Should people with allergies be prevented from getting medication?

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman


Every individual has genes that may lead to a genetic ailment. Where do you draw the line? Who is going to make the decision? Why shouldn't all people have the same ability to live? Why can't someone with an allergy or genetic ailments lead a more productive life than someone without? How do you screen individuals?

There's the rub, isn't it? Just how much should be believe in Darwinism and to what extent should we embrace it?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, we are really screwing with Darwin regarding people with allergies of any kind. I know it sounds mean and cruel, but that's the fact.

We are basically weakening our species with such medication and allergy protection. It sounds awful, but it's true.

:disgust: Should this apply to all people with physical/mental disabilities/issues?

It depends on what you want. Obviously if you want the general population to be as free of genetic flaws as possible then your answer is yes. Reality is often cruel. Imposing your political or emotional ideals upon it is pointless, for it is what it is.

I know that the opponents of reality are just jumping at the chance to compare this to eugenics and Nazis. But eugenics is really just "genetics" with baggage added. It's really basic genetics, too, and it's practiced everyday both naturally (people tend to choose healthier looking mates and tend to avoid sickly looking mates) and medically (pre-natal screening for genetic problems). The only difference is the marketing. It's now called "reproductive empowerment" or some other euphemism.

:laugh:

Do you purposely avoid posts by replying with emoticons? It's as if you don't want to ignore it, but you don't want to address it, either.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I guess it is time that the world had another round of eugenics. It has been what, 70 years?

With the growing followers of Darwinism we're due for another round. They just don't believe in their faith.

 

[Bignate603]

This is ridiculous. No matter how you market it doing widescale gene pool manipulation is morally reprehensible. I think spidey and 91TTZ think pretty highly of themselves to think that they'd be some of the people that would only benefit from with holding medicine from people with genetic predispositions for certain disorders.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman


Every individual has genes that may lead to a genetic ailment. Where do you draw the line? Who is going to make the decision? Why shouldn't all people have the same ability to live? Why can't someone with an allergy or genetic ailments lead a more productive life than someone without? How do you screen individuals?

There's the rub, isn't it? Just how much should be believe in Darwinism and to what extent should we embrace it?

You don't.

With your kind of thinking, some of our Presidents, greatest inventors/thinkers, etc wouldn't have been allowed to be born.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: spidey07
Yes, we are really screwing with Darwin regarding people with allergies of any kind. I know it sounds mean and cruel, but that's the fact.

We are basically weakening our species with such medication and allergy protection. It sounds awful, but it's true.

:disgust: Should this apply to all people with physical/mental disabilities/issues?

It depends on what you want. Obviously if you want the general population to be as free of genetic flaws as possible then your answer is yes. Reality is often cruel. Imposing your political or emotional ideals upon it is pointless, for it is what it is.

I know that the opponents of reality are just jumping at the chance to compare this to eugenics and Nazis. But eugenics is really just "genetics" with baggage added. It's really basic genetics, too, and it's practiced everyday both naturally (people tend to choose healthier looking mates and tend to avoid sickly looking mates) and medically (pre-natal screening for genetic problems). The only difference is the marketing. It's now called "reproductive empowerment" or some other euphemism.

:laugh:

Do you purposely avoid posts by replying with emoticons? It's as if you don't want to ignore it, but you don't want to address it, either.

B/c it's too laughable to address.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Bignate603
This is ridiculous. No matter how you market it doing widescale gene pool manipulation is morally reprehensible. I think spidey and 91TTZ think pretty highly of themselves to think that they'd be some of the people that would only benefit from with holding medicine from people with genetic predispositions for certain disorders.

And by supressing symptoms and adverse affects of allergies we are indeed manipulating the gene pool.

I'm just saying "don't fuck with the gene pool and let it work".

I don't agree with witholding medication, I disagree with letting these failed lines procreate.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Bignate603
This is ridiculous. No matter how you market it doing widescale gene pool manipulation is morally reprehensible. I think spidey and 91TTZ think pretty highly of themselves to think that they'd be some of the people that would only benefit from with holding medicine from people with genetic predispositions for certain disorders.

And by supressing symptoms and adverse affects of allergies we are indeed manipulating the gene pool.

I'm just saying "don't fuck with the gene pool and let it work".

I don't agree with witholding medication, I disagree with letting these failed lines procreate.

Well, too bad you lose.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Bignate603
This is ridiculous. No matter how you market it doing widescale gene pool manipulation is morally reprehensible. I think spidey and 91TTZ think pretty highly of themselves to think that they'd be some of the people that would only benefit from with holding medicine from people with genetic predispositions for certain disorders.

And by supressing symptoms and adverse affects of allergies we are indeed manipulating the gene pool.

I'm just saying "don't fuck with the gene pool and let it work".

You are talking about with holding medication, the title of the thread is 'Should people with allergies be prevented from getting medication? '

I can absolutely guarantee if you were the one dying because you couldn't get $5 of medication because someone else said you were bad for the gene pool you would be arguing the other side of this.

I don't believe you or anyone else that says that they'd be ok with dying because it means their genes weren't good enough to survive. It's always ok to let someone else die but as soon as it's about you its a different story.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Every individual has genes that may lead to a genetic ailment. Where do you draw the line? Who is going to make the decision? Why shouldn't all people have the same ability to live? Why can't someone with an allergy or genetic ailments lead a more productive life than someone without? How do you screen individuals?

With your kind of thinking, some of our Presidents, greatest inventors/thinkers, etc wouldn't have been allowed to be born.

First of all, I am not advocating withholding treatment to those who need it. I am merely pointing out reality to those who are trying to deny it. Nature can be cruel. It's cold and logical. I'm not saying people should always let nature take its course and doom people.

On the other hand, by providing treatment which helps the individual in the short term, it often harms the entire race in the long term. Denying the genetic factor in diseases caused by genetic defects only leads of the spread of that defect. People that have genetic disorders such as Tay-Sachs must live with facts such as this, and often having to abandon mates which otherwise are good matches. It's a tough decision but it's just the way it is.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

I know that the opponents of reality are just jumping at the chance to compare this to eugenics and Nazis.

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I guess it is time that the world had another round of eugenics. It has been what, 70 years?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Do you purposely avoid posts by replying with emoticons? It's as if you don't want to ignore it, but you don't want to address it, either.

B/c it's too laughable to address.

It is not too laughable to address. Often people make points for which you have no decent comeback, and instead of making yourself look bad trying you do what you just did. It didn't work. Was anything in my post untrue? I didn't see you risk challenging any of it. Instead you tried to bluff.

I welcome the challenge, but I'm going to be honest- I am going to make you look like an idiot in the process. All the stances that you're taking, all the points that you're trying to make... are all predictable and seemingly predetermined by your political leaning (liberal). You don't want to admit the limitations of genetics because it would highlight the fact that not everyone has the same chance in life (which is sad but true). The fundamentalist republicans also don't want to admit the limitations of genetics because it supports evolution and goes against creationism. Both sides of the political spectrum have their lunatic fringe that is so set in their political beliefs that they have no room for reality.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Bignate603
This is ridiculous. No matter how you market it doing widescale gene pool manipulation is morally reprehensible. I think spidey and 91TTZ think pretty highly of themselves to think that they'd be some of the people that would only benefit from with holding medicine from people with genetic predispositions for certain disorders.

And by supressing symptoms and adverse affects of allergies we are indeed manipulating the gene pool.

I'm just saying "don't fuck with the gene pool and let it work".

I don't agree with witholding medication, I disagree with letting these failed lines procreate.

judging by your posting, you need to be sterilized; get to work.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Bignate603


You are talking about with holding medication, the title of the thread is 'Should people with allergies be prevented from getting medication? '

I can absolutely guarantee if you were the one dying because you couldn't get $5 of medication because someone else said you were bad for the gene pool you would be arguing the other side of this.

I don't believe you or anyone else that says that they'd be ok with dying because it means their genes weren't good enough to survive. It's always ok to let someone else die but as soon as it's about you its a different story.

You're twisting my words. How much do you believe in Darwin?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Why do you keep misreading my posts? I didn't say genetics had no effect. Myopia is inheritable, no one's disputing that. But in order for evolution to be the cause of an overall rise in myopia there would have to be a reproductive advantage to it, which there isn't.

It's not that there must be a reproductive advantage, it could be that it is no longer a reproductive disadvantage. And since one parent's traits can be passed onto most or all of their offspring, it's possible for it to spread.

