Should people with allergies be prevented from getting medication?

[PlasmaBomb]

/facepalm.

/backs out of thread.

 

[skace]

Parody thread created by angry fat man gets taken over by 2 trolls and a shit ton of gullible fucks.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
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.

Um let's see here

Originally posted by: KrylonShould people with allergies be prevented from getting medication?

Originally posted by: 91TTZIn the short term giving medication/aid to those with hereditary ailments helps. In the long term it hurts the human race as a whole since traits that would otherwise be weeded out can spread.

Allergy medication = anti histimines. By making that argument to the OP's question, you are directly implying that anti-histimines somehow hurts the human race as a whole in the long run. :roll:
So you can't even see the basic implications of your words. Who's the idiot?

 

[mwmorph]

ATOT is certainly full of more eugenics sociopaths than i thought.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: krylon


Re-read the OP.

I think you should have done that before hitting enter on the thread-creation button.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: krylon

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: krylon
Not sure what you guys preaching about, but I'm referring to hereditary allergies.

People have a predisposition to diabetes, heart failure, and breast cancer.

Most allergies aren't directly inherited or lethal. So if you were going to make a case for "gene pool darwinism" it would make much more sense to stop treating the above conditions than to not treat allergies.

Hi sir. This thread is about allergies. :beer:

so what's the point of anyone responding to your trite and ridiculous question if you have no intent on reading the responses?

 

[krylon]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: krylon

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: krylon
Not sure what you guys preaching about, but I'm referring to hereditary allergies.

People have a predisposition to diabetes, heart failure, and breast cancer.

Most allergies aren't directly inherited or lethal. So if you were going to make a case for "gene pool darwinism" it would make much more sense to stop treating the above conditions than to not treat allergies.

Hi sir. This thread is about allergies. :beer:

so what's the point of anyone responding to your trite and ridiculous question if you have no intent on reading the responses?

See my reply to LifesABeta. I meant to say hereditary allergies.

 

[JS80]

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

It's been continuing since the early 20th century. See the history of unPlanned Parenthood.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
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.

Um let's see here

Originally posted by: KrylonShould people with allergies be prevented from getting medication?

Originally posted by: 91TTZIn the short term giving medication/aid to those with hereditary ailments helps. In the long term it hurts the human race as a whole since traits that would otherwise be weeded out can spread.

Allergy medication = anti histimines. By making that argument to the OP's question, you are directly implying that anti-histimines somehow hurts the human race as a whole in the long run. :roll:
So you can't even see the basic implications of your words. Who's the idiot?

You made that leap in logic, not me. My reply meant exactly what it said and nothing more.

 

[Gothgar]

no

let them kill themselves if they are too stupid to take something they are allergic too

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
ATOT is certainly full of more eugenics sociopaths than i thought.

As I predicted earlier in this thread, the "emotional thinker" crowd wants to make this an issue of eugenics and Nazis. It's an emotional argument spouted by emotional people.

In reality the issue is genetics. Many people may not like the truth about the realities of genetics and the limitations involved, but they shouldn't deny that it's the truth. The truth is that poor genes are able to spread unless people actively make choices to curb their spread. Those choices are not always part of some devious master plan, they are natural, everyday choices that people make during mate selection. Traits that indicate poor genes are almost universally viewed as being unattractive and people with those traits will have more difficulty finding a mates.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: spidey07
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.

I think I understand your point, but didn't Darwinism allow the human race evolve to the point where can proactively treat and even reverse the adverse affects of hereditary ailments? To deny such treatments would be to deny humans the ability to exercise our evolutionary advancements.

 

[marvdmartian]

No, because while allergies can be handed down from generation to generation, there's no guarantee they will be. So how can you justify someone being miserable the rest of their life, suffering from their allergies??

This would be like mapping every person's genome, then preventing those with cancer markers from getting health insurance. Doesn't matter if they never have cancer, they COULD!!! :roll:

 

[FoBoT]

leave these decisions up to the death panels

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: spidey07
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.

I think I understand your point, but didn't Darwinism allow the human race evolve to the point where can proactively treat and even reverse the adverse affects of hereditary ailments? To deny such treatments would be to deny humans the ability to exercise our evolutionary advancements.

The very act of treating such failures in the line is to continue the failures of that line. Until that line dies from it's "survival of the fittest" we are severely fucking with mother nature and Darwin.

Proactive means to prevent future failures. Treating genetic failures or helping them = proactive failure. Either you believe in Darwin or you don't, it really is that simple.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

it's threads like these which make me wonder how many people know what darwin's theory of evolution actually says with regards to 'evolving'

Darwin made the case for genetic mutations and for traits which prove useful to surviving/adapting to an environment becoming more present as the "winners" breed. It should also be noted that Darwin did NOT argue for evolution as in continual perfection; merely that over time an organism will likely have traits making it suitable for the given enviroment. It's an important distinction because the environment can change and also revert back to a previous stage; therefore adapatability rather than "perfection" is the focus.

 

[mchammer187]

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses genetically.

Take bacteria for example. It is possible to breed bacteria that are resistant to alcohol however, unless they are under constant exposure to alcohol than they will lose their resistance after a few generations because it takes so much "genetic resources" per say to have alcohol resistance.

Sure one person may have the biggest predisposition toward disease A but they may have the best defense possible against disease B.

Unless you can link every gene with every disease/trait possible.

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: spidey07
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.

I think I understand your point, but didn't Darwinism allow the human race evolve to the point where can proactively treat and even reverse the adverse affects of hereditary ailments? To deny such treatments would be to deny humans the ability to exercise our evolutionary advancements.

The very act of treating such failures in the line is to continue the failures of that line. Until that line dies from it's "survival of the fittest" we are severely fucking with mother nature and Darwin.

Proactive means to prevent future failures. Treating genetic failures or helping them = proactive failure. Either you believe in Darwin or you don't, it really is that simple.

The converse is inbreeding "perfect" genes to the Nth degree

find two people with "perfect genes" force them to inbreed for several generations upon generations and you will end up with genetically inferior offspring eventually

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
it's threads like these which make me wonder how many people know what darwin's theory of evolution actually says with regards to 'evolving'

Darwin made the case for genetic mutations and for traits which prove useful to surviving/adapting to an environment becoming more present as the "winners" breed. It should also be noted that Darwin did NOT argue for evolution as in continual perfection; merely that over time an organism will likely have traits making it suitable for the given enviroment. It's an important distinction because the environment can change and also revert back to a previous stage; therefore adapatability rather than "perfection" is the focus.

Exactly! And by enabling the prevention of this adaptation goes against Darwin.

Allergies are an inability of the body to fight invaders (google histamine). Our current inability to deal with the world around us without outside intervention is a direct effect and an affront to everything Darwin taught us.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
it's threads like these which make me wonder how many people know what darwin's theory of evolution actually says with regards to 'evolving'

Darwin made the case for genetic mutations and for traits which prove useful to surviving/adapting to an environment becoming more present as the "winners" breed. It should also be noted that Darwin did NOT argue for evolution as in continual perfection; merely that over time an organism will likely have traits making it suitable for the given enviroment. It's an important distinction because the environment can change and also revert back to a previous stage; therefore adapatability rather than "perfection" is the focus.

Exactly! And by enabling the prevention of this adaptation goes against Darwin.

Allergies are an inability of the body to fight invaders (google histamine). Our current inability to deal with the world around us without outside intervention is a direct effect and an affront to everything Darwin taught us.

And I'm sure you're predisposed to some genetic condition and have the recessive alleles for something.

Your idea is actually rediculously stupid and poorly thought out. Allergies is a mild condition for most everyone. What you're tryingf to say is all negative genes or anything that can be percieved as negative should be bred out, but essentially, if you're going to take it as far as allergies, you might as well just end the human race. Not a single person on the planet has no negative alleles.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
it's threads like these which make me wonder how many people know what darwin's theory of evolution actually says with regards to 'evolving'

Darwin made the case for genetic mutations and for traits which prove useful to surviving/adapting to an environment becoming more present as the "winners" breed. It should also be noted that Darwin did NOT argue for evolution as in continual perfection; merely that over time an organism will likely have traits making it suitable for the given enviroment. It's an important distinction because the environment can change and also revert back to a previous stage; therefore adapatability rather than "perfection" is the focus.

Exactly! And by enabling the prevention of this adaptation goes against Darwin.

Allergies are an inability of the body to fight invaders (google histamine). Our current inability to deal with the world around us without outside intervention is a direct effect and an affront to everything Darwin taught us.

Thankfully, evolution allowed humans(some with allergies) to develop the brain power to create medications that make allergies a mild condition to a non-issue.

Presidents, Professional Entertainers, Professional Athletes, Scientists, Brain Surgeons, etc.. possess particular superior genes, greater than the average human yet some of them are affected and are able to overcome allergies and other genetic ailments. Evolution at work....

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero
it's threads like these which make me wonder how many people know what darwin's theory of evolution actually says with regards to 'evolving'

Darwin made the case for genetic mutations and for traits which prove useful to surviving/adapting to an environment becoming more present as the "winners" breed. It should also be noted that Darwin did NOT argue for evolution as in continual perfection; merely that over time an organism will likely have traits making it suitable for the given enviroment. It's an important distinction because the environment can change and also revert back to a previous stage; therefore adapatability rather than "perfection" is the focus.

Exactly! And by enabling the prevention of this adaptation goes against Darwin.

Allergies are an inability of the body to fight invaders (google histamine). Our current inability to deal with the world around us without outside intervention is a direct effect and an affront to everything Darwin taught us.

Darwin taught us about how the world is. Not how it should be. Stop being stupid. But asking that of you is like asking water to stop being wet.

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
leave these decisions up to the death panels

Death panels FTW

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Thankfully, evolution allowed humans(some with allergies) to develop the brain power to create medications that make allergies a mild condition to a non-issue.

Presidents, Professional Entertainers, Professional Athletes, Scientists, Brain Surgeons, etc.. possess particular superior genes, greater than the average human yet some of them are affected and are able to overcome allergies and other genetic ailments. Evolution at work....

Exactly how I feel about this. I think people tend to over-simplify evolution. It's questionable how much good it would do to the human race to allow easily correctable, minor flaws to exert significant evolutionary pressure on us. And frankly evolution only optimizes for maximum survival, and there are always multiple ways to achieve that. It may not take us in desirable directions. Blind faith in evolution is just that.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
People who get in car wrecks shouldn't be allowed into the emergency room either. Oh, and no more chemotherapy for cancer patients either.

Hell, just push the car off the road. If they are meant to live they'll escape/heal on their own!!