The Organisation Forums

Schmidt has it exactly right. Two things to state:

- Quote: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

- Zenithan, you should make a book on all this. It shall be called, "The Cloning Manifesto."

Schmidt has no point he seems to belive that not only will only certin people be geneticly modified, but that this would allow them to do amazing things with no effort. Sorry to break it to you but your wrong there is no possiable way for you to geneticly enginer some one into the ultimate athlete without any work at all. genetic modifacation only gives people a higher potential in life. furthermore genetic modifaction would not be used to give people "designer babys" but to insure that each and every child was born free of all illnesses and able to acheve there full potential.

Daniel, are you thick? Or do you have selective reading?

I specifically said that these genetically enhanced people would have to work at it also, or they would obviously become as unhealthy as any other person who refused to exercise would. I suggest you re-read what I wrote.

And no, I don't only think that certain people would be genetically modified (in the beginning). If it were legalized, at first it would be very expesive and for the rich and powerful, however like all new technologies it would spread and the cost of the precedure would diminish until it eventually became a regular event (i.e. braces, radiation therapy, immunizations, etc.).

Again, to shoot one of your previous so called "points", Daniel, I never said that you could create an athlete that would never need to train. However, they wouldn't have to train as hard as others or become tired or as energy consuming as others.

Your naive mind stuns me. Of course you just proved to us that you didn't read everyone's inpit thoroughly as we were talking about corruption. You said this: "furthermore genetic modifaction would not be used to give people "designer babys" but to insure that each and every child was born free of all illnesses and able to acheve there full potential."

In an ideal world, that would be all it would be for. Though, you obviously don't know anything of the world these days if that is what you think would actually happen. It would be, as has been said, corrupted and used for many other things other than that. So, please, Daniel. Read things through and use your head before responding.

You can really learn alot from reading these threads.

Morals and ethics are not the same thing worldwide, Schmidt. What you're thinking of is the golden rule, not ethics in general. The golden rule is "one should treat others as one would like to be treated". If ethics were the same worldwide, there would be no cannibalism on the face of the Earth, or sacrificial rituals performed by cults and some tribes. In addition, much of our moral code is dictated by what society tells us is "right" or "wrong", which isn't necessarily the case. Look at smoking just until recently, or women's rights. Keep in mind that ethics caused some of the most violent disputes in our history; consider that Christianity is, in a way, a form of ethics.

Is it a fact that protecting the world falls to us? Is it even necessary to keep the world alive? What is life, after all? What is death? It all takes place for the blink of an eye in our huge universe. In the end, this planet, our reality, will be destroyed no matter what we do. Although I agree with you, I had to bring this up.



Heh. You just placed us as the protectors of our planet, as the most advanced beings on the face of the Earth, and now you turn and say that we have no right to determine our own destiny? Who is going to decide when we "take the step", then? God? Aliens? Transdimensional beings? With genetic modification, we could be far better guardians than we already are. With advanced solutions to the world's problems brought on by the new wave of humanity, we could save this planet, the very one that you covet so dearly. In addition, we can't rely on Evolution to improve us. Evolution is not a "roadmap"; it is modified by mutation and natural selection, as random as it can be. In our current state of luxury, we are going nowhere.



Tough luck, I guess. If they don't want the vaccine, they can live with the sickness.



I'm going to have to ask for a clarification on that one. There is no choice involved in birth in the first place. Our thought patterns are determined by a mix of nature and nurture. With improvements to "nature", the mind will improve, yes, but it was never the child's choice to begin with. During meiosis, chromosomes exchange genetic information in a process called "crossing over". This assures some degree of randomness within any sperm or egg cell. How exactly does a child make a conscious choice during a cellular process? In fact, granting a child additional abilities is likely to be beneficial if conservatives (i.e. you) don't decide to commit genocide against them all because they feel that humanity itself is being threatened.



Would you care to look up "personal computer" for me? It seems to me that computers have dramatically increased humanity's capabilities as a whole, giving us access to huge databases of information. We no longer have to go to a book and read through it to find a piece of information that we want. I suppose that you could say that is cheating, along pretty much the same line of thought you are following. With the rise of medical technology, our life expectancy has risen, and fatalities have fallen drastically. I suppose this is cheating, in a way. In addition, knowing how to operate technology is now a staple for the working class; this pretty much puts those who know little about it out of a job. It seems to me that this elimates the concept of equality and certain human rights.

I suppose the general point is that society adapts to change, usually for the better. All these things could have been described as the fall of humanity in the past; AI, biochemical viruses, blood transfusions... Culture has historically been very resistant to change; it always had to be a slow, steady process... but adaptation occured. I believe genetic modification will come to be accepted in much the same way. As with anything, it will start in the minority, but it will spread, its benefits included, to the majority.



And to counter this "ideal soldier" or politician, other superpowers will use their own. In all probability, if this does occur, a phenomenon not not unlike Mutual Assured Destruction will take place, essentially keeping these superpowers under control. Companies are already outsourcing and using child labour. I don't see how they could use genetically modified people, especially in poorer countries, to do their bidding, especially since they will be of such use to society. There are always groups that keep these things in check, even now. I don't think we would stand for it for too long. Even if we did, it is a benefit for the rest of us. I don't see how genetic modification will automatically abolish minimum wage laws, especially with smarter, more perceptive people around.

As for your "intellectual" point, IT IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO EARN INTELLIGENCE IN OUR SOCIETY. Again, the mixture of nature and nurture comes into play. We are shaped by our (sometimes quite horrible) genetic material and our experiences. Intellectuals do not "earn" their place in any meaningful way. They are simply outcasts who dedicate their time to the pursuit of knowledge due to a certain lack of acceptance among the idiocy around them. I would know.



The same people that do now: The poor, be they genetically modified or not. The balance is retained, as is your precious capitalism. With better minds, they will be able to live out their lives with more efficiency, and help develop machines to better us all.



You said it best yourself. See highlighted words and connect the dots.

In conclusion, I'd like to repeat the paragraph that you all seemed to ignore.



I ACKNOWLEDGED THE POSSIBLE EXPLOITATION OF GENETIC MODIFICATION.



Yes, I am Karl Marx, and cloning is Marxism. Riiight...

Of course! How could I have forgotten? You have all of the answers. We just don't know what we're talking about at all.

A response composed completely of ad hominem. Interesting.

Yes, something very familiar to your own sort of arguments.

Funny, considering that the only place I used that was in my second last paragraph. The rest of the post was composed entirely of debate.

Note the 's' in 'arguments'. That would mean in more than one argument you use them.

I obviously did note the 's' in 'arguments', or I would not have contested it as being utter bullshit. The burden of proof is on you, not me. If you would point out any real ad hominem in my post aside from the "conservative", "wrong", and "fucked", I will admit my error. If you do not, your statements regarding my arguments will be automatically rendered null and void by logic and the failure to comply with the burden of proof.

Note that I am referring to the "personal attack within an argument" definition of ad hominem. I attacked purely your points. Just because I addressed you personally does not make it ad hominem.



Not ad hominem. It attacks your argument, not you personally.

In any case, if you're done, just admit defeat. Attempting to write off my arguments as baseless attacks does nothing for you, as your own accusations are baseless. Debate, back out, or admit defeat. Don't hang back and make stupid remarks about a post that I put my time and effort into with such nonsense.

So, unless you'd care to outline more "faults" that are entirely subjective, good riddance.

Man, geoff. You are thick. You've pulled an 'A' grade Corey. I was not saying that your argument was full of ad hominems, god dammit. I said "arguments", as in more than one argument. As in, we have had more than one argument over the course of knowing each other where you have used them before.

I never meant that your post was full of them. I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

You just called Icmoigigan thick, as well. He agreed that your post was extremely ambiguous. I even had a conversation with him concerning what the hell you meant. Given the context (being in this thread), and since one post contains many arguments, that is what I believed you were talking about, especially since the other arguments we've had DON'T EVEN CONCERN THIS DEBATE.



If this was in past tense, it would apply to other arguments. It is in present tense, however, meaning that it would apply to the current argument. In those other arguments, I used ad hominem at the point when your stupidity became apparent, as a countermeasure, if you will.

Now, if you will kindly shut the fuck up and get the hell out of this thread, as you are obviously set on attacking me for no real reason, we can all get on with our lives.

You lose. You fucking lose.

Whatever you say, Lord. Just before I grant your wish of "getting the fuck out of this thread" I'll let you know that, uh, you need to calm down a few notches and take it easy. If you're getting this flared up over an opinion that is subjective in both ways and cannot be determined whether right or wrong in full, then I pity you.

I have now learned to not debate with you here anymore as you cannot debate without exagerating and becoming emotional and firing insults at anyone who does not share your view. I usually enjoy a good debate, but when it comes to this all the time... I've grown tired of it and I'm just not up for it anymore.

Enjoy yourself "debating".

Oh, and calling me thick does not constitute an insult, especially when it is not true and I backed myself up? You always insist on going out with a "bang", don't you? I was debating sanely until you backed into absolute ad hominem. I don't care how you wish to argue this; it is the truth.

Yes, my opinions are quite subjective, but there is reason and evidence (read: genetic modification essays) behind them. The benefits are real, Schmidt. I do not fire insults for no reason; I fire them because you were pulling stupidity. Can you read this:



And say you weren't being insulting? I found that extremely rude. I am not being arrogant for the sake of being arrogant, Schmidt... I'm trying to defend genetic modification, not just spewing nonsense. That's the point of a debate, isn't it?

I told you to get the fuck out because you'd gone completely off-topic for no real reason. If you aren't debating, why come here? It seemed to me that you were lingering just to attack imaginary flaws in my posts. Just go. Now.