Eugenics

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

As for rational justification for not liking Eugenics (genetic engineering is another issue, so please don't confuse that)

I haven't, but the whole argument here has been about both, because it is about consciously messing with the gene pool.

There are a plethora of reasons, from a methodology which strongly encourages racism

And I keep asking you how eugenics and genetic engineering encourage racism.

to the intentional "shallowing" of our gene pool

I can understand that point. Has nothing to do with fearing eugenics because of a dystopian unequal Brave New World type future.

to the fact that I've actually read Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development and found both Galton's methodology and conclusions laughable (Do you know that he believed measles was a genetic disease?)

Did you know Darwin was a racist and got evolution wrong? A scientific method goes way beyond its first proponent and you know it.
I'm not even advocating harsh eugenics, as I stated on my first post. But why reccur to absurdities to make a point?

However, this is beside the point, Eugenics does not need me to "defeat it", It's dead, defunct, gone and it is never coming back.

So why do you jump aboard and say you fear it because it will undeniably produce inequalities?

I have been arguing about your continued denial that this philosophy could, and most likely would be used to exert a degree of coercive social pressure on the have-nots, as it has been in the past

And I beg you, once more, in bold underlines letters so you won't ignore it, Why do you see conscious engineering as coercive and not our natural inequalities, and why do you not extend the same criticism to technologies that increase this social rift, such as basic industrialization?

and your idiotic assertion that if this kind of thing was effective, the upper-class wouldn't want it because it would magically "liberalize" their children.

Ok, now you're just spewing out bullshit. Pay very close attention to this because what you just said is idiotically offensive. Here goes a lesson in politics 101:

Conservative and liberal are not fucking dichotomies. I will **** you if you ever say such show of ignorance and twattery again in your life.
The belief in social stratification is an INHERENTLY CONSERVATIVE IDEA.
Can you understand that?
I'll assume you do, this time. I hope it's not having too much faith in you.
That there is no reason to believe their 'superchildren' will grow up to perpetuate this INHERENTLY CONSERVATIVE VALUE does not mean I think they will become fucking Obama Jr's.
However, there is no fucking reason to think these superbabies which we after all engineered to be superior, would find an entirely arbitrary system justifiable to defend.

That is my purpose here: To beat the stupid out of you (or at least understand the fractured thought process which lead you to this idiotic conclusion)

Hey, I'm not the one that thinks conservative and liberal are polar opposites. Fuck you for being an average amaerican, or in the best of cases, fuck you for commiting such a slip.

and in my opinion you have been going on and on, for pages and pages, backpedaling, evading, and changing the subject because you have no argument and are too proud to admit it.

I might consider this if you show me where I've backpedaled, evaded, or changed the subject.
Where exactly have I said something that is not just another permutation of
"It is idiotic to believe eugenics and genetic engineering will invariably lead to a caste system. Social constructs must already be there for inequality to exist. Besides, there is more justification for natural inequality than for conscious engineering of unequal characteristics, so why are you not complaining about these?"
I am not 'too proud.' Accuse me of being blind if you want, but show me why or you will have to be cozy on your hypocrisy.

Now for the love of God: answer Apathy's second question

I'm seriously at a loss. What question did I not answer?


And his last post I can do what I did with yours, or I can summarize it for now by asking once more why the fuck you give all this bitching to eugenics and social engineering and not to other technologies which have increased the socioeconomic gap?
Why not bitch about industrialism?
Why not bitch about globalization?
Why not bitch about division of labor?
Why not bitch about private property?

Apathy, you seriously believe you can give me a lesson on capitalism? This whole point is that most everyone that has bitched about eugenics and genetic engineering here has a fucking double standard, accepting other forms of social inequality but blaming eugenics for its own sake, which I still don't see how you have proved otherwise.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Apathy, you seriously believe you can give me a lesson on capitalism?

