a lot, and I have read a lot of stories based on the ides that someone had an idea for a better world that turned out to make it worse. I tend to see the negative effects of things.

You are right to want to reduce suffering, just remember while you are doing it that you are not perfect and you don't have all the answers. If you remember that I won't have any problem with you, it is when you start thinking that you have thought of everything that you get in trouble.

 

[fyrenza]

Yeah, well, I'm not a COMPLETE idiot.

(PLEASE DON"T HAVE ME EUTHANIZED!!! )

If you'll notice in the voting?

I reserve my vote until ALL the countries have been heard from.

THIS is the beauty of the internet to me! Being able to TALK about stuff like this, with other folks that have actually thought about it, too.

I'm 55, and I NEVER thought we could all be joined like this, to share ideas and thoughts, and dreams, and experiences!

Yeah, okay, so I'm a little toasted, right now...

 

[syrenn]

Genius is an abnormality, should we eliminate it?

Abnormality is how we evolve, and adapt to new environments.

Well, I thought that it was also a given that we'd be looking to eliminate the HORRIBLE things,

not EVERYthing that is different/abnormal, you know?

question:

As someone WITHOUT any genetic flaws, would you genetically choose to have a downs syndrome child or something worse?

As someone WITH downs markers would you choose to have that gene deleted out so that a child of yours would not have the possibility of having downs?

 

[blu]

I am for eugenics based on personal responsibility of each person. My ideas are summed up here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...rents-should-be-sterilized-2.html#post2339404

 

[JBeukema]

They are innocent children, that are incapable of making those sorts of critical thinking decisions,

and I happen to feel like it would not be in their best interests, nor society's, to have them procreate.

The parents are children?

And who decides whether it's 'in their best interests, [or] society's, to have them procreate'? What about certain socioeconomic and racial groups with a higher incidence of criminality?


We've heard this all before, and we've seen where people like you would take us

 

[JBeukema]

Anachronistic definitions are quaint, yet irrelevant. We live in the 21st century, not the 1800s.

Right... calling a flower a car because 'reproductive organ of angiosperm plants, especially one having showy or colorful parts' is an 'anachronistic definition' and this is the 'New Era' of Orwellian Newspeak really just shows that you can't be honest about what you believe and you want to hide as something you're not.

Liberalism is the ideology developed by lock et al. If you don't adhere to that ideology, you're simply not a Liberal, just as one who does not adhere the the ideology developed by Marx and Engels is not a Marxist and one who does believe Jesus' claims about himself (as recorded in the documents written by the Church Founders) is not a Christian.

Words have meanings. When you rob words of their meanings, they mean nothing. To speak words without meanings is to say nothing.

Welfare is a liberal principle, not a libertarian one.

It's not a Liberal principle, either. It [welfare run y the State, as opposed to 'private welfare' such as charities and churches] is a concept found only in ideologies further to the left, such as Social Democracy and Progressivism.

 

[JBeukema]

All eugenics is negative, it has to be, or it is not eugenics.

Do you ever know what you're talking about?

P{lease, take the time to learn what words mean before interrupting the discussion any further.