Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Eugenics: "Science" Gone Wrong

Page 2 of 8 [ 114 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,158
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Mar 2012, 10:29 am

But it is just as wrong to tell a child that he or she is less than everyone else. Endowing a child with a permanent sense of low self-esteem is equally detrimental.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

19 Mar 2012, 10:43 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
But it is just as wrong to tell a child that he or she is less than everyone else. Endowing a child with a permanent sense of low self-esteem is equally detrimental.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I don't believe there is such a thing as "permanent" low self-esteem unless the person in question is depressed or have other processing issues. It's about finding the field in which that child has the interest and ability to excel. I didn't find my field for years and years, but once I did my self-esteem skyrocketed because of success. The reason for me finding my field was that in a period of excessive depression my reflections took me to a point where I realized a number of truths. The source of my depression was a series of negative impact events that I was unable to handle given my psychological state at that point, however once I reflected on it, I came to a conclusion of "f**k everyone's opinion of me, I'll prove them all wrong" and that propelled my motivation and thus my self-esteem.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,158
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Mar 2012, 10:47 am

TM wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But it is just as wrong to tell a child that he or she is less than everyone else. Endowing a child with a permanent sense of low self-esteem is equally detrimental.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I don't believe there is such a thing as "permanent" low self-esteem unless the person in question is depressed or have other processing issues. It's about finding the field in which that child has the interest and ability to excel. I didn't find my field for years and years, but once I did my self-esteem skyrocketed because of success. The reason for me finding my field was that in a period of excessive depression my reflections took me to a point where I realized a number of truths. The source of my depression was a series of negative impact events that I was unable to handle given my psychological state at that point, however once I reflected on it, I came to a conclusion of "f**k everyone's opinion of me, I'll prove them all wrong" and that propelled my motivation and thus my self-esteem.


Unfortunately, not everyone is going to have that sort of epiphany, though.
I like to think I found mine with writing fiction, and being a Dad. 8)

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

19 Mar 2012, 10:50 am

i think the blanket concept of self esteem is too broad to describe reality.
there is self esteem(1) in teh sense of knowledge that one deserves the same basic respectr as anyone else,
then there is the self esteem(2) we build for ourselves with our accomplishments,

one can have a low self esteem(1) while still having a normal self esteem(2).
i battled with this and would be glad to talk about it, not fond of putting it on public dispolay though,

i think what you define as arrogance is when people have a high self esteem(1) and no justification for their self esteem(2), despite feeling it.
i dont think one can make the blanket statement that self esteem (1) in itself makes for arrogant people, even if its high.

anyway only speculating so all is up for debate but i think we should be more wary of blaming eachother when none of us really understand the issue completely.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Mar 2012, 1:58 pm

Woofer123 wrote:
I know it isn't a science. That s why I put it in this forum.


Selective breeding is applied biology.

ruveyn



NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

20 Mar 2012, 2:43 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:
An interesting article about Down's syndrome.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/99-of- ... -downs-ba/

I will begrudgingly admit compliance with abortions for diseases which are obviously painful to the patient, but people with Down's syndrome for example appear to be happy. Is it right for parents to abort patients with Down' Syndrome, or are they just being selfish for not wanting to take care of someone with special needs? Or is it possible that they are simply ignorant that a child with Down's Syndrome is capable of living a happy, fulfilling life?

This is actually a very important ethical question that is worthy of discussion.


I have a hard time equating someone with down syndrome with being human. Any Trisomy really...

I am heartless and genetically biased maybe. But I really do think humans have a set 46 chromosomes, deviate from that and you lose the classification "human" in my eyes. I don't expect many to agree...that's fine.


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.


heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

20 Mar 2012, 5:12 am

NarcissusSavage wrote:
heavenlyabyss wrote:
An interesting article about Down's syndrome.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/99-of- ... -downs-ba/

I will begrudgingly admit compliance with abortions for diseases which are obviously painful to the patient, but people with Down's syndrome for example appear to be happy. Is it right for parents to abort patients with Down' Syndrome, or are they just being selfish for not wanting to take care of someone with special needs? Or is it possible that they are simply ignorant that a child with Down's Syndrome is capable of living a happy, fulfilling life?

This is actually a very important ethical question that is worthy of discussion.


I have a hard time equating someone with down syndrome with being human. Any Trisomy really...

I am heartless and genetically biased maybe. But I really do think humans have a set 46 chromosomes, deviate from that and you lose the classification "human" in my eyes. I don't expect many to agree...that's fine.


I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is a troll response.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Mar 2012, 6:40 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
heavenlyabyss wrote:
An interesting article about Down's syndrome.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/99-of- ... -downs-ba/

I will begrudgingly admit compliance with abortions for diseases which are obviously painful to the patient, but people with Down's syndrome for example appear to be happy. Is it right for parents to abort patients with Down' Syndrome, or are they just being selfish for not wanting to take care of someone with special needs? Or is it possible that they are simply ignorant that a child with Down's Syndrome is capable of living a happy, fulfilling life?

This is actually a very important ethical question that is worthy of discussion.


