Culling bad genes

[poxpower]

For? Against?

Popular arguments:

PRO
- Stronger gene pool ( less diseases, better-looking, taller, smarter etc. )
- Less handicaps and social parasites
- No more Bryan Pepper

CONS
- Smaller gene pool may eventually make us vulnerable to some horrible plague
- Slippery slope --> what's enough of a defect to warrant killing a baby?
- "monstrous" ( whatever )

====================

I am personally all for it. And before you complain, think about this: humans have the biggest wangs of all apes/monkeys. So you can thank our ancestor's wives for picking out the males with the biggest, meatiest sticks as mates. Otherwise we'd all have pencil penises like this baboon here:

[fli]

I'm for it...
but only because that would mean you would be the first one out...

[PowerRangerYELLOW]

Jeans are awesome but i think we should do away with acid washed jeans.

[Ravariel]

For, absolutely! However, it should be done with genetic modification, not murdering people. Weak genes will die in less than 100 years... think long term and go for the win through mere numbers.

[Conspiracy3]

I'm for it on two conditions

1. People are removed from the gene pool by sterilization and not murder
2. Great care is taken to ensure the proper criteria for removal (don't want to end up like the Nazis)

[poxpower]

At 1/12/09 05:22 PM, Ravariel wrote: For, absolutely! However, it should be done with genetic modification, not murdering people.

Well it's not that easy...
Fortunately we live in an age of hope. Though I imagine that's what people thought in the middle ages too, like maybe the fairy Godmother would fix Quasimodo babies.

At 1/12/09 05:30 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

1. People are removed from the gene pool by sterilization and not murder

..Yes....yes of course
>_>
<_<
That's... that's what I was thinking about too...
>_>
<_<

[dySWN]

Against. Slippery slope, etc.

[Masterzakk]

Aslong as I get to hit retards in the head with my bloody claymore I will support you poxpowers.
However on what you think superiority is.

[thedo12]

im all for it,

eventualy we should be able to alter the genes of thoose already alive.

[dySWN]

At 1/12/09 05:30 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I'm for it on two conditions

1. People are removed from the gene pool by sterilization and not murder

If people can't even agree on if circumcision violates a person's rights, then how can we possibly expect people to vote for something so much more extreme?

2. Great care is taken to ensure the proper criteria for removal (don't want to end up like the Nazis)

So who gets to decide what constitutes "weak genes?" Genetic diseases are obvious, but eventually we might just be able to remove those with gene therapy. Other traits may have no obvious effect until the next great plague or famine hits.

[Armake21truth]

LOL, I wonder how many people saying that they're for it would actually be weeded out by it.

[Zeistro]

I'm all for genetic engineering. Natural selection doesn't seem as effective when it comes to the human race plus we could genetically augment females to be more attractive and have larger breasts. It's a win-win as far as I'm concerned.

[Al6200]

I don't support it, because I don't think that being smarter will make people happier. People want to be smart, but I'd imagine that most people don't really care about being smart, they care about being smarter than other people.

Also, it seems cruel to not let people raise a family if they want to because their genes aren't very good. I would be very sad and lonely if I did not have the chance to get married and have kids.

[ImaSmartass2]

Well I'm for this. Of course there will be some restrictions. Although If you are going to make a pros/cons list, at least TRY to make some cons that actually might defeat your pros Pox.

[Armake21truth]

At 1/12/09 07:03 PM, Zeistro wrote: I'm all for genetic engineering. Natural selection doesn't seem as effective when it comes to the human race plus we could genetically augment females to be more attractive and have larger breasts. It's a win-win as far as I'm concerned.

LOL touche, gene therapy looks good on paper but I wonder how it would play out. Genetically superior people may not live as long, be more prone to anger, or evolve poorly. I think before we start genetically engineering people we need to fully study the possible effects.

[dySWN]

At 1/12/09 07:31 PM, Armake21truth wrote:

At 1/12/09 07:03 PM, Zeistro wrote: I'm all for genetic engineering. Natural selection doesn't seem as effective when it comes to the human race plus we could genetically augment females to be more attractive and have larger breasts. It's a win-win as far as I'm concerned.

LOL touche, gene therapy looks good on paper but I wonder how it would play out. Genetically superior people may not live as long, be more prone to anger, or evolve poorly. I think before we start genetically engineering people we need to fully study the possible effects.

SOLUTION: Somatic gene therapy. Just don't make germ-line alterations, and the race goes on like normal if it turns out we made a mistake later on.

[Armake21truth]

At 1/12/09 09:44 PM, dySWN wrote:
SOLUTION: Somatic gene therapy. Just don't make germ-line alterations, and the race goes on like normal if it turns out we made a mistake later on.

Hmm, I guess I'll have to leave it at that, seeing as I don't know what you're talking about.

[AntiangelicAngel]

Cons: Sieg heil!

Seriously, though. "Culling" of bad genes is should be the choice of those with bad genes. Reproductive rights is an important concept outside of the controversial realm of abortion. Any person who has not committed an action by which they sacrifice their right to bear children (I.e. murdering or molesting children) should be permitted to have children. However, were I an albino obese diabetic with MS and asthma as well as several other "defects", and I felt I would be able to raise a child, I'd select adoption. (Ideally, I want to adopt someday because there are too many children that need homes as it is. I don't need my own kid.)

[Dawnslayer]

At 1/12/09 04:58 PM, poxpower wrote: For? Against?

Popular arguments:

PRO
- Stronger gene pool ( less diseases, better-looking, taller, smarter etc. )
- Less handicaps and social parasites
- No more Bryan Pepper

Define "disease." (And Hitler used the same argument.)
Define "handicap." (Hitler again.)
Who?

CONS
- Smaller gene pool may eventually make us vulnerable to some horrible plague
- Slippery slope --> what's enough of a defect to warrant killing a baby?
- "monstrous" ( whatever )

Not only possible, but likely.
Define "defect."
If you're sterilizing a functioning member of society, yes.

====================

I am personally all for it. And before you complain, think about this: humans have the biggest wangs of all apes/monkeys. So you can thank our ancestor's wives for picking out the males with the biggest, meatiest sticks as mates. Otherwise we'd all have pencil penises like this baboon here:

Against. This is why (note the sig below).

And I couldn't care less about what kind of penis we evolved.

[KronikAvenger]

im not for it because the government would probably have control over it and they would probably make this world "perfect" in their eyes therefor it would be a terribal place

[Armake21truth]

At 1/13/09 12:26 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:
Define "disease." (And Hitler used the same argument.)
Define "handicap." (Hitler again.)
Who?

I have indeed heard rumors that poxpower is a bigot, so that's not far fetched. :D

[MultiCanimefan]

Is this another attempt at physical immortality? You can cull all the bad genes you want, that's not going to change the fact that nothing will last forever and we will all eventually be destroyed.

Anyway, I'm on the fence with this issue. It should be up to the people who have these "bad" and/or "diseased" to change them.

[poxpower]

At 1/12/09 05:39 PM, dySWN wrote: Against. Slippery slope, etc.

Unlike all the other laws and measures ever put in place on earth...

At 1/12/09 05:53 PM, dySWN wrote:

If people can't even agree on if circumcision violates a person's rights, then how can we possibly expect people to vote for something so much more extreme?

That can also apply to 100% of every law ever.

Other traits may have no obvious effect until the next great plague or famine hits.

There's tons, like higher muscle mass, better senses, bones, better immune system.. there's so many ways in which you can be genetically better.

At 1/12/09 07:10 PM, Al6200 wrote:

Also, it seems cruel to not let people raise a family if they want to because their genes aren't very good. I would be very sad and lonely if I did not have the chance to get married and have kids.

Who said anything about not raising a family? Raise all the families you want. You just can't pass your genes if they suck ass.

At 1/12/09 07:11 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: Although If you are going to make a pros/cons list, at least TRY to make some cons that actually might defeat your pros Pox.

Not my fault if there aren't any.

At 1/12/09 11:47 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

Seriously, though. "Culling" of bad genes is should be the choice of those with bad genes.

No, since they'd pick to have kids anyway. I think all males should be sterilized when they turn 10 and then females can only get pregnant with tube babies.
Now that would rule. No more ghetto babies and inbreeding. You can marry your sister and still have a normal baby!

And after 2 generations of this, it becomes normal and no one can imagine ever living in any other way.

I would be the best dictator EVER.

Reproductive rights

No one has "rights" in a society. You have all the rights you want if you live on your island. When you live in a society, you have privileges and responsibilities. Which can all be altered at any point. ALL OF THEM. ALL THE TIME.

At 1/13/09 12:26 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

Define "disease." (And Hitler used the same argument.)

OH WAIT HITLER DID IT? I'LL STOP THEN. SHIT HE ALSO WEARS CLOTHES..NOOOOOOO NUDISTS ARE ON TO SOMETHING I KNEW IT.

Anyway there's conditions that are passed through genes. So fuck those. No one wants crooked eyes and weak hip bones.

If you're sterilizing a functioning member of society, yes.

Wait I forgot what part of having sperm helps you do your job. Unless you're a bukkake film maker...hmmm

And I couldn't care less about what kind of penis we evolved.

Just because you're on the internet doesn't mean we can't know when you're lying.

At 1/13/09 01:02 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Is this another attempt at physical immortality?

No, I'm already born. I can't avoid having birth defects anymore.

It should be up to the people who have these "bad" and/or "diseased" to change them.

Hell no, autistic kids can't take decisions. The world should be a democracy of the smart. A smartocracy, with the top, say, 1-2% smartest people calling the shots. Everyone else would still vote but their votes wouldn't be counted.

WIN

[MultiCanimefan]

Just one question pox: Why?

Now, I'm not questioning the idea of having better senses, bones, immune systems and etc., because that's kick ass.

However, what I am questioning is why you think everyone would want to be practically superhuman. They might say you're taking the human element out of hard work, determination, and the emotional over-coming-all-odds thing, too.

Also, wouldn't people have less fun and be less happy because they're practically perfect? What exactly would there be to do and/or strive towards with these superior genes and bodies? Really, what is the whole point of it all? If it's not for immortality, then really, what it is for?

[Brick-top]

At 1/13/09 12:26 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Define "disease." (And Hitler used the same argument.)
Define "handicap." (Hitler again.)
Who?

So you're saying medical research to prevent genetic birth defects or become immune to fatal dieases are hitler?

DOCTORS ARE EVIL!!

[poxpower]

At 1/13/09 02:14 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

However, what I am questioning is why you think everyone would want to be practically superhuman.

I just assume stupid things sometimes.

They might say you're taking the human element out of hard work, determination, and the emotional over-coming-all-odds thing, too.

You can't overcome looking like Bryan Pepper with sheer willpower.

Also, wouldn't people have less fun and be less happy because they're practically perfect?

No.

[TheJamoke]

I for one an totally against this idea of genetic filtering, and I'll tell you why. The world needs the fat, ugly and "deformed." If we were a society of Adonises ("Adoni," the plural?) walking around with our flowing locks, hard pecs and well toned, glistening hamstrings we'd be humorless chumps. If that guy who broke a glass mason jar in his ass looked like Tony Curtis circa 1955 do you think he'd have done what he did in the first place? No, and because he's most likely a fuck-ugly chud I got to laugh at his misfortune for hours on end before I got kicked out of the library.

Without ugly people TV and movies would become boring and trite. If everyone was perfect, we'd have no Danny DeVitos or Rhea Perlmans to pepper our sitcoms with and then Nick-at-Nite would really suck. We need those "interesting" looking people to play side characters and fill background roles and even the occasional lead. I mean let's face it, John Turturro ain't a handsome man by any stadards, but damn does he turn out some fine cinema alongside a Clooney or Depp.

We also would have missed out on Rodney Dangerfield, and screw that noise right off.

I'll tell ya one thing right now, I wouldn't have gotten laid even half as much in high school if it weren't for the "ugly friend" girls bring to parties to make themselves look hotter, that and the power of low standards and beer goggles. I can't remember any of their names, but God bless those young ladies nonetheless and the low self esteem society instilled in them with makeup ads and anorexic underwear models. Without that need to strive to be something better than what you are despite the chance that it will never happen no matter how much money you spend, my wilkins would have been dry as an AA meeting on a Sunday because I wouldn't have had a freakin' SHOT with any of those thin, high-maintenance chicks like you see on Dawson's Creek, even if I drove a Porsche and had a hundred dollar bill hanging out of my fly.

Three cheers for imperfection, people, and those that benefit from it.

[AntiangelicAngel]

At 1/13/09 01:33 AM, poxpower wrote:

No one has "rights" in a society. You have all the rights you want if you live on your island. When you live in a society, you have privileges and responsibilities. Which can all be altered at any point. ALL OF THEM. ALL THE TIME.

Well then, there's just no arguing with you. However, there seems to be a vague notion I remember somewhere that the government is to protect basic rights, and if it fails to do so, we have the right to bring about rebellion or reform. I can't quite remember where I heard that, though...

Oh. Right:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Leeloo-Minai]

The Preamble is just that, a preamble. Outlawing booze uses the same logic as outlawing sub-standard children.

So it's funny when nature throws the curveball and gives the genetically pure couple a child with pox's outward appearance and inward demeanor.

Then you'd have to grant them the retroactive abortion they were told by the government (SOCIETY!) they wouldn't have to have.

Makes sense to me.

[dySWN]

At 1/13/09 01:33 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/12/09 05:53 PM, dySWN wrote:

If people can't even agree on if circumcision violates a person's rights, then how can we possibly expect people to vote for something so much more extreme?

That can also apply to 100% of every law ever.

missingthepoint.jpg