Making better humans, or rather, making less-bad ones

[Jacob]

I'm not a geneticist, I don't think I Ide is, nor do I believe you are.  I'm not in a position to decide what exactly is discredited or not.

I'm glad that's out of the way, then.

I do know that some people have genetic pre-disposition towards certain things.  Many of these pose "significant health problems".  When you say things like, "The gov't should stay out of fucking around with the gene-pool" are you saying that you would government efforts opposed to curing genetic illnesses like Tay-Sachs?  Cause that's what it sounds like with such blanket statements.  So perhaps you would like to clarify.

Curing diseases = good.

Instituting eugenics programs to encourage breeding practices in the human population = not good.

I would also like the to know are you okay with the government providing money for abortions in general and just become outraged if the government has a motive for their action beyond simply providing money.

I'm in favour of universal health care. Abortion is a health care service. So I'm not only okay with I'm actively in favour of government funded abortions.

Where the government does not fund health care, abortion should not be outlawed or discouraged in any particular way, and should be available through whatever means the population gets healthcare (i.e if it's employer provided healthcare, employers should pay for abortions).

I hope that helped.

[Razgovory]

I'm not a geneticist, I don't think I Ide is, nor do I believe you are.  I'm not in a position to decide what exactly is discredited or not.

I'm glad that's out of the way, then.

I do know that some people have genetic pre-disposition towards certain things.  Many of these pose "significant health problems".  When you say things like, "The gov't should stay out of fucking around with the gene-pool" are you saying that you would government efforts opposed to curing genetic illnesses like Tay-Sachs?  Cause that's what it sounds like with such blanket statements.  So perhaps you would like to clarify.

Curing diseases = good.

Instituting eugenics programs to encourage breeding practices in the human population = not good.

I would also like the to know are you okay with the government providing money for abortions in general and just become outraged if the government has a motive for their action beyond simply providing money.

I'm in favour of universal health care. Abortion is a health care service. So I'm not only okay with I'm actively in favour of government funded abortions.

Where the government does not fund health care, abortion should not be outlawed or discouraged in any particular way, and should be available through whatever means the population gets healthcare (i.e if it's employer provided healthcare, employers should pay for abortions).

I hope that helped.

Spell out to me why the Eugenics program is bad?  I'm having a hard time making a distinction between that and preventing disease.  After all eliminating the gene that causes Tay Sachs is eugenics. Is it only bad if the government does it or is it bad if a private individuals do it?

[Martinus]

no more than being an Apple fan, a scat or feet fetishist, an animal lover, a geek, a nerd, or anything that does not conform to current societal standards.

With homosexuality, the distress or social problem one can feel are dependent upon the social reaction to this condition, not the condition in itself.

This is true of most paraphilic disorders, but they are still considered disorders.  It is where atypical sexual attraction causes distress or impairment.  If we regard social reaction as  only standard we end up with some oddities.  A person of who is sexually attracted to children can be "cured", by him immigrating to culture where such a behavior is acceptable.  One of the medical risks of homosexuality is significant increased chance of STDs.  It is difficult to figure out what changes in societal standards are possible to prevent this.

Paraphilias are acquired, not in-born, anyway.

[Martinus]

America.  I've always wondered why CC had such strong feelings about an issue that doesn't affect him, but whatever.  I'm used to foreigners getting bent about American politics.

I don't know if the Canadian model is even that similar.  Your SLs can be discharged in bankruptcy, for example.

So you're doing the thing where you talk only about the US, but you use universal arguments to do so. Because when you talk about the value of STEM and the uselessness of the humanities, as is your wont, you typically do so in terms relating to the inherent values of those fields rather than how they fit into the education systems and economy of the US at present.

Yeah. It seems to me that Ide is taking the flawed US system and trying to find flawed solutions to it.

[Razgovory]

no more than being an Apple fan, a scat or feet fetishist, an animal lover, a geek, a nerd, or anything that does not conform to current societal standards.

With homosexuality, the distress or social problem one can feel are dependent upon the social reaction to this condition, not the condition in itself.

This is true of most paraphilic disorders, but they are still considered disorders.  It is where atypical sexual attraction causes distress or impairment.  If we regard social reaction as  only standard we end up with some oddities.  A person of who is sexually attracted to children can be "cured", by him immigrating to culture where such a behavior is acceptable.  One of the medical risks of homosexuality is significant increased chance of STDs.  It is difficult to figure out what changes in societal standards are possible to prevent this.

Paraphilias are acquired, not in-born, anyway.

  Where on earth did you get that idea?

[crazy canuck]

  Where on earth did you get that idea?

He was born with it?

[Siege]

Why so much opposition to the keystone pipeline?
Think of the economic benefits.

[derspiess]

  Where on earth did you get that idea?

He was born with it?

Maybe it's Maybelline.