Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Posts: 6945 Location: Hampshire/Yorkshire
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject:
Bobin wrote:
Cambridge wrote:
I thot you might deserve a little respect, Bobin. Your behavior suggests that I was misguided. My thinking was that you might have some medical training. But it seems now that you are probably just a phlebotomist or an orderly. Both my father and my daughter were/are physicians, and neither of them act as infantile as you.
#1. the colonel accused be of being a homophobe. this was quite an unfounded accusation., nothing i ever posted is suggestive of this. my posts explore the possibility of laws that can be enacted to cause modification of the gene pool. the colonel could have apologized or reconsidered his attitude. he did not.
When you start talking about eugenics of any kind it indicates that you are not only dangerous but prejudice. We all know of the little group of German's that tried to do something similar don't we? We condemn that as barbaric do we not? Anyone who discusses eugenics for any societal group is someone who can rightfully be termed prejudice. Since you directed this against homosexuals - you are a homophobe. My comment therefore, is both accurate and justified.
#2. in my discussion with fred, the colonel claimed there is no creator. that is his opinion. i replied with my opinion, based upon the same logic offered by the colonel. this logic is fiat, ie., an authoritive declaration. if the colonel chose to have an intelligent discussion regarding this matter, he would have gotten a different response from me.
You gave a "theory" that there was a creator involved. I pointed out the obvious flaw.
#3. the colonel told me to sod off and referred to me as a nut case. since the colonel chose the tone of the conversation, i simply responded in a manner congruent to his response.
Anyone who talks of the acceptability of eugenics to systematically exterminate a group of people IS a nutcase. I've fought the likes of you and I would do so again in the interest of common decency and humanity. Telling you to "sod off" is very tame considering what deserved to be said on the matter.
#4. if you read my posts on the military thread, i attempted to engage in an intelligent conversation with the colonel and others in that thread, yourself included. while i don not agree entirely that an equipment list is the final determination of power, i did not slam or attack the colonel, or you, personally.
I do not immediately recall your posts. The thread was primarily focused on material military strength. It has not especially been focused on other factors. And with the level of unjustified flaming I received, it is unlikely to develop that way.
#5 logic would dictate then, that the colonel is an agressor with no prior analysis, and thereofre basis for the agression. this is, quite frankly, unbecoming behavior of a military man, and is quite dangerous for a person of military stature.
As I have demonstrated with the above, this assertion is incorrect. I believe it is more concerning that someone of supposed medical training is an advocate of eugenics. Would the name on your medical degree be "Doctor Frankenstein" by any chance? My wife is a GP and she does not adocate eugenics, nor does she think it is acceptable.
I thot you might deserve a little respect, Bobin. Your behavior suggests that I was misguided. My thinking was that you might have some medical training. But it seems now that you are probably just a phlebotomist or an orderly. Both my father and my daughter were/are physicians, and neither of them act as infantile as you.
#1. the colonel accused be of being a homophobe. this was quite an unfounded accusation., nothing i ever posted is suggestive of this. my posts explore the possibility of laws that can be enacted to cause modification of the gene pool. the colonel could have apologized or reconsidered his attitude. he did not.
When you start talking about eugenics of any kind it indicates that you are not only dangerous but prejudice. We all know of the little group of German's that tried to do something similar don't we? We condemn that as barbaric do we not? Anyone who discusses eugenics for any societal group is someone who can rightfully be termed prejudice. Since you directed this against homosexuals - you are a homophobe. My comment therefore, is both accurate and justified.
My original statement:
eventually where genetic science will end up is to the point that you will be able to splice in desirable characteristics and splice out undesirable characteristics in the gene set. this has already been done to plants and other animals. those vegatables in your refirgerator are all genetically modified. if you think it will not happen to humans, it might be a good idea to think about it some more.
what is worse is that when this does happen, it will create a rift in society. the division would be naturally conceived people vs. modified people. the issue would also arise as to what is legal to spilce in or out and what is not. suppose they found a gene related to orgasm intensity? one parent would say give johnny all the orgasm genes you can find. if they found a gene associated with intelligence, another parent will want that one spliced in. how about athletic performance? or longevity? what we will end up with is a government that will attempt to regulate genetic modification. this amounts to nothing more than categorizing what is a legal vs. illegal gene set. in doing do, we have essentially defined what is a legal and illegal person. that, in itself, is very scarey. so, rather than stating that a particular personality trait is illegal, the government will state that splicing the gene in for that trait is illegal.
sorry, colonel, i am pointing out the dangers of this practice. that fact is clear to the most casual observer. and, for the record, i am not in favor of gene modification. that should be clear from my post
#2. in my discussion with fred, the colonel claimed there is no creator. that is his opinion. i replied with my opinion, based upon the same logic offered by the colonel. this logic is fiat, ie., an authoritive declaration. if the colonel chose to have an intelligent discussion regarding this matter, he would have gotten a different response from me.
You gave a "theory" that there was a creator involved. I pointed out the obvious flaw.
as i stated: fiat. fiat is never a basis for philosophy.
#3. the colonel told me to sod off and referred to me as a nut case. since the colonel chose the tone of the conversation, i simply responded in a manner congruent to his response.
Anyone who talks of the acceptability of eugenics to systematically exterminate a group of people IS a nutcase. I've fought the likes of you and I would do so again in the interest of common decency and humanity. Telling you to "sod off" is very tame considering what deserved to be said on the matter.
addressed above. you assessment is ad falsum. any conclusion based upon your assessment is therefore also as falsum
#4. if you read my posts on the military thread, i attempted to engage in an intelligent conversation with the colonel and others in that thread, yourself included. while i don not agree entirely that an equipment list is the final determination of power, i did not slam or attack the colonel, or you, personally.
I do not immediately recall your posts. The thread was primarily focused on material military strength. It has not especially been focused on other factors. And with the level of unjustified flaming I received, it is unlikely to develop that way.
#5 logic would dictate then, that the colonel is an agressor with no prior analysis, and thereofre basis for the agression. this is, quite frankly, unbecoming behavior of a military man, and is quite dangerous for a person of military stature.
As I have demonstrated with the above, this assertion is incorrect. I believe it is more concerning that someone of supposed medical training is an advocate of eugenics. Would the name on your medical degree be "Doctor Frankenstein" by any chance? My wife is a GP and she does not adocate eugenics, nor does she think it is acceptable.
as i stated, i was pointing out the dangers of this practice. pay close attention to the phrases "what is worse, is when this does happen" and "that, in itself, is very scarey". believe what you want, my post speaks for itself. it is difficult to understand how your conclusion can be drawn from my statement. in fact, it cannot.
#1. the colonel accused be of being a homophobe. this was quite an unfounded accusation., nothing i ever posted is suggestive of this. my posts explore the possibility of laws that can be enacted to cause modification of the gene pool. the colonel could have apologized or reconsidered his attitude. he did not.
When you start talking about eugenics of any kind it indicates that you are not only dangerous but prejudice. We all know of the little group of German's that tried to do something similar don't we? We condemn that as barbaric do we not? Anyone who discusses eugenics for any societal group is someone who can rightfully be termed prejudice. Since you directed this against homosexuals - you are a homophobe. My comment therefore, is both accurate and justified.
There is NO EUGENICS!
Modern secular science KNOWS that it's just a lump of cells NOT ALIVE.
It's why abortion is LEGAL.
NO LIFE IS TAKEN.
Ergo... you are not taking or altering anything when when you abort cells that are gay!
#1. the colonel accused be of being a homophobe. [fact, irrefutable] this was quite an unfounded accusation [proposition w] [->] [to be refuted assumption + a conjunction of preestablished facts (see below)], nothing i ever posted is suggestive of this [fact, irrefutable]. my posts explore the possibility of laws that can be enacted to cause modification of the gene pool [fact, irrefutable]. the colonel could have apologized or reconsidered his attitude. he did not.
His response was
When you start talking [logico-conceptual] about eugenics of any kind [“any kind”: flag: examine contrapositive][proposition p] it indicates that [proposed conclusion p’] [->] you are not only dangerous but prejudice [conclusion p’] [p does not imply p’][~p neither implies ~p’] [contrapositive cannot be derrived] [ad ridiculum] -> [reductio ad ridiculum -> ad falsum (ie., nonsense)]. We all know of the little group of German's that tried to do something similar don't we [proposition q]? We condemn that as barbaric do we not [proposition r]? [fact, granted irrefutable, but with no derivation /antiderivation to/from initial proposition p or the conclusion] [p’, ie., q or r do not imply p’, q or r do not imply ~p’, ~q or r do not imply p’ or ~p’, q or ~r do not imply p’ or ~p’] Anyone who discusses [logico-conceputal] eugenics for any societal group [proposition s] is [proposed conclusion s’] [->] someone who can rightfully be termed prejudice [conclusion s’] [s does not imply s’][~s neither implies ~s’][~s neither implies s’] [ad ridiculum] -> [reductio ad ridiculum and reductio ad incommodum -> ad falsum (nonsense)]. Since you directed this against homosexuals [proposition t] [prev. derivative ad falsum] - you are a homophobe [proposition t + ad falsum -> reductio ad falsum -> ad falsum]. My comment therefore [proposed conclusion w] ,is both accurate [proposition u] and justified [proposition v] [u&v derrived from ad falsum + ad falsum + ad falsum] [reductio ad absurdum (reduction on the grounds that the argument is absurd)].
So Fred, the real question is what does Blah blah blah mumbo jumbo mumbo jumbo blah yakity yak yak yak blah bal balh yakity yak yak blah blah mumbo jumbo blah blah blah really mean????
My original statement for reference:
eventually where genetic science will end up is to the point that you will be able to splice in desirable characteristics and splice out undesirable characteristics in the gene set. this has already been done to plants and other animals. those vegatables in your refirgerator are all genetically modified. if you think it will not happen to humans, it might be a good idea to think about it some more.
what is worse is that when this does happen, it will create a rift in society. the division would be naturally conceived people vs. modified people. the issue would also arise as to what is legal to spilce in or out and what is not. suppose they found a gene related to orgasm intensity? one parent would say give johnny all the orgasm genes you can find. if they found a gene associated with intelligence, another parent will want that one spliced in. how about athletic performance? or longevity? what we will end up with is a government that will attempt to regulate genetic modification. this amounts to nothing more than categorizing what is a legal vs. illegal gene set. in doing do, we have essentially defined what is a legal and illegal person. that, in itself, is very scarey. so, rather than stating that a particular personality trait is illegal, the government will state that splicing the gene in for that trait is illegal.
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
