(+)Eugenics, Yea or Nay?

[JBeukema]

Eugenics is preventing it from happening in the first place

You mean, for example, effecting changes to your germ cells prior to in vitro fertilization as a methodology in the application of genetic engineering?

and culling when it does.

fail


See again the difference between positive and negative genetics. Words have meanings, you illiterate twit.

 

[JW Frogen]

I am going with "yea" on this one.

Given any question I really do not care about, I always say yes.

Yes is better than no.

THis is why I have 172 illigitmate children.

I love each and every one of them.

 

[FA_Q2]

Positive eugenics | Define Positive eugenics at Dictionary.com

the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Yes JB, words DO have meaning and your definition of eugenics is WRONG. EVERY source disagrees with you. Eugenics does NOT include genetic engineering, it is the process of selective breeding. Please accept that the definition you proposed in the beginning was incorrect and that you are referring to genetic engineering NOT breeding and then we can move on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Positive eugenics | Define Positive eugenics at Dictionary.com

the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Yes JB, words DO have meaning and your definition of eugenics is WRONG. EVERY source disagrees with you. Eugenics does NOT include genetic engineering, it is the process of selective breeding. Please accept that the definition you proposed in the beginning was incorrect and that you are referring to genetic engineering NOT breeding and then we can move on.

That would be nice, wouldn't it?

 

[AllieBaba]

Because like anything there can be negative gene therapies. I am PRO positive gene therapies, as in the breast cancer example.

Which you will have to agree fits with the OP

It fits with the OP if I ignore the fact that what the OP is describing is not eugenics, it is genetics. Eugenics is about breeding humans, period, and it is psuedo-science. The fact that JB keeps trying to claim that I am wrong, even when his own links prove I am right, more than makes that point.

The problem is you are ignoring the bolded part. Other then what you two went off the rails about, the OP is asking about a discussion of positive uses for gene therapy.

Again: Semitics.

No, the OP is talking about positive uses for EUGENICS. NOT the same thing.

And it's SEMANTICS, not SEMITICS. Semitics are Jews. That's a pretty major freudian slip right there, when you're talking about eugenics.

 

[syrenn]

It fits with the OP if I ignore the fact that what the OP is describing is not eugenics, it is genetics. Eugenics is about breeding humans, period, and it is psuedo-science. The fact that JB keeps trying to claim that I am wrong, even when his own links prove I am right, more than makes that point.

The problem is you are ignoring the bolded part. Other then what you two went off the rails about, the OP is asking about a discussion of positive uses for gene therapy.

Again: Semitics.

No, the OP is talking about positive uses for EUGENICS. NOT the same thing.

And it's SEMANTICS, not SEMITICS. Semitics are Jews. That's a pretty major freudian slip right there, when you're talking about eugenics.

yes i KNOW. I didnt check it before I posted.

SEMANTICS I say it many times in other posts if you care to look. So take your perceived Freudian slip and shove it.

And besides if I were to rid the earth of anyone its not the jews.

 

[JBeukema]

Positive eugenics | Define Positive eugenics at Dictionary.com

the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Yes JB, words DO have meaning and your definition of eugenics is WRONG. EVERY source disagrees with you. Eugenics does NOT include genetic engineering, it is the process of selective breeding. Please accept that the definition you proposed in the beginning was incorrect and that you are referring to genetic engineering NOT breeding and then we can move on.

fail


especially =/= exclusively


es·pe·cial·ly

   /ɪˈspɛʃ

ə

li/ Show Spelled[ih-spesh-uh-lee] Show IPA
–adverb particularly; exceptionally; markedly: Be especially watchf


If you're going to quote a definition, make sure it doesn't prove you wrong first

 

[FA_Q2]

Positive eugenics | Define Positive eugenics at Dictionary.com

the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Yes JB, words DO have meaning and your definition of eugenics is WRONG. EVERY source disagrees with you. Eugenics does NOT include genetic engineering, it is the process of selective breeding. Please accept that the definition you proposed in the beginning was incorrect and that you are referring to genetic engineering NOT breeding and then we can move on.

fail


especially =/= exclusively


es·pe·cial·ly

   /ɪˈspɛʃ

ə

li/ Show Spelled[ih-spesh-uh-lee] Show IPA
–adverb particularly; exceptionally; markedly: Be especially watchf


If you're going to quote a definition, make sure it doesn't prove you wrong first

hmm... so no. I guess I will just have to write you off as throwing a childish fit. Apparently your drive to be 'right' overpowers your ability to debate. Goodbye.

 

[AllieBaba]

The problem is you are ignoring the bolded part. Other then what you two went off the rails about, the OP is asking about a discussion of positive uses for gene therapy.

Again: Semitics.

No, the OP is talking about positive uses for EUGENICS. NOT the same thing.

And it's SEMANTICS, not SEMITICS. Semitics are Jews. That's a pretty major freudian slip right there, when you're talking about eugenics.

yes i KNOW. I didnt check it before I posted.

SEMANTICS I say it many times in other posts if you care to look. So take your perceived Freudian slip and shove it.

And besides if I were to rid the earth of anyone its not the jews.

It's still a freudian slip, shove it yourself. It's not perceived at all. It's just very interesting you'd say "semitics" when trying to assert that genetics and eugenics are the same thing. Particularly after using the term correctly.

Thanks for admitting you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I'll continue to give your straw man attempts to divert the attention from the real subject the focus their deserve. None, of course.

