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 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 200

  1. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by collierm48 View Post
    I get you now. It's almost as if sickle cell anemia is one end of an extreme. Unfortunately, sickle cell is the negative end of the spectrum.

    Obviously, genetic manipulation (or whatever the official name for it is) is extremely complicated. A lot of time needs to be invested into learning the subject. Its too big of a thing to speculate on and make a bold move.

    @ygolo

    I'm dead serious. There is not one competitive advantage that they have. If there was, the mentally handicapped would be reproducing.
    As @Hard and I have been explaining, it is very rare and very inefficient for a particular externally visible trait and only that trait to be controlled by a gene.

    Autism is often considered a mental handicap, for instance. But we now conceive of it as being on a spectrum of development issues, and is affected not only by genetics (like Fragile X), but by the immune process of mothers, and environmental factors. It also seems to be the case that people on the higher end of the Autism spectrum are able to accomplish certain things (sometimes great music, sometimes photographic memory, sometime exceptional math ability,...) Sorting all of that out is not going to be easy, if not impossible.

    It could well be that the very same genetics that leads to mental retardation in some, placed in a different context (environment, immune system, etc), could lead instead to genius.

    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

  2. #142
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by collierm48 View Post
    Please give me one genetic advantage that the mentally handicapped have over the non-mentally handicapped.
    They aren't capable of building nuclear bombs.

  3. #143
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    As @Hard and I have been explaining, it is very rare and very inefficient for a particular externally visible trait and only that trait to be controlled by a gene.

    Autism is often considered a mental handicap, for instance. But we now conceive of it as being on a spectrum of development issues, and is affected not only by genetics (like Fragile X), but by the immune process of mothers, and environmental factors. It also seems to be the case that people on the higher end of the Autism spectrum are able to accomplish certain things (sometimes great music, sometimes photographic memory, sometime exceptional math ability,...) Sorting all of that out is not going to be easy, if not impossible.

    It could well be that the very same genetics that leads to mental retardation in some, placed in a different context (environment, immune system, etc), could lead instead to genius.
    Also, wonderful example of someone with Autism: Temple Grandin.

    Simply put @collierm48, this is not as cut and dry as you or anyone else wants it to be.
    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. #144
    Senior Member TheCheeseBurgerKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    As @Hard and I have been explaining, it is very rare and very inefficient for a particular externally visible trait and only that trait to be controlled by a gene.
    Well if you read my post that you just quoted you'd see that I just addressed that. Lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    It also seems to be the case that people on the higher end of the Autism spectrum are able to accomplish certain things (sometimes great music, sometimes photographic memory, sometime exceptional math ability,...) Sorting all of that out is not going to be easy, if not impossible.

    Imagine that your peirs have the same expectations for you as a 4 year old. You fall in love with the piano. I'll bet you'd be f*##ing Mozart by the time you were 10. They have no social lives, no expectations, and they are taken care of like little children. Of course they can be good at one thing. Everyone else could do the same thing.

  5. #145
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    We are ends not means.

    So asking if a person is useful is an offence.

    And Eugenics tells us who of us is useful and who is not.

    However we do have the advantage of a long history of Eugenics in the USA and Germany, and we have discovered Eugenics is a pseudo science that has taken us as close to absolute evil as we have ever gone.

    So rationalising Eugenics is a sign of moral immaturity at best, and moral decay at worst.

  6. #146
    Senior Member TheCheeseBurgerKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    Also, wonderful example of someone with Autism: Temple Grandin.

    Simply put @collierm48, this is not as cut and dry as you or anyone else wants it to be.
    Read that last post I just put up. It makes sense. Temple Grandin proves my point. The genius of some Autistic people is no mystery. They simply focus on less things.

    Oh and for the record, if you post something long and it isn't concise, I'm probably gonna skim it.

  7. #147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by collierm48 View Post
    Yeah? Well if you read my post that you just quoted you'd see that I just addressed that. Christ.
    You didn't. It is not just a matter of not having the technology yet. It is matter of principally not having those types genes left. Natural selection does a good job in these respects already.


    Quote Originally Posted by collierm48 View Post
    Imagine that your peirs have the same expectations for you as a 4 year old. You fall in love with the piano. I'll bet you'd be f*##ing Mozart by the time you were 10. They have no social lives, no expectations, and they are taken care of like little children. Of course they can be good at one thing. Everyone else could do the same thing.
    Even if this were the reason, that still doesn't take away from the fact that they became geniuses. Temple Gardin is an example @Hard mentioned.

    Beyond that, I think the tendency towards repetition and systemizing things is a bigger factor than low expectations in other things. Most people just let other people be.

    In addition, I don't think it is ONLY the amount of practice that leads them to be good. The genetics behind autism show some correlation to those who have parents who work in science, technology, music, and math...places where spotting patterns that others don't see is the main skill needed.

    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

  8. #148
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,781

    Default

    the ignorance of the people on this forum never cease to amaze me. one day you will see, of course you'll be dead (no i'm not killing anyone) and you will see you are wrong about people that what makes a person normal you have no clue. you are just afraid and maybe you should be you might piss the wrong people off.
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  9. #149
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    As @Hard and I have been explaining, it is very rare and very inefficient for a particular externally visible trait and only that trait to be controlled by a gene.
    That has no bearing on whether directed eugenics is desirable or not, only on how easy it is to achieve without going to my method. I actually alluded to this earlier in the thread.

    I do not buy your argument about effective population. This is because I find it hard to understand how people with serious, heritable disabilities (a subset of the entire population who have a disability) create so much of the diversity within humanity that eliminating them from the gene pool would be a disaster. This is not very intuitive. You have never linked the figures you laid out in your first post exclusively to the aforementioned people in any way, and neither have your buddies. Expecting me to understand something that does not follow simply because you posted it isn't a sign of intelligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Autism is often considered a mental handicap, for instance. But we now conceive of it as being on a spectrum of development issues, and is affected not only by genetics (like Fragile X), but by the immune process of mothers, and environmental factors. It also seems to be the case that people on the higher end of the Autism spectrum are able to accomplish certain things (sometimes great music, sometimes photographic memory, sometime exceptional math ability,...) Sorting all of that out is not going to be easy, if not impossible.
    But that is not because they are higher functioning autists, is it?

    This thread is indeed going nowhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    It could well be that the very same genetics that leads to mental retardation in some, placed in a different context (environment, immune system, etc), could lead instead to genius.
    "Could be". Everything you have posted in this thread summed up in two words.

  10. #150
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    That has no bearing on whether directed eugenics is desirable or not, only on how easy it is to achieve without going to my method. I actually alluded to this earlier in the thread.

    I do not buy your argument about effective population. This is because I find it hard to understand how people with serious, heritable disabilities (a subset of the entire population who have a disability) create so much of the diversity within humanity that eliminating them from the gene pool would be a disaster. This is not very intuitive. You have never linked the figures you laid out in your first post exclusively to the aforementioned people in any way, and neither have your buddies. Expecting me to understand something that does not follow simply because you posted it isn't a sign of intelligence.

    But that is not because they are higher functioning autists, is it?

    This thread is indeed going nowhere.

    "Could be". Everything you have posted in this thread summed up in two words.
    There is nothing to "buy into". This isn't a matter of "belief" either. You're rejecting how genetics works. Which, is just something that can't be rejected, because it's a fact. To do so goes against science. Which in my opinion is completely unforgivable.

    Further, science is not always (in fact it frequently isn't) intuitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    This thread is indeed going nowhere.
    Because you have completely and unequivocally missed the entire point of what I and Ygolo have just been explaining. I can not believe that it has not gotten into you.
    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


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