(+)Eugenics, Yea or Nay?

[JBeukema]

Interesting that, when forced to answer the question, everyone here (save Allie, who seems to have left without answering) support positive eugenics when it's their child we're talking about.

I do not support positive eugenics because it only exists in deluded minds. Do not attempt to put words in my mouth again.

Too late, windbag. You already told on yourself.

So if they find the gene for breast cancer and the entire female line in your family has died of it, would you have the gene fixed in any daughter you may have?

Probably.

 

[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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting that, when forced to answer the question, everyone here (save Allie, who seems to have left without answering) support positive eugenics when it's their child we're talking about.

I do not support positive eugenics because it only exists in deluded minds. Do not attempt to put words in my mouth again.

Too late, windbag. You already told on yourself.

So if they find the gene for breast cancer and the entire female line in your family has died of it, would you have the gene fixed in any daughter you may have?

Probably.

Talk about leaping to conclusions.

Gene therapy does not equal eugenics.

You cannot even prove eugenics is a science, and you want to try to claim I accept it. Do you have any evidence that I accept UFOs or astrology? Or are you simply going to claim I must support them because I also support eugenics?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There you go again.

Gene therapy is about removing the adverse genes and replacing them with beneficial genes. As it is real sceince, it is neither positive or negative, it simply is. It can be used for good or evil, but it is amoral, like all knowledge.

 

[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.

There you go again.

Gene therapy is about removing the adverse genes and replacing them with beneficial genes. As it is real sceince, it is neither positive or negative, it simply is. It can be used for good or evil, but it is amoral, like all knowledge.

There I go aging what? Care to explain that one?

 

[AllieBaba]

Interesting that, when forced to answer the question, everyone here (save Allie, who seems to have left without answering) support positive eugenics when it's their child we're talking about.

Allie has a life, and a bed. Sometimes Allie will participate in life and go to bed, which apparently leaves Pukeama and Dr Xo bereft.

So sue me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There you go again.

Gene therapy is about removing the adverse genes and replacing them with beneficial genes. As it is real sceince, it is neither positive or negative, it simply is. It can be used for good or evil, but it is amoral, like all knowledge.

There I go aging what? Care to explain that one?

Semantics.

 

[syrenn]

There you go again.

Gene therapy is about removing the adverse genes and replacing them with beneficial genes. As it is real sceince, it is neither positive or negative, it simply is. It can be used for good or evil, but it is amoral, like all knowledge.

There I go aging what? Care to explain that one?

Semantics.

No you just agreed that you "prefer" the wording gene therapy.

Bottom line is again, you agree.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There I go aging what? Care to explain that one?

Semantics.

No you just agreed that you "prefer" the wording gene therapy.

Bottom line is again, you agree.

I did? I thought I rejected your wording of "positive gene therapy" and explained that gene therapy is actual science, so it does not need to be dressed up in pretty words to fool people, unlike eugenics.

 

[AllieBaba]

I have said from the beginning that there is no such thing as positive eugenics because it has negative effects.

Once again you fail at literacy.

Positive Eugenics: Increasing the prevalence of desirable alleles/traits through genetic manipulation, selective breeding, etc.

Negative Eugenics: Reducing undesirable (oft racial) traits through sterilization, extermination, etc.

You fucking idiot. Those two statements are EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Sterilization is SELECTIVE BREEDING. Undesirable traits can be anything, from skin color, to skin disorders (oft associated with color) to genetic disorders (often associated with race).

You telling anyone they are funcitonally illiterate is a laugh. You say incredibly moronic things every time you post, and yet are so fucking clueless about the meanings of words and language itself you don't even know how ridiculous you sound.

And please quit telling everyone else THEY'RE functionally illiterate when it's obvious to anyone with even a 6th grade education that you are actually illiterate. I'll slap my grades against yours any day of the fucking week. Also the renewable humanities full scholarship I had for a year.

Moron.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

There you go again.

Gene therapy is about removing the adverse genes and replacing them with beneficial genes. As it is real sceince, it is neither positive or negative, it simply is. It can be used for good or evil, but it is amoral, like all knowledge.

lol

Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:

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.
​

 

[syrenn]

Semantics.

No you just agreed that you "prefer" the wording gene therapy.

Bottom line is again, you agree.

