Opinion of Cory

[DC Al Fine]

When did he say he approved of eugenics?

Oh, several times. "Liberal eugenics" is a thing apparently.

Well geez, the religious right has been "Liberal eugenics" is a thing for years. We were warning about it before it was cool

I guess we stopped listening to your warnings after you announced the downfall of civilization for the 598th time over some minor and common-sense societal reform.

What are you talking about. Civilization has been fallen for quite some time. Why just yesterday I had to defend my camp from raiders...

Gah I've been watching too many post-apocalyptic movies.

[dead0man]

When did he say he approved of eugenics?

Oh, several times. "Liberal eugenics" is a thing apparently.

I believe it got it's start with progressives....or at least they were all over it after it became a thing.

[H. Ross Peron]

One of our most unique posters, awfully reminiscent of the late Christopher Hitchens.

[Antonio the Sixth]

When did he say he approved of eugenics?

Oh, several times. "Liberal eugenics" is a thing apparently.

I believe it got it's start with progressives....or at least they were all over it after it became a thing.

In 1930s Sweden, but not (as far as I know) in 2010s America.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One of our most unique posters, awfully reminiscent of the late Christopher Hitchens.

That's a reasonable, succinct way to describe what (part of) the problem is, yes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I believe that the technical term is 'reprobate'.

[Cory]

I don't see how supporting "an ideology which advocates the use of reproductive and genetic technologies where the choice of enhancing human characteristics and capacities is left to the individual preferences of parents acting as consumers, rather than the public health policies of the state" is so horrible. Maybe if you actually knew what the phrase meant you wouldn't draw such asinine conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics

You people are confusing "liberal eugenics" with the old school eugenics of early 20th century America (hence the association with liberalism) and 1930's/40's Germany. Stop being silly. Parents being able to make their children the best they can be with genetic enhancements is not a bad thing.

Also: I am not an anti-Semite and being annoyed by someone who's signature clearly was meant to imply a child being molested is not a "prude".

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I don't see how supporting "an ideology which advocates the use of reproductive and genetic technologies where the choice of enhancing human characteristics and capacities is left to the individual preferences of parents acting as consumers, rather than the public health policies of the state" is so horrible. Maybe if you actually knew what the phrase meant you wouldn't draw such asinine conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics

You people are confusing "liberal eugenics" with the old school eugenics of early 20th century America (hence the accusation with liberalism) and 1930's/40's Germany. Stop being silly. Parents being able to make their children the best they can be with genetic enhancements is not a bad thing.

Also: I am not an anti-Semite and being annoyed by someone who's signature clearly was meant to imply a child being molested is a "prude".

Cory, to what extent do you think this should be allowed?  If you're referring to the option of having bad genes deleted (i.e. the ones that cause cancer, Alzheimer's, etc.), then I don't think most people here would object to that.  What's controversial is the idea that parents should be allowed to choose how their children look, how smart they are, their gender, sexual orientation, etc.  I do not see what good can come out of allowing human beings to control every single aspect of a person's nature, and I for one oppose that from both a religious and scientific standpoint.

[Cory]

Cory, to what extent do you think this should be allowed?  If you're referring to the option of having bad genes deleted (i.e. the ones that cause cancer, Alzheimer's, etc.), then I don't think most people here would object to that.  What's controversial is the idea that parents should be allowed to choose how their children look, how smart they are, their gender, sexual orientation, etc.  I do not see what good can come out of allowing human beings to control every single aspect of a person's nature, and I for one oppose that from both a religious and scientific standpoint.

I strongly support actively making people smarter, better looking, more fit, ect. It would almost be a waste of the technology not to exploit it to this level. As for other issues, I think there would be no need for things like homosexuality (once the gay gene is isolated no straight people will make their kids gay, and gays will be de facto socially pressured to make their kids straight to conform. I'm not saying this is a goal, just a side-effect) and I don't have a problem with parents choosing their kids gender.

In the world if the future peoples genes will only help them, not hurt them.

The only rules (in my theory) would be:

-You can't deliberately make your kid "dumber" or give them unhealthy traits.

-This technology would be available to everyone, subsidized by the state.

[Cory]

This was Hitler's dream.

No it wasn't. Don't be stupid. Hitler would probably consider my ideology to be a form of "Bolshevism".

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This was Hitler's dream.

No it wasn't. Don't be stupid. Hitler would probably consider my ideology to be a form of "Bolshevism".

....which was just as bad as Nazism....

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This was Hitler's dream.

No it wasn't. Don't be stupid. Hitler would probably consider my ideology to be a form of "Bolshevism".

....which was just as bad as Nazism....

It wasn't, really, and neither is Cory's ideology, but that's a pretty damn low bar.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This was Hitler's dream.

No it wasn't. Don't be stupid. Hitler would probably consider my ideology to be a form of "Bolshevism".

....which was just as bad as Nazism....

It wasn't, really, and neither is Cory's ideology, but that's a pretty damn low bar.

Cory's ideology is not as awful as Nazism, but I still retain that Bolshevism and Maoism probably were both more deadly than Nazism, though not as evil in their actual philosophies.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This was Hitler's dream.

No it wasn't. Don't be stupid. Hitler would probably consider my ideology to be a form of "Bolshevism".

....which was just as bad as Nazism....

It wasn't, really, and neither is Cory's ideology, but that's a pretty damn low bar.

Cory's ideology is not as awful as Nazism, but I still retain that Bolshevism and Maoism probably were both more deadly than Nazism, though not as evil in their actual philosophies.

It's disturbingly hard to quantify this sort of thing, but all right, that's a fair point.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Cory, to what extent do you think this should be allowed?  If you're referring to the option of having bad genes deleted (i.e. the ones that cause cancer, Alzheimer's, etc.), then I don't think most people here would object to that.  What's controversial is the idea that parents should be allowed to choose how their children look, how smart they are, their gender, sexual orientation, etc.  I do not see what good can come out of allowing human beings to control every single aspect of a person's nature, and I for one oppose that from both a religious and scientific standpoint.

I strongly support actively making people smarter, better looking, more fit, ect. It would almost be a waste of the technology not to exploit it to this level. As for other issues, I think there would be no need for things like homosexuality (once the gay gene is isolated no straight people will make their kids gay, and gays will be de facto socially pressured to make their kids straight to conform. I'm not saying this is a goal, just a side-effect) and I don't have a problem with parents choosing their kids gender.

In the world if the future peoples genes will only help them, not hurt them.

The only rules (in my theory) would be:

-You can't deliberately make your kid "dumber" or give them unhealthy traits.

-This technology would be available to everyone, subsidized by the state.

You really don't see how horrifyingly dehumanizing your "ideal society" sounds? Really?

[Cory]

You really don't see how horrifyingly dehumanizing your "ideal society" sounds? Really?

It isn't "dehumanizing". If anything we are unlocking the full potential of our human genes. When people say things like "but what about our humanity!" they are missing the point in that we would still be human. There is nothing inherently good about remaining "natural", if anything I find such a view to be extremely limiting.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

[PJ]

You really don't see how horrifyingly dehumanizing your "ideal society" sounds? Really?

It isn't "dehumanizing". If anything we are unlocking the full potential of our human genes. When people say things like "but what about our humanity!" they are missing the point in that we would still be human. There is nothing inherently good about remaining "natural", if anything I find such a view to be extremely limiting.

You're not changing our minds, we're not changing yours, this is as pointless as debating abortion.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

You really don't see how horrifyingly dehumanizing your "ideal society" sounds? Really?

It isn't "dehumanizing". If anything we are unlocking the full potential of our human genes. When people say things like "but what about our humanity!" they are missing the point in that we would still be human. There is nothing inherently good about remaining "natural", if anything I find such a view to be extremely limiting.

You're not changing our minds, we're not changing yours, this is as pointless as debating abortion.

I guess that's what it comes down to.  I am frightened that there are some (but fortunately not many) people who think we should exchange life for a human ideal of physical perfection, and that some of those people think they can make it more attractive by calling it a "liberal" view.  In fact, it's a downright embarrassment.  I'll leave a quote below that most of us would probably agree with, irrespective of personal religious views:

“Man will always be greater than all that which makes up his body; in fact, he bears the power of thought, which is always directed toward the truth about himself and about the world.” -Pope Benedict XVI

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'll leave a quote below that most of us would probably agree with, irrespective of personal religious views:

“Man will always be greater than all that which makes up his body; in fact, he bears the power of thought, which is always directed toward the truth about himself and about the world.” -Pope Benedict XVI

Indeed, this could very well be the opening of a Rationalist Manifesto.

[Torie]

Cory wants to make a super species through genetic engineering, weeding out inter alia that gay gene he assumes exists? Assuming that I have one (and males were the bods to whom I was attracted from day one thinking back on it), I guess that means I would not have made the cut, and the planet would be Torie free. Somehow that program does not thrill me too much. I can like hanging around, hectoring the youngs, and in fact all generations come to think of it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't know where this silly idea of a "gay gene" comes from. There is nothing I hate more than these people who want to explain every personal characteristic through genetics.

[Cory]

I guess that's what it comes down to.  I am frightened that there are some (but fortunately not many) people who think we should exchange life for a human ideal of physical perfection, and that some of those people think they can make it more attractive by calling it a "liberal" view.  In fact, it's a downright embarrassment. 

How are we "exchanging life"? If anything we are making life better.

[Cory]

Cory wants to make a super species through genetic engineering, weeding out inter alia that gay gene he assumes exists? Assuming that I have one (and males were the bods to whom I was attracted from day one thinking back on it), I guess that means I would not have made the cut, and the planet would be Torie free. Somehow that program does not thrill me too much. I can like hanging around, hectoring the youngs, and in fact all generations come to think of it.

A.) Are you saying you chose to be gay? Or do you think there is a social reason for homosexuality?

B.) "Made the cut". Stop implying an "exterminationist" ideology on my behalf. I am a staunch supporter of marriage equality and an non-discrimination act for gays. As I literally bolded in my statement, I simply think homosexuality would phase out for sociological reasons, not out of a personal animosity for gays.

C.) Is anyone honestly going to say that how people look doesn't affect life? Why should people have to be "ugly" (yes, there is such a thing, let's not kid ourselves)?

By the way: This isn't something "I believe". It is something that is going to happen regardless of anyone's opinion. I just want it to be available to everyone.

[Torie]

I don't know how you inferred that I was stating that you favored exterminating gays Cory (rather you seemed to be interested in a program that would do to the gay community what the Shakers' policy did to the Shaker community).

I admit I'm probably biased Cory. Assuming that there is a gay gene (the most popular theory at the moment is not the gene thing but rather that "gayness"  happens in the womb because of various things going on in there during gestation (my mother by  the way was commencing her long road to blindness about the time that I was conceived due to contracting a rare eye disease that nobody understood at the time (one of those autoimmune diseases that nobody understood then)), the thought of a bunch of Dr. Stangeloves culling out the gay gene and removing gays from the planet repels me. Maybe it can't be stopped, but I will do my darnedest to stand blocking the barbarians from the gate even if alone like the guy facing up to the tanks in Tienamen Square in Beijing.