User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you support eugenics?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 21.05%
  • No

    30 78.95%
First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 200

  1. #111
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Am I not permitted to admire the beauty of the people of your native land? I'm just celebrating human contrast and variation. I think she'll be an excellent addition to the GOT cast next year. Your mention of Clarke made me think of it.

    Anyway, I agree. I dated someone of Frisian and English descent once, and she had amazing blue eyes. I'm not poetically exaggerating, they were like the sky. It was probably the best relationship I was in. So I agree, here's to contrast and variation!
    I think you are confusing your sexual desires with the pseudo science of Eugenics.

    This is quite natural, as when we are holding a hammer, everything appears as a nail. And it is the same with sexual desire, everything, even a pseudo science is bent to our desires. It's comical.

  2. #112
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    I think you are confusing your sexual desires with the pseudo science of Eugenics.

    This is quite natural, as when we are holding a hammer, everything appears as a nail. And it is the same with sexual desire, everything, even a pseudo science is bent to our desires. It's comical.
    Huh? When did I advocate eugenics?
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  3. #113
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by collierm48 View Post
    Very interesting subject. You would hope that people have the common sense to stop procreating after 2 disabled children. Its a very tough subject to deal with. Its almost worth it to disallow procreation after a certain point in my opinion.
    This I do agree with. I would be in full support of laws that put a limit/cap on the number of children a family can have.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  4. #114
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    This I do agree with. I would be in full support of laws that put a limit/cap on the number of children a family can have.
    China has already done this with their One Child Policy. But they have abandoned the policy because of its consequences.

    And we should keep in mind that Demography tells us that the world population will stop growing in our lifetime then fall.

  5. #115
    Senior Member TheCheeseBurgerKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    We fought a world war against one totalitarianism to establish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    And we fought a Cold War to maintain the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    And today we are struggling against a totalitarian political religion to maintain the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    And interestingly today, the enemies of freedom and equality preach cultural relativism.
    We may and we may be, but that doesn't change the practicality of eugenics and genetic screening.



    Wow, debating with a Te user is like having to read a text book every time they say something.

    I really wish you would just get to the point, lmao .

  6. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    I support genetic testing, advising couples on the risks associated with having children, and all in all allowing people to access as much biological information that they can.

    I am on the fence on the idea of genetic engineering a child by picking and removing traits. Some areas I am fine with, others I am against.

    I do not support the notion of placing laws allowing or disallowing individuals to have children.


    From what I understand of eugenics, I generally don't support it.
    This is my stance as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    As to who would be part of an elite, well...under the scenario I have laid out, at first it would be anyone who didn't have a serious genetic disorder. However as "elite" implies a minority, I do not consider conventional eugenics, which would only target a small percentage of the population, to be a vehicle towards elitism. However, as over time technology will make precise manipulation of the genome a reality, an elite group will coalesce. The financially wealthy will make up this group - like today, we will be able to access better quality treatment, and a wider range of it, than the majority. As much as I will be condemned for saying it, I do truly believe that this is the way it should be, because if everybody had equal resources there would be no motivation to work hard. Some inequality and diversity is desirable in a society. This is why I think eugenics should be regulated, and I laid out how in my earlier posts.

    Arguments about genetic diversity are overly hypothetical. For a start, I would point adherents back to my meteorite analogy. Also, they fall on their face when you consider that many people with serious genetic disorders are going to be a biological dead end, either due to other people practicing a primal form of eugenics on them or the invalids themselves dying or being incapable of putting themselves out there. I also mentioned that medical advances mean that we don't rely on genetic diversity in the way we once did.

    Sorry to say, but there is a serious lack of Te in this thread.
    You seem to conveniently ignore facts that are real by calling them "hypothetical" and then make up facts to further your own argument. This behavior seems much more like mental mastrubation than anything people have put forward regarding generic diversity. You might as well just not engage people if you cannot actually deal with the facts they bring up, if all you are going to do is imply things like "10% of 7 billion leads to low probability of eliminating 30000. I win."

    I am telling you that humans have already gone through genetic bottlenecks, and it was natural selection, and the variety of individual choices that people made that allowed us to get through. There may have been mass genocides and similar things in the past, but we've never been capable of doing that at the scale we are capable of now.

    Every example (not hypothetical) of the past uses of Eugenics (in the usual definition of the word, not the any selection is Egenics definition you are trying to bamboozle people into using), has lead to what is effectively genocide.

    The argument about genetic diversity (which has a very definite scientific definition*) is:
    1) Systematically, centrally, removing traits from a population has a HIGH probability (not low) of weakening our genetic strength as a population.
    2) Therefore Eugenics is self-defeating, even if it were some how moral to commit genocide.

    I think this is what you are not getting, diviersity itself is measure of the genetic strength of the species, not because individual traits exhibited are necessarily stronger, but because in addition to the mutations, there are cross-overs and various recombinations, that can then lead to stable and even beneficial new traits.

    Many of the things we now consider strengths (like having a brain that consumes so much energy) may have at one time been a small liability till combined with other things that made it possible to become a strength. These combinations are not easily predicted. The ability to support slight liabilities that later becomes strengths is one way evolution climbs mount improbable faster (and why social species became so successful).

    Might I remind you that genes don't directly encode traits. What they encode for is a terribly complicated machine that through many levels of hierarchy lead to what we see as either disease or behavior.

    This complexity is not hypothetical. It is more real than the hypothetical belief you seem to have of someone being able to pick out "good only" and "bad only" genes. It is more real than your fantasy that some "expert" set of humans can know better about what is fit and not fit than 3.5 billion years of evolution.

    In addition, evolution works on populations, not individuals. How do we measure the genetic strength of a population? It's genetic diversity*.