I did? I thought I rejected your wording of "positive gene therapy" and explained that gene therapy is actual science, so it does not need to be dressed up in pretty words to fool people, unlike eugenics.

I would consider saving women from a breast cancer gene a positive thing wouldn't you?

Spin it, word it however you want the end results are the same. You agree that you would avail yourself of gene therapy if available.

 

[JBeukema]

I have said from the beginning that there is no such thing as positive eugenics because it has negative effects.

Once again you fail at literacy.

Positive Eugenics: Increasing the prevalence of desirable alleles/traits through genetic manipulation, selective breeding, etc.

Negative Eugenics: Reducing undesirable (oft racial) traits through sterilization, extermination, etc.

You fucking idiot. Those two statements are EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Sterilization is SELECTIVE BREEDING.

And dropping bombs is the same thing as dropping food

You telling anyone they are funcitonally illiterate is a laugh.

What's 'funcitonally' mean?





You just broke my irony meter.

 

[AllieBaba]

Once again you fail at literacy.

Positive Eugenics: Increasing the prevalence of desirable alleles/traits through genetic manipulation, selective breeding, etc.

Negative Eugenics: Reducing undesirable (oft racial) traits through sterilization, extermination, etc.

You fucking idiot. Those two statements are EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Sterilization is SELECTIVE BREEDING.

And dropping bombs is the same thing as dropping food

You telling anyone they are funcitonally illiterate is a laugh.

What's 'funcitonally' mean?





You just broke my irony meter.

Pukeama is the epitome of willful ignorance. Someone who claims everyone else is ignorant while obviously incapable of comprehension of the simplest concepts himself.

Maybe he's not willfully ignorant, though. Maybe he's just stupid because of his genetics. In which case we should pity him and put him safely away somewhere until someone like himself comes along and pulls him from the gene pool. That's "positive" eugenics. Selective breeding and all that.

 

[JBeukema]

lol at the woman who can't tell a man from a best without looking at its cock

 

[syrenn]

question AB

If you just found out you were pregnant and that it had a sever disorder, you also had the chance to change the gene to correct the problem would you?

Would you take the choice of having a normal healthy baby or an impaired one?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There you go again.

Gene therapy is about removing the adverse genes and replacing them with beneficial genes. As it is real sceince, it is neither positive or negative, it simply is. It can be used for good or evil, but it is amoral, like all knowledge.

lol

Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:

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.
​

Simple challenge for you, show me the universities that offer eugenics as part of its science/medical curriculum.

Not gene therapy, or evolution, or genetics, or anything else you are trying to lump under the heading of eugenics, but eugenics itself. Let me see that I am wrong about eugenics being a science by showing me all the places that teach it.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No you just agreed that you "prefer" the wording gene therapy.

Bottom line is again, you agree.

I did? I thought I rejected your wording of "positive gene therapy" and explained that gene therapy is actual science, so it does not need to be dressed up in pretty words to fool people, unlike eugenics.

I would consider saving women from a breast cancer gene a positive thing wouldn't you?

Spin it, word it however you want the end results are the same. You agree that you would avail yourself of gene therapy if available.

Yes I would, which in no way translates as supporting eugenics in any way, shape, or form.

 

[syrenn]

I did? I thought I rejected your wording of "positive gene therapy" and explained that gene therapy is actual science, so it does not need to be dressed up in pretty words to fool people, unlike eugenics.

I would consider saving women from a breast cancer gene a positive thing wouldn't you?

Spin it, word it however you want the end results are the same. You agree that you would avail yourself of gene therapy if available.

Yes I would, which in no way translates as supporting eugenics in any way, shape, or form.

Do know who peanut is? I need him to say:


GGGGGEEEEENNNNNNNNNEEEEEETTTTTHHHHHEEEEEAAAAAARRRRPPPPPYYYYYY

And then look at you real dumb with his feathers flying

 

[JBeukema]

There you go again.

Gene therapy is about removing the adverse genes and replacing them with beneficial genes. As it is real sceince, it is neither positive or negative, it simply is. It can be used for good or evil, but it is amoral, like all knowledge.

lol

Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:

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.
​

Simple challenge for you, show me the universities that offer eugenics as part of its science/medical curriculum.

Simple. Look up genetics and gene theory. Those terms came into play after the 20s when Cold Spring Harbor and others wanted to distance themselves from certain things they'd done. You'd be wise to study your history if you don't want to look like a fool.