User Tag List

First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 158

  1. #41
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perch420 View Post
    Nobody responded to this so I'll post it again.

    Say you have a disease that doesn't affect you, but makes it so your children will be under excruciating pain for every second of their lives. Would it not be unethical to have children?

    This is an extreme case, but what's the difference between this and Huntington's or Autism other than severity? Is it not immoral to have children who are predisposed to those diseases as well?
    What makes you think your kid being in excruitiating pain doesnt want to live ?
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  2. #42
    He who laughs
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perch420 View Post
    Eugenics is defined as the betterment of the human gene pool through selective breeding.

    The fact that genes play a significant role in behavior, intelligence, and illnesses such as cancer and cystic fibrosis is pretty well established. What would be so wrong with sterilizing people with mental retardation or serious inheritable diseases? Is it not cruel to let a child be born with a 90% chance of getting, say, Huntington's disease?

    If I were in charge, I would first sterilize all violent criminals. Yes, there is a small percentage of people in federal prison who are innocent, but the vast majority are not. Raising a child is one of the most demanding things a person can do, and a violent offender will more than likely not be able to stimulate the child's curiosity in a positive way or teach them moral lessons or anything else of the sort. This creates a cycle of crime and poverty that is difficult or impossible to break out of.

    The mentally retarded or borderline retarded should be sterilized as well. The boundary should be at an IQ of 80; if yours is below 80, you will be sterilized, and if it's higher, then you won't be sterilized. Intelligence has a strong genetic component and people with low intelligence will probably be unable to raise moral and intelligent children. I realize IQ is faulty and arbitrary, and saying that a person with an IQ of 122 is more "intelligent" than someone with an IQ of 120 is ridiculous. What isn't ridiculous is saying that a person with an IQ of 100 is clearly more intelligent than someone with an IQ of 80.

    If you want to have kids, fine; there are plenty of them up for adoption all over the world. People have to realize that there are things more important than their own personal desires; the maintenance of the human gene pool is one of them.
    Have you thought about making a career in commenting on various subjects on news websites? You have potential to be quite succesful.

    EDIT: I didnt comment on anything particular from the OP, since my head hurts reading/listening to people's ideas about everything they can comment on, since we all know how important it is to have an oppinion on everything.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Eckhart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    ???
    Socionics
    ????
    Posts
    1,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    Perch420 is 15 years old? lol.
    Hah, indeed. When I think what views I had in that age (often contrary to those a few years later), I am nearly not surprised anymore.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/so
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    2,841

    Default

    Originally posted by Perch420
    The "errors" it may cause? I don't know about them, but eugenics will certainly improve grammar usage if I have anything to say about it.
    If you can't even imagine the possible problems that your ideas could create then you shouldn't be arguing for them.

    And fuck grammer usage.

    Yes, too bad for them, because I'm right and they're wrong. Too bad for people who think marijuana should be illegal; they're wrong, stupid, and uninformed. Too bad for people who are for multiculturalism; they are wrong, stupid, and uninformed. etc etc etc
    And you're right because? What the fuck makes you so special?

    I can "conprehend" outrage and anger at a seeming attack on their rights as human beings, but I don't see how any legitimate ethical dilemmas can be brought up, since I've already shown that eugenics is not only ethically sound, it is a moral imperative. At least you got the first part right.
    The incomprehensible jibberirsh was meant to be a slight joke, like when one is baffled by something so much they can't even get a word out to form an opinion because they are so shocked. Also you have not proved that eugenics is ethically sound nor morally imperative, all you've done is spout a worthless subjective opinion that has poor basis in reasoning.

    Intelligence isn't "inherently" genetic or environmental; it is a mixture of both, probably 60% genetic and 40% environmental. Regardless, if genetics plays any role whatsoever in traits that would be harmful to the species (stupidity), they should be rooted out.
    So IQ is so important to you that you would actually advocate eugenics? Tell me why is IQ that damn important to you? Cause some of the nicest people I've ever met were mentally retarded and some of the worst people I've ever met were genius. So no saying 'people with IQ's are better'.

    I certainly know more than you. How is this relevant?
    No, you don't know more than me, and that fact is relevant to everything we are discussing.

    Aggression lends itself to criminal tendencies and has a genetic component to it. Coupled with a low intelligence, learning disabilities, and other things, a person's genes may increase his chance of going to prison. Why pass these genes on to future generations?
    Ugh. Honestly how often does this occur in society that eugenics actually becomes necessary? Last I checked ex-cons breeding wasn't a problem.

    Originally posted by nebbykoo
    Perch420 is 15 years old? lol.
    Yep.

  5. #45
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perch420 View Post
    d
    "Except in Hitler's case, "the profile" was stupid and based off of psuedoscience. In fact, Ashkenazi Jews, on average, have the highest IQ of any ethnic group in the world. This is due to the strong tradition of arranged marriages in European Jewish communities; parents would rather their child marry a successful businessman or something instead of the town drunk. The majority of the world did not agree that the "Nordic" race is superior to all others; neither do I. I'm not saying that at all."
    It was science-y enough at the time. Science is always evolving.. we don't know nearly enough about genetics to be as arrogant as to assume that if there is genetic defects that we cannot correct them before people like that are sterilized. We can fix the flu... what if we can fix genetic defects as well? It is on the horizon. All those unnecessary sterilizations.. What a waste.

    Not to mention, statistically speaking, people with the traits you want are less likely to reproduce. Putting unnecessary pressure on them to 'repopulate' the world is a bit extreme, don't you think? Do these people still get a choice in whether they have kids or not? Someone's gotta make up for all those rich heritages and histories suddenly lost to the wind from your new program.

    "I don't know nearly enough about the subject, but if it is shown that smoking tobacco does indeed cause significant damage to genes, which in turn increases significantly the chance of the smoker's offspring getting cancer, then yes, they should be sterilized. If the same is true with marijuana, then marijuana smokers should be sterilized as well, providing it affects genes significantly enough, which I doubt, since marijuana is much safer than tobacco in almost every way. If it only increases the chance by a small percent that isn't even relevant, than I guess not. Again, I don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion in this case."
    What do you consider a small percentage? The number of people in the WHOLE WORLD with Down's Syndrom is 2%... thats an extemely small percentage marker, and yet we're sterilizing everyone affiliated with any genes that could possibly cause this very rare disease.

    If even a small percentage of pot smokers developed any sort of illness or undesired traits, they too should be sterilized. Which begs the question.

    Would you mind being sterilized if you found out you didn't fit the criteria? What if you were married, but your wife didn't fit the criteria? Afterall, her great grandfather had Huntington's disease, but it's never appeared in the family since then.. Sterilizing a woman causes ALL sorts of problems, btw. Early menopause, making hormones go out of whack, removing entire organs and expensive surgeries that leave them incapacitated for a while..

    Are you paying for all of this to happen? What if they have complications with procedures like this? The risk of something happening goes up with this hundreds of millions of women lining up for this surgery. Are you going to compensate them for it all? For the rest of their life being all out of balance because you want to make sure they don't get pregnant?

    Your idealistic ways have too many flaws, and I know you know that. I just wish you would admit it. There are SO many factors you aren't taking into account when you make statements like this.. and the fact you don't reflect on any of them shows that you know it is too idealistic to just say "Whats wrong with it?". But again.. I hope you'd admit it someday.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  6. #46
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eckhart View Post
    Hah, indeed. When I think what views I had in that age (often contrary to those a few years later), I am nearly not surprised anymore.
    Yeah, it's alright. Sometimes people need to think out loud to hear how they sound, right?

  7. #47
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,877

    Default

    ^ Yeah, I don't fault him for being extreme, that's how little boys are. I just hope he'll go from "Whats wrong with this?" To "Let's discuss why ya'll think this is wrong." Which will hopefully form some idea on actual debate where can grow and respect it all. He isn't totally unreachable, you see. I got him with the gene-altering drugs statistics. He'll admit if he 'doesn't know' something, which is cool and definitely a great start.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  8. #48
    Klingon Warrior Princess Patches's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perch420 View Post
    The mentally retarded or borderline retarded should be sterilized as well. The boundary should be at an IQ of 80; if yours is below 80, you will be sterilized, and if it's higher, then you won't be sterilized. Intelligence has a strong genetic component and people with low intelligence will probably be unable to raise moral and intelligent children. I realize IQ is faulty and arbitrary, and saying that a person with an IQ of 122 is more "intelligent" than someone with an IQ of 120 is ridiculous. What isn't ridiculous is saying that a person with an IQ of 100 is clearly more intelligent than someone with an IQ of 80.
    I actually, for some time, was on the fence about this. I'm working on a master's degree in genetics, so naturally the topic of ethical genetics comes up a lot. When I first learned that we are able to track most genetic disorders that cause mental retardation in the first trimester... My immediate thought was, "Wow. Why not just abort those pregnancies? We could damn near eliminate the disorder."

    However, I also grew up around adults with mental retardation. My mother has been the CEO of an organization that houses mentally handicapped adults for the past 20 years. I used to go to work with her and spend time with them. When I was old enough, I worked there. You know what you learn while working with them? That they're PEOPLE. Most of them are fun, they're happy, they have really great personalities. Even if they're a 50 year old adult with the mental capacity of a toddler, they're still people. From my experience with them, they were the most upbeat group of people I have ever been around. Always smiling, always laughing. Are we to deny the existence of a 'type' of person who is happy, just because they're dumb? Why does one have to be a rocket scientist to be valuable?

    The obvious undertone that permeates all of your posts - in this thread and in others - is that you see value in intelligence, and almost exclusively in intelligence. But why? Why are dumb people meaningless? Our society wouldn't function with 6 billion scientists and no garbage men.

    Diversity is an important component of having a 'genetically successful' species. The problem with eugenics is homogeneous gene pools. I'm sure you're aware of how a detrimental genetic disease - sickle cell anemia, is actually beneficial in resistance to malaria. These resistances are not uncommon. The beauty of having such diversity, is we all have great diversity in what infections/diseases we are resistant to. Considering that genes all work in conjunction with one another, you can't change just ONE gene. You would end up losing 'beneficial' genes with it.
    “Everybody has a secret world inside of them. All of the people of the world, I mean everybody. No matter how dull and boring they are on the outside, inside
    them they've all got unimaginable, magnificent, wonderful, stupid, amazing worlds. Not just one world. Hundreds of them. Thousands maybe.” -Neil Gaiman

    ~

  9. #49
    Senior Member Viridian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    MBTI
    IsFJ
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perch420 View Post
    Nobody responded to this so I'll post it again.

    Say you have a disease that doesn't affect you, but makes it so your children will be under excruciating pain for every second of their lives. Would it not be unethical to have children?

    This is an extreme case, but what's the difference between this and Huntington's or Autism other than severity? Is it not immoral to have children who are predisposed to those diseases as well?
    We're going there, aren't we? I mean, again, sir?

    Yeah, people like Temple Grandin and Dawn Prince-Hughes are such a burden on society. :rolli:

  10. #50
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perch420 View Post
    Say you have a disease that doesn't affect you, but makes it so your children will be under excruciating pain for every second of their lives. Would it not be unethical to have children?
    Well, we're talking about eugenics -- you getting to decide for someone else whether or not it is permissible for them to have children under stated conditions. We can discuss whether it's "moral" for someone to do so, but people can simply take issue with one person making a decision for another person involving a third person.

    This is an extreme case, but what's the difference between this and Huntington's or Autism other than severity? Is it not immoral to have children who are predisposed to those diseases as well?
    Is it immoral? What's the definition of "immoral," and how do we determine whether one person's definition supplants another's?

    (We're also discussing people who don't exist at the moment. As soon as they do exist, the question becomes, "Would I rather not exist at all, or would I rather exist despite dealing with a particular amount of frustration and pain, that some who have had a different life might find undesirable?" It's kind of funny to me how more frequent it would be for someone who was perfectly healthy, then permanently disabled in an accident, to commit suicide because they'd rather not deal with things, vs someone who is simply born with a condition that can be as frustrating -- missing limbs, whatever else -- but has never known anything else. And you represent a healthy human being who imagines himself disabled and how you might feel in that situation... putting you in the first camp rather than the actual second camp you are revolving your case around.)

    EDIT: Btw, I am a carrier for cystic fibrosis, and so is my ex. We have one child with full-blown CF (main form). The test is so expensive, and the carriers so typically do not get married (something like one in every 400 married couples have both spouses as carriers = possibility of offspring with actual CF), that the testing is not typically done unless the child is showing CF symptoms and tests positive... at which point it's clear that both parents are also carriers, by necessity.

    At that point, testing is typically performed on siblings of the two parents, so that the siblings can make informed reproductive health decisions.

    I am not sure how testing for other conditions works, but I'm suspecting it's the same thing -- the testing is expensive and it's not economically feasible to test every person in the country at some point to see if they are a carrier for this condition or that. Typically people find out they are carriers when they have offspring with issues.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. What's wrong with hypocrisy?
    By Athenian200 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 01-31-2009, 02:15 PM
  2. What's wrong with a little deflation?
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 11:05 PM
  3. What is Wrong with Economy
    By wildcat in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 09:15 AM
  4. [MBTItm] What's wrong with being an xNTJ, anyway?
    By Enyo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 02:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO