Spirituality
23 Nov 06
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeA claim that someone will eventually discuss something is bound to be true, so you hardly gain the status of a prophet for saying so.
Can't you see that the whole circus of the abortion, euthanasia and stemcell research debate will start all over, but now about eugenics.
I claimed that the euthanasia discussion would lead to a discussion to kill those not being able to utter their wishes and see what has happened, despite the claim from your side that this was not going to happen. It w ...[text shortened]... s and under carefully designed rukes for monitoring the eugenics processes. Right, marauder ?
You and others are equivocating with the term "eugenics"; perhaps we can get back to the issue Dawkins raised i.e. whether attempting to breed humans so that they have certain abilities is "morally acceptable" or not. This issue is clearly distinct from your other pet issues (at least as far as I'm concerned and you haven't given any rational reason to link them).
23 Nov 06
1 edit
... and again the burden of proof regarding moral acceptability of eugenics is not laid on the shoulders of those putting forward the idea, but on those who are against it .... the beat goes on ... and the manipulating goes on.
Nice political tactics ... put forward an idea and if nobody is able, and nobody will be able in the eyes of those in favour, the idea is morally acceptable.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by teleriontelerion: "It's pretty clear from it that he does not support eugenics."
I'm just reading the passage. It's pretty clear from it that he does not support eugenics. It's only your insatiable desire to demonize non-believers that causes you to see it any other way.
Obviously you don't like Dawkins for many reasons. You hardly need to put words into his mouth to dislike him.
Are you sure ? Don't be so damned naïve. Of course he's in favour of it.
23 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerParagraph 1 is a non sequitur to a discussion of whether we should attempt to breed humans with particular abilities. I didn't hear Dawkins saying people who have mathematical or musical abilities are "superior" to the rest of humanity.
Sure.
Eugenics presupposes that a certain class of people (with the traits we want to breed for) are "superior" to the rest of humanity -- not merely that they have superior abilities in a particular sphere of human endeavour, but that they are intrinsically superior; i.e. have greater worth, value and/or dignity. Training a person to develop the a a utilitarian or pseudo-utilitarian model of morality, these would come into consideration.
Paragraph 2 gets a so what from me. No one can really be compelled to follow any particular field whether they were "bred" for it or not. This is a red herring.
Paragraph 3 is irrelevant to my viewpoint as I did not subscribe to utilitarian or pseudo-utilitarian (whatever that is) models of morality.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by whodeyI'm not dismissing anything. Clearly you are applying as liberal an interpretation to my posts as you are to Dawkins'.
Is'nt it funny how people can dismiss the morality and/or perspectives of people who lived in times past when they are so blantantly and obviously contrary and wrong in our own eyes today? This is what happens when one allows themselves to adapt to the morality/perspectives of the culture in which they reside instead of holding themselves to a higher moral a ...[text shortened]... aivering and which may or may not run contrary to the common accepted morality/view of the day.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI will even predict that you are or will be in favour of eugenics.
A claim that someone will eventually discuss something is bound to be true, so you hardly gain the status of a prophet for saying so.
You and others are equivocating with the term "eugenics"; perhaps we can get back to the issue Dawkins raised i.e. whether attempting to breed humans so that they have certain abilities is "morally acceptable" o ...[text shortened]... (at least as far as I'm concerned and you haven't given any rational reason to link them).
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder; " .... at least as far as I'm concerned and you haven't given any rational reason to link them"
A claim that someone will eventually discuss something is bound to be true, so you hardly gain the status of a prophet for saying so.
You and others are equivocating with the term "eugenics"; perhaps we can get back to the issue Dawkins raised i.e. whether attempting to breed humans so that they have certain abilities is "morally acceptable" o ...[text shortened]... (at least as far as I'm concerned and you haven't given any rational reason to link them).
Haven't I ? You still can't read.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy don't you define what you mean by "eugenics" and I'll tell you whether I'm in favor of it (though I'd rather stick to the topic of breeding humans to possess certain abilities which apparently you don't regard as the full scope of eugenics).
I will even predict that you are or will be in favour of eugenics.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI wasn't aware that salvation was one of the intended properties of birth control.
And that sure helped save civilisation, didn't it?
If racism was prevalent then, something else is prevalent now. As I said earlier, I'm just waiting for Dawkins to put his views on eugenics together with his theories on religious genes to argue that religious folk should not be allowed to breed.
Prejudice is always present and would be even if we were all god-abiding Christians. I'm as fearful of the intentions of religious figureheads as I am of secular ones on the subject of human nature; eugenics is just one of the issues of worry.