IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Genetic Discrimination Bill.
psychÝ
post May 19 2008, 08:42 PM
Post #21


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE

See, you don't read. Screw Loose stated GENETICALLY PRONE. If they are being fired/reassigned based on this, it would be genetic discrimination.
If you are genetically prone to seizures it has nothing to do with genetic, if you knew what genes did you would know that.
If you don't get the job it is due to be unfit due to the phenotypic properties of the gene, this bill has nothing to do with this case so it is irrelevant.

QUOTE
QUOTE

Why not? They are actually better, it isn't really discrimination if they are biologically better.
Should we all say "Sieg Heil!" to you? Your statement sounds exactly like Nazi Germany under Hitler. The master race. Biologically superior.
There is no race involved, if you are too stupid to understand genetics that really isn't my problem, people are biologically better than others get over it, Kenyans from a certain valley when give the right training will excel to be great runners, aborigines have a better memory, if you think everyone is the same you are living in a dream world.

QUOTE

So, then, show me a few good examples where a genetic pre-disposition to something will hinder your ability to perform a task?
As stated above in the case of Kenyans and running, you will never be as good as them however much you train, they will be better than 99% of people given training, when more genes or sets of genes and their alleles are discovers this will become more prevalent, the reason for this bill is to stop cases in everyday life where these effects are irrelevant becoming effected by the genetics, such as getting a job in an office, if you have a gene that means you are more susceptible to obesity maybe they won't give you the job as you will be sitting down for long periods, in this case the fact the genes are there is irrelevant, you are making judgements based on little fact.

However in case of things such as military selection for special forces maybe genetics should be taken it to account, genes for stress level, stamina, endurance and so forth to give you the best people.

[
QUOTE
Intelligence is a learned behavior and not a genetic fact.
No, it is based on a mixture of genetics and environmental conditioning, as nearly everything is, you really have no concept of genetics this is quite obvious, it is quite obvious that other people are naturally better than others many studies have been done with identical twins to show that their IQ's have a greater correlation to each other than in the cases of there other siblings.

QUOTE

1. While I agree with you that a genetic pre-disposition is not infectious, the actual disease that you have the pre-disposition for may be.
No genetic diseases aren't infectious in anyway, once again you have no idea what you are on about.

Yes a secondary illness they contract due to having the disease could be infectious, but then it has nothing to do with genetics as anyone could contract it, so it is irrelevant to the discussion.

QUOTE

2. You made my point exactly. They are still able to do the job, but they have to be let go cuz of the disease. And don't give me this right-winged bullshit about people being let go for diseases all the time.
If they can still do the job they will be doing the job, I fail to see your point, if the phenotypic effects of a mutant gene cause them to become ineffective in their profession then they will be remove due to them being unfit to work, this does happen to people all the time, if you can't do the job to a satisfactory standard you can't expect a company to keep you their.

QUOTE
Which part of "discrimination is discrimination" do you not understand?
The part where if someone is genetically better or worse at something then it isn't discrimination as they are actually better or worse.

In your case to make a relevant parallel (unlike most of yours) you would class someone not being given a job with the grades CCC when another candidate has the grades AAA as discrimination. Clearly that is discrimination, but it is discrimination cause they are better.


QUOTE

How do I look like a fool?
YOu don't even no what the bill says, that is how
Ag
QUOTE
Psycho, you really are a pompous ass. Try thinking before speaking. And try looking at a point of view other than your own once in a while. Then maybe you wouldn't be pwned so much out here.

Why would I look at the view of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, I know more about genetics than you that is clearly obvious (going to love your come back for this)

Look at the point of view of others, go read my posts I am neither for or against this bill, I can see its advantages and disadvantages I don't need to look at the points of view of others as I already know what they are and agree with 90% of them however most people when making that point of view won't have look at the opposing stand point and why their point of view may not be so solid.