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
In fact, less industrialized nations like India have much lower rates of myopia than first world countries. This points to lifestyle being the predominant cause of the overall rise in myopia.

This can be due to the fact that less industrialized nations have poor healthcare, so these otherwise-treatable ailments are reproductive disadvantages.

Note the word "rise". Rise. Rise. Rise. Not spread. Rise.

Near sightedness simply has not exerted significant selective pressure since the majority of food production shifted from hunting to agriculture and livestock. You don't have to have good eyesight to fuck. Not even in India. Besides that, the rise of myopia has has occurred on much too small of a timescale to be attributable to evolution. We're talking about a huge shift in the span of a single digit number of generations.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Bignate603


You are talking about with holding medication, the title of the thread is 'Should people with allergies be prevented from getting medication? '

I can absolutely guarantee if you were the one dying because you couldn't get $5 of medication because someone else said you were bad for the gene pool you would be arguing the other side of this.

I don't believe you or anyone else that says that they'd be ok with dying because it means their genes weren't good enough to survive. It's always ok to let someone else die but as soon as it's about you its a different story.

You're twisting my words. How much do you believe in Darwin?

I believe he existed. Your interpretation of Darwinism is so twisted it's barely worth addressing. Evolution is just the way things work. It is NOT the way things SHOULD work. Evolution has no goal. It cannot be the rational basis of any sort of action.

Eugenics didn't even utilize any principle of Evolution that hadn't already been employed in the selective breeding of animals for thousand of years. Evolution occurs through natural selection, Eugenics through artificial selection.

 

[preCRT]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
I think something has been preventing the OP from getting his education.

Yes, seems he has some sort of disorder involving two organs, the heart and brain, they are either damaged or missing. According to his own beliefs, he must not procreate.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Do you purposely avoid posts by replying with emoticons? It's as if you don't want to ignore it, but you don't want to address it, either.

B/c it's too laughable to address.

It is not too laughable to address. Often people make points for which you have no decent comeback, and instead of making yourself look bad trying you do what you just did. It didn't work. Was anything in my post untrue? I didn't see you risk challenging any of it. Instead you tried to bluff.

I welcome the challenge, but I'm going to be honest- I am going to make you look like an idiot in the process. All the stances that you're taking, all the points that you're trying to make... are all predictable and seemingly predetermined by your political leaning (liberal). You don't want to admit the limitations of genetics because it would highlight the fact that not everyone has the same chance in life (which is sad but true). The fundamentalist republicans also don't want to admit the limitations of genetics because it supports evolution and goes against creationism. Both sides of the political spectrum have their lunatic fringe that is so set in their political beliefs that they have no room for reality.

:laugh: You're doing a good job of making an idiot by yourself. You don't need my help. Again, there are plenty of people with these genetic ailments that you'd like to rid that have and will contribute more to the world than yourself. Sounds like you have an inferiority complex. Thanks to medical science, your beliefs in evolution are false.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Bignate603


You are talking about with holding medication, the title of the thread is 'Should people with allergies be prevented from getting medication? '

I can absolutely guarantee if you were the one dying because you couldn't get $5 of medication because someone else said you were bad for the gene pool you would be arguing the other side of this.

I don't believe you or anyone else that says that they'd be ok with dying because it means their genes weren't good enough to survive. It's always ok to let someone else die but as soon as it's about you its a different story.

You're twisting my words. How much do you believe in Darwin?

I'm not twisting your words at all. The title of your thread suggests that we should withhold medication from people with allergies caused be genetics. I countered that you would feel different if someone withheld what you needed for your health based off your genetic suitability.

 

[Alex C]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

This is fairly easy to understand, but many people are extremely emotional and they let their feelings override reason. When dealing with other animals that reproduce sexually the way we do, logic and science prevails. But when humans are the subject, it becomes a hot issue and it gets politicized. Any science is often driven by political leanings.

These traits are not maladaptive in our current environment (or they wouldn't be becoming more frequent), and unless you can predict how the environment will change and what attributes it's going to select for in the future, this isn't a question of science. People find this subject disagreeable because it's frequently used to pass judgement on others based on a standard that doesn't exist.