There you go pulling stuff out of your ass again, and as usual it stinks of bullshit. The fact that I USED the word capitalism in a sentence does not mean I'm trying to bogart one of your few topics of conversation in order to steal your mojo - it means that just because you talk about something all the fucking time, doesn't mean it's a sacred word that no one except you has the right to use in an argument. Jeez, and I thought I was self-righteous. I can hear the thought process now:

Damn it, he just made total bullshit out of of my argument just by looking at the words I chose to quote. BUT WAIT....... perhaps all is not lost........ I KNEW there was something promising here: he used the word "capitalism"! That's MY word, motherfucker - I've read some books about it, which means I practically own the term itself! OH, IT'S ON. I'll crush him like a bug by consistantly ignoring of everyone else's clearly demonstrated points, and I'll do it armed with nothing but the sheer force of denial that I've lost and the constant parroting of a question that no one addressed because it wasn't the topic of this thread. Stay cool, Jilly - you can win this.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

This whole point is that most everyone that has bitched about eugenics and genetic engineering here has a fucking double standard, accepting other forms of social inequality but blaming eugenics for its own sake, which I still don't see how you have proved otherwise.

It's pretty simple, actually -I did it by looking at what they actually wrote. In a way, it's like coherence of argument itself: just because some people are too dense to follow it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

I'm going to say this ONE MORE TIME: the fact that people didn't start going, "yeah, and private education! And not subsidizing university study, health care, and other privileges the rich enjoy, for the poor - what's that about?!" doesn't mean they accept it. It means that these issues were NOT the original focus of this thread. If you want to bring them up, I won't argue that they're totally irrelevant, but basing your entire argument on the fact that people were talking about eugenics and not social oppression, IN A THREAD ENTITLED "EUGENICS" AND NOT "SOCIAL OPPRESSION", is pissing in the wind.

Man, I love British slang.

[Despanan]

Dude, did jillian Just threaten to r@pe me?

This shit is Hi-goddamn-larious. I particularly like how he spends the first half of his giant fuggin' post attempting to defeat points I made after I allready told him that they were beside the point.

Oh and Apathy, you need a MEDAL or something for this post on Jill's thought process. I nearly shot my coffee out my nose when I read it:

Originally Posted by Jillian's Mind

Damn it, he just made total bullshit out of of my argument just by looking at the words I chose to quote. BUT WAIT....... perhaps all is not lost........ I KNEW there was something promising here: he used the word "capitalism"! That's MY word, motherfucker - I've read some books about it, which means I practically own the term itself! OH, IT'S ON. I'll crush him like a bug by consistantly ignoring of everyone else's clearly demonstrated points, and I'll do it armed with nothing but the sheer force of denial that I've lost and the constant parroting of a question that no one addressed because it wasn't the topic of this thread. Stay cool, Jilly - you can win this.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother getting swept up in each indivdual tangent Jill has thrown out there because I dislike repeating myself, and this shit is getting stale. Here are a few which seemed new/stuck out to me:

Originally Posted by JillyMcJillersontheGodMurderer

So why do you jump aboard and say you fear [Eugenics] because it will undeniably produce inequalities?

I don't "Fear" Eugenics dude. It's not like I'll be clutching my heart in mortal terror if a few fifteen year old Goths suddenly decide it's a good idea. Rational intelligent people have abandoned this school of thought long ago. As I previously explained I'm just poking holes in your arguments out of morbid curiosity.

However, there is no fucking reason to think these superbabies which we after all engineered to be superior, would find an entirely arbitrary system justifiable to defend.

Why not? That's the system which made them what they are. That's the system which will continue to support their interests and the interests of their family. Intelligence does not result in compassion dude. If anything, it's a tonic against it because you can further psychologically remove yourself from identifying with those less fortunate.

And while we're on the subject of intelligence:

Pay very close attention to this because what you just said is idiotically offensive. Here goes a lesson in politics 101:

Blah blah blah ALLCAPS. Blah blah blah BIGWORD!

Continuously re-defining terms, and pretending that your opponent does not understand them may scare off the fifteen year old back-births on this site
but I assure you, when you are dealing with someone who's actually smart, who actually knows how to engage in conversation, the dyslexic bullshit that you spew is painfully obvious. You're better than that, but this is the second time this thread that you've done it. Stop it.

I might consider this if you show me where I've backpedaled, evaded, or changed the subject.

Are you kidding me? Read, like, ANY FREAKING POST you've made in this thread.

[Godslayer Jillian]

No no, please, that won't fly with anyone. You have completely abandoned the argument for the sake of what? Petty mockery?
That's sad. You want to make an accusation, then fucking prove it.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

No no, please, that won't fly with anyone. You have completely abandoned the argument for the sake of what? Petty mockery?
That's sad. You want to make an accusation, then fucking prove it.

