Quote from name:NerdyTerdy
Progress is good.
No.
Who are you to claim what "progress" is and whether such things are "good". Many things can progress in many different ways and each direction can be called good or bad.
None.
In our world, we have something called leaders.
In the past, when our leaders screwed us over with some halfass plan, we cut his head.
Now we use a democratic system and boot them out.
Regardless, you are choosing to be a bad leader.
None.
Quote from The Bill of Rights
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
So I guess you're in favor of revoking the Bill of Rights?
Progress is good. Eugenics forces progress. Eugenics is good. Especially considering that since progress is no longer being forced it isn't happening. Before we had society people died. They weren't being denied rights, they just couldn't fend for themselves. As this happened, we evolved and became stronger. Society is holding us back from becoming stronger. That's my jumbled two cents
I have yet to see any real science behind any of the eugenics arguments here, just a bunch of angry nerds wishing they could rule the world.
You still haven't brought any science to the table. Only half-baked theories based on vague generalities.
tits
Quote from name:NerdyTerdy
Because all I've seen is arguments about morals.[/color]
And all I've seen is you ignoring them.
Your arguments are moral ones as well
None.
Quote from name:NerdyTerdy
How about you bring the science behind not doing it. Because all I've seen is arguments about morals.
That's pretty much the only arguement against it and its possible future effects. You're the one that completely ignored my essay that took 3 months to write.
wasnt there some bit about keeping bio-diversity in the gene pool?
"we need junk dna, because it is a possibility for mutation. The dna does nothing now, but a small mutation can change it. the cheetah is basically robbed of junk dna, at some point in our history (scientists speculate) the cheetah had to go through a bottle neck in population.. where only a few were left to mate. cheetahs rarely have mutations, but that can be a bad thing. it means it will be alot harder to adapt to a harsh environment. there will be less of a chance that a cheetah will change, and that its children will carry on those changes. We need to keep as much dna in the human gene pool, for the sake of population"
That last paragraph was basically the bio-diversity argument. it speaks for the population... but if anyone hasn't noticed were kind of overcrowded
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="
http://www.youtube.com/v/VntFEWF8I8A&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="
http://www.youtube.com/v/VntFEWF8I8A&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> (awesome video!)
None.
wasnt there some bit about keeping bio-diversity in the gene pool?
"we need junk dna, because it is a possibility for mutation. The dna does nothing now, but a small mutation can change it. the cheetah is basically robbed of junk dna, at some point in our history (scientists speculate) the cheetah had to go through a bottle neck in population.. where only a few were left to mate. cheetahs rarely have mutations, but that can be a bad thing. it means it will be alot harder to adapt to a harsh environment. there will be less of a chance that a cheetah will change, and that its children will carry on those changes. We need to keep as much dna in the human gene pool, for the sake of population"
That last paragraph was basically the bio-diversity argument. it speaks for the population... but if anyone hasn't noticed were kind of overcrowded
Wtf are you talking about...
Quote from name:NerdyTerdy
Quote from name:NerdyTerdy
How about you bring the science behind not doing it. Because all I've seen is arguments about morals.
That's pretty much the only arguement against it and its possible future effects. You're the one that completely ignored my essay that took 3 months to write.
The problem is that you act as if your beliefs are the absolute truth.
None.
wasnt there some bit about keeping bio-diversity in the gene pool?
"we need junk dna, because it is a possibility for mutation. The dna does nothing now, but a small mutation can change it. the cheetah is basically robbed of junk dna, at some point in our history (scientists speculate) the cheetah had to go through a bottle neck in population.. where only a few were left to mate. cheetahs rarely have mutations, but that can be a bad thing. it means it will be alot harder to adapt to a harsh environment. there will be less of a chance that a cheetah will change, and that its children will carry on those changes. We need to keep as much dna in the human gene pool, for the sake of population"
That last paragraph was basically the bio-diversity argument. it speaks for the population... but if anyone hasn't noticed were kind of overcrowded
Wtf are you talking about...
I'm talking about an argument against eugenics.... hbu?
None.
wasnt there some bit about keeping bio-diversity in the gene pool?
"we need junk dna, because it is a possibility for mutation. The dna does nothing now, but a small mutation can change it. the cheetah is basically robbed of junk dna, at some point in our history (scientists speculate) the cheetah had to go through a bottle neck in population.. where only a few were left to mate. cheetahs rarely have mutations, but that can be a bad thing. it means it will be alot harder to adapt to a harsh environment. there will be less of a chance that a cheetah will change, and that its children will carry on those changes. We need to keep as much dna in the human gene pool, for the sake of population"
That last paragraph was basically the bio-diversity argument. it speaks for the population... but if anyone hasn't noticed were kind of overcrowded
Wtf are you talking about...
I'm talking about an argument against eugenics.... hbu?
Wtf are you quoting... Wtf are you trying to say? I can't read that.
Quote from name:NerdyTerdy
Quote from The Bill of Rights
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
So I guess you're in favor of revoking the Bill of Rights?
