New 'cure' for homosexuality?:

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I can draw that paralell with some success.

You drew a parallel but made no argument.

If you think that wearing a moustache is bad then we should discuss that. However, in this I don't agree with you.
But Hitler wore a mustache. Thats why you need an argument, and not just draw a parallel. You have to explain why the Nazis were wrong to desire what they did, and also show that the wrongness still applies to the parallel we are talking about.

Genetically alter natural behaviour to another natural behaviour, I just don't see the point.
But others do see the point. The question is why are you so against it.

I use irony to whow my point. You read me by the letter. Then I tell you again - it was irony.
If you don't like irony, then you have a ot of trouble in this Forum. I'm not the first one using it.
I clearly don't get it.
Do you have an actual argument against making our children better looking?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You drew a parallel but made no argument.

[b]If you think that wearing a moustache is bad then we should discuss that. However, in this I don't agree with you.
But Hitler wore a mustache. Thats why you need an argument, and not just draw a parallel. You have to explain why the Nazis were wrong to desire what they did, and also show that the wrongn y don't get it.
Do you have an actual argument against making our children better looking?[/b]

twhitehead wrote: "You drew a parallel but made no argument."
Wasn't the paralell clear? I thought so. I spell it out for you: Create better people genetically. According to the thread, using genetic engineering. The nazis would love to have that technique.

twhitehead wrote: "But Hitler wore a mustache."
So do many people. You don't have genetics for that one. And it's on the individuals own choice, isn't it? Not because they were born with that quality. Homosexuality isn't aquired, they are born as such.

twhitehead wrote: "The question is why are you so against it."
Of course I'm against genetically alter one natural behaviour to another. Wuoild you like to hear that you have an unnatural behaviour, that doesn't harm anyone, and that there is a cure for it? I don't think so.

twhitehead wrote: "Do you have an actual argument against making our children better looking?"
Genetically? Of course I have! Children are beautiful as they are.

I suspect you have another agenda than you say you have.
Tell us what you really think, point by point, and we take it from there.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
twhitehead wrote: "You drew a parallel but made no argument."
Wasn't the paralell clear? I thought so. I spell it out for you: Create better people genetically. According to the thread, using genetic engineering. The nazis would love to have that technique.

The parallel is clear, but as I said twice already, a parallel does not constitute an argument. The Nazis might like mustaches, or French fries, but that does not make anyone else who wants them wrong.

So do many people. You don't have genetics for that one. And it's on the individuals own choice, isn't it? Not because they were born with that quality. Homosexuality isn't aquired, they are born as such.
And many choices are made by our parents, why must genetics be an exception? The article this thread is about claims that homosexuality in some women is at least in part "acquired" in the womb.

Of course I'm against genetically alter one natural behaviour to another. Wuoild you like to hear that you have an unnatural behaviour, that doesn't harm anyone, and that there is a cure for it? I don't think so.
Why not? I don't think I would have objected to having blond hair, or blue eyes or a higher IQ. Why would you object? Simply throwing the question back at me is not an explanation.

Genetically? Of course I have! Children are beautiful as they are.
So, you have no argument then.

I suspect you have another agenda than you say you have.
Tell us what you really think, point by point, and we take it from there.
I am open and honest and have stated my stand several times. I believe that genetic engineering is a fact of life and so is the opportunity of selection of attributes. I see no good reason for preventing either - though I obviously think there should be some measure of control and guidelines to prevent unnecessary suffering for example.
I do think that with the exclusion of direct harm to the child, the parents choice supersedes the governments choice so I am not directly advocating the sort of program the Nazi's might have had in mind.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But your argument (that I was responding to) should apply equally well to beauty products.
Your argument seemed to be that any attempt to improve looks would result in a world full of nearly identical people and that that would somehow be undesirable (though you did not say why).

[b]These changes would be made by people with no wits about them and whe ...[text shortened]... ty would be affected significantly and would be unlikely to lead to susceptibility to disease.

You brought up the failed experiment of selecting for boys in China. I assume you know the results of that cultural drubbing. Not a good advertisement for genetic manipulation.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You brought up the failed experiment of selecting for boys in China. I assume you know the results of that cultural drubbing. Not a good advertisement for genetic manipulation.

Its not a 'failed experiment', its a result of cultural preference exacerbated by the one child policy, though I must note that the selection is not unique to China's one child policy, and yes I know what the results are. It isn't a particularly bad advertisement either, as sex is the only attribute that we really need in approximately 50 / 50 proportions. And if we select for homosexuality, then even that is far from necessary. Thats possibly a good solution to the worlds overpopulation problems.

I am sure you agree that it has not affected genetic diversity one bit.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The parallel is clear, but as I said twice already, a parallel does not constitute an argument. The Nazis might like mustaches, or French fries, but that does not make anyone else who wants them wrong.

[b]So do many people. You don't have genetics for that one. And it's on the individuals own choice, isn't it? Not because they were born with that quali o I am not directly advocating the sort of program the Nazi's might have had in mind.

[/b]If the paralell was not understood by you, even with explicit explanations, then I cannot do more than that.

My point is that it is not neccessary to use genetic enginering of something that already is natural behaviour. Sexual behaviour that doesn't hurt anyone isn't a desease that should be fixed, it's not even a desease. If you think otherwise, fine with me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its not a 'failed experiment', its a result of cultural preference exacerbated by the one child policy, though I must note that the selection is not unique to China's one child policy, and yes I know what the results are. It isn't a particularly bad advertisement either, as sex is the only attribute that we really need in approximately 50 / 50 proportions ...[text shortened]... ulation problems.

I am sure you agree that it has not affected genetic diversity one bit.

Any removal from the gene pool effects diversity, it is sexual selection that ensures diversity. Culling either sex will result in lower diversity just as much as culling both sexes as in genocide of a given group also lowers diversity, as in the Armenian genocide or the Jewish Genocide or the Asian Genocides of Cambodia's Pol Pot or the Red Chinese during its march to power, same thing in Russia. I call it genocide when whole villages are destroyed and they killed millions in all those I mentioned.
Why do you think such actions won't lower genetic diversity? When a population is culled and there are say, half or 3/4 left, that culled part has been killed, the diversity WILL go down.

This is not a matter of race. This is the normal genetic diversity inherent in the sexual reproduction from generation to generation in any given race on Earth. If we lost 5 billion people out of our near 7 now, that 2 billion left will have that much less genetic diversity. If you destroy all but a couple of thousand humans and those humans got together to start a new civilization they would suffer for many generations from lack of diversity.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If the paralell was not understood by you, even with explicit explanations, then I cannot do more than that.

In other words you have no argument whatsoever, but just hope that by drawing a parallel with the Nazi's you will prove your point. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Not everything the Nazi's did or desired was wrong, we have already established that mustaches are OK.
I am afraid I am not European so I don't have the fear of Nazi's that you seem to, so I am not that easily fooled.

My point is that it is not neccessary to use genetic enginering of something that already is natural behaviour.
The issue is not whether or not it is necessary, but whether or not it should be prevented. It is not necessary to grow a mustache, but that is no reason to prevent anyone from doing so.

Sexual behaviour that doesn't hurt anyone isn't a desease that should be fixed, it's not even a desease. If you think otherwise, fine with me.
Once again, you insist on keeping this only about homosexuality. Why? Your initial comments were about looks, your above statement was about 'genetic engineering'. Neither is equivalent to homosexuality if even related at all.
I have never claimed homosexuality is a disease or needs to be fixed, so no, I do not think otherwise, but that won't help your argument.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Any removal from the gene pool effects diversity, it is sexual selection that ensures diversity. Culling either sex will result in lower diversity just as much as culling both sexes as in genocide of a given group also lowers diversity, as in the Armenian genocide or the Jewish Genocide or the Asian Genocides of Cambodia's Pol Pot or the Red Chinese during ...[text shortened]... here are say, half or 3/4 left, that culled part has been killed, the diversity WILL go down.

Thats a very different argument from the topic under discussion, and once again, filled with errors.
So now you are saying, that if the worlds population goes down, genetic diversity goes down thus increasing the risk of disease.
So I guess your conclusion is go forth and multiply or risk disease.
Are you serious?

And the above has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic modification or selection.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In other words you have no argument whatsoever, but just hope that by drawing a parallel with the Nazi's you will prove your point. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Not everything the Nazi's did or desired was wrong, we have already established that mustaches are OK.
I am afraid I am not European so I don't have the fear of Nazi's that you seem to, so I ...[text shortened]... eeds to be fixed, so no, I do not think otherwise, but that won't help your argument.

I read once more what I've written in this thread, and I cannot find anything that I cannot stand for. I've been pretty clear, perhaps apart from ihe ironic posting that you don't seem understand. Well, tough luck.

I've said all that can be said in the matter about "New 'cure' for homosexuality?" so I drop our conversation for now.

You don't have to agree with my opinions, as I don't agree with yous. Does it matter?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I read once more what I've written in this thread, and I cannot find anything that I cannot stand for.

Thats because you haven't written anything of substance.
You claim that the Nazi's would have liked genetic engineering. So what? That doesn't make genetic bad any more than mustaches. Why bring it up at all?

You don't have to agree with my opinions, as I don't agree with yous. Does it matter?
You don't seem to know my opinion as you keep arguing against an opinion that I quite clearly stated I don't have.
You just seem to be so over sensitive about homosexuality that you don't read what I actually write.