This post has been edited by psychÝ: May 19 2008, 08:43 PM

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

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Screw Loose
post May 20 2008, 01:40 AM
Post #22


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 28-October 05
From: Yes
Member No.: 25,696



Thank you for making NO SENSE TO ANYBODY HERE and making this thread into Rants n' Raves, Psycho, at this point you're just embarrasing yourself


--------------------
( . )( . )
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hardcore Ottoman
post May 20 2008, 02:28 AM
Post #23


Goon
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 469
Joined: 2-August 04
Member No.: 41
PSN Name: punxtr



QUOTE(psychÝ @ May 19 2008, 04:42 PM) [snapback]1438412[/snapback]
QUOTE
QUOTE

Why not? They are actually better, it isn't really discrimination if they are biologically better.
Should we all say "Sieg Heil!" to you? Your statement sounds exactly like Nazi Germany under Hitler. The master race. Biologically superior.
There is no race involved, if you are too stupid to understand genetics that really isn't my problem, people are biologically better than others get over it, Kenyans from a certain valley when give the right training will excel to be great runners, aborigines have a better memory, if you think everyone is the same you are living in a dream world.

We are talking extremes here psycho: the best of the best. Most jobs don't even have the managerial personal or resources to even know what the best of the best is in an application and formal interview. I'm not arguing your knowledge on genetics. No, I''m using a little bit of logic and taking from your ideas and that of this bill that genetics is far too insignificant in cases where most normal jobs don't require such demanding traits. For most people skills are developed genetically in the first place because they have learned to do it within their lifetime and pass it down for several hundred generations to one day they are proven by science that they are more fit to... have better endurance, for example. Or that their malnutrition causes an upset in modern times where the fast food diet causes such diseases the body cannot cope with.

Plainly, this bill should not be passed. I don't think it will be passed either. The real world situations are too complex to ever be simplified by any such bill or law. It would not do much good. It may cause more harm than good.

QUOTE
QUOTE
So, then, show me a few good examples where a genetic pre-disposition to something will hinder your ability to perform a task?
As stated above in the case of Kenyans and running, you will never be as good as them however much you train, they will be better than 99% of people given training,
Okay, how is this relevent to the bill? Is every employer looking only for the very best? You've seemed to lose your focus here.
QUOTE
when more genes or sets of genes and their alleles are discovers this will become more prevalent, the reason for this bill is to stop cases in everyday life where these effects are irrelevant becoming effected by the genetics, such as getting a job in an office, if you have a gene that means you are more susceptible to obesity maybe they won't give you the job as you will be sitting down for long periods,
Hardly something a little effort and determination can't do to let the man work around his 'susceptibility.'
QUOTE
in this case the fact the genes are there is irrelevant, you are making judgements based on little fact.
Likewise. How would such a bill do anything beyond take the man out of one job only to have a hard time finding another one; having wasted his education to find out his profession puts him in one habit while the jobs waiting for him won't allow it? Is there no clemency in letting the man change it?

QUOTE
However in case of things such as military selection for special forces maybe genetics should be taken it to account, genes for stress level, stamina, endurance and so forth to give you the best people.
Finally, a good reason to consider ones genes. Other than that the others seem to deprive a man's chances at the level of menial jobs. If anything make a bill just for the military, but even that is unecassary. The training for the military determines who's ready or not anyways...

QUOTE
QUOTE
Intelligence is a learned behavior and not a genetic fact
No it is based on a mixture of genetics and environmental conditioning, as nearly everything is, you really have no concept of genetics this is quite obvious, it is quite obvious that other people are naturally better than others many studies have been done with identical twins to show that their IQ's have a greater correlation to each other than in the cases of there other siblings.
I beg to differ. Eugenics is not a fact. Abilities can be learned because they originated from people who had no natural ascendancy of ability over others at first, but then learned it from their surroundings and their own intuition. It is a learned behavior.

