Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

[Polymorpheus]

.

[POOHEAD189]

@Kratesis I think there's a huge amount of miscommunication between us. My fault probably. I should have been in bed awhile ago.

I never said anything about ugly people, ever.

But I never said I want them to be ugly.

No one said to make them ugly.

I never said we as parents should make life difficult for our children either (I did say to not give them too much, though). I never suggested I'd take away freedoms or trip them and watch them fall. I said difficulties can be good. So while genetically helping them is good, there's also downsides to it.

All I was saying was, making your baby (or anyone) conventionally attractive is not an inherent good because of a lot of factors. Maturity can be one. Character can be one. How they are perceived for good or ill (in the scientific community for example like the article suggested).

There's nothing to suggest that ensuring your kid is pretty will make them happier as an adult, because for every article I found that claims it, another claims it is the opposite.

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

Until you have evidence otherwise that people are not going to behave like people, your contrarian claim's burden of proof is on you and you alone, @catchamber. This is a fact, one of several you have previously put effort to combat before. This is no different from those.

[Kratesis]

@POOHEAD189 I am finding some of your statements so vague that it is hard for me to understand precisely what you want to communicate to me.

All I was saying was, making your baby (or anyone) conventionally attractive is not an inherent good because of a lot of factors. Maturity can be one. Character can be one.

So what you are saying, if I am understanding you correctly, is that making your children attractive isn't always good because there is an element of chance to life. They -could- end up immature. They -could- end up with a bad character. They -could- end up in a field where they -might- be discriminated against for their appearance.

That is like saying that leveling up in D&D isn't, how did you put it.. 'inherently good'.. because you could still roll a low number on your dice. So what if you get +5 attack! You have a 50% chance to roll a 10 or less! Obviously this is a non sequitur.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[Andreyich]

Still, the idea of parents being able to design their kids to simultaneously have oligodactylism, pygmyism, methemoglobinemia, and naturally white hair is bound to make lots of people uncomfortable.

There's a difference between making sure your kid doesn't have diabetes, and designing a freakshow because you watched a cool anime and now think your kid having heterochromia and white hair would be dope.

As others mentioned, there will be just like with vaccines those against improving mankind as a whole but as it stands their voice shouldn't and doesn't matter in the question.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

The definition of human is anything but arbitrary, @catchamber. It is so well defined that one could open up any dictionary and find the indexed portion dedicated to humans, whose qualities are generalized there.

No less, fringe groups as those will not become mainstream if the average person has any say in it, which they will by power of their aggregate number. This is common sense, not something one needs be enlightened into. You will not see some massive macro culture shift to anything near that degree of deviation. In fact, convincing the general population that genetic engineering would be safe at all would be the hardest battle one would fight; I refer to the prevalence of genetically modified organisms and that the common man is generally predispositioned against them, regardless if he actually knows they already make up a fair amount of his diet and some of his wear.

Physical attraction is complicated and varies across all human cultures, eras, and individual preferences (hence the fact that beauty is subjective). Some things are pretty universal: Scientifically, women tend to prefer masculine features and men who are taller than they are (usually a symbol of high testosterone, strength and sexual prowess); men tend to be attracted to women who are shorter than they are, have fuller lips, symmetrical faces, and large breasts (symbols of high estrogen levels and thus high fertility). Scientifically and evolutionarily, we prefer people whose features promise us reliable reproduction options: healthy, attractive, and strong children.

Medical Daily

We are speaking to statistical averages, not individual variations. You have previously demonstrated to me you take difficulty on me noting this from our prior conversations, so let me be up front; the normal person is, by the numbers, going to consistently identify the same or similar traits as what they find attractive as the next most averaged person. By working out from there, you develop a measurable trend until you reach the extremes of what people would willingly tolerate in social and cultural norms, especially in dominant First World countries who would unquestionably have access to widespread use of such technology before anyone else.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

Humans with polymelia, smaller brains, no capacity for articulate speech or abstract reasoning, or severe cases of scoliosis don't fit this definition. While you can call them defected, some would say that giving them that title is a form of morphological chauvinism.

Those "some" you refer to are allowing their emotions and feelings to cloud their reality. If you are diagnosed medically lacking, are disabled, or are somehow biologically defective, you are just that. This does not mean you are somehow useless or not worthy of life, or inherently are a lesser person, but it is a fact that you are not the norm and are still graded against that. A few of us in this topic are medically classified as having some form of disability, yet here we are, still serving a purpose and still doing things in our lives, still off being individuals. Arguing "morphological chauvinism" is newspeak, plain and simple.

None the less, you have blatantly disregard several key areas to make your attempted point. The word choice and content of the cited paragraph is clear, as shown below:

Human being, a culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species H. sapiens. Human beings are anatomically similar and related to the great apes but are distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Some of these characteristics, however, are not entirely unique to humans. The gap in cognition, as in anatomy, between humans and the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) is much less than was once thought, as they have been shown to possess a variety of advanced cognitive abilities formerly believed to be restricted to humans.

Yes, because you can predict the future so well, you know how the average person will respond to genemodding becoming mainstream. Let's ignore the fact that the breeding, selling, and consuming of genetically modified organisms has been approved in numerous countries, let alone that legal genemodding of human embryos has already happened in the UK, US, and China.

Yes, you can get a blurry image of the future without a crystal ball. Try looking to the past and present first, then imagining thereafter through that combined lens. I am going to stay on the side of probability and median likelihood rather than plunge off into the pool of hypothetical "What if?" statements. I will not argue this point with you again. I care nothing at all for the maybe when the probably is more pressing and likely.

We are not living in a day and age where that level of genetic experimentation on humans is significant enough, not even close I add, to make such a profound change in what it means to be human. Furthermore, you seem to have blatantly ignored my reference to this as well, so do not act as though I did not somehow acknowledge your claim in anticipation thereof:

In fact, convincing the general population that genetic engineering would be safe at all would be the hardest battle one would fight; I refer to the prevalence of genetically modified organisms and that the common man is generally predispositioned against them, regardless if he actually knows they already make up a fair amount of his diet and some of his wear.

Lastly:

So long as the ability to modify the underlying patterns that influence mate selection is rare or nonexistent, this might be true. But, in a world where that ability exists and is easily accessible, it's quite possible that trend may stop being universal. In vitro fertilization already bypasses the need for sex, and in vitro gametogenesis makes multiplex parenting a feasible strategy. There's nothing to indicate that humanity as a whole will forever be bound to traditional mating strategies.

"In a world where that ability exists and is easily accessible, it's quite possible that rend may stop being universal."

I need ask, what world do you see around you? The entire system has shifted over time, I have no doubt about that and you are acting as if I am for some reason, but you are attempting to make an extreme and baseless claim. Again, I will not even entertain that argument unless you have profound evidence to show that somehow people in this future you keep referring to are so far removed from their own humanity that this metric no longer applies. I further note that "in vitro fertilization" does not bypass the biological influences of sexual drive or sexuality at all. They might not be physically having said children, but I strongly doubt people will suddenly up and surrender deep seated, subconscious, primitive, mammalian mate determining qualities.

In the future platinum hair might be viewed as taboo and all people desire is curly, rich, midnight colored hair. That I could believe, any number of reasons that might be credible, but I am not about to be convinced that the majority will ever dive off into something as insane as adding or removing digits, limbs or tails, cat ears, hooves, et cetera. Odds strongly favor against that to be the outcome.

Even today in what is considered a "progressive culture" a fair amount of people hold that tattoos are still somehow taboo, even if only one. Body modification just takes that one step further until your concentric circles reach a point where the everyman will not tolerate it at all.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[Dion]

`Most people are born with five fingers on either hand, therefore, that is normal, because normal refers to the norm, ergo, the average of the entire sum.`

`Lol no it's not, six fingers is totally normal except there's bias against those people hehehe xd`

`Okay... having two uteruses is not normal for humans however... so that would also not be normal.`

`HEH BUT ANIMALS DO AND WE'RE BASICALLY ANIMALS TOUCHÉ INTELLECTUALLY SPAR ME HARDER DADDY`

Basically what I just read. What the fuck.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[Dion]

@Odin Do you even know what the word "defect" means?

@catchamber

Yes, but he said biologically defective, not defective. Even something that works can be biologically defective.

For someone who always screams about definitions not matching the reality you seem awfully content to use them whenever it suits you, lol. Kinda hypocritical. Remember that discussion in discord about some definition that you refused to see as 'true' because it didn't account for what could happen no matter how unlikely? It was about the definition of life, and you argued that the definition was wrong because somewhere in the future far in space, a lifeform could exist that did not meet that definition.

So yes, I know what the definition of defect is. Doesn't change that a biological defect can be something as simple as having six fingers. But I somehow doubt that he was talking about having six fingers since the rest of his text seems to indicate pretty well that he means things that are disruptive in nature, but you seem content to ignore that too.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[Dion]

<Snipped quote by Odin>
Defining a human trait as a biological defect depends the definition of a human with no such defects. Since it seems impossible to do that without creating a paradox, or using circular logic by automatically defining certain biological traits as defects, it seems valid to say that calling something a defect is a matter of perspective.

@catchamber

Which builds upon what I understood Harbinger implied - that the definition of what is a defect and what is not can change but most likely will not when it comes to the things he is discussing. I never saw him say that the definition of a defect cannot change. I only saw him say that those that are diagnosed with certain traits are only that - diagnosed with certain traits. It says nothing about the quality of life.

Having six fingers is a defect - because your body is not working as intended. It says nothing about the quality of life. Just that you have a defect because your body did something it wasn't supposed to do.

Actually, I argued that this claim was inaccurate:

<Snipped quote by The Harbinger of Ferocity>
I then went on to argue that something doesn't need the ability to reproduce to be considered alive. The hypothetical being I referenced was a thought experiment designed to criticize their claim, and they agreed that if such a being was ever proven to exist, they would agree with my criticism.

But this doesn't align with the definition, ergo, by your logic of asking if I know the definition of defect, I can just claim the same thing and come up with some hypothetical non-being that defies the definition of a defect.

Sure, he wasn't talking about those with six fingers per hand, or women with two uteruses, but what happens when one of the people with any of the conditions I've listed view their trait as nondisruptive?

I don't know, I suppose that a pedo isn't actually mentally ill because they see their adoration for younger people as nondisruptive. Cancer is also nondisruptive as long as you will it into existence. Eh, yeah, no, you're wrong. Both those things can be nondisruptive in day to day life but can cause risks and complications later on. (Especially having two uteruses seems like it will cause a lot of complications and risks.)

Does a medical association have a greater say over an individual's self-image than the individual? If you think the answer to that question is "yes", I wonder if you'd have considered arguing against the American Psychiatric Association's classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder before 1973.

I would argue that they do. Because they are not providing full on facts. They are providing medical insights and theories, and as we know, no theory is 100% conclusive and factual in nature and even the most ancient of theories that have been tried and tested are continuously being proven wrong and changed to accommodate.

Perhaps that classification is wrong (I think it is) but I also think that during that time with our limited understanding of homosexuality, it was the solution that they came up with. So, at that time, it seemed like a natural conclusion and one that they believed was backed by facts.

.. unless you are asserting here that they did this out of malicious intent and not out of a professional theory?

EDIT: And just for the record - there is a clear cut example of medical organizations having a greater say that is obesity. Recently it's been claimed and believed into existence that obesity is not a risk factor for health at all by certain individuals. It's a load of shit, anyone with more than a single brain cell knows it. I would like to ask you if you think that just because people think it causes no problem, that also means that it's not a problem?

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

I find it amusing you chose the extremely controversial changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as your citation,
@catchamber. You do know that those alterations, as with the ones that affected related gender dysphoria and Autism were and are extremely suspect, correct? They might be "official" changes, but there is still debate on their validity to this day and some mental health offices do not recognize those changes. Why would someone do this?

It was a matter of political correctness and funding, not science. If you look up any of the other forms of dysphoria, quickly compare them to those gaps that have since been created. Clinically, there is an argument for them understood as being mental illnesses. This is not my saying one way or another if they are, but fact is being intentionally removed from science because it "hurts people's feelings".

There is no standard of "must cause pain" only the standard of "it must not be the statistical norm for humans". That entire attempted argument is such an insane line of reasoning I needn't explain myself any further there, @Odin summarized it.

As for "Not present in many human beings.", can you show me where any statistical majority is present where people do not meet those criteria? Even a percent of the entire human population less than half is considered a minority, sorry. I can guarantee you that far, far, far fewer than a percent of people would fail to qualify under that definition of human. That is not a large enough population to cater a special definition to or unique understanding of.

With regard to people being biased against genetically modified organisms, just sit back for a moment and observe the massive organic market and it's continued boom into mainstream. People wrongfully fear something as simple as food that has been altered to be more resistant to drought or even the use of antibiotics in meat animals, which is comparatively much more tame. There are even anecdotes of shipments of modified rice being donated to starving people in Africa that were destroyed because the local populace were convinced by activists thatit was somehow tainted; they then in turn misunderstood this as some sort "curse" or witchcraft. An anecdote certainly, but we are talking about humanity.

Bypassing the need for reproductive sex will not bypass the fact of what humans subconsciously tend toward in their preferencing for mate selection. They would logically choose, in most cases, desirable traits for their children or those they understood as desirable. Not that they are thinking to reproduce with their children, but what is generally known and understood as worthy of pursuit by either gender.

As I said before, when speaking to odds and likelihood, feel free to believe the fringes, but I will be here, placing my bets on what I can confirm as most likely.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[POOHEAD189]

@POOHEAD189 I am finding some of your statements so vague that it is hard for me to understand precisely what you want to communicate to me.

<Snipped quote>

So what you are saying, if I am understanding you correctly, is that making your children attractive isn't always good because there is an element of chance to life. They -could- end up immature. They -could- end up with a bad character. They -could- end up in a field where they -might- be discriminated against for their appearance.

That is like saying that leveling up in D&D isn't, how did you put it.. 'inherently good'.. because you could still roll a low number on your dice. So what if you get +5 attack! You have a 50% chance to roll a 10 or less! Obviously this is a non sequitur.

@Kratesis

I just revealed to you that studies are inconclusive on whether or not good looks = advancement, so no that is not a correct analogy. I could just as easily say

So what you are saying, if I am understanding you correctly, is that making your children unattractive isn't always good because there is an element of chance to life. They -could- end up immature. They -could- end up with a bad character. They -could- end up in a field where they -might- be discriminated against for their appearance.

Just change the word of attractive to unattractive, and there's the same amount of chance for all of that studies show.

Attractiveness does not increase your value as a human being.

[Little Bill]

this thread is why al gore invented the internet