Cute romanian chic videos - KH style

[Asher]

OMFG, that's like the worst article I have ever read. That kind of turned my day bad.

What I really want to ask though is threatening to kill someone really illegal in Canada? Maybe it's illegal in the U.S. too for all I know. I just never heard of that.

Death threats are illegal in most countries...

[Ben Kenobi]

You stated that I support eugenics. Which is a flat-out lie, slander if you will...

I qualified that statement to say that Francis Galton, the founder of Eugenics said the same thing you did right there. I leave it for polytubbies to decide whether your statement was serious.

[Asher]

I qualified that statement to say that Francis Galton, the founder of Eugenics said the same thing you did right there. I leave it for polytubbies to decide whether your statement was serious.

You ****ing *******.

MY STATEMENT was a statement that was clarifying DARWIN'S POSITION. I AM NOT DARWIN, YOU IMMENSE DICK.

If Darwin had his way, people like this would not reproduce: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1214609/

That statement IN NO ****ING POSSIBLE WAY indicates my beliefs.

Are you going to apologize, Ben? It'd be the Christian thing to do. You were obviously wrong, you obviously slandered a fellow man, and you obviously don't give a ****.

[Ben Kenobi]

In the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, fitness and similar concepts were used to advocate eugenics, racism and fascism. The methods used then, such as the forceable sterilisation programme in Sweden, would not be acceptable now. However if a non-invasive gene therapy solution existed to remove certain impairments from the human gene pool, would we not want to use them? Why would we wish disabilities on our offspring if we could avoid it? The term "designer baby" is loaded with negative connotations, but would it be that abhorrent for parents, or society, to be able to influence the likelyhood of developing genetic diseases (think BRCA1/2 genes etc) in a future generation? I don't think so.

This is a pretty good question. I'm not sure we can keep the one separate from the other. 90 percent of all children diagnosed prenatally with Down's Syndrome are aborted. If we accept that the responsible thing to do if you have a disabled child is to engage in gene therapy, that leads to the duty to engage in gene therapy.

Then there's the question between therapy and enhancement. What exactly is a disability? Does it mean functioning below the mean?

Finally, and this is the point everyone needs to understand, getting rid of all down's syndrome kids will do nothing to eliminate it from the gene pool. Everyone of us has the potential to have a child with down's syndrome. Regardless of how much gene therapy you do, you will always get disabled people. If not through inheritance, through mutation.

[lightblue]

There's always a chance, but the chance is much greater if you leave mutated versions of genes like BRCA1/2 (somewhere around 0.5-1% of the population) within the population. Chromosomal abnormalities like Down's Syndrome are a lot harder to remedy than point mutations in single genes, and thus are unlikely to be removed from the population as easily.

In terms of therapy and enhancement, you could limit treatment to certain genes that are specifically related to having a higher chance to develop certain ailments, be it cancer, heart disease or obesity. I can see your point, and once this technology is more widely available, certain sections of the population will use this to augment and modify other sections of the genome. Ethical? Legal? I don't know, there are many questions tro be answered about this such as: Who regulates availability? If it is available only to those with money, does this create greater differences between socioeconomic classes? etc

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm afraid if it's ever implemented, anyone with a disability will be regarded as subhuman, especially if the burden falls upon parents.

Ever see Gattica, Lightblue?

[Asher]

You going to apologize, Ben?

[DaShi]

We'll need another thread for that.

[ricketyclik]

Why not go with neo Darwinism, that allows for the fact that survival of the fittest can apply to groups (or even whole species) as well as individuals?

Same issue. If we are gaging worth and value of persons based on their 'fitness', then how can you justify society expending effort to preserve disabled people? By definition, you are stating that disabled people are not as fit as others.

No, you're not getting it. Take Steven Hawkings for example - on his own, disabled, but as a member of our species he makes us better. Consider the species as a single entity. "Disabled" generally refers to only one or a small number of traits, while individuals are comprised of hundreds, or perhaps thousands of traits that relate to fitness.

In terms of the individual, in the human - or many other group species - "fitness" could be defined as "most cooperative". Although in reality, as I said above, there are many facets of fitness.

[Asher]

We'll need another thread for that.

I think you're right.

We can't have pedophiles like Ben accusing people of being something they're not.

[Lorizael]

I think not. Settle your business via PMs or, if you must, the moderation thread.

[Asher]

Frankly, I don't see why he doesn't just apologize.

There's no possible way anyone could have read into the statement what Ben did. It was pure malice.

Perhaps there should be two threads: one for him to apologize to me for misreading my statements all the time, and another for him to apologize to me for malice.

[Lorizael]

Oh do continue. I'm ever so interested.

[Asher]

Perhaps there should be three threads: one for him to apologize to me for misreading my statements all the time, another for him to apologize to me for malice, and another for you being sarcastic to me.

[dannubis]

So Ben choose to become religious because he assumed Darwin said that people like Ben should not reproduce. Why I am a not shocked by his underlying motives. This is why religion is doomed to be the scourge of humanity.