3 ms·

"Lifting 100kg" is objective. Saying that "being able to lift 100kg is being strong" is not. What is not objective is saying what it takes to be considered stro

• BurningFrog 10y ago
  Looking back at the thread, I started by saying "it doesn't make anyone else dumber, weaker or uglier". You talked about "dumb", "weak" or "ugly" instead, and have stuck to it. So I suppose you're right within your changed phrasing, because you chose to talk about something different than my point.
  • grive 10y ago
    You imply that it was dishonest. It was absolutely not dishonest. It was precisely to emphasize my point. My point being that the words you used were all comparisons, made in relation to a norm. That's the whole point of the thread. That it was actually impossible to use the nouns themselves ("dumb", "weak", "ugly"), exactly because there cannot be any objective measure of it in nature. Yes, you lift Nkg. You weight Mkg. You measure Xcm. That does not tell whether you are strong, heavy or tall. These are all meaningless in a vacuum. More importantly, it does not tell whether you are stronger, heavier, taller. Stronger, heavier, taller than what, than whom? You were excluding this context in you analysis, telling that the poors would not lose anything as they would not be worse off from their former self. The context here is that they are not measured against humanity decades, centuries earlier, but to their contemporaries, the elites that would design their babies. It is impossible to abstract this context from the comparison, precisely because it is a comparison, and because the only meaningful comparison is that which concerns contemporaries.
    • BurningFrog 10y ago
      I didn't mean to say you were dishonest, only that you're talking about a different thing than I am. It seems like you honestly can't tell the difference. Thanks for the chat!
      • grive 10y ago
        I can perfectly tell the difference, you simply missed the point.