QUOTE

QUOTE
2. You made my point exactly. They are still able to do the job, but they have to be let go cuz of the disease. And don't give me this right-winged bullshit about people being let go for diseases all the time.
If they can still do the job they will be doing the job, I fail to see your point, if the phenotypic effects of a mutant gene cause them to become ineffective in their profession then they will be remove due to them being unfit to work, this does happen to people all the time, if you can't do the job to a satisfactory standard you can't expect a company to keep you their.
I just don't see this happening at all in my world. Most people simply develop diseases not linked to genetics or they quit, etc... not much genetic that I've seen. But , yes, a company shouldn't keep you there if you cannot function to a certain level--but they do not need a law to let them do so. Such would be the scape goat for screwing over people by terminating them entirely and without reason to offer some minuscule compensation for their bad luck. No, employers would use it as an excuse for their apathy toward the person. And I fucking guarantee it. History proves it and today can still prove it if you've ever carried a job long enough to get caught up in some drama about a person being fired because of this bullshit law or that.

Psycho, I am sure you know a thing or two about genetics but this is less about genetics than it is about politics and the rights of the individual to work at his discretion without being told he simply cannot even try the job because his family has a history of some disease or deficiency. If this bill would be passed it would better be applied to high government positions, military branch personal/soldiers, and high corporate positions like CEOs and Presidents and District Managers and positions that should not be performed ineptly or with great risk. For the most part, average jobs should allow that clumsy kid to learn how to manage the warehouse of a grocery store and order product when inventory is low, etc.

I don't even think the bill in necessary. It is an insult to employers who actually are quite adept at hiring the people they feel best and not the healthy, fit ones laid out by this bill of Eugenics.

This post has been edited by Leng Tch'e: May 20 2008, 02:31 AM


--------------------
"BAKING A LASAGNA IN YOUR PUNANI MIKE PARADINAS IN YOUR PUNANI INTELLVISION BASKETBALL IN YOUR PUNANI HE-MAN AND SKELETOR IN YOUR PUNANI UNDERGOING PLASTIC SURGERY IN YOUR PUNANI WEARING LEATHER JACKETS IN YOUR PUNANI DRIVING MY CAR IN YOUR PUNANI WELFARE WEDNESDAY IN YOUR PUNANI I WANT TO PUT ORANGE JUICE IN YOUR PUNANI EGG SALAD SANDWICHES IN YOUR PUNANI HOT-DOGS AND FRENCH FRIES IN YOUR PUNANI CHEF BOYARDEE IN YOUR PUNANI"
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Severus Snape
post May 20 2008, 11:49 AM
Post #24


Litterer


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 8-March 06
From: Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
Member No.: 28,564



QUOTE(psychÝ @ May 19 2008, 03:42 PM) [snapback]1438412[/snapback]
QUOTE
See, you don't read. Screw Loose stated GENETICALLY PRONE. If they are being fired/reassigned based on this, it would be genetic discrimination.
If you are genetically prone to seizures it has nothing to do with genetic, if you knew what genes did you would know that.
If you don't get the job it is due to be unfit due to the phenotypic properties of the gene, this bill has nothing to do with this case so it is irrelevant.

This is the only portion of your post that I actually wish to respond to. Pay attention to the bolded part above. You just contradicted yourself, showing all of us that you may not have a clue of what you are talking about. Explain to me how if someone is genetically prone to something that it has nothing to do with genetics?

I won't dispute your knowledge of genetics. And yes, you probably know more about the subject than I do. But to completely discount everything someone says because you happen to not agree with them is just idiocy. Open your eyes, man. Why does this always turn into "everyone vs. psycho" out here? Think about it - if we are all always coming at you, then do you think that maybe you have something to do with us coming at you?


--------------------
QUOTE (Massacre @ Mar 14 2011, 02:10 PM) *
We're more than capable of answering you, we're just not doing it because you're being a cunt, and it's you specifically we don't care about, we do care about the rest of the forums.


Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post May 20 2008, 01:18 PM
Post #25


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



ITT: People think majority opinion outweighs knowledge of genetic inheritance, when arguing about genetic inheritance. Really, I think it should be required that people at least understand the meaning of pedigree analysis before running their mouths off about genetics...

