h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just out of interest, where do people stand on the idea of using a eugenics policy to wipe out genetic diseases? Do the ends justift the means or is that loos of personal freedom too horrid to imagine?

Do you want to kill me, Acid, or just not let me reproduce?

"Just out of interest, where do people stand on the idea of using a eugenics policy to wipe out genetic diseases? Do the ends justift the means or is that loos of personal freedom too horrid to imagine?"

My wife has worked with disabled children. It's a cruelty that wouldn't be allowed to happen to dogs. Someone with genetically transferrable disabilities to reproduce.

If you tried to breed dogs knowing they had genetic defects. The SPCA would have you facing fines and jail time.

As for Oetiz, he's a wimp. Would he say that to my face? I think not. The only reason I've read this thread is bacause of my GMT+12 time zone this place is rather dead at the moment.

*************

I have to dissagree with a post earlier on. Unfortunatly I've lost the quote because I'm at work and what I'l doing with Excel has filled the windows clipboard.

Nothing is random. A pattern does not have to be devine to to exist. The likely hood if you do bad is that it will come back to bite you.

When you do bad it affects someone (otherwise it obviously is bad) and that someone or people representing that someone is likely to visit bad upon you in return.

It's been argued that Roosevelt knew that pearl harbour was comming and let it because congress was refusing to get involved with WWII.
Dare anyone say that during the 40s or 50s without reprocussions?

There is rabid denial of the theory of this thread's title by conservatives and Zagreb and in wider circles by americans and zagreb. In ten years from now will the discussion be rabid or reasonable?

Nah no intention of killing anyone - what good would that do. Depending on the nature of some stuff I had it might affect me too, I was just wondering aloud if it would be worth it from the existential point of view.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The only way I can see things being random is that if the laws of cause and effect do not apply. Or that there is a root cause of everything which is fundementally random. In either scenario I have no control over myself and my enviroment so there is no point in beliving this to be the truth for if I disbelive it and am wrong it does not matter because I had no control over my disbelief.

---------------------------------------------------------------

There are scraps of evidence for pearl harbour (Radar signals ignored, fighters not scrambled, carriers on manovers at the time) but I don't think theres enough to form a whole consipiracy theory.
Same thing here, but I think there is enough to put together an investigation, the main difference is that sep-11 was recent and there is still time to investigate the major players involvements

---------------------------------------------------------------

Americans and Zagreb? Is that a traditional allience :P

OK Appy I see your point of view. Anyone wishing some light entertainment is welcome to post up negative comments on my home page on this site. From past postings Zagreb is usually there, or thereabouts, in other words, he makes valid and persuasive arguments.

It's easy to see with hindsight that there were warnings that Pearl Harbour was coming.

It's easy to see with hindsight that there were warnings that 9/11 was coming.

Does this prove a conspiracy in either case? No

People only see the signs if they think the event in question is possible.

Noggin

"There is rabid denial of the theory of this thread's title by conservatives and Zagreb and in wider circles by americans and zagreb. In ten years from now will the discussion be rabid or reasonable?"

Did you read the reasons I thought the theory was unconvincing? I didn't think it was particularly "rabid".

Incidentally, people who think that maybe Bush didn't secretly fly several planes into targets in his own country aren't necessarily "american" "conservative" or me. There are, in Britain at least, plenty of moderates, liberals and probably even socialists who think it's a theory that doesn't hold any water.

It wouldn't work, Acid. These diseases can pop up suddenly in families with no history (or no known history) - the causes are often other than genetic (accident, illness - three people with disabilities known to me show that. One was hit by a car when crossing the road when he was 13, one was oxygen-deprived at birth, one (with cerebral palsy) had a difficult birth and then the MMR vaccine which he should never have been given. ))

Part II. (This thing is malfing ).
Quite aside from the ethics and morality of eugenics. Like Apparition's wife, I have looked after people with disabilities. Many of them have married (though they are not permitted, by parents or human services) to have children.) But interestingly, not even Downs Syndrome breeds 100% true! Two Downs Syndrome people I knew of had an unaffected baby. (Obviously, they didn't bring her up.)
Same with vision or hearing impaired people. I saw on the telly recently an item about two deaf parents with hearing children.

Eugenics stinks..stinks like an abbatoir...like Dachau.

"Did you read the reasons I thought the theory was unconvincing? I didn't think it was particularly "rabid".

Where did I call you rabid?

Incidentally, people who think that maybe Bush didn't secretly fly several planes into targets in his own country aren't necessarily "american" "conservative" or me. There are, in Britain at least, plenty of moderates, liberals and probably even socialists who think it's a theory that doesn't hold any water."

Where did I say it was only those two groups?

Zagreb and Acid, Zagreb gets rather upset if he's called conservative. If I remember right, frogbit said 'if it looks like a duck and walks...'

Zagreb is typical of of those who labell something they don't want to hear about "conspiricy theory"

Zagreg from 3 days ago, "This is just speculation on my part, but it *is* possible that Bush naively thought he could "do a deal" with the terrorists and arrange a way for US forces to leave Saudi Arabia thus "placating" bin Laden et al. Of course, this would not be an official agreement, instead the USA would simply claim it felt it needed to "scale down" operations in Saudi and use Turkey as a base for the regular bombing of Iraq to "contain Saddam" that would undoubtably have been Bush's policy."

Aside from defending the US administration at almost every turn here in this thread, you seem to be partial to your own detailed theories while pedanting those of other people.

Feeling lonely Appy?

Hey I didn't claim to take sides. I admit there is enough evidence to warrent questions, just not enough to be considered (anything close to) proof. If I were forced to get off the fence (I like my fence) then I'd probably say it didn't happen - you hear a lot of theories most of which are proven false and there are problems with the evidence presented. But I've not been forced to get off the fence - I want to be fed more information first