I have a hard time equating someone with down syndrome with being human. Any Trisomy really...

I am heartless and genetically biased maybe. But I really do think humans have a set 46 chromosomes, deviate from that and you lose the classification "human" in my eyes. I don't expect many to agree...that's fine.


I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is a troll response.


I am going to do the polite thing and assume he said what he meant to say.

If you don't have 23 pairs of chromosomes you ain't human. Sentient, perhaps, but not human.

ruveyn



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

20 Mar 2012, 6:57 am

does being human matter?

i prefer to judge based on conscoiusness not physical properties,


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Mar 2012, 9:03 am

Oodain wrote:
does being human matter?

i prefer to judge based on conscoiusness not physical properties,


In short, you base your judgement on sentience.

ruveyn



Mummy_of_Peanut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,564
Location: Bonnie Scotland

20 Mar 2012, 9:23 am

NarcissusSavage wrote:
heavenlyabyss wrote:
An interesting article about Down's syndrome.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/99-of- ... -downs-ba/

I will begrudgingly admit compliance with abortions for diseases which are obviously painful to the patient, but people with Down's syndrome for example appear to be happy. Is it right for parents to abort patients with Down' Syndrome, or are they just being selfish for not wanting to take care of someone with special needs? Or is it possible that they are simply ignorant that a child with Down's Syndrome is capable of living a happy, fulfilling life?

This is actually a very important ethical question that is worthy of discussion.


I have a hard time equating someone with down syndrome with being human. Any Trisomy really...

I am heartless and genetically biased maybe. But I really do think humans have a set 46 chromosomes, deviate from that and you lose the classification "human" in my eyes. I don't expect many to agree...that's fine.
Are you serious? There are many people living with extra chromosomes (some of whom will not even be aware of it). All of them are human. The definition of a human is not 'an animal in possession of 46 chromosomes'.


_________________
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiatic about." Charles Kingsley


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Mar 2012, 9:26 am

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
There are many people living with extra chromosomes (some of whom will not even be aware of it). All of them are human. The definition of a human is not 'an animal in possession of 46 chromosomes'.


Define human, then.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,158
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Mar 2012, 10:35 am

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
heavenlyabyss wrote:
An interesting article about Down's syndrome.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/99-of- ... -downs-ba/

I will begrudgingly admit compliance with abortions for diseases which are obviously painful to the patient, but people with Down's syndrome for example appear to be happy. Is it right for parents to abort patients with Down' Syndrome, or are they just being selfish for not wanting to take care of someone with special needs? Or is it possible that they are simply ignorant that a child with Down's Syndrome is capable of living a happy, fulfilling life?

This is actually a very important ethical question that is worthy of discussion.


I have a hard time equating someone with down syndrome with being human. Any Trisomy really...

I am heartless and genetically biased maybe. But I really do think humans have a set 46 chromosomes, deviate from that and you lose the classification "human" in my eyes. I don't expect many to agree...that's fine.
Are you serious? There are many people living with extra chromosomes (some of whom will not even be aware of it). All of them are human. The definition of a human is not 'an animal in possession of 46 chromosomes'.


Beside, if the parents are human, then it stands to reason the offspring are human - no matter how many chromosomes are present. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

20 Mar 2012, 10:52 am

ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:
does being human matter?

i prefer to judge based on conscoiusness not physical properties,


In short, you base your judgement on sentience.

ruveyn


i find it takes care of multiple issues with a simple solution.

from ai to extraterrestials, no matter their probability.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Mummy_of_Peanut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,564
Location: Bonnie Scotland

20 Mar 2012, 3:26 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
There are many people living with extra chromosomes (some of whom will not even be aware of it). All of them are human. The definition of a human is not 'an animal in possession of 46 chromosomes'.


Define human, then.

ruveyn
What's the biological definition of any species?
"The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

If we take Downs Syndrome as an example, people with this condition do fit the criteria, even if their physical appearance often distinguishes them from people without Downs. Their features are no more distinguishing than many other non trisomy conditions. Fertility is reduced in Downs, but not absent and any fertile woman with Downs has a 50% chance of passing on the trisomy to their child. The father in this case will not have Downs, especially as fertility in males with Downs is rare, but not unheard of. Reproduction between people with Downs is not likely, so people with Downs would never be able to become a separate species.


_________________
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiatic about." Charles Kingsley


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,158
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Mar 2012, 5:49 pm

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
There are many people living with extra chromosomes (some of whom will not even be aware of it). All of them are human. The definition of a human is not 'an animal in possession of 46 chromosomes'.


Define human, then.

ruveyn
What's the biological definition of any species?
"The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

If we take Downs Syndrome as an example, people with this condition do fit the criteria, even if their physical appearance often distinguishes them from people without Downs. Their features are no more distinguishing than many other non trisomy conditions. Fertility is reduced in Downs, but not absent and any fertile woman with Downs has a 50% chance of passing on the trisomy to their child. The father in this case will not have Downs, especially as fertility in males with Downs is rare, but not unheard of. Reproduction between people with Downs is not likely, so people with Downs would never be able to become a separate species.


Thank you.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer