/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22834133]

Why is eugenics, when concerned ONLY with disabilities, considered immoral?

[Anonymous No.22834134]

>>22834133
One reason would be that the notion of disability itself is not as clear-cut as one might think. There is no official blueprint of the perfect human, ratified by God, that we can judge individual humans against to decide whether or not they're disabled. Indeed, for many people with disabilities, the fact that their disability hinders them in everyday life is as much a product of societal factors as it is of the disability itself.

[Anonymous No.22834136]

Apparently, people with disabilities believe themselves to be humans too

[Anonymous No.22834144]

>>22834136
That doesn't make it okay to pass on their disabilities if they can avoid it.

[Anonymous No.22834150]

Dumb and pathetic post and eugenics doesn't work, kys

[Anonymous No.22834154]

>>22834144
apparently people commonly believe that part of being human is the right to reproduction

[Anonymous No.22834155]

>>22834150
we want people like you to get less anoin

[Anonymous No.22834160]

>>22834155
I can smell the stench of your goon cave through the screen, anon

[Anonymous No.22834180]

Because they used religion to push onto the easily influenced the idea that "all life is sacred" its not, and anyone who says otherwise just wants to stay on their moral high horse.
Truth is, it's all a cop out because they don't have the answers. They don't want to answer because that would make them examine what they think are their principles.
It's not their principles, it's only what they've been influenced to believe but to come to that conclusion would disillusion them and break down all their ideas and thoughts and truthfully only the strongest survive that.
If they were strong people they'd never be in that situation to begin with so they are correct when they fear death because of it.

[Anonymous No.22834236]

>>22834180
religion is not against eugenics, maybe they used religion that way

[Anonymous No.22834237]

>>22834180
Idk if you follow that argument through then eugenicists been concerned about not just the strength of their own genes but everyone else's is a death anxiety on level with a fully psychotic Messiah complex

[Anonymous No.22834239]

>>22834237
>been
*being

[Anonymous No.22834280]

My wife and I recently had a kid. While it's not mandatory, they strongly encouraged us to do some sort of genetic testing either before or during the pregnancy. We did the standard one that tests for Downs syndrome and the like but not the more involved "genetic carrier screening" because neither of our families have a history of disability. It seemed so routine that I didn't really think of it as eugenics, but I suppose that's what it is. I don't think people in general are opposed to that sort of thing. Where it gets thornier is when you talk about eliminating autism or whatever.

[Anonymous No.22834288]

>>22834280
They also tell you the gender in case you want to abort until you get a male, but the eugenic decision your culture is sort of okay with is trisomy. Plenty of people who get told their kid will have downs are pissed off within your cultural norm too because they face pressure for not aborting the kid, just like people who don't want to abort the girl get in other cultures. It's always thorny.

[Anonymous No.22834309]

>>22834288
Only wanting male kids isn't eugenics

[Anonymous No.22834312]

>>22834309
Yeah it is, just like thinking any other feature or genetic variation is the only one worthy of the time and effort to raise.

[Anonymous No.22834327]

>>22834133
Because you can’t measure utility

[Anonymous No.22834333]

>>22834312
That's not what eugenics is

[Anonymous No.22834337]

>>22834333
Do you want to define the term as you're using it?

[Anonymous No.22834349]

>>22834133
Some people in the 20th century ruined it for everyone.
Tacitly it still exists in many countries though in the form of allowing pregnant women to abort children with genetic defects past the usual cut-off period.

[Anonymous No.22834368]

>>22834150
>eugenics doesn't work
Of course it works. Just look at domesticated animals and plants.
We aren't doing it because it's immoral and also there isn't really a good reason to do it. We are already ruling the planet, what traits would we need to artificially select for? And for whose benefit?

[Anonymous No.22834378]

>>22834368
>domesticated animals and plants.
The ones with inbreeding and propagation problems that mean they can't survive without human behaviour?

[Anonymous No.22834412]

>>22834378
Domesticated horses, pigs and cows survive just fine in the wild. As do wild dogs and cats.

Those issues only really arise when breeders care more about short term goals like winning some retarded breeder award or producing as much food as possible with as little resources as possible.

[Anonymous No.22834423]

>>22834412
They start outbreeding, and that is not true for all species of horses, pigs, or cows, many or which need humans to not die of things that literally make them explode. Thoroughbred dogs are especially notorious for birth defects and disabilities.
I assume you know sheep die even with human intervention because they're fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.22834433]

>>22834423
> that is not true for all species of
I gave you counter examples for your idea that artificial selection doesn't work and you agree they are valid. Might as well stop arguing then.

Sheep and certain designer breeds of dogs don't disprove that healthy long term artificial selection is possible, just that unhealthy selection is possible as well, which isn't disputed.

[Anonymous No.22834441]

>>22834433
They don't care if you believe or trust them

Artificial selection systems exist and operate already

Did you selected that ad you are watching?

[Anonymous No.22834444]

>>22834433
>you agree they are valid.
Not at all. The majority of those species, if released would literally explode and die. They are bred to domestication and fundamentally lack the ability to exist without it. It is not just that the sheep and dogs who die with human care, it is also the case that horses, pigs and cows which have been bred from domestic stock have traits which make their bodies incapable of wild survival, even if you never raised them in captivity. It's much the same as bred fur foxes having worse fur.

[Anonymous No.22834451]

>>22834368
>We are already ruling the planet
what an incredibly reductive statement
diseases destroy lives, the world would be improved if retards and diseased people weren't allowed to reproduce. as in, the world would materially become a better place to live in for most people, in practical terms. do you think "conquering the world" is the end of human achievement? nigger we conquered the world hundreds of thousands of years ago.

[Anonymous No.22834463]

>>22834451
idk anon a lot of people got disabled and diseased subsidizing your lifestyle, you might not want them to stop and their job to free up

[Anonymous No.22834475]

>>22834463
being genetically disabled is different from catching a disease due to external circumstances, retard

[Anonymous No.22834477]

>>22834423
Anon are you retarded? You realise that in this very post you're asserting that eugenics works, right? Otherwise, these weird animals would not exist. But they do. Because we brought them into being. Through eugenics. And now, they are objectively superior to what they were before, for our purposes. The so-called "super chicken", for example, cannot survive in the wild and provides a vastly higher volume of meat at a vastly faster rate because that's what we designed them to do. That's what we aimed at. Maximising nutritional value. Not trying to develop them into apex predators. Everything is working exactly as intended.

[Anonymous No.22834483]

It's not, but some edgelords seem to think people aren't doing that now

[Anonymous No.22834486]

>>22834441
>Artificial selection systems (for humans) exist and operate already
Not in the west at least. The powers hat be are too narrow minded and short term oriented. You can't really get any proper scheme going if corporations only exist for an average of 20 years and governments change every 4-8 years or so.

>>22834444
>horses, pigs and cows which have been bred from domestic stock have traits which make their bodies incapable of wild survival
They are doing so right now. There are 64 thousand wild horses in the US right now, all of which come from domesticated European stock. There are 100 thousand feral cattle in Australia. And between 3.5 to 25.5 million feral pigs in Australia.

>>22834451
The point is there isn't enough vested interest from the public or powerful individuals. There is no major obvious threat to our survival or some grand profit motive. Sure you could get rid of a lot of diseases, but nobody actually cares enough to do it via eugenics.

[Anonymous No.22834490]

>>22834237
>fully psychotic Messiah complex
also known as altruism

[Anonymous No.22834495]

>>22834486
>Sure you could get rid of a lot of diseases, but nobody actually cares enough to do it via eugenics
yeah, and I'm saying that's short sighted and immoral

[Anonymous No.22834502]

>>22834134
>There is no official blueprint of the perfect human, ratified by God, that we can judge individual humans against to decide whether or not they're disabled

That's literally Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.22834508]

>>22834477
If by working, you mean needing constant management or dying, that is an interesting definition of eugenics working.
>>22834486
>They are doing so right now. There are 64 thousand wild horses in the US right now, all of which come from domesticated European stock. There are 100 thousand feral cattle in Australia. And between 3.5 to 25.5 million feral pigs in Australia.
There are massive governmental projects to deal with all these, including adoption programmes so they don't die from overpopulation problems. Weirdly, not a problem in animals whose natural breeding cycles and predators haven't been fucked with. Almost like nature didn't need an entire bureaucracy to take of them.

[Anonymous No.22834523]

>>22834508
There are adoption programs for 3.5 million feral pigs?
Your posts are getting kind of comedic at this point.
There are actually programs to get rid of feral animals, by killing them, since they are too successful at surviving compared to the native wildlife.

[Anonymous No.22834529]

>>22834523
>I'll pretend I don't know about Mustang adoptions in the US
Actually you called them wild horses rather than feral horses, so maybe you are that dumb and not pretending.

[Anonymous No.22834530]

>>22834508
>If by working, you mean needing constant management or dying, that is an interesting definition of eugenics working.
If you design an animal to grow large and die (this is what livestock are) then that would be achieving the precise aim of the task. Perhaps if your parents had benefitted from some eugenics you wouldn't need me to spoonfeed you the implications of your argument twice in a row. Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.22834531]

>>22834154
people commonly believe a lot of stupid things. here's a good rejoinder: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q
not that i'm a eugenicist, i just find appeals to "rights" (as well as the rest of the morality of Recht) cringe and even more cringe to project them onto human nature

[Anonymous No.22834536]

>>22834133
Can we get this shit deleted? Not a mention of a single book in this thread and topic is retarded anyway.

Quelle domage, /lit/ used to be a great place and I've had some good discussions on here. None lately. Sad!

[Anonymous No.22834540]

>>22834529
Thanks for correcting my English.
It's clear from the rest of my sentence and the context of my post that they are feral descendants of domesticated animals though.

[Anonymous No.22834547]

>>22834536
I made a thread complaining about the /his/ification of this board recently and the jannies made sure to kill that thread, at least. Although 50% of the catalogue on any given day doesn't even have anything to do with books anymore. Just religious shills, race baiters and trash spammers.

[Anonymous No.22834554]

>>22834536
>Quelle domage
retard trying to sound smart but misspelling. sad!

[Anonymous No.22834555]

>>22834530
Many of the problems of livestock breeding for being in the wild isn't the intentional selections like that which are not the majority of domestic livestock. The problem is they are now symbiotic animals.
Moths which get domesticated for silk can't fly, but they can breed with the wild versions of their species which retain the ability to do so. Even some pests are symbiotic, relying on human practices to maintain their population. One of the reasons why European invasions were so devastating is because European domestic animals have shared strains of diseases which, while endemic, were not fatal to Europeans through exposure, and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.22834559]

>>22834540
Is your English that bad you confused horses and pigs?

[Anonymous No.22834560]

>>22834554
haha you got me there.

[Anonymous No.22834562]

>>22834502
>brown jewish virgin barefoot cult leader

[Anonymous No.22834568]

>>22834536
Its important topic retard, because we don't do eugenics retards like you exists
What is moral about retards breeding new tards

[Anonymous No.22834569]

>>22834309
i think it is: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eugenics/
eugenics just means something like promoting "good birth"

[Anonymous No.22834573]

>>22834559
>>They are doing so right now. There are 64 thousand wild horses in the US right now, all of which come from domesticated European stock. There are 100 thousand feral cattle in Australia. And between 3.5 to 25.5 million feral pigs in Australia.
>There are massive governmental projects to deal with all these, including adoption programmes so they don't die from overpopulation problems

[Anonymous No.22834580]

>>22834134
good take

[Anonymous No.22834582]

>>22834555
>The problem is they are now symbiotic animals.
That's not a problem. That's literally a key benefit of eugenics and arguably the reason why we invented it in the first place. Why would we breed superior animals if we had no intention to use them? So that they can compete against us better? Come on. Get real.

[Anonymous No.22834584]

>>22834573
Yes there is an adoption project run by the US land commission which has responsibility for maintaining the feral horse population of the US

[Anonymous No.22834592]

>>22834582
>Why would a single point of failure be a bad thing for the whole system?
It's diversity of specialization that protects a species, not specialization itself which is a major existential risk to species.

[Anonymous No.22834593]

>>22834568
Nice broken english you virgin fuck. You're a victim, you have victim mentality. Weak minded, I pity you

[Anonymous No.22834612]

>>22834592
Actually what really protects a species is being the pets to the apex predator on the planets, which is why total genetic failures like pugs are able to exist. Because humans bred them to be "cute". And so now they are pets, and enjoy perpetual protection and existence.
Not that this even matters. Whether pugs go extinct or not is quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The reason why we use eugenics is to reach an intended outcome, not to ensure the eternal reproductive health of some species or another.

[Anonymous No.22834616]

>>22834134
>Indeed, for many people with disabilities, the fact that their disability hinders them in everyday life is as much a product of societal factors as it is of the disability itself
red herring. yes they are inhibited by the society around them, but they are prevented from doing basic things in general, even in a vacuum. diasbility is defined by lack of something. lack of hearing, of vision, of smell, of the ability to walk. that by itself is undesirable, and it has nothing to do with the context of society or "social norms"
it's also clear that genetic diseases are bad even if you are delusional enough to believe everything is a social construct: dying at the age of 13 because of a degenerative genetic disease would be bad in and of itself, not just because society is le bad.

[Anonymous No.22834621]

>>22834134
>>22834580
not to mention that there are lots of debilitating variations among people we don't refer to as "disabilities". i think marx is instructive here:
>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

[Anonymous No.22834626]

>>22834612
It's funny because I was paraphrasing someone on the mechanics of evolution. Hate to suggest you read a book on the subject, but there are some books one should read on the subject if you don't want someone to know you haven't read them.

[Anonymous No.22834627]

>>22834621
>i think marx is instructive here
referring to marx (who isn't a doctor and ultimately doesn't know shit about genetics or diseases) when discussing genetics and disease. we are beyond parody.

[Anonymous No.22834632]

>>22834626
We are talking about eugenics, retard. Not evolution. When are you gonna get a hint?

[Anonymous No.22834639]

>>22834632
I wonder if those share any obvious mechanics

[Anonymous No.22834640]

>>22834639
If only some family was famous for writing books about both

[Anonymous No.22834641]

>>22834612
Toplel too fun

[Anonymous No.22834645]

>>22834627
i mean, i think what he says in that paragraph is relevant to disability's relation to society? A lot of his critique of capitalism comes from how commodities are insensitive to individual differences in ability.

[Anonymous No.22834662]

>>22834639
If you are gonna move the goalposts, at least try it with a bolder tone! Say something like "Yeah, I'm literally and can't read so I've trying to make a point about evolution all along even though the topic was actually eugenics all along." Yours is a very spineless retreat.

[Anonymous No.22834668]

>>22834133
People do love eugenics though, they just don't like the word. Most pro-abortion arguments boil down to eugenics and negative utilitarianism. And of course most insults for men boil down to "you are an inferior being that is being removed by natural selection"

[Anonymous No.22834673]

>>22834309
The future standard will be to abort males in favor of females, you can already hear normies voice concern that their sons will grow up to be incels.

[Anonymous No.22834718]

>>22834133
Because people like me would be dead

>>22834136
Conversely I don’t think you’re human, either, so the feeling is mutual.

[Anonymous No.22834722]

>>22834154
Obviously, which is why only men should have that right.

[Anonymous No.22834770]

>>22834378
Yes actually. Those are examples of selective breeding done badly by breeders who want to min/max certain traits with no care for the well-being of the animals. Those people make siblings fuck and use parents with disabilities to make puppies. Breeders who don't invest in retard incest get healthy animals.

We used eugenics to tame a species of foxes among other things.

[Anonymous No.22834773]

>>22834718
>Because people like me would be dead
incorrect. preventing disease can be done without killing people

[Anonymous No.22834829]

>>22834154
>He thinks incest is ok and parents have the right to reproduce with their kids

Based

[Anonymous No.22834839]

>>22834773
Define “disease” define “not normal”

[Anonymous No.22834842]

>>22834829
you are the last remnant of retarded monkeys

[Anonymous No.22834864]

According to the logic of eugenitards, the most intelligent, strong and beautiful people would come from subsaharan Africa. They have no medicine so anyone with an illness is most likely wiped out. In reality, this is not the case. Leaving out the question wether eugenics works in small order or not, the racial question is far more important in how much quality a people has.

[Anonymous No.22834880]

>>22834616
Why would it be objectively bad? What proof do you have of that?

[Anonymous No.22834899]

>>22834864
Being resistant to some diseases ≠ being intelligent, strong and beautiful. People over there can handle tropical illnesses that give Europeans explosive diarrhea.

[Anonymous No.22834912]

>>22834899
The best eugenics is banning all hospitals. Infant death rates would spike to a nice 50%. Not that I'm against such a measure, but as we see in Africa, it doesn't much change the social environment or intelligence of it's specimens.

[Anonymous No.22834923]

>>22834912
This is not what eugenics is you worthless fucktard. This was already covered earlier in the thread. Eugenics is the artificial selection for proliferation of desirable traits. It is not a mindless survival stress test.

[Anonymous No.22834925]

>>22834923
Can you name such a desirable trait?

[Anonymous No.22834926]

>>22834912
that's so bad idea, what the fuck, retards

[Anonymous No.22834936]

>>22834926
Nta but I gain from 18th and 19th Century books that the strongest, most masculine, most indifferent to suffering and death characters in the country always come from the villages that have no medicine, that is, where the infant death rates are the highest.

