|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/29/2007 : 20:34:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm dying to know what Jerome is advocating in more specific terms.
|
I am not advocating any course of action. I am only trying to determine to what extent this forum community would like the State to control human interaction. This is the first discussion I have had on these forums in which individual rights are not infringed on by the State.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 21:07:36 [Permalink]
|
Wow, that's a scary site.
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm dying to know what Jerome is advocating in more specific terms. |
I'm still wondering if he's just doing some semi-recreational trolling, or will demonstrate that he does actually have an agenda, point and/or clue. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 21:42:45 [Permalink]
|
| I am not advocating any course of action. I am only trying to determine to what extent this forum community would like the State to control human interaction. |
This forum community? SFN advocates critical thinking and the discussion of topics where skepticism is applied. Individual members of this forum have a variety of opinions on a variety of subjects. Are you saying that you are bringing up several largely unrelated topics for the purpose of determining what people on this small forum generally think?
You haven't answered direct questions asked of you by several people in this discussion. You haven't made any of your own opinions clear at all. And the questions and statements you make are vague. I'm starting to wonder if you really are a troll.
| This is the first discussion I have had on these forums in which individual rights are not infringed on by the State. |
This sentence doesn't make sense. Grammatically, it says that individual rights have been violated in all the other discussions you'd engaged in on this forum. They have? Whose rights? Infringed on how? By who?
OK, so you were probably trying to say something else, right? Can you repeat the statement in a way that makes sense? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/29/2007 21:43:21 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 22:14:59 [Permalink]
|
That was a horribly written sentence.
This is the first discussion I have had on theses forums in which the idea of the States right to infringe on individual rights has not been upheld.
It seems that critical thinking is discarded when a discussion involves a current political position. I was only trying to see if critical thinking would be applied to a political idea that is not currently in vogue.
I do not believe in eugenics, or for that matter any control of human behavior (that does not infringe on others) by the State.
The thing I wonder about is if this were the early twentieth century; would the scientific authority given to eugenics at that time have allowed suspension of critical thought as it does other topics we have discussed?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 22:38:01 [Permalink]
|
Eugenics had plenty of critics back in the day.
Jerome said:
The thing I wonder about is if this were the early twentieth century; would the scientific authority given to eugenics at that time have allowed suspension of critical thought as it does other topics we have discussed?
|
You have yet to apply actual critical thinking to any topic on these forums that you have participated in. "global waming a scam to tax?" ffs....
Sadly, there are plenty if nice people here willing to tolerate your imbecilic trolling, even after your blatant admission of trolling here they probably won't think you actually are trolling them.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 05/29/2007 22:38:31 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 22:45:05 [Permalink]
|
Dude, should you not use critical thinking to debate the topics as opposed to name calling.
I have used critical think all along. When one only believes authority and science that conform to ones preconditioned belief that is not critical thinking. If your thumb is on the scale the scale is not balanced.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 23:32:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I am speaking to the science of it. Yes, you could easily breed humans for the same things we breed dogs for. Size, coloration, thickness of coat, and so on.
The problem lies in the less well defined and understood traits that most eugenics supporters would like to label as good or desirable traits. Can you breed humans to be more intelligent? Can you even define intelligence in human only terms? |
To the extent that it's a problem of vague or overly broad definitions it's hard for me to see that it's a "real" problem. "Intelligence" is a broad term but one could easily test the ability to solve a specific set of problems that focus on certain aspects of intelligence.
| What chromosome/s carry the alleles for intelligence? |
Knowing which chromosomes carry the alleles for a particular trait is not a prerequisite to for a breeding program.
| Are genetic factors more important than epigenetic factors and overt environmental and social factors in producing greater intelligence? There are dozens human traits like this. Can you breed compassion, business sense, academic success, charisma, temperance, and so on? |
I don't know if genetic factors are more important than epigenetic, environmental or social factors in producing greater intelligence. If genes are of trivial importance compared to the other factors in producing the specific type of intelligence being measured then it would probably be impractical to select for it.
Your list of vague or socially derived traits are obviously poor candidates for selection of this sort.
It would indeed be ridiculous to try to breed for something as culturally based and nebulous as "noble character".
| Then you have to examine who gets to decide what is a desirable trait, and what criteria do you use to decide if a trait is a desirable one? Such things are entirely subjective. This alone places eugenics well outside the realm of sound science. |
This argument dips into the morality of imposing ones values onto others who do not share those values, nonetheless we could probably get a pretty broad agreement that some specific traits are quite negative.
| Then what about hybrid vigor? You can't breed homozygous genotypes out of a population and retain the benefit of the heterozygous genotype. Sickle cell anemia is a good example of this one. The heterozygous genotype results in a normal RBC and a resistance to malaria, this is obviously preferable to either of the homozygous genotypes (normal RBC and no resistance or sickle RBC). Any breeding of heterozygous couples will result in ~1/2 of their children having one of the undesirable genotypes. The only way you could maintain only heterozygous genotypes in a population would be through 100% artificial reproduction where you in-vitro fertilize, screen, and only implant heterozygous embryos. The implausibility of such a thing should be obvious. |
Yes, I agree there are innumerable problems with forced human breeding programs and that they are a stupendously bad idea. However, putting aside the very serious ethical considerations, I don't see that they are unworkable in principle.
I'll just add:
You could establish a human breeding program, on a limited scale, to breed certain well understood traits into the experimental bloodlines.
But none of the traits that eugenicists typically say are desirable have a well understood genetic basis for inheritance.
I could easily establish a human bloodline that is all tall, blond, blue eyed. Because the genetics and environmental aspects of those triats are fairly well understood. |
Noted. And I generally agree, but I just don't think it follows that it would be impossible to breed for traits whose genetic basis is not well undertood.
| Not so for "health, high intelligence, and noble character." |
"Noble character" is pretty meaningless in this context. "Health and intelligence" though, while overly broad as stated, seem to me like valid candidates for selection. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 00:22:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This is the first discussion I have had on theses forums in which the idea of the States right to infringe on individual rights has not been upheld. |
Presumably the other discussions were on topics other than eugenics. I'm not awfully surprised that people would have different views on different topics.
| It seems that critical thinking is discarded when a discussion involves a current political position. |
In my experience that is too often true. But not in this case.
| I was only trying to see if critical thinking would be applied to a political idea that is not currently in vogue. |
Hmmm... then it seems your prior posts may have been in bad faith.
| I do not believe in eugenics, or for that matter any control of human behavior (that does not infringe on others) by the State. |
Where do you draw the line between infringing and non-infringing behaviour? You may draw the line differently but you still draw the line. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 01:31:05 [Permalink]
|
dv82matt said:
To the extent that it's a problem of vague or overly broad definitions it's hard for me to see that it's a "real" problem. "Intelligence" is a broad term but one could easily test the ability to solve a specific set of problems that focus on certain aspects of intelligence.
|
Testing an individual for specific kinds of intelligence is not relevant to being able to breed them for it. (other than knowing that they have the trait)
I don't know if genetic factors are more important than epigenetic, environmental or social factors in producing greater intelligence. If genes are of trivial importance compared to the other factors in producing the specific type of intelligence being measured then it would probably be impractical to select for it.
|
Therein lies the rub. We can't even specifically define human intelligence, and we certainly have no clear understanding of how intelligence is inherited, and we have no real understanding of any environmental factors that may have a role in bringing about our genious intellects. Why do the occasional Einstien or Motzart appear in populations?
You can't breed for a trait that you can't even define.
Your list of vague or socially derived traits are obviously poor candidates for selection of this sort.
|
Not "my" list. Those are examples of traits various eugenicists have argued in favor of breeding for.
This argument dips into the morality of imposing ones values onto others who do not share those values, nonetheless we could probably get a pretty broad agreement that some specific traits are quite negative.
|
Absolutely. Sickle cell anemia is unquestinably a negative trait. But if you remove that allele from a population you eliminate the possibility of the heterozygous genotype and the resistance to malaria it offers, which is unquestionably a positive trait.
I'd not argue with the idea of trying to eliminate certain genetic disorders, like Downs syndrome, from the general population though.
| but I just don't think it follows that it would be impossible to breed for traits whose genetic basis is not well undertood. |
True. You don't have to know what chromosome a specific allele is on to be able to breed for a trait. I didn't mean to give that impression.
But you have to be able to clearly define the trait and have some understanding of how it is inherited, in order to breed for it. Very few traits follow the rules of simple Mendelian inheritance.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 05/30/2007 01:32:11 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 05:30:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This is the first discussion I have had on theses forums in which the idea of the States right to infringe on individual rights has not been upheld. |
Liar. How does public schooling infringe on individual rights?| It seems that critical thinking is discarded when a discussion involves a current political position. |
Then you haven't been paying attention, or you are denying the evidence before you.| I was only trying to see if critical thinking would be applied to a political idea that is not currently in vogue. |
Ah, a test. You failed.| I do not believe in eugenics, or for that matter any control of human behavior (that does not infringe on others) by the State. |
Then you should be in favor of carbon caps, since they would control human behaviour that does infringe upon others.| The thing I wonder about is if this were the early twentieth century; would the scientific authority given to eugenics at that time have allowed suspension of critical thought as it does other topics we have discussed? |
You haven't brought critical thought to any of the discussions you've been a part of. You've brought fear, uncertainty and doubt. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 05:46:57 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | It seems that critical thinking is discarded when a discussion involves a current political position. I was only trying to see if critical thinking would be applied to a political idea that is not currently in vogue. |
So the point of this entire thread is so you could covertly establish a false comparison and then make an ass out of yourself by using it against people on this forum in later conversations? Nice.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 06:09:12 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | The thing I wonder about is if this were the early twentieth century; would the scientific authority given to eugenics at that time have allowed suspension of critical thought as it does other topics we have discussed? |
The only suspension of critical thought in other topics we have discussed is yours.
For example, on the topic of public education, you've assumed many premises without any legit evidence. All your evidence is spare circumstantial stuff that have much more obvious and simple explanations – aka stressors from poverty, recent immigration, dropping out of school - than a conspiracy to dumb down kids. On top of your unsubstantiated assumptions, you then jump to the conclusion that there must be a conspiracy IF literacy proficiency and other skills have gone down.
Have you ever heard that correlation does not equal causation? Do you know what a false comparison is? These are basic concepts essential to critical thinking that were suspended when eugenics was in vogue, and it is YOU who are ignoring those concepts when it comes to other issues in this forum.
Dave wrote: | How does public schooling infringe on individual rights? |
I think this depends on one's point of view. If one puts absolute rights to property above the right to an education and social mobility, then using tax dollars to pay for public education could be viewed as infringing on individual rights. Also, if one considered the rights of a minor equal to that of an adult, then perhaps it could be considered a violation of individual rights to require truant kids and teens to attend after school programs and other such consequences for skipping school.
Noam Chomsky recently wrote in an article I read in Humanist magazine that maybe America should consider transportation or even cars a right for many citizens. I and a minority of others think that people should have a right to freely move from one country to the next. Gay people are working for the right to get married. The difference between rights and privileges is pretty much in the eye of the beholder.
However, this point only further illustrates how stupid is Jerome's comparison of eugenics to other political issues on this forum. Almost any political debate could come down different viewpoints about which rights trump the other.
This whole thread was a waste of our time because Jerome dishonestly was setting up a false comparison. He's proven that he is a troll, and frankly, I'm pretty fucking annoyed.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 06:57:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | How does public schooling infringe on individual rights? |
I think this depends on one's point of view. If one puts absolute rights to property above the right to an education and social mobility, then using tax dollars to pay for public education could be viewed as infringing on individual rights. |
Such people would be wrong, however!  |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 07:09:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | How does public schooling infringe on individual rights? |
I think this depends on one's point of view. If one puts absolute rights to property above the right to an education and social mobility, then using tax dollars to pay for public education could be viewed as infringing on individual rights. |
Well, personally, I'd prefer my Federal tax dollars to not go into highway beautification projects in other states, too. And I'd prefer my state taxes not go towards imbecilic projects in other counties. And I'd prefer my county taxes not go towards silliness in other localities. Heck, I'd even prefer it if my home-owners association fees were used only for improvements on my block. But these aren't examples of "individual rights" so much as they're just boring old tax protests based upon a misunderstanding of taxes in general and the denial that there is "public good" to be made.
(Of course, I'm not arguing with you, marf, I'm just mouthing off at the world.)
Besides, people don't have a right to a public education, they've got a responsibility. We've got a social contract that people will get some education, and to ensure that everyone does, taxes are used to pay for much of it. If people actually had a right to an education, then parents could simply choose to not educate their kids at all. That is why we have truancy officers policing arcades and malls in the middle of the day.| The difference between rights and privileges is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. |
Okay, now I'm arguing with you (but only a little), because as far as a basic education goes, it's not a right or a privilege, it's an obligation that "pays for" the rights and privileges that come with citizenship. For each and every right "We, the people" grant ourselves, along with it comes at least one responsibility or obligation. Some people think that paying taxes is enough to meet those obligations, but it's not.| This whole thread was a waste of our time... |
Well, maybe we can turn it into something productive.| ...because Jerome dishonestly was setting up a false comparison. He's proven that he is a troll, and frankly, I'm pretty fucking annoyed. |
Right there with you! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 07:31:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Jerome wrote: | It seems that critical thinking is discarded when a discussion involves a current political position. I was only trying to see if critical thinking would be applied to a political idea that is not currently in vogue. |
So the point of this entire thread is so you could covertly establish a false comparison and then make an ass out of yourself by using it against people on this forum in later conversations? Nice.
|
I am absolutely not trying to establish a comparison to use against anyone. I was testing a theory about our conversations; my hypothesis was correct. I am sorry you feel I was being sneaky.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
evolution is a tool of eugenics
