2 ms·

>No, I didn't make a Hitler comparison. Why did you even bring it up then? Nobody from my comment down was talking about eugenics that I can see, until you int

>No, I didn't make a Hitler comparison. Why did you even bring it up then? Nobody from my comment down was talking about eugenics that I can see, until you introduced it to the discussion. It's like you are arguing against an imaginary person in your head. This is the comment you replied to with your eugenics/not-Hitler argument: >I wish this were always the case but statistically this would be a miracle. There is a non zero number of humans born that no matter what we do they will not work with the society that works for the rest of us. >That’s the root of this issue. How do you help the ones that can be helped, and what do you do with those that can’t be helped. I imagine we’ll need a much more sophisticated understanding of genetics before we can answer that. What does eugenics have to do with that comment? >future compatibility with society cannot be judged on genetics Nobody said this but you. >Using proven things like cancer to justify BS theories like "eugenics" is, IMHO, unacceptable. Nobody said this either. Who are you even arguing with? >Because you don't have to be "troubled" (how I hate that attribute...) to drive drunk and kill a family of 4 (or whatever number you can think of). One bad decision is enough. No, but I would argue people with "troubled" childhoods have a much higher propensity to cause societal damage like killing a family of 4 in a drunken joyride.

mxkopy 5y ago
You are either trolling, or not mentally present. Either way, please refrain from commenting further. In case of the latter: >What does eugenics have to do with that comment? rajin444 is stating that an understanding of genetics would allow us to rehabilitate people that "will not work with the society that works for the rest of us." This implies that socially desirable behavior can be genetically coded, which has been debunked by the failure of eugenics. >>future compatibility with society cannot be judged on genetics >Nobody said this but you. You had said in a previous comment: >>Just because it hits home, genetic prevalence of cancer is something completely different from behavior and how people work in a society. >>You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics? >Both can be predicted genetically. Which implies that you think future compatability can be judged by genetics. >>Using proven things like cancer to justify BS theories like "eugenics" is, IMHO, unacceptable. >Nobody said this either. Who are you even arguing with? You commented this earlier: >Your parents have cancer? Well predictively you might have a higher chance of getting it too. Your parents are smart? We should test you for the gifted program. In this comment, you explicitly compare the use of genetics in a.) cancer and b.) screening for intelligence. I am inclined to think that you are trolling, especially considering that you are repeatedly using an appeal to emotion in the form of a hypothetical traumatic event. Please stop.

mxkopy 5y ago

You are either trolling, or not mentally present. Either way, please refrain from commenting further. In case of the latter: >What does eugenics have to do with that comment? rajin444 is stating that an understanding of genetics would allow us to rehabilitate people that "will not work with the society that works for the rest of us." This implies that socially desirable behavior can be genetically coded, which has been debunked by the failure of eugenics. >>future compatibility with society cannot be judged on genetics >Nobody said this but you. You had said in a previous comment: >>Just because it hits home, genetic prevalence of cancer is something completely different from behavior and how people work in a society. >>You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics? >Both can be predicted genetically. Which implies that you think future compatability can be judged by genetics. >>Using proven things like cancer to justify BS theories like "eugenics" is, IMHO, unacceptable. >Nobody said this either. Who are you even arguing with? You commented this earlier: >Your parents have cancer? Well predictively you might have a higher chance of getting it too. Your parents are smart? We should test you for the gifted program. In this comment, you explicitly compare the use of genetics in a.) cancer and b.) screening for intelligence. I am inclined to think that you are trolling, especially considering that you are repeatedly using an appeal to emotion in the form of a hypothetical traumatic event. Please stop.