[Anonymous No.22834940]

>>22834926
>>22834936
But see, here's the paradoxon, no such tales have been told by the doctors and travelers who visited the remotest places in the Africa.

[Anonymous No.22834961]

>>22834925
Having a highly functioning digestive system, for example. Various types of food intolerance or food processing disorders are common in humanity, even after millions of years of "natural selection". Nature will not remove flaws that are negative and unpleasant but aren't catastrophic. But artificial selection can easily do that, by simply selecting for the desirable trait.

[Anonymous No.22834968]

>>22834961
Pathetic, I don't care about digestive systems. I want literal Adamites, people able to live 900+ years in perfect health. Eugenics can't do that.

[Anonymous No.22834980]

>>22834968
How do you know if you haven't tried? With that said, you'd probably need several millennia of experimentation to even arrive at such a long-lived end result, even assuming that it is possible.

[Anonymous No.22834989]

>>22834980
Past humans were like that. Selective breeding can only preserve traits or enhance certain traits that are already given, but it cannot create new traits out of nowhere.

[Anonymous No.22834995]

>>22834989
Selective breeding will increase the average lifespan

[Anonymous No.22835005]

>>22834829
Yes. Have you ever wondered why Jews have higher IQ than everyone else? It's because they have been inbreeding for hundreds of years.

[Anonymous No.22835016]

>>22834995
You're being uselessly optimistic.

[Anonymous No.22835018]

>>22834829
Yes. Have you ever wondered why Jews have higher IQ than everyone else? It's because they have been inbreeding for hundreds of years. It is an incontestable fact that without incest there would be no Albert Einstein.

[Anonymous No.22835025]

>>22835016
there's nothing even optimistic about this, selecting for longer lifespan will literally increase lifespan. that's why it's called selective, retard

[Anonymous No.22835032]

>>22835025
How do you want to select for lifespan? And that trait is useless anyways. Dying at war for instance is better than dying of old age.

[Anonymous No.22835037]

>>22835032
you are ignorant

[Anonymous No.22835042]

>>22835037
You lack enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.22835047]

>>22835042
you lack conciseness

[Anonymous No.22835054]

>>22835047
I'm not a libshit pleb who words everything concisely out of regard for the niggers and holes.

[Anonymous No.22835058]

>>22835054
you lack brain

[Anonymous No.22835063]

>>22835058
You have no arguments. You have no vision. Give up already. You have exposed yourself as a cowardly leech.

[Anonymous No.22835065]

>>22834133

How else would Power exist if not by making abject people and forcing them to live?

[Anonymous No.22835068]

>>22835065
Power can exist without unnecessary abject people

[Anonymous No.22835144]

>>22834133
The biggest criticisms against eugenics have been its extensions into ethnic cleansing and forced sterilization. The moral conundrum of potentially passing an untreatable, quality of life ruining disease to your offspring isn't what catches the concept heat.

[Anonymous No.22835190]

>>22834989
Anon longevity is already present in the human species to a certain degree. You would be trying to exaggerate that trait, not generate it ex nihilo.

[Anonymous No.22835245]

>>22835032
>How do you want to select for lifespan?
1. look at what kind of people live the longest lives
2. try to isolate any specific traits that they have that others, who live shorter lives, lack
essentially the same way you select for anything in medicine, trial and error. the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.22835393]

People with disabilities, especially deaf people and dwarfs, tend to make their disability central to their self-image and often see efforts to find a cure as a personal attack. Lots of people who have no disabilities nevertheless suffer from chronic feelings of inferiority and identify with the genetically disadvantaged in a pathological way. See Edward Dutton's "The Spiteful Mutants" for a detailed explanation.

[Anonymous No.22835567]

I think first OP makes a great point.
Id argue its immoral because you are dehumanizing someone for a lofty, vague and subjective goal.
There's no clear idea as to what should be aimed for in terms of eugenics, and the idea of disability could shift and change for a wider array of contexts.
Someone suggests that a disability is a 'lack of something, but that in and of itself isn't bad. There's different things you could lack. Depression, not the emotion, the mental disorder, is a disability.
I'm going to assume a reasonable argument and guess someone light reply depression may be more easily 'curable' than say, blindness. Should we then dehumanize someone who is more prone to depression or general neuroticism?

Different societies may have different ideas as to what traits are desirable. Eugenics may also blur the line between what is genetic and what is not via leading to a fatalistic or deterministic attitude. That's more a consequence rather than why it is 'immoral' but it may lead to an outcome in which our world becomes more immoral.

I'd argue a blind person could describe an experience that no one else could as a result of their disability. Perhaps in writing or art or some other form of expression, there are many instances of disabilities not really stopping someone from achieving something. I'd argue that is a desirable trait from my own personal perspective, which is where the subjectivity comes in. I do not view a blind person as undesirable.

[Anonymous No.22835825]

>>22835567
Your argument boils down to "people in favelas and ghettos make some good rap songs, so I don't think we should do anything to improve their living conditions".
Obviously suffering in a specific way might give you a unique perspective that people who didn't suffer that wouldn't have, but that's not necessarily a good thing. Sure, you have the positive examples like the painter of The Scream whose childhood was filled with illnesses and suffering in the family, leading him to develop a unique painting style, but how about the opposite situations? How about all the children born blind who would have become unique artists? All the mute or deaf people who would have become amazing singers? All the great men of science who spent their whole life in a hospital bed until succumbing to illness at 18 years old?
Suffering will happen anyway. Accidents will take away your sight, old age will take away your hearing, illness happen all the same. Why not at least give children a chance? A good starting point? Sure, you can get a bad hand in life, but if you're born with down syndrome you were never in the game to begin with.

Now to give my personal touch on the subject, I have a blood condition where my red cells are much smaller in size than usual. For me the effect is just a light anemia, but my doctor said that if I have a child with a woman with the same condition, our kid has a 50% chance of developing a much more severe version of it and having to spend his very short life doing intravenous infusions every week. (and even then life estimates rarely reach adult age and they usually just die as teens.) Not making a child in these circumstances would be a form of eugenics. Sure, maybe my kid would write the sickest gothic poetry ever on the hospital bed as a 14 years old, but that's not something I feel would justify all the pain he'd go through when I knew I had a choice.

[Anonymous No.22835840]

>>22835567
>Should we then dehumanize someone who is more prone to depression or general neuroticism
nope. you're making the mistake most leftoids make, either on purpose or in bad faith, by assuming assigning a value judgment to disease means you need to hate the person who has the disease. cancer is debilitating and should be eradicated, does that mean i hate cancer patients?
lack of power is bad and i would argue disability is lack of power above all else. not being able to see or to run limits your experiences and your being. even the guy who quoted marx, had marx say that not all workers were able to produce equal work, so the admission there is that not all workers inherently have the same amount of power? and i'm not sure the conclusion should be "disabled people are equal and we need to treat them differently" rather than "disability itself is an obstacle to achieving equality".

[Anonymous No.22836489]

>>22835065
Soon it will be more efficient to build robot slaves than use subhumans.

[Anonymous No.22836559]

>>22835018
explain the sephardis and mizrahi

[Anonymous No.22836587]

>>22835825
Different anemia here and not the anon you responded to, I'd have more faith in the kids. I spent a lot of childhood in hospitals, and kids still make art and have fun there.
>never in the game to begin with
Hate to break it to you but a lot of the people who have down syndrome are doing fine in the game of life and like to play a part in it. They don't have a monopoly on childhood heart defects or any of the other risks of having kids either.
What game are we playing here? One where we all lose because Munch will always be more famous than us even though we weren't born blind?

It's always a leap of faith in the kid to have one. Any kid might come out with no arms or legs through a rare spontaneous mutation and then proceed to completely mog you in life satisfaction before dying getting hit by a bus, surrounded by his ten bikini clad volunteer caretaker gfs who are all qualified nurses and nfl cheerleaders.

[Anonymous No.22836845]

>>22836489
not very soon at all, it will take centuries
don't listen to movies Steven

[Anonymous No.22836971]

>>22835840
When I use the term 'dehumanize' I make no mention of hatred. It is because you are depriving them of positive human qualities, in the sense that you deny them the ability to have positive human qualities in a very literal sense via eugenics.
They're undesirable, posses something that must be removed and in your eyes, not really bring treated as a human as a result of their disability. This is only amplified by the vagueness of the goal

It's not about whether or not you 'hate' them. It's you giving them a lower position in society that they cannot really pull themsleves out of, for traits that aren't necessarily bad for an ideal that is very subjective and not concrete.
If you want a really wack analogy, to me it's akin to sacrificing a goat to your pagan God. You have no hateful feelings towards the goat, but despite having little evidence that your God actually exists, you take a gamble on what is essentially their future.
Should also be noted not all disabilities are necessarily genetic, if I am physically handicapped as a result of an accident, the cause of the disability is entirely different, yet they still fit the disability criteria.

>lack of power is bad
Why is it bad? The only reasons I can think of are not directly a cause of the ability. It could also be said, depending on your perspective, that living despite one's disability is a poeer in and of itself.

>disability itself is an obstacle to achieving equality
In my eyes, eugenics is necessarily hierarchal, and as such, is incompatible with equality. The positive traits are very subjective, at least in the sense not all people may view them as undesirable, meaning harmful or bad.
>>22835825
It's not necessarily a bad thing either. I feel your example is also a poor one because there's a clear difference between 'improving their living conditions' and doing fucking eugenics. You are not improving 'their conditions' via eugenics. You are improving your own ideal, subjective condition for humanity. One that other people may not agree with.

[Anonymous No.22836992]

>>22836971
most retarded shit i ever read, sorry but you are retard

[Anonymous No.22837003]

>>22834133
Eugenics is always immoral because of how it changes the perception of the value of human life.
Either life is created by God, which endows not only each person but each creature, with essential dignity and a soul, or, it's not, which means it's open to the subjective appraisals of men.
If a down syndrome retard was created by God, you have to value him and treat his life with respect, which makes the whole of life more pleasant.
If he wasn't, then he's a problem in need of fixing; you open up the pandoras box of gene and chromosomal therapy to do this, you might start allowing for abortion because the stem cell extractions "for the greater good," you may put him a mental facility which is akin to a prison, you may start rounding up his kind and having them face the wall as you execute them.
Or, you can believe that God created all life and thus it is sacred, and the retard will live out his life with parents who love him and a society that leaves room for him and treats him with respect.

Life operates according to principles that are beyond men. When men become arrogant and take on that mantle, they always, always always, destroy life.

[Anonymous No.22837041]

>>22836992
>no argument
Projection. Thanks for saying another way of 'I concede'. cope

[Anonymous No.22837084]

>>22837041
you are pathetic to even argue with, i wanted to type an argument but retard like you is no use

[Anonymous No.22837087]

>>22837003
finally an ethical perspective well done anonski

[Anonymous No.22837095]

I've done a lot of political polling in my day. It is disturbing the amount of Christian conservatives who on the surface appear to be strictly pro-life, will have more complicated and generally pro-eugencis opinions when it comes to the subject of disabilities. These people are, simply put, absolute monsters.

[Anonymous No.22837097]

>>22837084
>ohhh be careful!!!! I have a big STRONG ARGUMENT right HERE!
>BUT I'm not gonna use it because you're just... le DUMB!
>so back off before I destroy you anon!!!
You are a FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.22837098]

>>22837095
you are such a retard and you wasted all of your time on nothing, better Cumming than doing shit like this you waste of sperm

[Anonymous No.22837103]

>>22837097
what a waste of oxygen, retards like you exist you entertain me

[Anonymous No.22837105]

>>22837003
>human life
>human
why not all life?

[Anonymous No.22837130]

>>22837103
Stop it. Stop calling me a brainlet. I'm smarter than you. S-M-A-R-T-E-R.

[Anonymous No.22837137]

>>22837105
I literally, explicitly said all life in the paragraph you're referring to.
The quality of /lit/ is reaching terminal levels

[Anonymous No.22837158]

>>22834134
It depends on what type of disability, really. You can still live a life if you're blind, deaf, or crippled. Drooling retard, probably not.

>>22834154
>getting a vasectomy makes you less than human
Cool, I can identify the subhumans now

[Anonymous No.22837160]

>>22837158
It's not your call whether or not they can "live a life." They are, in fact, alive.

[Anonymous No.22837205]

>>22837137
So you’re vegan, right?

[Anonymous No.22837218]

>>22837205
No. So is your argument that because I purchase chicken at a grocery store, I have to support executing retards or else I'm morally inconsistent?
Because if so, my position stands save for one addendum: I know support demographic hygiene SPECIFICALLY when it comes to you and you only

[Anonymous No.22837220]

>>22837218
Now*
Fucking phone autocorrecting correctly spelled words to other words what the fuck is that

[Anonymous No.22837230]

It's immoral if you believe in the inherent 'value' of human life

[Anonymous No.22837253]

>>22837160
>They are, in fact, alive.
So is a head of lettuce. The question is if humans are inherently valuable as >>22837230 suggests. The question arises, though, whose right is it to take away a human life?

