• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Eugenics supporters?

Eugenics isn't a bad thing in reality. Genetics determines a large factor of human behavior and I think that being able to determine genetics would be a huge benefit for civilization and society. Eugenics generally gets a bad reputation because it's often associated with pseudo scientific racism, etc. I support something called "Genetic therapy" where, when the technology arises, we can change the way genes are selected for offspring so that the offspring have the best possible genetics and the least possible genetic flaws, such as debilitating diseases. Selecting individuals with good physical or mental traits and breeding them isn't the best way to do this, the best way to do it would be to either specify which genes are inherited from parents or change bad genes into good genes prior to or during conception.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Why do the artist renditions of "cave-men" have big lips and dark skin?
Click to expand...

First of all, many people on this planet have large lips and dark skin. Implying that any depiction of ancient peoples as appearing this way is a negative portrayal seems to me to be implying that there is something negative about having certain physical characteristics. Most anthropologists do not hold the notion that there is something inherently inferior about our ancestors. So reconstructing a skull with larger lips and slightly darker skin is not in itself racist. To me, it does not say "Black people look like inferior 'cave men'", it simply says "Look how remarkably familiar our recent ancestors are to us".
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
The results of racist thought are at times "bad".

Thoughts themselves are not bad, actions can be. If thoughts were deemed bad Steven King would be jailed.
Click to expand...

How often do you suppose that someone has it in their head that a group of people are inferior, but never lets those thoughts influence his actions in the slightest?
 
Foster Zygote said:
First of all, many people on this planet have large lips and dark skin. Implying that any depiction of ancient peoples as appearing this way is a negative portrayal seems to me to be implying that there is something negative about having certain physical characteristics. Most anthropologists do not hold the notion that there is something inherently inferior about our ancestors. So reconstructing a skull with larger lips and slightly darker skin is not in itself racist. To me, it does not say "Black people look like inferior 'cave men'", it simply says "Look how remarkably familiar our recent ancestors are to us".
Click to expand...

No, the intention is to present the current human races in different degrees of evolution.
 
Foster Zygote said:
How often do you suppose that someone has it in their head that a group of people are inferior, but never lets those thoughts influence his actions in the slightest?
Click to expand...

Are you stating that you have never thought of a different "tribe" than yours as inferior?

Do you act on those thoughts, or do you understand that each man is an individual?
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
Eugenics isn't a bad thing in reality. Genetics determines a large factor of human behavior and I think that being able to determine genetics would be a huge benefit for civilization and society. Eugenics generally gets a bad reputation because it's often associated with pseudo scientific racism, etc. I support something called "Genetic therapy" where, when the technology arises, we can change the way genes are selected for offspring so that the offspring have the best possible genetics and the least possible genetic flaws, such as debilitating diseases. Selecting individuals with good physical or mental traits and breeding them isn't the best way to do this, the best way to do it would be to either specify which genes are inherited from parents or change bad genes into good genes prior to or during conception.
Click to expand...

What do you deem as the line not to cross?

Shall law be instituted that requires gene therapy when it becomes feasible?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
No, the intention is to present the current human races in different degrees of evolution.
Click to expand...

The intention of whom? I've seen a lot of racists employing pseudo science to try to do so. But modern anthropology, armed with more complete evidence than ever before in the form of the human genome itself, has on the whole exposed the idea of race as a vague human construct with no grounding in science.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Are you stating that you have never thought of a different "tribe" than yours as inferior?
Click to expand...
Not since I was a kid and didn't know any better (I'm assuming that by "tribe" you mean ethnicity).

Do you act on those thoughts, or do you understand that each man is an individual?
Click to expand...
I don't have those thoughts because I understand that each person is an individual and that their ethnicity does not make them superior/inferior by default. It isn't enough to simply not act on racist ideas because the ideas themselves are a major part of the problem. It's like saying "Misogyny is perfectly harmless as long as one doesn't act on one's hatred of women".
 
Foster Zygote said:
Not since I was a kid and didn't know any better (I'm assuming that by "tribe" you mean ethnicity).
Click to expand...

Interesting. The second coming I presume.


I don't have those thoughts because I understand that each person is an individual and that their ethnicity does not make them superior/inferior by default. It isn't enough to simply not act on racist ideas because the ideas themselves are a major part of the problem. It's like saying "Misogyny is perfectly harmless as long as one doesn't act on one's hatred of women".
Click to expand...

Shall society deem what individuals may think?

Shall there be punishments for the incorrect thoughts?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Interesting. The second coming I presume.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?

Shall society deem what individuals may think?

Shall there be punishments for the incorrect thoughts?
Click to expand...
I never said either of those two things, which means that you are putting words in my mouth. How do you get from my statement that racist ideas are still harmful even when not acted on, to your assumption that I think having racist thoughts should be punishable under the law?
 
Foster Zygote said:
I never said either of those two things, which means that you are putting words in my mouth. How do you get from my statement that racist ideas are still harmful even when not acted on, to your assumption that I think having racist thoughts should be punishable under the law?
Click to expand...

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am attempting a conversation by asking questions to determine your thoughts. Asking what you think is not telling you what you think.

A conversation is the exchanging of thoughts. When I ask you a question the purpose is to have a conversation.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I am not putting words in your mouth. I am attempting a conversation by asking questions to determine your thoughts. Asking what you think is not telling you what you think.

A conversation is the exchanging of thoughts. When I ask you a question the purpose is to have a conversation.
Click to expand...

Why even ask those questions? What do they have to do with the subject?
 
Foster Zygote said:
Why even ask those questions? What do they have to do with the subject?
Click to expand...

Because you wrote this below that those questions came to my mind:

It isn't enough to simply not act on racist ideas because the ideas themselves are a major part of the problem. It's like saying "Misogyny is perfectly harmless as long as one doesn't act on one's hatred of women".
Click to expand...
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I think you must be just playing around now.

I assumed you were coming to a point with your questions, you seem to want only to play.
Click to expand...

No, I'm really trying to find out what you mean.

You were the one talking about the results of racist thought. You said that they weren't always bad - when they weren't acted upon.

How can you have results of racist thought without the thought being acted upon?
 
CFLarsen said:
No, I'm really trying to find out what you mean.

You were the one talking about the results of racist thought. You said that they weren't always bad - when they weren't acted upon.

How can you have results of racist thought without the thought being acted upon?
Click to expand...


I mean that individual people have the inherent right to think what ever they want. When those thoughts become action which harm other individuals, then that is "bad".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom