Originally posted by whodeyWhat "path of near exinction"? This is a figment of your (or more probably someone else's) imagination.
Whether it be true or fiction you must conceede it to be ironic. The intellectually enlightened who have chosen the eugenic path of birth control and abortion have chosen the path of near extinction and have succumb to the power of the "unenlightened". If its true it is nothing short of another eugenic masterpiece! It would be like taking the goals of eugenics and throwing the throddle into reverse.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou haven't made any arguments, Ivanhoe. The preference in a free society is that people should be able to do something unless there are compelling arguments that they not be allowed to do the thing. The burden is always on those who want to "ban" something or other.
You really don't have any substantial point of view on the issue of eugenics. You simply entertain the "I cannot see anything wrong with it" attitude and then you challenge your opponents to put forward arguments against it. That's why you don't even bother to bring forward any arguments in favour of it .... and you absolutely refuse to see the negative side ...[text shortened]... pponents of all sorts of things without actually giving evidence or even elaborating on it.
And I've asked several posters, including you, to specifically state what you mean by "eugenics" and if and how it differs from what Dawkins is talking about i.e. attempting to breed humans with what are perceived to be "desirable" abilities. I'm still waiting for an answer; until I get one, I'll presume that the issue is still what Dawkins was talking about. The "arguments" in favor of that is that parents might want to do it and that parents make similar efforts to increase these abilities after birth (i.e. piano lessons, chess camps, etc. etc.) without moral condemnation. So what is the great "moral difference" between doing the same thing before birth?
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder, it is simply unheard of to assume that "anything goes" unless others show you some proposed action or policy to be morally impermissible.
You haven't made any arguments, Ivanhoe. The preference in a free society is that people should be able to do something unless there are compelling arguments that they not be allowed to do the thing. The burden is always on those who want to "ban" something or other.
And I've asked several posters, including you, to specifically state what yo So what is the great "moral difference" between doing the same thing before birth?
I was right in my criticism that you basicly take the position that others have to prove that eugenics is impermissible, that it is a pseudo- science or that is has negative societal or personal effects. You have to be convinced and if your opponents do not succeed in doing so, and I assure you they never will succeed, you simply claim that there is nothing wrong with the politics of eugenics because you fail to see any relevant objections.
How convenient ! You propose a new policy and simply demand that others show that it is morally wrong. If they fail to do so you simply accept and implement the policy. Hooray for the rational liberal the Marauder !
2 edits
Originally posted by NordlysWhich question ? You mean this one ?
But so far he is right. You haven't answered the question. Why not?
The Marauder: "So what is the great "moral difference" between doing the same thing before birth?"
I reacted to it, reading my posts usally helps understanding my position, and I hereby invite the marauder, again, to switch to thinking mode and find out the answer for himself.
Originally posted by ivanhoeMy impression from reading your posts is that your position is something like "I am against breeding for certain desirable abilities for reasons you'll have to figure out yourself; I know that most of you are or will be for it, even if you say you aren't; and I know nothing will change your opinion, so I decide not to have a debate". Please correct me if I am wrong on any of those points.
I reacted to it, reading my posts usally helps understanding my position, and I hereby invite the marauder, again, to switch to thinking mode and find out the answer for himself.
Originally posted by NordlysIn particular I oppose the marauder's attitude, the "convenient" attitude, on which I elaborated more than enough.
My impression from reading your posts is that your position is something like "I am against breeding for certain desirable abilities for reasons you'll have to figure out yourself; I know that most of you are or will be for it, even if you say you aren't; and I know nothing will change your opinion, so I decide not to have a debate". Please correct me if I am wrong on any of those points.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, that depends on what policies we're talking about. Suppose we were to adopt a eugenic policy whereby future parents were given affordable access to genetic manipulation techniques that could prevent the manifestation of birth-defects in their children. I doubt good liberals would object to such a policy. There very well may be eugenic policies that are inconsistent with the fundamental values of liberalism (e.g., a policy that would lead to increased stratification of wealth or opportunity, that would exacerbate the effects of the "natural lottery", or one that would disproportionately impact the poor by taking away limited medical resources from public health research).
Within the scope of real existing liberalism there are no objections to be found against the policies of eugenics.