Jeesus Christ dude. I come back after a few days and THIS is the best you can come up with? Just a firm denial with nothing to back it up? You are embarrassing yourself. I mean I could just as easily respond to your post with:

"That's sad. You want to make an accusation, then fucking prove it."

Pot to kettle, pot to kettle, come in kettle. You seem to be absorbing all colors of the visible spectrum.

You really want me to go sift through your CONSTANT evasion, which has already been pointed out by myself and apathy numerous times, just so you can yet again pretend it didn't happen? So that my arguments will "fly" with our esteemed readers. Dude, I don't give a rat's ass about who it flys with, because anyone dumb enough to be a eugenics apologist is not someone I respect, and anyone who can't see through the gallons of bullshit you've lathered this thread in is clearly damaged.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I haven't made any accusations to anything save for your argument itself - a stupid one at that which you immediately betrayed for the sake of personal attacks - while you recur to accusations at my persona.
Therefore your "pot to the kettle" bit is plain old bullshit.

Anyway, I'm thinking of summarizing all this thread in one big post so that you have no excuse to not have a justification for your ad hominems. No way to try and not answer me when you have all the content right in front of you.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I haven't made any accusations to anything save for your argument itself - a stupid one at that which you immediately betrayed for the sake of personal attacks - while you recur to accusations at my persona.
Therefore your "pot to the kettle" bit is plain old bullshit.

Anyway, I'm thinking of summarizing all this thread in one big post so that you have no excuse to not have a justification for your ad hominems. No way to try and not answer me when you have all the content right in front of you.

"Why are you blaming eugenics for the failings of society? Why aren't you against injustice in all its forms, which you clearly aren't because no one started railing about unrelated issues?"

There, I did yours for you.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Actually I agree with what you wrote above, but if your argument all stands solely because you ignore how people who have already posted their opinions on other topics have a double standard when it comes to this specific topic, then you and I are clearly on two different levels.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Actually I agree with what you wrote above, but if your argument all stands solely because you ignore how people who have already posted their opinions on other topics have a double standard when it comes to this specific topic, then you and I are clearly on two different levels.

If you provided evidence of that on the basis of posts in other threads than this, I may well agree with you on that one particular point. However although this WOULD open the double standard itself up to scrutiny, it wouldn't necessarily make their reasons for the way they feel about eugenics wrong.

[Godslayer Jillian]

It actually does, because it goes back to my saying they're blaming Eugenics in and of itself, as they do not extend the same social criticism to other forms of stratification.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

It actually does, because it goes back to my saying they're blaming Eugenics in and of itself, as they do not extend the same social criticism to other forms of stratification.

No it doesn't. It WOULD if you had managed to prove that their dislike of it is groundless and convulsive, but analysis of the quotes you provided demonstrated that most cited the potential for deepening pre-existing inequalities as the reason for their opposition.

But anyway, that's the last time I'm going to argue about this particular point. Probably.

[Godslayer Jillian]

So you are telling me that their minds only get fired with conflict theory when we are talking about Eugenics and nothing but Eugenics, but this has nothing to do with Eugenics being the problem in question...?

[Apathy's_Child]

No. I said that their dislike of eugenics is not groundless, therefore they do not fear it in and of itself.

Suppposing their views on eugenics don't square with their views on other things (which you have yet to offer a shred of evidence for, by the way), this would not necessarily make the reasons for their opposition to eugenics faulty by nature. If I'm a racist in my everyday life, but condemn racially motivated murder, I would not be wrong for THIS - I'd be a hypocrite for not applying the same reasoning to all of my views, but that's a different ball of wax and would not make my opposition to hate crime faulty by definition.

[Dead Raven]

I accept it, I think it's one of the best solutions for reducing our over-population. And somehow I have the gut feeling it will be used in the future. If not as mass slaughter, then by restricting mentally ills etc. from breeding. Yeah, race, religion or gender shall not matter in that.

[I_Zik]

Has anyone here read Beggar's In Spain by Nancy Kress? It deals with the issues of genetically engineered people who are highly intelligent, and do not require sleep at all. I suggest that everyone here read it. It's pretty good. As for people here watching or reading too much sci-fi, I disagree with that. Science fiction is science fact that hasn't been actually invented yet. (well, the good ones anyways become fact) Nanotechnology was science fiction, now it's science fact. (even though it's still a baby, it's been at least born)

The whole issue with applying eugenics in the first place? I think we should work on our other major problems like humanity. Our level of humanity should surpass our level of technology. Humans are still having the same problems that the ancient Eygptions were having over 6000 years ago. We like to think we're all enlightened and way better than our barbaric history shows us, but we aren't. Shit, we still have money! The goal of eugenics, and just about everything else, shouldn't be profit based, because all you will get is profit based results. If you don't have money, socioeconomic, religeous, and material power anymore, what's left? Humanity. (IMO) We should not ask how something will make us money, but rather how we can help each other. The main driving point in Beggar's from Spain was: If the unproductive masses who have nothing to offer except need, then why do we need them? My interpertation of that was that those "unproductive masses" might be the launch point for future generations whom might be the next Mozart, or the person who cured cancer, or some other similar milestone of achievment.

We should not care about if someone is defective genetically, but are they defective in being humane? In my opinion, if we don't fix the underlying problems with ourselves, and the way the human world works, then eugenics won't matter. We'll probably come up with something much worse, or won't be here at all.

[I_Zik]

I love making sweet love to dead things online.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by jack_the_knife

I would actually be in favor of this. I mean stupid people seem to be breeding like rabbits. I think it's only right to restore some balance to this.

And people like you would be the first to go to the camps.

Who is to say what traits are to be left alone,and which should be "Improved" upon?

And what happens to those with "Undesirable" Traits,further what would define an "Undesirable" Trait?

The will to fight authority and seek freedom in a life of liberty?

The right of Individuals to think freely,and to do as they please as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others?

[Still Jack]

Well, eugenics isn't really about doing away with various human characteristics. But more like adding more desirable ones. It's not about killing people, but creating better ones.
I'll try and put it into an understandable metaphor for you. Igniting a bullet on it's own, will go anywhere at all. That's humanity as it is now. Put the bullet in a gun, and you can aim it something you actually want to hit.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Still Jack

Well, eugenics isn't really about doing away with various human characteristics. But more like adding more desirable ones. It's not about killing people, but creating better ones.
I'll try and put it into an understandable metaphor for you. Igniting a bullet on it's own, will go anywhere at all. That's humanity as it is now. Put the bullet in a gun, and you can aim it something you actually want to hit.

I guess you forget history,Eugenics was embraced by the Third Reich as an excuse to kill people that didn't fit into their twisted world view.

[Still Jack]

So? They just generally looked for excuses to kill people. Canada, Britain, Australia, yes, even your glorious U.S. of A had eugenics programs.
Eugenics is about giving evolution a direction, not killing people that don't fit in.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Still Jack

So? They just generally looked for excuses to kill people. Canada, Britain, Australia, yes, even your glorious U.S. of A had eugenics programs.
Eugenics is about giving evolution a direction, not killing people that don't fit in.

But which direction will it take?

I can see where this could be abused,for what ever reason trying to decide how a person will be instead of letting nature take it's course is wrong and undermines individuality,and creates homogenized human beings that have no defining characteristics or real personality.

[Still Jack]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

No defining characteristics or real personality.

You can't know about the personality, proving that a personality is made up of genetic material is a bit far into the future at this point. Also, defining characteristics is what eugenics is about, how can traits like intelligence not be a defining characteristic . I can't see what could be that bad about trying to artificially breed an intelligent child...

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Still Jack

You can't know about the personality, proving that a personality is made up of genetic material is a bit far into the future at this point. Also, defining characteristics is what eugenics is about, how can traits like intelligence not be a defining characteristic . I can't see what could be that bad about trying to artificially breed an intelligent child...

intelligence it's self isn't to be feared,but who decides the "Intelligence" of another?

And at what point does the "Personality" being created resemble anything human after all the handy work is done and the papers have been signed?

[Still Jack]

The individuals running and financing the program are the ones to decide the intelligence of another.
I'm taking it your a conservative and a capitalist, so you're meant to agree with me.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

I guess you forget history,Eugenics was embraced by the Third Reich as an excuse to kill people that didn't fit into their twisted world view.

I find it interesting that people are quick to remember that the Nazis had a eugenics programs, but are just as quick to forget that those programs were based upon American eugenics programs of the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries.