Cummings' Jobs Advert
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
It's to do with what side you are on.
If you support A and A says something outlandish, you will back A up.
If you DON'T support A and he says the same thing, you attack A.
Humans playing God is a dangerous thing. Unless one is the epitome of perfection, deciding what attributes a human should possess and what attributes are undesirable is a very, very dangerous path to travel along.
But that is essentially what NICE make judgements about. What treatments should the NHS offer.If you support A and A says something outlandish, you will back A up.
If you DON'T support A and he says the same thing, you attack A.
Humans playing God is a dangerous thing. Unless one is the epitome of perfection, deciding what attributes a human should possess and what attributes are undesirable is a very, very dangerous path to travel along.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm sure those in favour of eugenics would be absolutely fine with it right up until the point that their own deficiencies were the ones deemed unacceptable to society.
I'll say it again but "A special adviser to Jeremy Corbyn suggested Jewish people are of lower intelligence and IQ than other races" would be absolutely slaughtered and rightly so.
Yet it's something that apparently has merit when this chap says it.
I don't get it.
I do the same, but in this case it doesn't align with the data that prompted the idea. I'll say it again but "A special adviser to Jeremy Corbyn suggested Jewish people are of lower intelligence and IQ than other races" would be absolutely slaughtered and rightly so.
Yet it's something that apparently has merit when this chap says it.
I don't get it.
In the real-life example, it aligned with the thought that BJ is a racist, and voila.
Tough - isn't it.
I ain't God. And I never wish to be.
NICE is essentially a budgetary body. They weigh up cost v' perceived benefit.
I just know that if politicians or their advisers (whether their advisors are rational or total cooks) are probably the absolute WORST people to be deciding who should or shouldn't be born.
I ain't God. And I never wish to be.
NICE is essentially a budgetary body. They weigh up cost v' perceived benefit.
I just know that if politicians or their advisers (whether their advisors are rational or total cooks) are probably the absolute WORST people to be deciding who should or shouldn't be born.
Eric Mc said:
Tough - isn't it.
I ain't God. And I never wish to be.
NICE is essentially a budgetary body. They weigh up cost v' perceived benefit.
I just know that if politicians or their advisers
(whether their advisors are rational or total cooks) are probably the absolute WORST people to be deciding who should or shouldn't be born.
Various IVF clinics already do this (fertilise several eggs then choose the 'best' one.I ain't God. And I never wish to be.
NICE is essentially a budgetary body. They weigh up cost v' perceived benefit.
I just know that if politicians or their advisers
(whether their advisors are rational or total cooks) are probably the absolute WORST people to be deciding who should or shouldn't be born.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm sure those in favour of eugenics would be absolutely fine with it right up until the point that their own deficiencies were the ones deemed unacceptable to society.
I'll say it again but "A special adviser to Jeremy Corbyn suggested Jewish people are of lower intelligence and IQ than other races" would be absolutely slaughtered and rightly so.
Yet it's something that apparently has merit when this chap says it.
I don't get it.
Except, isn't there evidence that Jewish people are of higher IQ on average? I don't have an issue with him saying that if it's factually correct, despite not being in that category, though for obvious reasons I'm not expecting Corbyn to do so.I'll say it again but "A special adviser to Jeremy Corbyn suggested Jewish people are of lower intelligence and IQ than other races" would be absolutely slaughtered and rightly so.
Yet it's something that apparently has merit when this chap says it.
I don't get it.
Indeed they do.
I wouldn't want to see it becoming government or national policy - decided by politicians. Let the clinicians make these decisions on a case by case basis.
If we only wanted "perfect" children being born, half the people who advocate such policies would never have been born themselves.
I wouldn't want to see it becoming government or national policy - decided by politicians. Let the clinicians make these decisions on a case by case basis.
If we only wanted "perfect" children being born, half the people who advocate such policies would never have been born themselves.
768 said:
Except, isn't there evidence that Jewish people are of higher IQ on average? I don't have an issue with him saying that if it's factually correct, despite not being in that category, though for obvious reasons I'm not expecting Corbyn to do so.
The Point ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Somewhere around the orbit of the outer planets ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– You.768 said:
Except, isn't there evidence that Jewish people are of higher IQ on average? I don't have an issue with him saying that if it's factually correct, despite not being in that category, though for obvious reasons I'm not expecting Corbyn to do so.
So if I convert to Judaism I'll suddenly pick up IQ points?Eric Mc said:
Indeed they do.
I wouldn't want to see it becoming government or national policy - decided by politicians. Let the clinicians make these decisions on a case by case basis.
If we only wanted "perfect" children being born, half the people who advocate such policies would never have been born themselves.
I dont see an alternative to something like NICE and the NHS offering a service. Otherwise the rich will go private and have Captain America or Wonderwomen children while the less well off will become increasing disadvantaged.I wouldn't want to see it becoming government or national policy - decided by politicians. Let the clinicians make these decisions on a case by case basis.
If we only wanted "perfect" children being born, half the people who advocate such policies would never have been born themselves.
hifihigh said:
s2art said:
I dont see an alternative to something like NICE and the NHS offering a service. Otherwise the rich will go private and have Captain America or Wonderwomen children while the less well off will become increasing disadvantaged.
make sure the NHS does not fail.768 said:
Except, isn't there evidence that Jewish people are of higher IQ on average? I don't have an issue with him saying that if it's factually correct, despite not being in that category, though for obvious reasons I'm not expecting Corbyn to do so.
What there is no evidence of is that this is genetic, rather than down to culture / upbringing / wealth etc. 768 said:
Except, isn't there evidence that Jewish people are of higher IQ on average? I don't have an issue with him saying that if it's factually correct, despite not being in that category, though for obvious reasons I'm not expecting Corbyn to do so.
I believe the evidence there is in that regard relates only to Ashkenazi Jews who historically were a branch of Judaism residing mainly in central Europe and Eastern Europe.Many migrated to America, due in part to Tsarist era pogroms, and the American Jewish population is mainly Ashkenazi.
Can we separate "eugenics" into three separate categories, or is that verboten?
Category 1 - editing genes to prevent passing on of specific genes that cause (for example) breast cancer, alzheimers, Ehlers-Danloss Syndrome or the many others that science is recognising are caused in virtually all cases by a specific gene that could be replaced by a myriad of alternative ones currently existing in the spectrum of the human genome.
Category 2 - the Swedish model. Sterilisation of people with specific genetic abnormalities which lead to reduced quality of life and increased burdens on society.
Category 3 - killing people who display certain genetic traits which are considered undesirable.
Or is that too nuanced for the board?
For me - option 1 is to be supported. Option 2 could find my support, but is far more emotionally challenging and risky and so I don't think I could support it in any likely scenario. Option 3 is beyond the pale.
Does that make me a nazi worshipper?
Category 1 - editing genes to prevent passing on of specific genes that cause (for example) breast cancer, alzheimers, Ehlers-Danloss Syndrome or the many others that science is recognising are caused in virtually all cases by a specific gene that could be replaced by a myriad of alternative ones currently existing in the spectrum of the human genome.
Category 2 - the Swedish model. Sterilisation of people with specific genetic abnormalities which lead to reduced quality of life and increased burdens on society.
Category 3 - killing people who display certain genetic traits which are considered undesirable.
Or is that too nuanced for the board?
For me - option 1 is to be supported. Option 2 could find my support, but is far more emotionally challenging and risky and so I don't think I could support it in any likely scenario. Option 3 is beyond the pale.
Does that make me a nazi worshipper?
longblackcoat said:
768 said:
Except, isn't there evidence that Jewish people are of higher IQ on average? I don't have an issue with him saying that if it's factually correct, despite not being in that category, though for obvious reasons I'm not expecting Corbyn to do so.
So if I convert to Judaism I'll suddenly pick up IQ points?Sway said:
Can we separate "eugenics" into three separate categories, or is that verboten?
Category 1 - editing genes to prevent passing on of specific genes that cause (for example) breast cancer, alzheimers, Ehlers-Danloss Syndrome or the many others that science is recognising are caused in virtually all cases by a specific gene that could be replaced by a myriad of alternative ones currently existing in the spectrum of the human genome.
Category 2 - the Swedish model. Sterilisation of people with specific genetic abnormalities which lead to reduced quality of life and increased burdens on society.
Category 3 - killing people who display certain genetic traits which are considered undesirable.
Or is that too nuanced for the board?
For me - option 1 is to be supported. Option 2 could find my support, but is far more emotionally challenging and risky and so I don't think I could support it in any likely scenario. Option 3 is beyond the pale.
Does that make me a nazi worshipper?
Only if you find yourself in a government position in 6 years...Category 1 - editing genes to prevent passing on of specific genes that cause (for example) breast cancer, alzheimers, Ehlers-Danloss Syndrome or the many others that science is recognising are caused in virtually all cases by a specific gene that could be replaced by a myriad of alternative ones currently existing in the spectrum of the human genome.
Category 2 - the Swedish model. Sterilisation of people with specific genetic abnormalities which lead to reduced quality of life and increased burdens on society.
Category 3 - killing people who display certain genetic traits which are considered undesirable.
Or is that too nuanced for the board?
For me - option 1 is to be supported. Option 2 could find my support, but is far more emotionally challenging and risky and so I don't think I could support it in any likely scenario. Option 3 is beyond the pale.
Does that make me a nazi worshipper?
I'd agree with both the disambiguation and the conclusion.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff