the sexual orientation of fruit flies - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-03-2005, 07:26 PM   #16
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 11:18 AM
i think anyone who would consider aborting a fetus that has the genetic potential to be gay probably wouldn't believe that anyone is born gay to begin with, they are just defective heterosexuals because they had an overprotective mother and a daddy who wouldn't play catch with them.

and wouldn't this post an interesting dilemma for the pro-life/anti-choice movement which is often -- though certianly not always -- anti-gay.

the only good gay is an aborted gay?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:27 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:18 AM
But you forget that they hate the sin and not the sinner.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:28 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The genetic factors on intelligence are a lot more complex. Religion itself may be the strong retrograde force but by potential a religious fundamentalist can be just as intelligent as you or I.

Secondly there would not be choosing of who would be allowed to be parents, I am not advocating social darwinism.

Giving options to parents over their childs genetic predispositions does not seem like a bad thing.

Creating a post-human society is also not necessarily a bad thing.
(1) "By potential a religious fundamentalist can be just as intelligent as you or I" - I would have to respectfully disagree on that.

(2) I would argue that social darwinisim is by no means bad.

(3) I agree, but I would argue that it depends that society has the right to decide in what parents' hands such choices are placed. If that makes me an elitist, so be it.

(4) I entirely agree.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:29 PM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Yes, and gays tend to be disproportionately wealthy. Go figure.


not quite -- out, urban gay men tend to be disproportionately wealthy. they also tend to be educated, self-confident, and probably as a result of coming to terms with being gay and having the strength to live in a society that is unfriendly if not outright hostile, they are savvy as well.

poor gay people you don't see as much of, but they exist.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:31 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
But you forget that they hate the sin and not the sinner.

the zygote has yet to sin. how is the potential to be gay, which is by definition to sin, any different than the potential to be a mass murderer? is there a sociopath gene?

and they care more about zygotes than about inmates on death row.

are gay zygotes less worthy of fanatical protection than straight zygotes?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:31 PM   #21
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Yes. Improving the human race with genetic engineering seems fine.........
"And while we're at it, lets forbid the undesirable to reproduce--in fact, let's make sure that they can't possibly reproduce by enforcing mandatory sterilization for those who don't measure up, like the mentally, emotionally, or racially unacceptable.

"Well, hell, why bother with that? We'd just have a bunch of non-breeders cluttering up the landscape. Why don't we just kill them all? If we can have production lines to make thing, why can't we have production lines to get rid of things--like undesirable people?

"You see, we just build an airtight building, round them up, shove them in there, lock the doors, and....."

A_Wanderer, that thinking leads to madness. Go take another look at the history books. They used to call it 'eugenics'. They used to call the select few the master race. They used to built gas chambers. And still we mourn....

btw, do you think people are ever going to stop accidentally having babies? they introduced the pill decades ago, but there are still a hell of a lot of unplanned pregnancies. and if you think that anybody is ever going to stop having sex, you're either a virgin or you are not considering the reality...people like to screw.
__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:33 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:18 AM
1) Why? If I were to take Jerry Falwell and Stephen J. Gould clones and raise them in an identical environment without religious fundamentalism and with a solid system for education do you think that they would fare vastly differently?

2) Social Darwinism is itself a bad idea, it treats things born of economic conditions as evolutionary ills, it is 19th Century pseudoscience used to justify a laissez faire approach to society
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:35 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 11:18 AM
should people who would consider abortion on the basis of potential intelligence or undesireable sexual orientation be allowed to be parents?

seems like the kid, bred for perfection though he may be, is going to turn out like shit with such nasty, self-absorbed, soulless parents.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:37 PM   #24
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
should people who would consider abortion on the basis of potential intelligence or undesireable sexual orientation be allowed to be parents?

seems like the kid, bread for perfection though he may be, is going to turn out like shit with such nasty, self-absorbed, soulless parents.
__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:37 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by echo0001

A_Wanderer, that thinking leads to madness. Go take another look at the history books. They used to call it 'eugenics'. They used to call the select few the master race. They used to built gas chambers. And still we mourn....

btw, do you think people are ever going to stop accidentally having babies? they introduced the pill decades ago, but there are still a hell of a lot of unplanned pregnancies. and if you think that anybody is ever going to stop having sex, you're either a virgin or you are not considering the reality...people like to screw.
Oh please, the needless Nazi comparisons add nothing to the conversation, this has nothing to do with creating a master race to rule over the rest. That is like me saying that if you advocate a national healthcare service then you will want to recreate the killing fields because that line of thinking leads to communism.

No, I do not think that people are going to stop having sex, but I think that some when they choose to have kids would be willing to give their child every possible advantage.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:38 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

2) Social Darwinism is itself a bad idea, it treats things born of economic conditions as evolutionary ills, it is 19th Century pseudoscience used to justify a laissez faire approach to society
No, if one has the point of view (as I do) that the Earth is already vastly overpopulated, then one can very legitimately argue in favour of social darwinism.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:38 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
should people who would consider abortion on the basis of potential intelligence or undesireable sexual orientation be allowed to be parents?

seems like the kid, bred for perfection though he may be, is going to turn out like shit with such nasty, self-absorbed, soulless parents.
No they should not, there can be reasons for abortion but the roll of the sexual dice is not one of them.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:42 PM   #28
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 04:18 PM
1984 meets Brave New World


we're fucked.
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:42 PM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 11:18 AM
i think this, then, poses an interesting question for parents or parents-to-be out there: if you knew your child had a strong genetic disposition (for lack of better word ... forgive me, i majored in English not Biology), would you raise him/her any differently? this doesn't have to be a negative thing ... would you take him to movies that had positive gay role models? would you explain sex as "when two people love each other very much and they want to show each other how much they love each other ..." or when asked, "where do babies come from?" would you reply, "China, or sometimes Romania"?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:43 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


No, if one has the point of view (as I do) that the Earth is already vastly overpopulated, then one can very legitimately argue in favour of social darwinism.
It is (generally) wrong to have a system that prevents certain people from reproducing.

If you have a problem with overpopulation you do not do it by culling humanity or sterilising those that some outside force considers unfit. You adress the issues of poverty and suffering. The population will eventually find it's own ideal state again.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com