Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Eugenics

funnybrad333
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 4:54:02 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Discuss.

This was brought from the science forums because most people are not aware of such a forum.
If I didn't answer what you said, try bolding the important part.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:01:06 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
People were aware
They just didn't care
'Cause you know if I were mod
I'd wave my banning rod
And this thread would be locked
And then you'd be all shocked.

such literary merit, i know. no need to applaud.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
funnybrad333
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:05:03 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I fully and wholeheartedly support the practice of eugenics, and I hope someone believes the opposite.
If I didn't answer what you said, try bolding the important part.
funnybrad333
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:18:07 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Well, I would, but I do not like online debate. It lacks... debate.

A forum discussion is as close to a conversation as possible without sacrificing anyone's privacy.

Please, someone take a stance against Eugenics. I'll defend eugenics in ANY SENSE!
If I didn't answer what you said, try bolding the important part.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:22:14 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Okay then. I am against eugenics in the sense of rape. People should not rape people for the purpose of improving reproduction via artificial selection of genetically superior victims. This is because rape is a disrespect of the rights of liberty and property, and leads to results concurrent with that, results which are dangerous to the rapist far beyond any possible benefit he could get.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
funnybrad333
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 5:39:49 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Hmm tough one.

I condone said action because it would be for the greater utility of society.

For society to exist, certain freedoms must be relinquished in order to provide security of other freedoms. It is not society's job to intervene in the act of copulation. Now, if the rapist gives a virus or STD to the victim, that would be an unlawful and immoral act and should be dealt with accordingly. But rape without damage or death or disease should be condoned if it is for the improvement of our gene pool. This would in turn make future generations more capable of survival, allowing our society to prosper with less difficulty, and eventually allow new discoveries and inventions to occur, also increasing the general welfare of society.
If I didn't answer what you said, try bolding the important part.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2008 6:18:40 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/12/2008 5:39:49 PM, funnybrad333 wrote:
Hmm tough one.

I condone said action because it would be for the greater utility of society.

There can be no utility to society aside from that derivable from the utility to individuals. And it is not beneficial to the one raped, nor, when the drive of the very large class of people who dislike rape and everything which violates the same principle as rape for revenge/punishment/disablement of rapists is factored in, is it beneficial for the rapist. Indeed, it harms him almost as much as the raped- he exposes himself to a huge number of people who wish to slaughter him, all for the momentary fulfillment of the whim. It is the agent's benefit which is taken into account in an action when choosing such an action, morality is simply a code for choosing actions.


For society to exist, certain freedoms must be relinquished in order to provide security of other freedoms.
"Freedom" in a political context is the prohibition of the initiation of force and fraud. The relinquishment of any consequence of it makes the whole that much more likely to follow.

This would in turn make future generations more capable of survival, allowing our society to prosper with less difficulty, and eventually allow new discoveries and inventions to occur, also increasing the general welfare of society.
That is by it's very nature an ad hoc argument, because you've introduced the principle that one must sacrifice to others-- when this happens, those other's "benefits" must, to be logically consistent, also be sacrificed, and so on and so forth. Everyone paying into an eternal account, and none may ever collect, according to the altruist ethics you imply.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ethanthedebater1
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 2:25:53 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
EUGENICS IS SATANISM!!

Now that I have let my anger out about eugenics, we can have a rational discussion.

Eugenics, as I have seen it defined most frequently, is letting only the fit reproduce. In a sense, forced evolution. However, this means forcibly preventing the "unfit" from reproducing, AND determining "fit" and "unfit." I mean, what is "fit" what is "unfit"? You cannot objectively make such a decision. Also, any justification through consequentialist ethics is idiotic, as consequentialism makes subjective value statements.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2008 3:40:59 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 11/13/2008 2:25:53 PM, Ethanthedebater1 wrote:
EUGENICS IS SATANISM!!

Now that I have let my anger out about eugenics, we can have a rational discussion.

Eugenics, as I have seen it defined most frequently, is letting only the fit reproduce. In a sense, forced evolution. However, this means forcibly preventing the "unfit" from reproducing, AND determining "fit" and "unfit." I mean, what is "fit" what is "unfit"? You cannot objectively make such a decision. Also, any justification through consequentialist ethics is idiotic, as consequentialism makes subjective value statements.

The concept need not necessarily be forced on a population though. Margaret Sanger was a proponent of Eugenics, and her 'Family Planning' is a program that, in a way, helps to limit the reproduction of those not ready or unfit to have or raise a child. Spreading awareness of contraceptives to potential teenage parents, and also prenatal genetic testing/counciling are forms of eugenics with positive results.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 12:39:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 12:29:24 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Aaaaand I just necro-posted.

This is spam.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 1:11:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2008 2:25:53 PM, Ethanthedebater1 wrote:
EUGENICS IS SATANISM!!

Now that I have let my anger out about eugenics, we can have a rational discussion.

Eugenics, as I have seen it defined most frequently, is letting only the fit reproduce. In a sense, forced evolution. However, this means forcibly preventing the "unfit" from reproducing, AND determining "fit" and "unfit." I mean, what is "fit" what is "unfit"? You cannot objectively make such a decision. Also, any justification through consequentialist ethics is idiotic, as consequentialism makes subjective value statements.

That's not necessarily true. I think it could be considered eugenics to do DNA therapy to get rid of certain genetic diseases as well, or to increase average IQ. You don't really need to control, who does or does not reproduce.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 10:20:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So fascinating forum post.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'