Progress is good. Eugenics forces progress. Eugenics is good. Especially considering that since progress is no longer being forced it isn't happening. Before we had society people died. They weren't being denied rights, they just couldn't fend for themselves. As this happened, we evolved and became stronger. Society is holding us back from becoming stronger. That's my jumbled two cents
I have yet to see any real science behind any of the eugenics arguments here, just a bunch of angry nerds wishing they could rule the world.
You still haven't brought any science to the table. Only half-baked theories based on vague generalities.
How about you bring science behind doing it? You said eugenics is good (no evidence provided). I gave you a scientific rebuttal. You ignored it, and demanded evidence. The burden of proof is on you.
tits
Nerdy, it's not other people's job to bring science to the table against something... that you haven't brought science to the table in favor of. You actually have made very few points and arguments for pages. You just keep on ignoring other people's arguments and saying that they're not saying enough... or something... I'm really not sure what you're trying to do. In any case, you need to start seriously defending your position and not leaving this debate at a standstill or else the topic will end up closed.
And midget man, you need to learn to type according to SD standards. Srsly.
None.
Well, how about we take one point of Eugenics, one that I'm mildly interested in the ethics of. Making it impossible through whatever means for the mentally disabled to reproduce. Humanity as it is now effectively evolved through survival of the fittest. That meant that severely handicapped people would never pass on their genes. Modern technology now allows these people to pass on their genes, obviously causing an eventual increase in the percentage of the population dependent on society to help them live. Dependents are the bane of any economy, because they consume more than an average person, and are unable to produce. It is of course unethical to kill these people post-birth, I won't even get in to that, but I also find it unethical for them to reproduce and create a child destined to suffer from poor genes. Now, before you say that the choice should be in their hands, consider the fact that human emotions and mistakes often make a mess of reasonable thinking. Consider the benefits of making the choice for them. 1. Less severely disabled people, 2. Health care systems less overworked, 3. Society has more production and less dead weight, 4. More orphans and parent less children can be adopted by families in which one member cannot reproduce. The only drawbacks are that some disabled people and their spouses might be sad because they can't bear children. Now, I'm not an idiot, so of course this should never apply to non-genetic diseases and the like, but when you look at the costs and benefits, and at the fact that as a race we value equal opportunity so highly, it should be an obvious solution to a problem that will only grow with health care advancements.
Anyways, this concept is not pure Eugenics, but it's a good example of how it can be moral to discriminate based on genes, because the act of not doing so is allowing something bad to happen. If a train was coming down the track, on a crash course with five people, most people wouldn't think twice before switching it to a track that only had one person on it. The only argument I've ever heard for the contrary is that pulling the switch is playing god. If you would agree with that last statement then I won't bother talking to you about Eugenics.
None.
That's easy to say until, suppose, your mother winds up disabled, or you have a disabled kid.
None.
Well, how about we take one point of Eugenics, one that I'm mildly interested in the ethics of. Making it impossible through whatever means for the mentally disabled to reproduce. Humanity as it is now effectively evolved through survival of the fittest. That meant that severely handicapped people would never pass on their genes. Modern technology now allows these people to pass on their genes, obviously causing an eventual increase in the percentage of the population dependent on society to help them live. Dependents are the bane of any economy, because they consume more than an average person, and are unable to produce. It is of course unethical to kill these people post-birth, I won't even get in to that, but I also find it unethical for them to reproduce and create a child destined to suffer from poor genes. Now, before you say that the choice should be in their hands, consider the fact that human emotions and mistakes often make a mess of reasonable thinking. Consider the benefits of making the choice for them. 1. Less severely disabled people, 2. Health care systems less overworked, 3. Society has more production and less dead weight, 4. More orphans and parent less children can be adopted by families in which one member cannot reproduce. The only drawbacks are that some disabled people and their spouses might be sad because they can't bear children. Now, I'm not an idiot, so of course this should never apply to non-genetic diseases and the like, but when you look at the costs and benefits, and at the fact that as a race we value equal opportunity so highly, it should be an obvious solution to a problem that will only grow with health care advancements.
Anyways, this concept is not pure Eugenics, but it's a good example of how it can be moral to discriminate based on genes, because the act of not doing so is allowing something bad to happen. If a train was coming down the track, on a crash course with five people, most people wouldn't think twice before switching it to a track that only had one person on it. The only argument I've ever heard for the contrary is that pulling the switch is playing god. If you would agree with that last statement then I won't bother talking to you about Eugenics.
I think the example is flawed as it's just an overreaction to a problem that doesn't really exist.
Regardless, the underlying idea is just utilitarianism. Plainly it's just "the greatest good for the greatest number."
If a train was coming down the track, on a crash course with five people, most people wouldn't think twice before switching it to a track that only had one person on it.
Maybe some people think less people living would be better for the world.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 8 2008, 5:47 am by Mayor.
None.
STF mod creator, Modcrafters.com admin, CampaignCreations.org staff
Dear Dapperdan:
In any case, you need to start seriously defending your position and not leaving this debate at a standstill or else the topic will end up closed.
Why would you give one person that much power over a thread when many others have contributed much more?
Dear NerdyTerdy:
Your "progress" is a
value judgment. The important thing to realize about value judgements is that they are not universal, absolute truths, and your arguments will not make much headway when treated as such.
The Great Yam