Even assuming a healthy fetus, you'll get a good 40% of the population agreeing with you that it's your body, your choice, but that number drops off when you're, say, drowning a toddler in a bathtub.

[Anonymous No.22837254]

>>22837218
I’m missing the part where you explained why you’re morally consistent. I’ll give you a possible answer: you eat meat because you don’t give a fuck about animals, and no one else does either, and you love the taste of meat, so it’s practical for you to eat them. But you don’t like killing fetuses because you’re human and care more about humans, and you’ve bought into the idea that objective morality is real (because you want your feelings to be more valid than they are) and you want to feel virtuous and signal this to everyone else. Reducing suffering is more important than reducing life. There are tons of hypothetical scenarios I could design to prove this.

[Anonymous No.22837260]

>>22837253
Personally I believe that post-birth abortions can be moral

[Anonymous No.22837273]

>>22837253
-_- a head of lettuce isn't sentient
>whose right is it to take away a human life?
No one's.
You trotted the lettuce is alive argument though so I can already see I'm about to argue with a pedantic. I'm probably all set desu

[Anonymous No.22837282]

>>22837254
No I eat animals to get the nutritional value from meat. I didn't create the system of factory farming and don't agree with it. I try to source meats ethically when I can, but it's not financially feasible in every case, and I did not create the conditions that have resulted in that reality. It's a reality I seek to change.
In fact, all my financial efforts today, are aimed at getting self sufficient, so I can at least raise the animals I eat, because I believe they shouldn't be tortured even if I'm ultimately going to eat them, and my basis for that is their sentience, the fact that they have souls.
So I DO give a fuck about them, but only have so much power over large scale systems. Eating animals is a part of nature, for instance, I see no inconsistency between saying "I believe animals have souls and shouldn't be tortured or abused," and the act of hunting.
The natives ate animals, but had a far more ethical view and treatment of them, than we do. The native Americans I mean.
At no point did I say animals should never be killed, but the reasons are important. They shouldn't be wastefully killed or kept in concentration camps for vanity eating, but the basis for that is nutrition and sustenance; the basis for genetically modifying or killing a retard is based on not wanting to deal with the inconvenience of retards being around.

I also find logical consistency applications to ethical questions to be ridiculous, every time, because no one follows it because it's impossible. It's a rhetorical trick used by faggots to shame people hypocritically. Look at Singer, the biggest faggot of all time. Singer does this same shit, but drives a car, which poisons the atmosphere and harms all life in the aggregate, human and otherwise. Why doesn't he just walk? Because he's full of shit.

My standard is conscience, and mitigation of harm, not logic or elimination of harm, because thats fucking impossible. This is also your standard btw. Everyone's so full of it

[Anonymous No.22837289]

>>22837254
>objective morality is real
My stance, famously, is that objective truth doesn't even exist, never mind morality. There is a gray area, because again, my standard is conscience, which is sort of subjective, but idk why I have a gut feeling things are wrong or why it overlaps with so many other people's same sentiment on these ideas. It's a metaphysical mystery. That mystery, might be objective, but since it flouts being subject to any kind of real analysis, it's moot.

[Anonymous No.22837290]

>>22837254
>Reducing suffering is more important than reducing life.
This is also my stance, but eugenics always increases suffering along arbitrary lines of "perfecting the organism." I never claimed, for the most part, any of what you're leveling against me. Who's virtue signaling to everyone else, again?
Suck my dick

[Anonymous No.22837334]

>>22837289
Evolution explains where our moral instincts come from
>>22837290
I’m not virtue signaling. I’m trying to improve conscious experiences. Bringing life into this world for the sake of bringing life does not accomplish that goal.

[Anonymous No.22837340]

>>22837003
>Either life is created by God, which endows not only each person but each creature, with essential dignity and a soul, or, it's not, which means it's open to the subjective appraisals of men.
There are more options than just that. It MacIntyre's After Virtue is interesting for example.

[Anonymous No.22837354]

>>22837334
>Evolution explains where our moral instincts come from
No it doesnt
>Bringing life into this world for the sake of bringing life does not accomplish that goal.
Not your call to make. Most people think their lives are worth it.
>>22837340
No satisfying ones from an intellectual standpoint

[Anonymous No.22837357]

>>22837334
Also lol
>I’m not virtue signaling
Ah OK so my argument was disingenuous and full of shit but yours is genuine.
Again: suck my cock