|
Post by bathstoke on Feb 17, 2020 9:05:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Feb 17, 2020 10:10:16 GMT
This is in response to that Sabisky staffer fellow, recommend reading Adam Rutherford’s thread on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by FbrgVaStkFan on Feb 17, 2020 10:34:11 GMT
^ Do the cows, horses, pigs and roses eventually begin to resent those different from themselves?
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Feb 17, 2020 10:48:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 17, 2020 11:01:16 GMT
This is in response to that Sabisky staffer fellow, recommend reading Adam Rutherford’s thread on the issue. I know Rutherford is coming from a place of science but I'm not sure Sabisky is trying to make the same points.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Feb 17, 2020 11:11:07 GMT
This is in response to that Sabisky staffer fellow, recommend reading Adam Rutherford’s thread on the issue. I know Rutherford is coming from a place of science but I'm not sure Sabisky is trying to make the same points. I think the point being made is that Sabisky is one of a number of semi-science literate people online who trot out numbers and statistical from very questionable sources and then these same people are potentially going to have an influence on government policy. Obviously, we’re not going to have a eugenics policy, that’s an absurd concept, the concern is that in other areas of government such as health care we’re going to have poorly informed staffers, making equally poor judgements based solely on their one eyed interpretation of science. When I do science outreach activities as part as my job I spend 50% of the time answering questions related to what people have read on blogs written by people like Sabisky. It exacerbates the issue of science being hidden behind a paywall, annual subs to a high profile science journal cost 100...so people like Sabisky fill the gap.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Feb 17, 2020 11:12:21 GMT
^ Do the cows, horses, pigs and roses eventually begin to resent those different from themselves? Literary history tells us that the pigs do.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Feb 17, 2020 11:43:27 GMT
I have nothing of value to add to this conversation, other than "Richard Dawkins is history's biggest wanker".
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Feb 17, 2020 12:04:08 GMT
Sounds like something out of a Nazi science lab in the 1930s-40s.But now its in Downing street.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Feb 17, 2020 12:12:02 GMT
Sounds like something out of a Nazi science lab in the 1930s-40s.But now its in Downing street. Churchill attended the first Eugenics conference in 1912 after Sir Francis Galton invented the term and laid out basic methodology of how it could be applied to British society. Galton himself was a hell of an influential scientist, he was the first to posit the phenomena of mean regression and key in the development of psychometric testing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 12:25:05 GMT
Sounds like something out of a Nazi science lab in the 1930s-40s.But now its in Downing street. Churchill attended the first Eugenics conference in 1912 after Sir Francis Galton invented the term and laid out basic methodology of how it could be applied to British society. Galton himself was a hell of an influential scientist, he was the first to posit the phenomena of mean regression and key in the development of psychometric testing. In fairness, Churchill was hardly a saint.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 12:27:03 GMT
It's all well and good saying it works on animals until you see a pug try and breathe.
Dawkins is an arse of the highest order, who profits from making people who aren't smart feel smart by going against the grain.
As Ash Sarkar says, he's the bloke who came to sixth form with a briefcase.
|
|
|
Post by thequietman on Feb 17, 2020 12:52:26 GMT
I did always like Annie Lennox but thought that Dave Stewart was a bit of an oddball.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Feb 17, 2020 13:00:51 GMT
I did always like Annie Lennox but thought that Dave Stewart was a bit of an oddball. I always thought Annie was missing a bit off one of her X chromosomes...
|
|
|
Post by foster on Feb 17, 2020 13:02:16 GMT
I did always like Annie Lennox but thought that Dave Stewart was a bit of an oddball. I always thought Annie was missing a bit off one of her X chromosomes... Probably explains why she always had that thorn in her side.
|
|
|
Post by FbrgVaStkFan on Feb 17, 2020 14:49:07 GMT
^ Do the cows, horses, pigs and roses eventually begin to resent those different from themselves? Literary history tells us that the pigs do. I'll mark you down as a "NO" then.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Feb 17, 2020 15:05:30 GMT
Literary history tells us that the pigs do. I'll mark you down as a "NO" then. I'm more of a "don't know" actually.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 17, 2020 15:14:45 GMT
I know Rutherford is coming from a place of science but I'm not sure Sabisky is trying to make the same points. I think the point being made is that Sabisky is one of a number of semi-science literate people online who trot out numbers and statistical from very questionable sources and then these same people are potentially going to have an influence on government policy. Obviously, we’re not going to have a eugenics policy, that’s an absurd concept, the concern is that in other areas of government such as health care we’re going to have poorly informed staffers, making equally poor judgements based solely on their one eyed interpretation of science. When I do science outreach activities as part as my job I spend 50% of the time answering questions related to what people have read on blogs written by people like Sabisky. It exacerbates the issue of science being hidden behind a paywall, annual subs to a high profile science journal cost 100...so people like Sabisky fill the gap. But he's not going to be informing NHS policy. Isn't it like the age old moral question, would you go back in time and kill a baby Hitler. You're not actually looking to recruit child killers.
|
|
|
Post by heyzeus on Feb 17, 2020 15:22:36 GMT
Fuck it. I'm onboard.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Feb 17, 2020 15:24:57 GMT
I think the point being made is that Sabisky is one of a number of semi-science literate people online who trot out numbers and statistical from very questionable sources and then these same people are potentially going to have an influence on government policy. Obviously, we’re not going to have a eugenics policy, that’s an absurd concept, the concern is that in other areas of government such as health care we’re going to have poorly informed staffers, making equally poor judgements based solely on their one eyed interpretation of science. When I do science outreach activities as part as my job I spend 50% of the time answering questions related to what people have read on blogs written by people like Sabisky. It exacerbates the issue of science being hidden behind a paywall, annual subs to a high profile science journal cost 100...so people like Sabisky fill the gap. But he's not going to be informing NHS policy. Isn't it like the age old moral question, would you go back in time and kill a baby Hitler. You're not actually looking to recruit child killers. Hence why I said staffers and not just him. Cummings has laid out a blueprint for people like Sabisky to come into government and work towards shifting policy. His “weirdos” as he put it. People, who like I said throw statistics and figures about from dodgy sources or have poor scientific rigour attached to their methodology.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 17, 2020 20:53:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 18, 2020 10:56:12 GMT
Isn't IVF 'good' eugenics?
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Feb 18, 2020 11:07:15 GMT
Isn't IVF 'good' eugenics? Not really, plenty of reasons why someone can't have children that aren't linked to genetics. Also you're not necessarily selecting for anything in the off-spring based on an objective set of genetic criteria which a fundamental part of Eugenics. Eugenics is all about stopping reproduction in those deemed not worthy based on said criteria so the opposite of that can't really be called Eugenics. Louise Brown, the first IVF child conceived her children naturally.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Feb 18, 2020 11:14:02 GMT
Isn't IVF 'good' eugenics? Not really, plenty of reasons why someone can't have children that aren't linked to genetics. Also you're not necessarily selecting for anything in the off-spring based on an objective set of genetic criteria which a fundamental part of Eugenics. Eugenics is all about stopping reproduction in those deemed not worthy based on said criteria so the opposite of that can't really be called Eugenics. Louise Brown, the first IVF child conceived her children naturally. Who decides which are the best 1 or 2 embryos will be chosen for transfer? Under what criteria? Spriggs 2002 were a deaf lesbian couple who specifically sought a hearing impaired sperm donor in the hope to produce deaf children. They did find a donor and gave birth to two deaf children. Eugenics?
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Feb 18, 2020 12:12:18 GMT
Not really, plenty of reasons why someone can't have children that aren't linked to genetics. Also you're not necessarily selecting for anything in the off-spring based on an objective set of genetic criteria which a fundamental part of Eugenics. Eugenics is all about stopping reproduction in those deemed not worthy based on said criteria so the opposite of that can't really be called Eugenics. Louise Brown, the first IVF child conceived her children naturally. Who decides which are the best 1 or 2 embryos will be chosen for transfer? Under what criteria? Spriggs 2002 were a deaf lesbian couple who specifically sought a hearing impaired sperm donor in the hope to produce deaf children. They did find a donor and gave birth to two deaf children. Eugenics? That's really quite a sad tale.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Feb 18, 2020 12:22:27 GMT
Not really, plenty of reasons why someone can't have children that aren't linked to genetics. Also you're not necessarily selecting for anything in the off-spring based on an objective set of genetic criteria which a fundamental part of Eugenics. Eugenics is all about stopping reproduction in those deemed not worthy based on said criteria so the opposite of that can't really be called Eugenics. Louise Brown, the first IVF child conceived her children naturally. Who decides which are the best 1 or 2 embryos will be chosen for transfer? Under what criteria? Spriggs 2002 were a deaf lesbian couple who specifically sought a hearing impaired sperm donor in the hope to produce deaf children. They did find a donor and gave birth to two deaf children. Eugenics? That's one of the cruelest, nastiest things I've ever heard. Fucking degenerates.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Feb 18, 2020 12:23:47 GMT
Not really, plenty of reasons why someone can't have children that aren't linked to genetics. Also you're not necessarily selecting for anything in the off-spring based on an objective set of genetic criteria which a fundamental part of Eugenics. Eugenics is all about stopping reproduction in those deemed not worthy based on said criteria so the opposite of that can't really be called Eugenics. Louise Brown, the first IVF child conceived her children naturally. Who decides which are the best 1 or 2 embryos will be chosen for transfer? Under what criteria? Spriggs 2002 were a deaf lesbian couple who specifically sought a hearing impaired sperm donor in the hope to produce deaf children. They did find a donor and gave birth to two deaf children. Eugenics? The embryos are grown outside the body and thus grow differently to how they would in the womb, often they simply won’t grow at all. “Good quality” embryos are selected based on how they have grown in culture (size, shape, cytoplasma quality) It’s perfectly possible that a genetically unhealthy embryo grows well and can be selected for transfer. Genetic testing for chromosomal disorders which threaten the likelihood of a successful pregnancy or congenital issues( not designer characteristics, or high IQ, or hair colour, a key part of Eugenics) is offered to parents as it is with regular pregnancy (so it’s not unique to IVF, and is a separate discussion) but is not compulsory and if refused is not carried out. But even then, the testing is done at such an early stage that it can’t always pick up birth defects, IVF babies have a much higher risk of defects than regular pregnancies. If no embryos grow well, the mother can be offered the most developed but in most cases this is unsuccessful and they never reach term. With respect to the deaf couple, they went to the bank and asked for a deaf donor’s sperm, but were denied as they were asking for a characteristic. Instead their friend who was deaf donated sperm and they asked for his, which they couldn’t refuse as you can request specific donors if they consent. There was no guarantee the child would be deaf and no genetic testing was carried out to ensure the child was deaf. So there was no institutional/medical effort to guarantee the child was deaf. Questionable on their part? Yes, but they skirted round the law which prohibited them from requesting a characteristic by finding someone who would donate.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Feb 18, 2020 12:24:05 GMT
I don’t see why not. In Burslem, they’ve been practicing reverse eugenics for generations.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Feb 18, 2020 12:36:56 GMT
There has been a sort of experiment been carried out here, on the Oatie, for the last few years.
Certain characters seem to get bred who start off appearing to be ‘normal’ (although there has been a sub-branch in the direction of religion recently). They often expose themselves by becoming increasingly intolerant of other posters and their views as the months roll by until they can only find solace in talking among themselves.
They usually end their existence by having some extremely insulting or abusive rants at other Oatcake posters, ultimately needing to be put out of their misery by Admin.
Certain traits have been selectively ‘bred’ out of them however. An example is that there used to be an overuse of italic typefaces by them, but that trait has not been as noticeable in recent years.
The ‘insulting, abusive rant’ characteristic does regularly resurface though, so there is clearly still work to be done in that area.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 18, 2020 13:21:43 GMT
Sounds like something out of a Nazi science lab in the 1930s-40s.But now its in Downing street. The left of centre Swedish govermant was up to something similar into the seventies
|
|