    *Genetic diversity is defined by biologists to be the total number of genetic characteristics in the genetic makeup of a species.

    If you want to continue on your hypothetical discussion about some mythical expert humans being able to pick out "good only" vs. "bad only" genes, I leave you to your mental masturbation.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  7. #117
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by collierm48 View Post
    We may and we may be, but that doesn't change the practicality of eugenics and genetic screening.



    Wow, debating with a Te user is like having to read a text book every time they say something.

    I really wish you would just get to the point, lmao .
    What's debating with a Ti user like?

    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  8. #118
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by collierm48 View Post
    We may and we may be, but that doesn't change the practicality of eugenics and genetic screening.



    Wow, debating with a Te user is like having to read a text book every time they say something.

    I really wish you would just get to the point, lmao .
    Mole is a skilled troll, and uses obfsfucating language on purpose. Te users generally like clarity and directness. I find debating INTPs to be "like having to read a text book". When I tell them to distill their points and use clear language, they accuse me of being unintelligent - even when I explain that not being able to express yourself in a way that other people can understand is a sign of low intelligence. lol

    You should have noticed that no Te users have attempted to divert this thread - we appreciate it when people stay on topic.

  9. #119
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    You seem to conveniently ignore facts that are real by calling them "hypothetical" and then make up facts to further your own argument. This behavior seems much more like mental mastrubation than anything people have put forward regarding generic diversity. You might as well just not engage people if you cannot actually deal with the facts they bring up, if all you are going to do is imply things like "10% of 7 billion leads to low probability of eliminating 30000. I win."

    I am telling you that humans have already gone through genetic bottlenecks, and it was natural selection, and the variety of individual choices that people made that allowed us to get through. There may have been mass genocides and similar things in the past, but we've never been capable of doing that at the scale we are capable of now.

    Every example (not hypothetical) of the past uses of Eugenics (in the usual definition of the word, not the any selection is Egenics definition you are trying to bamboozle people into using), has lead to what is effectively genocide.

    The argument about genetic diversity (which has a very definite scientific definition*) is:
    1) Systematically, centrally, removing traits from a population has a HIGH probability (not low) of weakening our genetic strength as a population.
    2) Therefore Eugenics is self-defeating, even if it were some how moral to commit genocide.

    I think this is what you are not getting, diviersity itself is measure of the genetic strength of the species, not because individual traits exhibited are necessarily stronger, but because in addition to the mutations, there are cross-overs and various recombinations, that can then lead to stable and even beneficial new traits.

    Many of the things we now consider strengths (like having a brain that consumes so much energy) may have at one time been a small liability till combined with other things that made it possible to become a strength. These combinations are not easily predicted. The ability to support slight liabilities that later becomes strengths is one way evolution climbs mount improbable faster (and why social species became so successful).

    Might I remind you that genes don't directly encode traits. What they encode for is a terribly complicated machine that through many levels of hierarchy lead to what we see as either disease or behavior.

    This complexity is not hypothetical. It is more real than the hypothetical belief you seem to have of someone being able to pick out "good only" and "bad only" genes. It is more real than your fantasy that some "expert" set of humans can know better about what is fit and not fit than 3.5 billion years of evolution.

    In addition, evolution works on populations, not individuals. How do we measure the genetic strength of a population? It's genetic diversity*.

    *Genetic diversity is defined by biologists to be the total number of genetic characteristics in the genetic makeup of a species.

    If you want to continue on your hypothetical discussion about some mythical expert humans being able to pick out "good only" vs. "bad only" genes, I leave you to your mental masturbation.
    Please rephrase this post in basic English.

    EDIT: I will be nice today, but understand that most people have little interest or understanding in science. Become the first INTP the in history of the interest who learns to keep your posts to 250 words or less and speaks in concepts and general language when possible.

    Humans have not been through a genetic bottleneck for tens of thousands of years, and the bottlebeck assumed to be cuased by the Toba eruption (c. 70,00 BCE) was meant to have wiped out a considerable amount of the total human population. You refute your own argument again by suggesting on the one hand, the level of genetic diversity is low enough that removing some disabled people will harm humanity as a whole, yet then mention that there are a number of different ways in which mutations can occur in any given individual.

    I want to take a real life example to prove my point that you are not thinking very practically, as well. Look at the current Ebola outbreak. Even if I granted you all the points you have made in the thread, the number of inidviduals who would be resistent to the virus in any given population would be low enough that (untreated) in the worst case scenario of a global pandemic, a substantial proportion of the population would be eredicated. Therefore, the diversity would actually be lowered due to the oubreak casuing a severe bottleneck and proceeding too rapidly for useful mutations to spread through the population. Presumably you realise that this takes many generations?

    This is why modern medicine is needed. And medicine effectively "masks" the need for mutation, and the weight of your first premise, to some extent.

    You can try and bamboozle people with statistics, but that doesn't strengthen the argument itself. Typical Ti thinking.

  10. #120
    Senior Member TheCheeseBurgerKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    What's debating with a Ti user like?

    Hahaha.


    @SilentMusings

    Yea, I can actually understand your posts haha.

Similar Threads

  1. [ESTJ] What do you think of ESTJs?
    By JediM05 in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 177
    Last Post: 11-15-2013, 11:18 PM
  2. [NT] NT rationals, a question! What do you think?
    By Viva_Hate in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-06-2008, 07:09 PM
  3. What do you think about?
    By proteanmix in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-06-2008, 01:48 AM
  4. Time to re-evaluate myself (again?) - what do you think I am/could be?
    By TenebrousReflection in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 07:22 AM
  5. So...what do you think?
    By Oberon in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 12:19 PM

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