The world doesn't seem to me to be headed in a direction where the need for glasses or allergy to peanuts is going to doom us all, but if you do believe that a total collapse of civilization is inevitable and it's our duty to prepare our progeny for survival in a post apocalyptic world, the only way to do so is to behave as if we're already there. Evolution is not forward thinking, it only selects for what worked in the past. If we want our descendants to excel at surviving in a savage world, we'll have to become savages now.

 

[Cogman]

I love a good argument of what "Acceptable" genes are. It is always funny. Things like "Dear lord, he is has allergies, we don't want them, therefore by treat allergies we are dooming the human race!" are priceless.

Here's a question for all you gene pool cleansers, if modern medicine can fix the ailment, why does it matter if it gets passed on? Better yet, are you going to be the one that tells couples they can't have kids, marry, procreate, ect if they have gene xy?

Tell ya what, before you go out and try and stop certain genes from being passed on, why don't you go out and try and stop everyone with HIV from having sex. Once you get that one tackled, then we can talk about stopping bad genes from getting through.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I do not see why it is necessary to purge the gene-pool of people with poor vision. A short LASIK / PRK treatment can have them "fixed" for life (or until old-age when reading glasses will be required, unless we are going Logan's Run on the elderly with this policy). Their children can have the same procedure. Science has made it a non-issue.

How many researchers / scientists do you know that require glasses / contacts? I know that the majority I know do.

Allergic reactions to insect stings can be handled by a simple, cheap injection. No harm done having people walking around with a hypo of medication. Again, science has made it a non-issue that will not harm the human race.


Thanks to science, it is not necessary to hasten the purging of the disabled and they can contribute to society.


What is your position on people suffering from sickle cell anemia? Should it be purged from the gene pool via sterilization?

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: astroidea

Uh that correlation doesn't prove jack shit. Find me a journal where they actually map out the actual gene sequences that contribute to myopia, then we'll talk.

And anti histimines doesn't reduce your body's contact to the allergens, unlike what antibacterial soap does for bacteria, it just bocks the inflammatory response of the body, so it's not like your immune system is getting weakened. If anything, it allows you to expose yourself to the allergens without feeling miserable, and thus only results in a strengthening of the immune system over time.

Fail thread is fail on any fucking perspective, well execpt a retard moron perspective.

You seem to lack understanding of the subject and yet you felt the need to post.

Originally posted by: astroidea
Find me a journal where they actually map out the actual gene sequences that contribute to myopia, then we'll talk.

LOL- What kind of idiotic argument is this? Are you actually trying to claim that that you cannot show a genetic cause unless you're able to map the genes sequences? You've got to be kidding me. Scientists have been able to show the genetic aspect of traits for well over 100 years. Mendel was able to show genetic connection back in the 1860's.

Uh sure but it's not done with a simple correlational study. There are easily many possible explanations for the correlation aside from genetics.
You still haven't came up with one solid piece of evidence for the genetic link of myopia.

And instead of coming up with ad hominem attacks, why don't you actually explain how anti-histimines make one weaker to the allergen? I fucking dare you.

It is not too laughable to address. Often people make points for which you have no decent comeback, and instead of making yourself look bad trying you do what you just did. It didn't work. Was anything in my post untrue? I didn't see you risk challenging any of it. Instead you tried to bluff.

oh the irony :laugh:

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

:laugh: You're doing a good job of making an idiot by yourself. You don't need my help. Again, there are plenty of people with these genetic ailments that you'd like to rid that have and will contribute more to the world than yourself. Sounds like you have an inferiority complex. Thanks to medical science, your beliefs in evolution are false.

Once again you have dodged the post I asked you to address. You've replied to the post a few times and each time you have avoided addressing it.

My beliefs in science are not false. You're one of those people with strong political leanings which is bending science to justify your strongly held beliefs.

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Again, there are plenty of people with these genetic ailments that you'd like to rid

Wrong. I did not say that I'd like to rid the world of the people with those ailments. Ridding the world of the ailments is completely different than ridding the world of people with those ailments. You're trying to turn this into an emotional argument rather than a logic one. You're putting words in my mouth in an attempt to make it look like you're taking the moral high ground.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: astroidea

And instead of coming up with ad hominem attacks, why don't you actually explain how anti-histimines make one weaker to the allergen? I fucking dare you.

I never said it did, you idiot. Where are you getting this? Show me where in this entire thread that I ever claimed that anti-histimines make one weaker to the allergen. You're barking up the wrong tree.