Eugenics supporters?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What do you deem as the line not to cross?

Shall law be instituted that requires gene therapy when it becomes feasible?

It depends on what social institutions we have at the time. In some cases laws must intervene. Do you have a right to bring a diseased individual into the world who will just suffer and die early? I don't think that you do. How about a mentally handicapped individual who is brain dead?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It depends on what social institutions we have at the time. In some cases laws must intervene. Do you have a right to bring a diseased individual into the world who will just suffer and die early? I don't think that you do. How about a mentally handicapped individual who is brain dead?

As the therapy progresses; do you think that less extreme deficiencies should also be removed from the gene pool?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

As the therapy progresses; do you think that less extreme deficiencies should also be removed from the gene pool?

Specifically? Give me an example.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Specifically? Give me an example.

Height and weight that are outside of the norm.

Intelligence level that is below the norm.

Of course what is deemed normal will change, as such I can not be specific about the standard that could be used.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Height and weight that are outside of the norm.

Intelligence level that is below the norm.

Of course what is deemed normal will change, as such I can not be specific about the standard that could be used.

No, Only obviously debilitating conditions should be corrected prior to birth. Being short or tall isn't obviously debilitating unless you're extremely short or extremely tall. If someone is extremely short or tall due to some genetic disorder and they will suffer from health issues related to that disorder then obviously that would be categorized as debilitating.


Intelligence should always be changed to suit higher levels in genetic engineering or therapy.

 

[CFLarsen]

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".

OK.

Can you have results of racist thought without the thought being acted upon?

Can you have racist thoughts acted upon without harming other individuals?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, Only obviously debilitating conditions should be corrected prior to birth. Being short or tall isn't obviously debilitating unless you're extremely short or extremely tall. If someone is extremely short or tall due to some genetic disorder and they will suffer from health issues related to that disorder then obviously that would be categorized as debilitating.

If I may present the nose of a camel.

Would not the elimination of what we now define as obviously debilitating cause conditions that are now by comparison deemed slightly debilitating to be redefined as obviously debilitating? And so on and so forth...

Intelligence should always be changed to suit higher levels in genetic engineering or therapy.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Could you please expound?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Can you have results of racist thought without the thought being acted upon?

I believe my poor communication ability has caused this question to be asked.

No.

Can you have racist thoughts acted upon without harming other individuals?

Yes.


I would prefer that you would phrase these sorts of questions without; unintentionally I am sure, making the implication that I am the subject having racist thoughts.

More along the lines of: Can (one) (an individual) (a person) have racist thoughts acted upon without harming other individuals?

Thanks in advance.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes.

How?

I would prefer that you would phrase these sorts of questions without; unintentionally I am sure, making the implication that I am the subject having racist thoughts.

More along the lines of: Can (one) (an individual) (a person) have racist thoughts acted upon without harming other individuals?

Thanks in advance.

I'm not making any such implications. I am using "you" properly. In English that can both mean "you, people in general" and "you, personally".

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

How?

One could act on their racist thoughts by not interacting with people of the "other" race. This will harm themselves by restricting their interaction with a large amount of people.

I'm not making any such implications. I am using "you" properly. In English that can both mean "you, people in general" and "you, personally".

I know that you are not intentionally making the implication. I know that you are using the language correctly. The problem is that people reading may make a misinterpretation your meaning. Also, if this is your habit it could cause those you are having a talk with to misinterpret your meaning and thus ruin the conversation.

 

[CFLarsen]

One could act on their racist thoughts by not interacting with people of the "other" race. This will harm themselves by restricting their interaction with a large amount of people.

If someone writes a racist book, enticing others to racist acts, then the author is not harming other people?

I know that you are not intentionally making the implication. I know that you are using the language correctly. The problem is that people reading may make a misinterpretation your meaning. Also, if this is your habit it could cause those you are having a talk with to misinterpret your meaning and thus ruin the conversation.

I am hardly the only one using "you" this way. I believe that most English-speaking people do.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with your neighbor first.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If someone writes a racist book, enticing others to racist acts, then the author is not harming other people?

I disagree. The exchange of thoughts is not the harm. The action is the relevant factor.

I am hardly the only one using "you" this way. I believe that most English-speaking people do.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with your neighbor first.

This is a moot point. We should leave it. I was just trying to be helpful.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This is a moot point. We should leave it. I was just trying to be helpful.

Camels spit, and you seem to be trying to dance with one.

The construct "what would one do" or "how could one _____ " is not unknown to the bachtrian conversationalist with whom you are engaged in an alleged conversation.

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

I disagree. The exchange of thoughts is not the harm. The action is the relevant factor.

But does the action solely has to be on the reader's part? You are not responsible for what you write?

You, general, of course.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But does the action solely has to be on the reader's part? You are not responsible for what you write?

Yes, the actions of another are not the responsibility of a writer.

Responsible in what manner?

Do you have an example of a writer being responsible for the actions of reader outside of the writing itself being criminal?

You, general, of course.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If I may present the nose of a camel.

Would not the elimination of what we now define as obviously debilitating cause conditions that are now by comparison deemed slightly debilitating to be redefined as obviously debilitating? And so on and so forth...

No.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. Could you please expound?

Smarter=Better

If we can, then we should alter genetics to make people smarter and should encourage the environments where the smartest are born but the dumbest aren't. This means genetic screenings, if we have the technology to do so, prior to birth, not pseudo scientific actions such as selective breeding.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, the actions of another are not the responsibility of a writer.

Responsible in what manner?

For what the other does, based on what the writer writes.

Do you have an example of a writer being responsible for the actions of reader outside of the writing itself being criminal?

I'm asking if you think the writer should be responsible for what he writes.

Smarter=Better

Always?

If we can, then we should alter genetics to make people smarter and should encourage the environments where the smartest are born but the dumbest aren't. This means genetic screenings, if we have the technology to do so, prior to birth, not pseudo scientific actions such as selective breeding.

An all-Alpha society?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

An all-Alpha society?

Yes. However in the process people would not be able to know who was genetically engineered to be super intelligent and who wasn't, so discrimination could not occur in such things as the hiring process.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes. However in the process people would not be able to know who was genetically engineered to be super intelligent and who wasn't, so discrimination could not occur in such things as the hiring process.

I think you should read Huxley's book.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Yes. However in the process people would not be able to know who was genetically engineered to be super intelligent and who wasn't, so discrimination could not occur in such things as the hiring process.

Discrimination is the tool used to hire today and will be in the future.

Do you discriminate between tomatoes that you are choosing to buy?


There is nothing wrong with discrimination.

It is natural.

See; it is amusing how words are twisted to exhibit emotion beyond their meaning.

This is propaganda!