Spirituality
23 Nov 06
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt is just a pose. He'll agree with it in due time.
[b]I wasn't aware that salvation was one of the intended properties of birth control.
I'm not sure how that follows from what I've written.
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.
Then there's some hope left yet. 🙂[/b]
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerHysteria is always a welcome response.
[b]Paragraph 1 is a non sequitur to a discussion of whether we should attempt to breed humans with particular abilities.
Really? Were we talking about breeding humans to have disabilities? Or to have below-average intelligence? Or to be tone deaf? Or to be completely rubbish at dancing?
Paragraph 2 gets a so what from me. No one can reall ...[text shortened]... ty.
Maybe. But I didn't say I would provide reasons specific to your view of morality.[/b]
Saying someone has superior abilities in a certain field isn't saying they are instrinsically "superior" to other humans. Mike Tyson has superior boxing abilities but I wouldn't consider him a "superior" human being. This point seems rather self-evident.
Paragraph 2 remains of no consequence. What one can do to a horse or a cow is morally different from what one can do to a human. Trying to state the situation would be analogous is a red herring and scare mongering.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeI was listening to Dawkins on Radio 4 this morning and his theory of how religion is a manifestation of certain genes competing for survival.
.... interesting thought, LH ....
As I said before, I'm just waiting for him to put that together with (what appears to be) an increasingly positive view of eugenics before coming up with the obvious.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by StarrmanYou are "not necessarily" in favour of eugenics .....
I'm not necessarily in favour of eugenics, but, like Dawkins, I am in favour of intelligent debate on the issue as well as a clarification of what constitutes eugenics and whether there are both good and bad uses of it. Unfortunately, as whodey and others have demonstrated, you mention the word and the bandwagon rolls into town.
You do not know yourself nor do you know the ideology you adhere to.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerHello, Chicken Little. Watch out for chunks of sky.
I was listening to Dawkins on Radio 4 this morning and his theory of how religion is a manifestation of certain genes competing for survival.
As I said before, I'm just waiting for him to put that together with (what appears to be) an increasingly positive view of eugenics before coming up with the obvious.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSaying someone has superior abilities in a certain field isn't saying they are instrinsically "superior" to other humans.
Hysteria is always a welcome response.
Saying someone has superior abilities in a certain field isn't saying they are instrinsically "superior" to other humans. Mike Tyson has superior boxing abilities but I wouldn't consider him a "superior" human being. This point seems rather self-evident.
Paragraph 2 remains of no consequence. ...[text shortened]... an. Trying to state the situation would be analogous is a red herring and scare mongering.
Thanks for stating the obvious (and restating what I wrote earlier). But breeding someone for a particular ability does mean that that ability is viewed in some way and by some people in a manner that confers superiority on that person.
What one can do to a horse or a cow is morally different from what one can do to a human. Trying to state the situation would be analogous is a red herring and scare mongering.
It's not "scare mongering" to state the obvious. Since Dawkins himself raises the question of breeding as with cows and horses I don't see why we shouldn't continue to look at what happens to cows and horses.
Tell me, if a parent spends a lot of money to breed a child to be the next Mozart and the child refuses to pursue music once he's reached an age of decision, can the parent sue his child for the damages incurred?
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAgain irrational reasoning from your side. You refuse to go into matters. You refuse to see the relationship between certain ideas. Your reputation of big blind elephant is strenghtened by this attitude of yours.
Hello, Chicken Little. Watch out for chunks of sky.
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeHe really doesn't care. As long as society and folk don't stand in the way of his pleasures and "freedoms", it doesn't matter whether the world goes to hell.
Again irrational reasoning from your side. You refuse to go into matters. You refuse to see the relationship between certain ideas. Your reputation of big blind elephant is strenghtened by this attitude of yours.