Spirituality
23 Nov 06
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by StarrmanYour worries will be "cured" by the "rational" reasoning of liberal folks like Dawkins and the marauder
I wasn't aware that salvation was one of the intended properties of birth control.
Prejudice is always present and would be even if we were all god-abiding Christians. I'm as fearful of the intentions of religious figureheads as I am of secular ones on the subject of human nature; eugenics is just one of the issues of worry.
23 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not necessarily in favour of eugenics, but, like Dawkins, I am in favour of intelligent debate on the issue as well as a clarification of what constitutes eugenics and whether there are both good and bad uses of it. Unfortunately, as whodey and others have demonstrated, you mention the word and the bandwagon rolls into town.
You will be in favour of eugenics, I'm sure.
What does it take to convince you ?
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1marauderParagraph 1 is a non sequitur to a discussion of whether we should attempt to breed humans with particular abilities.
Paragraph 1 is a non sequitur to a discussion of whether we should attempt to breed humans with particular abilities. I didn't hear Dawkins saying people who have mathematical or musical abilities are "superior" to the rest of humanity.
Paragraph 2 gets a so what from me. No one can really be compelled to follow any particular field whether t ...[text shortened]... d not subscribe to utilitarian or pseudo-utilitarian (whatever that is) models of morality.
Really? Were we talking about breeding humans to have disabilities? Or to have below-average intelligence? Or to be tone deaf? Or to be completely rubbish at dancing?
Paragraph 2 gets a so what from me. No one can really be compelled to follow any particular field whether they were "bred" for it or not. This is a red herring.
Really? What do you think happens to a horse that was bred for running but refuses to run? Or a cow bred for milk that has a poor output?
Paragraph 3 is irrelevant to my viewpoint as I did not subscribe to utilitarian or pseudo-utilitarian (whatever that is) models of morality.
Maybe. But I didn't say I would provide reasons specific to your view of morality.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeActually, I was trying to have a discussion about the ideas expressed in the article concerning whether it is morally acceptable to attempt to bring humans with certain abilitites. This could be done or not done regardless of whether abortion and/or euthanasia were allowed so those issues are not relevant. You, as usual, have lapsed into making this some kind of personal thing. I'd rather stick to the topic myself.
... and you are again leading the ideological parade .....
23 Nov 06
These abject ideas cannot be overcome by rational scientific debate. Why ? Because these are not scientific ideas, they are political ideas. The only way these ideas can and will be defeated is in a long and arduous political debate. I hope that this will be sufficient to bring about the defeat of those ideas.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by StarrmanI wasn't aware that salvation was one of the intended properties of birth control.
I wasn't aware that salvation was one of the intended properties of birth control.
Prejudice is always present and would be even if we were all god-abiding Christians. I'm as fearful of the intentions of religious figureheads as I am of secular ones on the subject of human nature; eugenics is just one of the issues of worry.
I'm not sure how that follows from what I've written.
Prejudice is always present and would be even if we were all god-abiding Christians. I'm as fearful of the intentions of religious figureheads as I am of secular ones on the subject of human nature; eugenics is just one of the issues of worry.
Then there's some hope left yet. 🙂
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, adress this matter then, marauder. What if the breeding fails and the human being in case will be deformed in one way or the other ? What should happen to this human being ?
Actually, I was trying to have a discussion about the ideas expressed in the article concerning whether it is morally acceptable to attempt to bring humans with certain abilitites. This could be done or not done regardless of whether abortion and/or euthanasia were allowed so those issues are not relevant. You, as usual, have lapsed into making this some kind of personal thing. I'd rather stick to the topic myself.