Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[yash]

i think people with bad genes should not have kids and let an other human being suffer the same kind of pain they go through,any thoughts?

[Highest]

i think people with bad genes should not have kids and let an other human being suffer the same kind of pain they go through,any thoughts?

Define bad genetics?

[PerfectBody]

Incel topic. This is a forum for people interested in limb lengthening. Get a therapist.

[pandemic_exploiter]

If we're talking about extremely bad autosomal dominant genes that would cause chronic pain / complications (and there's no way to select against it pre-fertilization) then I would say adoption is a good choice. Wouldn't deny someone the ubiquitous once-in-a-lifetime experience of raising a kid. That said, procreation is literally the meaning of life

[Medium Drink Of Water]

I agree.  Eugenics is fantastic; it would solve so many problems.  Too bad it got conflated with racism, so good luck getting people to accept it now.

[HateLAPELoveSTEM]

Dude chill out. Bad genetics are just guaranteing higher possibiltiie of bad characters and it is very absurd to ignore the haphazard.

[zaozari]

i think people with bad genes should not have kids and let an other human being suffer the same kind of pain they go through,any thoughts?

Like nazys, cattle or dogs race selection?

[HateLAPELoveSTEM]

If we're talking about extremely bad autosomal dominant genes that would cause chronic pain / complications (and there's no way to select against it pre-fertilization) then I would say adoption is a good choice. Wouldn't deny someone the ubiquitous once-in-a-lifetime experience of raising a kid. That said, procreation is literally the meaning of life

Life itself is meaningless and the meanings can vary from this person to another. Reproducing is not the meaning of everyone's life and it's kinda like a philosophic conundrum.

[yash]

Life itself is meaningless and the meanings can vary from this person to another. Reproducing is not the meaning of everyone's life and it's kinda like a philosophic conundrum.

I agree with you mate..

[zaozari]

If we're talking about extremely bad autosomal dominant genes that would cause chronic pain / complications (and there's no way to select against it pre-fertilization) then I would say adoption is a good choice. Wouldn't deny someone the ubiquitous once-in-a-lifetime experience of raising a kid. That said, procreation is literally the meaning of life

It will soon be possible to eliminate or "correcting"  gene mutations causing severe diseases, handicaps and suffering,  either pre or immediatly post fertilisation with technologies such as CRISPR.

Altough this may also open the way to eugenics, which may be dangerous because soon will be people wanting to make rankings of "quality" of human beings for example for reasons of insurance and recruitment and even nazy type discrimination (pseudo validated by science), this is ANOTHER reason to avoid that absurd, racist idea of selecting and preventing anybody from having sons.

[Medium Drink Of Water]

Dude chill out. Bad genetics are just guaranteing higher possibiltiie of bad characters and it is very absurd to ignore the haphazard.

Exactly, but why not prevent the high-risk parents from taking those risks that society and civilization have to suffer and be held back for when they don't work out?

Life itself is meaningless and the meanings can vary from this person to another. Reproducing is not the meaning of everyone's life and it's kinda like a philosophic conundrum.

Indeed.  Life has no "meaning".  Anthropologist/Mythologist/Philosopher Joseph Campbell's answer to "what is the meaning of life?" was that you're asking the wrong question.  Like trying to figure out whether "This sentence is false." is true or not.

[Medium Drink Of Water]

this is ANOTHER reason to avoid that absurd, racist idea of preventing anybody from having sons.

Another guy playing the race card on what could be a completely non-racial issue.  Eugenics doesn't have to mean healthy, intelligent black people and Jewish people need to be wiped out.  Everything Hitler liked isn't necessarily always bad, and everything he hated isn't necessarily always good.

[zaozari]

i think people with bad genes should not have kids and let an other human being suffer the same kind of pain they go through,any thoughts?

Evaluating you by your height 12 cm below US average, would you say you have bad genes and shouldn't have been born?

[yash]

Evaluating you by your height 12 cm below US average, would you say you have bad genes and shouldn't have been born?

Well no one's talking about height as the only factor..because it's correctable by early detection and treatment...i was talking about multiple undesirable traits, all of which require special treatment.i feel adoption is definitely a better option for such prospective parents instead of letting a child suffer from depression until he reaches mental maturity..

[yash]

Evaluating you by your height 12 cm below US average, would you say you have bad genes and shouldn't have been born?

ifnit were for a single trait, I would never have made this post..I don't want to delve deeper into this for personal reasons

[zaozari]

Another guy playing the race card on what could be a completely non-racial issue.  Eugenics doesn't have to mean healthy, intelligent black people and Jewish people need to be wiped out.  Everything Hitler liked isn't necessarily always bad, and everything he hated isn't necessarily always good.

I am not "playing any card". I think it was maybe not your intention but it is conceptually a racist idea also. For example,  the gene for sickle cell anemia is more common in Africa (while other "nature" diverse issues occur elsewhere). Who would decide who can and  who can't have children? Having children is a responsibility but also a right of human beings. And as I said soon we will be able to prevent (and treat) genetic diseases). But it's not the same as the other guy calls "bad genes". What the f*** are "bad genes"? Not a single scientist understands that idea.
Einstein for example had fuc***** "bad genes" for height, maybe... but maybe other "better" genes than ourselves here. And what about culture, nature and epigenetic phenomena?
Sorry, but not allowing some people from having children is just a simplistic, dangerous, inhuman, totally outdated idea.

Regarding adoption I would also prefer more people do it than "forcing" biology in cases of really bad fertility health. But it's not others' decision...

PS: Hitler's good ideas?! Like what?! ( it's a rethoric question, I won't even respond)

[zaozari]

Well no one's talking about height as the only factor..because it's correctable by early detection and treatment...i was talking about multiple undesirable traits, all of which require special treatment.i feel adoption is definitely a better option for such prospective parents instead of letting a child suffer from depression until he reaches mental maturity..

Just to add that except extreme cases,  it's not detectable until adolescence, because individual growth curves are different. And it's not allways "treatable" neither. Prescription of Human Growth Hormone fails half of the times. And then, only partially solving, more or less out proportions, risky and expensive CLL...


(I see you had surgery recently.  I wish you all the best and didn't want  to annoy)

[YungGud]

Gtfo to all incels around this forum

[zaozari]

In this topic, you included?

[AimHigh]

married 35 years,4 kids (2 are nurses, one with Post grad quals in obgyn) 11 grandkids, 130 IQ, 7 inch d*ck, 160 k income, 20 BMI, 950 Testosterone (natural), house , cars, Hons degree in Elec Eng, work in Med Eng helping cancer patients - srs GTFO with ur eugenics cr@p.

[HateLAPELoveSTEM]

I agree with you mate..

So now you can GTFO with your stupid stuffs and never come here again to spew eugenic sts I'm begging of you.

[HateLAPELoveSTEM]

married 35 years,4 kids (2 are nurses, one with Post grad quals in obgyn) 11 grandkids, 130 IQ, 7 inch d*ck, 160 k income, 20 BMI, 950 Testosterone (natural), house , cars, Hons degree in Elec Eng, work in Med Eng helping cancer patients - srs GTFO with ur eugenics cr@p.

How did you test your IQ? I never took this kind of werid thinig srsly cuz IQ includes all of cognitive functions of brain areas and cognitions vary a lot from this individual to another.

[AimHigh]

I am not gonna pretend an IQ equates to much in the real world (I am sure a good work ethic trumps IQ in most jobs..), or that there aren't many measures of IQ (eg musical artistic kinesthetic etc) ofc, and no doubt there are many different abilities that aren't tested in IQ tests, i took the (paid )Mensa test. and was assessed also in Gov entrance IQ test, both 20 years apart, 135 and 130 result

[pandemic_exploiter]

married 35 years,4 kids (2 are nurses, one with Post grad quals in obgyn) 11 grandkids, 130 IQ, 7 inch d*ck, 160 k income, 20 BMI, 950 Testosterone (natural), house , cars, Hons degree in Elec Eng, work in Med Eng helping cancer patients - srs GTFO with ur eugenics cr@p.

The point of eugenetis is spreading favorable traits to the whole population. (While I'm also genetically blessed in some regards), I think having a philosphical discussion about something hypothetical is pretty fun and gets a lot of ppl involved.

I haven't too many heard cons to eugenics yet, but it's obv immoral. Also, you're implicitly limiting genetic variation in the gene pool. When you select for favorable traits in some individuals, variations in other genes, (ex: immune system functionality (MHC receptors)) in individuals selected against won't get passed on to the next generation. From an evolutionary standpoint, less variation = less survivability of the species long-term. Humans already are relatively novel so we're much less genetically diverse than many other species