 

[AllieBaba]

Positive eugenics | Define Positive eugenics at Dictionary.com
Yes JB, words DO have meaning and your definition of eugenics is WRONG. EVERY source disagrees with you. Eugenics does NOT include genetic engineering, it is the process of selective breeding. Please accept that the definition you proposed in the beginning was incorrect and that you are referring to genetic engineering NOT breeding and then we can move on.

fail


especially =/= exclusively


es·pe·cial·ly

   /ɪˈspɛʃ

ə

li/ Show Spelled[ih-spesh-uh-lee] Show IPA
–adverb particularly; exceptionally; markedly: Be especially watchf


If you're going to quote a definition, make sure it doesn't prove you wrong first

hmm... so no. I guess I will just have to write you off as throwing a childish fit. Apparently your drive to be 'right' overpowers your ability to debate. Goodbye.

That is a prevalent trait among despots, tyrants and the anklebiters who defend them.

 

[syrenn]

Semantics boys.

How about the term positive gene therapy instead of positive eugenics? That gets rid of QW's bit about breading programs and culling. AND it allows for genetic choices to be made by parents.

No, the OP is talking about positive uses for EUGENICS. NOT the same thing.

And it's SEMANTICS, not SEMITICS. Semitics are Jews. That's a pretty major freudian slip right there, when you're talking about eugenics.

yes i KNOW. I didnt check it before I posted.

SEMANTICS I say it many times in other posts if you care to look. So take your perceived Freudian slip and shove it.

And besides if I were to rid the earth of anyone its not the jews.

It's still a freudian slip, shove it yourself. It's not perceived at all. It's just very interesting you'd say "semitics" when trying to assert that genetics and eugenics are the same thing. Particularly after using the term correctly.

Thanks for admitting you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I'll continue to give your straw man attempts to divert the attention from the real subject the focus their deserve. None, of course.

I say it over and over.... so take the spell check lazy error any way you want.

 

[Neubarth]

We need to denut any 10 year old boy who has an IQ below 120. That should be the cut off.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We need to denut any 10 year old boy who has an IQ below 120. That should be the cut off.

Your true colors come out, what a surprise.

 

[JBeukema]

Bottom line: everyone in this thread wh's been honest enough to answer has said they will avail themselves to 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, prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life [1], when it't their children when talking about.


Some of us are honest enough to state openly that these are eugenic aims by any fair application of the term, granted that attention is paid the the differentiation between positive and negative methodologies, to willful versus compulsory participation, and what we do and do not support. Some are not so honest*. In the end, though, they're willing to do the very same things as we are when their children are to benefit.


*The difference seems to be much like that between those of us who state openly that we are social democrats, socialists, leftists, or whatever other ideology we may adhere to, and those who who do not. Those who coopt the name 'liberal' when they do not adhere to the ideology of liberalism and those who refuse to acknowledge their eugenics aims and the history of the aims and methodologies they've gone on record as supporting are the same in that they refuse to identify with an accurate term out of soret sort of PR concerns.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

We need to denut any 10 year old boy who has an IQ below 120. That should be the cut off.

Nice Avi...I had no idea W.C. Fields was President....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bottom line: everyone in this thread wh's been honest enough to answer has said they will avail themselves to 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, prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life [1], when it't their children when talking about.


Some of us are honest enough to state openly that these are eugenic aims by any fair application of the term, granted that attention is paid the the differentiation between positive and negative methodologies, to willful versus compulsory participation, and what we do and do not support. Some are not so honest*. In the end, though, they're willing to do the very same things as we are when their children are to benefit.


*The difference seems to be much like that between those of us who state openly that we are social democrats, socialists, leftists, or whatever other ideology we may adhere to, and those who who do not. Those who coopt the name 'liberal' when they do not adhere to the ideology of liberalism and those who refuse to acknowledge their eugenics aims and the history of the aims and methodologies they've gone on record as supporting are the same in that they refuse to identify with an accurate term out of soret sort of PR concerns.

Wow, still trying to twist things so that you are right.

The difference is that you think eugenics and genetics are the same thing, they are not. Why don't you just admit you were wrong about that and move on?

 

[JBeukema]

The difference is that you think eugenics and genetics are the same thing,

Fail. Do cite where I've said any such thing.

Genetics is one methodology.

Let me put in this so it might resemble your homework:

genetics is to eugenics

as

throwing water on it is to fire suppression



You yourself have sis you'd avail yourself to technology to improve the genetics of your children- that is, to improve the human stock and give your children superior form.


That's eugenics, dude. That's the goal of eugenics- in all its forms- in a nutshell.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

At any rate I say NAY to eugenics.....natural selection is the only way to go.

 

[JBeukema]

At any rate I say NAY to eugenics.....natural selection is the only way to go.

So you'd rather flip coin and let your child suffer a horrible disease than ensure your child's health?


You have no laugh or compassion for your own children?


Do they also go without shoes and vaccinations?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

At any rate I say NAY to eugenics.....natural selection is the only way to go.

So you'd rather flip coin and let your child suffer a horrible disease than ensure your child's health?


You have no laugh or compassion for your own children?


Do they also go without shoes and vaccinations?

Supporting and taking care of your kids has nothing to do with what genetics deals out to our children.....your equating to the 2 to is insulting to those of us who are responsible parents.
Plus maybe you are flipping a coin when conceiving a child....if God forbod they are born with some genetic flaw that's life and your fate. The strength of the parents character will come through when faced with adversity.....you asses who want to play around with the human genome and develope some super race that is "different" than naturally conceived human beings are yet agan chosing division and inequality...those that think you can "breed out" naturally occurring flaws in our DNA are insane.