fiveworlds Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) I wish to sterilise those who are unable to understand when the word number should be used instead of amount. To be on the safe side immediate elimination would be preferred. Are you OK with that approach? You mean dyslexics? gosh I wonder what leonardo da vinci and alexander graham bell would have thought about that. Edited August 29, 2014 by fiveworlds
Endy0816 Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) You can have an amount of beef. You would probably rather have a number of people instead of an amount of people. Edited August 30, 2014 by Endy0816
DevilSolution Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 You can have an amount of beef. You would probably rather have a number of people instead of an amount of people. Amount is an extension of number, it works either way in that context. It's not grammatically incorrect. Amount is proportion, which is probably closer to the context of his post.
Ophiolite Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 number is amount by proxy, or extension, which ever really...... Wrong.
MonDie Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Here's another reason not to obey the OP.The Hidden Potential of Autistic Kids by Rose Evelethhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hidden-potential-of-autistic-kids/ On average, autistic students performed 30 percentile points better on the Raven test than on WISC. "Many of those who are considered low-functioning—if you give them other intelligence tests, you will find hidden potential," she says. "They can solve really complex problems if you give them material that they can optimally process."
timidlady Posted February 9, 2020 Posted February 9, 2020 Eugenics breeds away some really important qualities like will to live and ability to overcome diversity, desensitization to both physical and social pain. People with disability have to be stronger in other ways. Not only that but a specific physical weakness can strengthen other human characteristics and may even translate into a genetic strength over generations as compensation comes forward for a limitation. While a family might trend towards nearsightedness, they may have an enhanced sense of smell and as this genetic line intermingled with other people, other people can end up with a greater sense of smell and MAYBE a reduced chance of nearsightedness that goes with it. Disability seems horrible, right? I know the people that mercilessly try and diminish me with cerebral palsy positively drool over your assessment. The reality is that today I'm one of only a few women truck drivers and even fewer still that are disabled. This is probably the closest thing in the US to eugenics today. Throwback nazism. For all the boo hoo the "healthy" folk do about me driving, I am 20% over average income in my company. I also know how to poop in a toilet right and I'm not severely disabling obesity. I dont spread disease, not prone to accidents, safe record, no criminal record. Yet you think I dont even have a right to live and shouldn't be here. Dont you worry. For all the posts you see against you, there's plenty who believe in you. I've been sexually assaulted more than once. I've been stolen from by both people and employers. Laughed at. Yelled at. Talked down to. Life isnt easy for disabled people but I have some serious tenacity. Something "healthy" accepted people take pills to feel or never have. That's a valuable trait that I bring to the gene pool. Some day my offspring could be great soldiers or leaders or fearlessly going forth where most people would never dare specifically because of my serious hardcore desire to strive to overcome. That's what's missing in eugenics and why I dont believe in sterilization or forced abortion. The baby from the book, A Mother's Ordeal about Chinas one child policy. He was a powerful adaptation of humankind thrown in the trash like human waste. He survived a lethal injection to the brain for hours! Eventually people overcome even eugenics. Even people like you.
John Cuthber Posted February 9, 2020 Posted February 9, 2020 1 minute ago, timidlady said: Eugenics breeds away some really important qualities like will to live and ability to overcome diversity, https://xkcd.com/285/ 3 minutes ago, timidlady said: Yet you think I dont even have a right to live and shouldn't be here. Practically nobody here said anything like that. Those that did got taken to the cleaners because, scientifically, eugenics is dumb.
jajrussel Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 (edited) On 12/7/2011 at 11:36 PM, Eugenics said: What do you think about Eugenics? I personally think it would drastically change the world for the better. By Eugenics I mean sterilizing everyone with an IQ below 100, and forcibly aborting any fetus which will be born with a genetic deformity, retardation, etc. Also encouraging geniuses to procreate by giving them tax breaks and benefits for each child they produce. Can you imagine a world where geniuses are a dime a dozen? Classrooms full of gifted children, no more government funds wasted on special ed classrooms, all this we can achieve. We just have to set aside pointless emotions and see the bigger picture. It might be difficult to accept forced sterilization at first, but the benefits are more than worth it. I envision a city on the Moon, and colonies on Mars in our not so distant future, should we adopt the practice of Eugenics, because it would drastically increase the amount of future scientists that will be born. I don’t think about it at all. Usually. To me it would be like sitting around trying to decide if murder can be an ethical issue so long as it is approached from a scientific view. Which in itself is not all that unusual because science is used to kill and or murder all the time. If we revert to class systems of old it might in someway be seen as genocide. Unless one insists genocide must be limited by strict definition. To date there are seven pages on my device on the ethics of murder in the guise of Eugenics. Though, it can be argued that sterilization is not murder, still some might say it is. The argument Eugenics assumes that no right to life exist, so why start with humanity?😒 Intellectually Eugenic, can I have someone arrested and shot for saying something stupid? What happens when the person I want arrested and murdered kills me first? Does it prove he or she is smarter than I am? It could then be argued that the one with the fastest most destructive weapon is the intellectual. Hmm. I would rather imagine a moon or mars colony without designs on murder... Most of the people who the world considers to be smart generally avoid paying taxes. Imagine a moon or mars colony, perhaps even the planet earth where no one pays taxes, because we are too smart for that. We wouldn’t even have to worry about special ed classes, or moon and mars colonies, because there would be no money to spend. Eugenics? In the end it would not stop stupidity, nor would it save the world along with, presumably, the smart people. In the end overpopulation will kill us all, and essentially population control by murder is basically all Eugenics is. Honestly, I think some really smart people will do something really stupid that kills us all, long before population control becomes necessary, and they will probably start by legitimizing some sort of, Eugenic thought. Then they will salute each other, while congratulating each other, for how smart they are all being, as everyone dies. Edited May 18, 2020 by jajrussel
MigL Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 I didn't open the door to this old thread, but now that it's open, I'm gonna walk in, and try to get a good discussion going... Eugenics, 'removing', and preventing, undesirables from being born, is bad. Even though it could improve society, and make life better for those remaining. Abortion, removing foetus, and preventing children from being born, is good. Because unwanted children are detrimental to society, and preventing childbirth is better for the parents. I'm not saying either is bad or good, but I would like to hear the logic of those who think there is a huge difference between the two.
zapatos Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 39 minutes ago, MigL said: I didn't open the door to this old thread, but now that it's open, I'm gonna walk in, and try to get a good discussion going... Eugenics, 'removing', and preventing, undesirables from being born, is bad. Even though it could improve society, and make life better for those remaining. Abortion, removing foetus, and preventing children from being born, is good. Because unwanted children are detrimental to society, and preventing childbirth is better for the parents. I'm not saying either is bad or good, but I would like to hear the logic of those who think there is a huge difference between the two. One major difference is that on the one hand you have (presumably) a government body deciding and enforcing that a particular potential person is not worthy. On the other hand you have an individual deciding what is best for her and her unique set of circumstances. The more personal the impact, the more the decision belongs to the individual.
MigL Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 So you would not have a problem with eugenics, if it was on a personal level ? Say families decided to abort handicapped foetus, or females; Or decided to have low IQ children sterilized, etc ? As long as it wasn't state sponsored ? ( I have my personal reasons for the difference, and it is a tenet I've mentioned before on the forum; I would just like to hear others' take on the matter )
CharonY Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 Eugenics does have a different connotation relative the motivation behind abortion. There is the ideology that lives can be a priori divided into desirable and undesirable. While these may factor into individual decisions to various degrees, the idea of eugenics is more societal rather than individual. Of course if everyone in a society subscribe to an ideology that subscribes to that notion, it will become indistinguishable and I would argue that the society is pretty messed up.
zapatos Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 5 minutes ago, MigL said: So you would not have a problem with eugenics, if it was on a personal level ? Say families decided to abort handicapped foetus, or females; Or decided to have low IQ children sterilized, etc ? As long as it wasn't state sponsored ? ( I have my personal reasons for the difference, and it is a tenet I've mentioned before on the forum; I would just like to hear others' take on the matter ) Well, I wouldn't necessarily say I wouldn't have a 'problem' with it. But if the state told me that someone MUST have a fetus aborted I would find that to be unacceptable. If someone decided on their own to have an abortion and the child's handicap was the motivation, I wouldn't try to stop them. Having low IQ children sterilized would be a problem for me. Once a child is in this world they have rights of their own.
StringJunky Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, zapatos said: Well, I wouldn't necessarily say I wouldn't have a 'problem' with it. But if the state told me that someone MUST have a fetus aborted I would find that to be unacceptable. If someone decided on their own to have an abortion and the child's handicap was the motivation, I wouldn't try to stop them. Having low IQ children sterilized would be a problem for me. Once a child is in this world they have rights of their own. I have a problem with this: rights are conferred not borne. Just look at wildlife and tell me the offspring have rights. This post is not intended to support eugenics. One is always at the behest of whatever dominant influences/forces exist. Edited May 18, 2020 by StringJunky
zapatos Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 7 hours ago, StringJunky said: I have a problem with this: rights are conferred not borne. Just look at wildlife and tell me the offspring have rights. This post is not intended to support eugenics. One is always at the behest of whatever dominant influences/forces exist. Yes, I agree with you. I didn't mean to imply the rights were mystically granted. I just meant that a parent should no more be allowed to sterilize a child than a state should be allowed to sterilize one of its adult citizens (under most conditions). Once born, there are (or should be) rights bestowed upon all humans, regardless of age.
Moontanman Posted May 18, 2020 Posted May 18, 2020 Wait!!! You mean we could have fixed this POTUS thing that plagues us by simply stopping that Homo sapiens from having sex with that Pongo noselfestemii???
bryozoa Posted June 5, 2020 Posted June 5, 2020 (edited) Eugenics is the only way to salvage humanity at this late point. The human race has for a long time been stagnating due to dysgenic selection. A new evolutionary mechanism is required to replace sexual selection which has shaped human evolution until now. Human females are still determining which male genes are transmitted to the next generation. Should something as important as this be left to female proclivity? Women are attracted to men with the most elaborate social ornamentation. When a human female selects a male to procreate with, heritable attributes such as agreeableness, conscientiousness and moral character rarely enter into the equation. Such qualities can be detrimental to human males in securing access to females. Men with elaborate social ornamentation but low moral worth have been out-competing virtuous men for centuries in securing access to women. Even more disturbing is the female predilection for 'bad-boys' and thugs. Could it be that humanity is such an aggressive species because women are still predominantly choosing to procreate with aggressive men? If women could be coerced into procreating with men who possess attributes such as above average intelligence, agreeableness, conscientiousness and introversion, the genetic stagnation of humanity may be halted. For this to happen there will have to be a rethink of reproductive ethics. Reproduction should be a privilege not a right and many suitable men will not have the chance to procreate because they are shunned by women. We already have selective breeding in society and always have done. Eugenics is simply correcting the mistakes nature makes by increasing the reproductive productivity of some members of society at the expense of others. Complusory sterilization will become regarded as the highest public duty for the preservation of the racial stock and will be generously incentivized. Communists advocate a planned economy so why not a planned population as well? Edited June 5, 2020 by bryozoa
dimreepr Posted June 5, 2020 Posted June 5, 2020 13 minutes ago, bryozoa said: Eugenics is the only way to salvage humanity at this late point. Imagine the complexity of trying to design a human for a future you have no idea about??? The only answer that makes any sense is, evolution... 28 minutes ago, bryozoa said: Communists advocate a planned economy so why not a planned population as well? Because it doesn't work, they just haven't found out yet...
bryozoa Posted June 5, 2020 Posted June 5, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Imagine the complexity of trying to design a human for a future you have no idea about??? The only answer that makes any sense is, evolution... Because it doesn't work, they just haven't found out yet... Humans have altered the course of natural evolution, just not our own. We've domesticated and modified other organisms but are loathe to apply artificial selection to our own ever increasing luxuriant populations. I agree communism doesn't work but eugenics will. It's high time the writings of Charles Darwin's cousin, the neglected Francis Galton were revived into a neo-Galtonian synthesis which will underpin the eugenic society. Edited June 5, 2020 by bryozoa
dimreepr Posted June 5, 2020 Posted June 5, 2020 (edited) 31 minutes ago, bryozoa said: Humans have altered the course of natural evolution No, we really haven't, we are just a part of it... 31 minutes ago, bryozoa said: It's high time the writings of Charles Darwin's cousin, the neglected Francis Galton were revived into a neo-Galtonian synthesis which will underpin the eugenic society. How? If I were to design a human to live past, panic buying or a shortage of food; they'd have three arms and one leg. Edited June 5, 2020 by dimreepr
Strange Posted June 5, 2020 Posted June 5, 2020 ! Moderator Note Closed pending moderator discussion.
Phi for All Posted June 15, 2020 Posted June 15, 2020 ! Moderator Note The arguments against this concept have been clearly laid out in this thread, and they overwhelm anything that's ever been offered as support. Leaving it open is just a magnet for ignorant replies, so we'll keep it closed, and redirect any future posters to read this thread and see if their argument has been addressed.
Recommended Posts