Where do rights come from?

[nonobaddog]

Exactly.

Morality issues are rarely ever genetic ones (some autism/brain disorder issues notwithstanding). "Genocide as the chlorine for the gene pool" only makes sense for genetic characteristics. Otherwise, it is a pretext for "people we don't like."

Isn't genocide always for that?

 

[jamil]

people that do mobile orders at starbucks

like, i ****in' take the time to walk in and order my coffee, but i still have to be behind 10 invisible customers in line to wait for my stuff? nah man, I ain't about that. priority should go to people in the store.

yeah, remove those people.

I like mobile ordering. Can I help it if you’re stuck in the past?




Not talking about the swill they call coffee at Starbucks though.

 

[T.Lex]

Isn't genocide always for that?

Upthread someone said it might be a useful tool to clean the gene pool.

There's been a lack of clarification about what that means.

 

[Libertarian01]

There is a big difference between genocide and eugenics.

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

There is a big difference between genocide and eugenics.

Doug

Well, I'd usually agree, but when someone says :

Ever wonder if genocide is how you correct the gene pool?

It seems that there may be an overlap.

 

[2A_Tom]

Is that anything like a comb over.

 

[NKBJ]

hahaha

That "hit the books" comment is ironic, since you don't appear to recognize an admittedly bastardized key quote in US history.



And as for characteristics that our creator wanted to wipe clean, none of those were particularly genetic. Those were choice-based issues.

Your (apparently rhetorical) question about whether he still wants it wiped clean would appear to be answered in Genesis 9:11.

"Hit the books...."

Jefferson's words I am familiar with. What you said, no.
By the way, what do you think Gen 9:11 has to do with eugenics? Other than the idea that cleansing the gene pool was needed due to intentional sullying, that is, and the inundation was the chosen method? One way or the other, God saying that He wasn't going to flood it all again was just that and only that.

 

[nonobaddog]

There is a big difference between genocide and eugenics.

Doug

One difference is the question was about genocide and not eugenics.

 

[T.Lex]

One difference is the question was about genocide and not eugenics.

"eugenics" == "gene pool"

 

[nonobaddog]

The question was about genocide fixing the gene pool.

Not about evolution fixing the gene pool, not about mutation fixing the gene pool, not about eugenics fixing the gene pool, not about natural selection changing the gene pool.

 

[chipbennett]

The question was about genocide fixing the gene pool.

Not about evolution fixing the gene pool, not about mutation fixing the gene pool, not about eugenics fixing the gene pool, not about natural selection changing the gene pool.

Seems like a distinction without a difference:

eu·gen·ics

/yo͞oˈjeniks/
Learn to pronounce

noun

​

• the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.​

The Nazis took eugenics to its logical conclusion, that eliminating the undesirable traits through genocide was more effective/more efficient than merely relying on breeding in the desirable traits.

In other words, yes: eugenics is synonymous with genocide.

 

[2A_Tom]

gen·o·cide

/ˈjenəˌsīd/

noun

• the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
  "a campaign of genocide"

Which?

 

[T.Lex]

The INGO statement-in-the-form-of-a-question suggests that genocide can be a tool with which to apply eugenics. That is, eradicate a group of people based on genetics.

In that formulation, eugenics is the goal, and genocide is the means to accomplish it - on a large scale.

Regarding the thread topic, it seems like a logical conclusion from that analysis is that preferred genetics conveys more/better rights.

 

[nonobaddog]

Good enough.

I always thought eugenics was controlled breeding like the definition says. I have not thought of mass executions as controlled breeding before. Seems a little stretchy but I guess it fits good enough.

 

[T.Lex]

Good enough.

I always thought eugenics was controlled breeding like the definition says. I have not thought of mass executions as controlled breeding before. Seems a little stretchy but I guess it fits good enough.

The "controlled" part isn't really in the Mendelian way of limiting exposure to other genetic profiles, but more about human intervention - mostly through sterilization - into the reproductive process. Preventing people of inferior genetics from even having the opportunity to procreate.

Genocide seems like an extreme version of that process to achieve that goal, but I'm not the one who raised the idea.

 

[nonobaddog]

I always thought of eugenics as more like what the Russians (and some other countries) do with some athletes to try to create a new generation of better athletes. A method to "improve" the gene pool by selecting desirable characteristics rather than by removing others.
I can see where a generous definition could include both.

 

[T.Lex]

Interesting. I associate it first with the historic practice of a century or so ago. That's the context I first learned of it.

 

[BigRed]

I never cease to be amazed at how quickly INGO can take a good topic run it down a rabbit trail.

 

[T.Lex]

I never cease to be amazed at how quickly INGO can take a good topic run it down a rabbit trail.

Kinda like the geyser at Yellowstone. You know what's going to happen, nothing you can really do to stop it, and yet it is still kinda surprising every time.

 

[JettaKnight]

Kinda like the geyser at Yellowstone. You know what's going to happen, nothing you can really do to stop it, and yet it is still kinda surprising every time.