QUOTE(Leon Kennedy @ May 2 2008, 02:48 PM) [snapback]1428742[/snapback]
Discrimination on the grounds of genetic identity is still discrimination. Nobody should be discriminated against for something they have no control over. It's like discriminating against someone because of skin color. Or eye color. Or their name.
So you would employ an achondroplasic man to stack shelves if you were the manager at a supermarket? Would you have him in your basketball team?

If not, why not? He has no control over it.

QUOTE
If we allow discrimination against genetic identity, what's to stop someone from passing a bill that allows any other form of discrimination? We would once again find ourselves back in a time where people were segregated based on skin color. "Oh, you have a genetic predisposition to having some illness that you may never feel the effects of? You people get to use THAT water fountain, and THAT restroom, and your children have to attend THAT school. You can't be in the same places as the rest of us cuz you're different."
Reductive fallacy, fallacious slippery slope and Godwin's Law in one post, calling it now. You fail to realise that a practical discrimination bears no relation to an aesthetic one like skin colour.


QUOTE(8 Ball @ May 2 2008, 03:14 PM) [snapback]1428757[/snapback]

QUOTE(Leon Kennedy @ May 2 2008, 11:48 PM) [snapback]1428742[/snapback]
Discrimination on the grounds of genetic identity is still discrimination. Nobody should be discriminated against for something they have no control over. It's like discriminating against someone because of skin color. Or eye color. Or their name.

No, being black or Jewish can't interfier with your job. What if, like Screw Loose said you were 'a petty officer who guides military aircraft is genetically prone to seizures'. Would you consider not letting someone prone to seizures guide military aircrafts discrimination?
Well, I wouldn't hire a Jewish pork taster.


QUOTE(Leng Tch @ May 9 2008, 09:03 PM) [snapback]1433151[/snapback]
Stop talking about AIDS... start talking about what actually happens in the real world. AIDS is only genetic if the mother contracted before impregnation.
Hate to nitpick, but AIDS is a bacterial infection. If AIDS was as you seem to understand it, then it would be entirely genetic; as it is, it is in no way genetic.


QUOTE(Leon Kennedy @ May 12 2008, 12:52 PM) [snapback]1434428[/snapback]
QUOTE(Leng Tch @ May 11 2008, 06:51 PM) [snapback]1434253[/snapback]
He's speaking idealistically. Ignore him. He doesn't want to believe that people are different and he will give lip to anyone who says otherwise, it seems.

wtf? Who shit in your cheerios this morning?

I am trying to draw a parallel between disciminating based on genetics to any other form of discrimination. My point (if you'd read my post) was that discrimination is discrimination, no matter what grounds it is based on. I never said AIDS was genetic. I stated that discrimination on the grounds of genetics was the same as discriminating against someone who has AIDS. It's still discrimination.

And as far as people being different - that's my whole point. All people are different from one another. You cannot exclude a segment of the population from something just because they are different. Which is one of the major reasons that this bill should NOT be passed.

You're getting to be as bad as psycho - not reading the entire post, and spouting off before understanding what you do read.
Would you - following the same line of logic - consider discrimination on the grounds of differing ability to be tantamount to racial discrimination? It is, after all, the primary form of discrimination, and clearly has a genetic element.


QUOTE(Screw Loose @ May 18 2008, 07:45 AM) [snapback]1437548[/snapback]
Unfit for the job? You mean genetically unfit for the job, you're just looking for contradiction, I beleive a pregnant mother with AIDS needs to take a certain medication (really expensive) to prevent her child from getting AIDS, i heard that on National geographic rolleyes.gif

Anyway, occupations for people have always existed, job opportunies are much older then science itself, so far we've been fine, Leng (Squirrelboy?) is pretty much right, it isn't necessary

Contraction of a genetic disease is rarely guranteed, at times very unlikely, so i see how this bill won't do anybody any good, just complicates things, so guess i'm not in support for this bill anymore
Welp. Medical science has a good understanding of how most genetic diseases function. Basically your parents have two copies (alleles) of every gene, one of which you inherit and one you don't. Using information from the rest of the family, it can be figured out - with a good degree of accuracy - which alleles a living person has. With knowledge of the alleles posessed by both parents, it can be figured out what the odds are that their child will develop a given genetic condition. This is done with the aid of Punnett squares. From these, it can be gleaned that one copy of a dominant faulty gene produced a one in two chance of the offspring developing the disorder. Two copies of the dominant gene in one parent (very unlikely, for reasons you may imagine) would mean a 100% chance, one copy each 75% and so on.

Recessive genes need two copies to be passed on in order to be expressed phenotypically (ie, so that they are affected by the gene). Analysis shows that there is a 25% chance if the parents have one recessive and one dominant each, 50% chance if one has two recessive and the other has recessive and dominant, 100% if both have both recessive. There are a number of things that make this more complicated -- X-linked genes rely only on the mother's elleles, and genes coding for things like eye colour are polygenic (ie they rely on a number of genes, giving rise to thousands of tiny variations), and a phenomenon called "non-disjunction" occurs to mix up the genes and give rise to variation when sex cells are being replicated. But generally genetic inheritance is well understood.

Given what we know, and what we can potentially know, would you for example feel comfortable in hiring a man who has tested and come back positive for Huntingdon's Chorea, with a history of relatively early onset in his family? Would you hire a man to be a heart surgeon if he has a 50% (or 100%) chance of suddenly developing a choreal disease such as Huntingdon's or Parkinson's, based on genetic predisposition? A relevant problem for Americans: would you hire a man with a genetic predisposition for early-onset dementia (a common dominant trait) for any job with intellectual responsibility? These are not easy questions, and it pains me to see people answering them with such conviction with no respect for what their solutions might entail.

This post has been edited by Amarillo Suave: May 20 2008, 01:20 PM


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

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Severus Snape
post May 20 2008, 02:19 PM
Post #26


Litterer


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 8-March 06
From: Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
Member No.: 28,564



QUOTE
So you would employ an achondroplasic man to stack shelves if you were the manager at a supermarket? Would you have him in your basketball team?

If not, why not? He has no control over it.
If he is the most qualified candidate to stack shelves, then yes I would hire him. Why wouldn't I if he has the skills? And as far as basketball goes, if he's got mad skills then yeah - put him on the team. (Ok, I realize that this answer is only begging for someone - I won't name anyone specifically - to come out here and throw some stupid right-wing bullshit around, but that's how I feel. If the person has skills, it shouldn't matter.)

QUOTE
Reductive fallacy, fallacious slippery slope and Godwin's Law in one post, calling it now. You fail to realise that a practical discrimination bears no relation to an aesthetic one like skin colour.

Again, discrimination is discrimination. Doesn't matter the rhyme or reason why.

QUOTE
Would you - following the same line of logic - consider discrimination on the grounds of differing ability to be tantamount to racial discrimination? It is, after all, the primary form of discrimination, and clearly has a genetic element.
While I will agree that your statement here does have weight, I have to disagree with you - somewhat. Skills and/or abilities that are learned are not something that can be discriminated against. Everybody has the same, equal opportunity to learn a specific skill or ability. If one doesn't take the time to learn said skill, then one isn't qualified to perform a task.

On the opposite hand, something that is out of one's control (as in your post, the condition of achondroplasia - or any other form of dwarfism) is something that can be discriminated against, and shouldn't be. I'm not saying it doesn't happen - I am sure it happens all the time. But it is wrong, and any law that gets passed that allows this form of discrimination is in violation of multiple current laws. First and foremost, Equal Opportunity Employment laws.

From the Declaration of Independence:
QUOTE
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Are you willing to take these rights away from someone because of genetics?

This post has been edited by Leon Kennedy: May 20 2008, 02:20 PM


--------------------
QUOTE (Massacre @ Mar 14 2011, 02:10 PM) *
We're more than capable of answering you, we're just not doing it because you're being a cunt, and it's you specifically we don't care about, we do care about the rest of the forums.


Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post May 20 2008, 05:54 PM
Post #27


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE
QUOTE
If you are genetically prone to seizures it has nothing to do with genetic, if you knew what genes did you would know that.
If you don't get the job it is due to be unfit due to the phenotypic properties of the gene, this bill has nothing to do with this case so it is irrelevant.

This is the only portion of your post that I actually wish to respond to. Pay attention to the bolded part above. You just contradicted yourself, showing all of us that you may not have a clue of what you are talking about. Explain to me how if someone is genetically prone to something that it has nothing to do with genetics?

Because it is a biochemical issue will malfunctioning proteins. The phenotypic effects of the genes are what are stopping you doing the job, you would have known that if you knew what you were on about.

QUOTE
Thank you for making NO SENSE TO ANYBODY HERE
Mello will understand perfectly well and if you had a concept of this subject so would you.


QUOTE

We are talking extremes here psycho: the best of the best. Most jobs don't even have the managerial personal or resources to even know what the best of the best is in an application and formal interview.
Given a genetic profile and a chart or computer program that will single out specific genes for certain ideal, they will assume one person is better than another either under or overvaluing the data given as they don't understand it, for example if a person has a gene that helps with intelligence, (which I might add have yet to be indisputable discovered but some of interest have occurred) is that person better than someone who has the same qualification as another without the allele, or is the other person better as they have put more effort in, or does environmental conditioning show one is better, it is just another example of something to look at in sea of information.

QUOTE
No, I''m using a little bit of logic and taking from your ideas and that of this bill that genetics is far too insignificant in cases where most normal jobs don't require such demanding traits.
I would say most employers would claim that they want specific traits from their workers, yes this is irrelevant now as most genes though sequenced their purpose isn't known, but in the future this won't be the case, if you know what every allele does then you can take someone's genetic profile and analyse it to completely remove a person from the application proceeding before even meeting them, that is what this bill is here to stop.

QUOTE
For most people skills are developed genetically in the first place because they have learned to do it within their lifetime and pass it down for several hundred generations to one day they are proven by science that they are more fit to... have better endurance, for example.
Not really they are naturally better so by the process of natural selection their genes are passed on as they are classed as a better mate, they didn't learn shit, they could just do it better.

QUOTE
Okay, how is this relevent to the bill? Is every employer looking only for the very best? You've seemed to lose your focus here.
Not really, it is exactly to do with the bill, do you even know what this bill says?

The whole point is other should be given the chance to prove themselves rather than being born and their parents given a set of jobs that the child to aspire too.

QUOTE
QUOTE
when more genes or sets of genes and their alleles are discovers this will become more prevalent, the reason for this bill is to stop cases in everyday life where these effects are irrelevant becoming effected by the genetics, such as getting a job in an office, if you have a gene that means you are more susceptible to obesity maybe they won't give you the job as you will be sitting down for long periods,
Hardly something a little effort and determination can't do to let the man work around his 'susceptibility.'
That is the whole point...but why wouldn't the employer take the other guy. It is just logical they would.

QUOTE
Finally, a good reason to consider ones genes. Other than that the others seem to deprive a man's chances at the level of menial jobs. If anything make a bill just for the military, but even that is unecassary.
You don't even know what this bill is for do you................

QUOTE
I beg to differ. Eugenics is not a fact. Abilities can be learned because they originated from people who had no natural ascendancy of ability over others at first, but then learned it from their surroundings and their own intuition. It is a learned behavior.
No it isn't, if you believe that you really are a fool, clearly people excel in certain areas even when little encouragement is given, people are naturally better at certain things, while eugenics isn't fact it has a sound grounding too say that people with certain genes will be better than others at certain things, whether they are or not is a case of environmental conditioning. But given time and enough studies certain genes will show traits for certain activities such as athleticism, logic, colour perception, studies have already show that a small percentage of women have a different type of cone cell in their eye and therefore have higher colour resolution.

QUOTE

I just don't see this happening at all in my world. Most people simply develop diseases not linked to genetics or they quit, etc... not much genetic that I've seen.
You wouldn't know if it was genetic, do you know any genetic disease or any allele combinations that would make you more susceptible to them?
QUOTE

Such would be the scape goat for screwing over people by terminating them entirely and without reason to offer some minuscule compensation for their bad luck. No, employers would use it as an excuse for their apathy toward the person. And I fucking guarantee it. History proves it and today can still prove it if you've ever carried a job long enough to get caught up in some drama about a person being fired because of this bullshit law or that.
Once again why are you in this topic, you don't even know what this bill is about.
QUOTE

Psycho, I am sure you know a thing or two about genetics but this is less about genetics than it is about politics and the rights of the individual to work at his discretion without being told he simply cannot even try the job because his family has a history of some disease or deficiency. If this bill would be passed it would better be applied to high government positions, military branch personal/soldiers, and high corporate positions like CEOs and Presidents and District Managers and positions that should not be performed ineptly or with great risk. For the most part, average jobs should allow that clumsy kid to learn how to manage the warehouse of a grocery store and order product when inventory is low, etc.
And that is the clincher that you have no idea what this bill is about, either that or you really are just a fucking idiot, however I think it is most likely the former.

QUOTE
If he is the most qualified candidate to stack shelves, then yes I would hire him. Why wouldn't I if he has the skills? And as far as basketball goes, if he's got mad skills then yeah - put him on the team.
And that is why you will never own a business or be in control of anything.

QUOTE

Again, discrimination is discrimination. Doesn't matter the rhyme or reason why.
...

It isn't discrimination...

QUOTE
Skills and/or abilities that are learned are not something that can be discriminated against. Everybody has the same, equal opportunity to learn a specific skill or ability. If one doesn't take the time to learn said skill, then one isn't qualified to perform a task.
Would you rather hire a person who could learn tasks and be adaptive in a changing situation?

QUOTE
On the opposite hand, something that is out of one's control (as in your post, the condition of achondroplasia - or any other form of dwarfism) is something that can be discriminated against, and shouldn't be.
Just because you don't have control over something doesn't mean it is discrimination to choose or not to choose someone for that reason.

QUOTE
Are you willing to take these rights away from someone because of genetics?
Despite that being completely the opposite to what this bill says, I would say yes as the statement is factually incorrect as we aren't all equal and anyone who believes that is a complete idiot.

QUOTE
This is done with the aid of Punnett squares. From these, it can be gleaned that one copy of a dominant faulty gene produced a one in two chance of the offspring developing the disorder. Two copies of the dominant gene in one parent (very unlikely, for reasons you may imagine) would mean a 100% chance, one copy each 75% and so on.
ost genetic disorders are recessive anyway for obvious reason and probability trees own Punnett squares, which really do suck complete balls, try crossing 3 things in one of them and you are boned.

This post has been edited by psychÝ: May 21 2008, 04:58 PM


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

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post May 21 2008, 11:57 AM
Post #28



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Leon Kennedy @ May 20 2008, 12:00 AM) [snapback]1438187[/snapback]
QUOTE
QUOTE
Discrimination on the grounds of genetic identity is still discrimination. Nobody should be discriminated against for something they have no control over.


Why not? They are actually better, it isn't really discrimination if they are biologically better.
Should we all say "Sieg Heil!" to you? Your statement sounds exactly like Nazi Germany under Hitler. The master race. Biologically superior.


You have to understand that some people are better at certain tasks because of their genes. Nobody said they're better people (you put that in people's mouths). Nazis, lol.

QUOTE
So, then, show me a few good examples where a genetic pre-disposition to something will hinder your ability to perform a task?
Police, Military careers?

QUOTE
Well, I wouldn't hire a Jewish pork taster.


Well, that would be to say that Jewish people, are unable to digest/ingest pork. Jewish people just choose not to eat pork, they don't want to, so, if you found a Jew who didn't care about eating pork (some Jews do eat pork) they could work as a taster for the product.

QUOTE
If he is the most qualified candidate to stack shelves, then yes I would hire him.
I suppose you would also hire an achondroplasic person to move pianos and a dyslexic person as a court typist...

QUOTE
From the Declaration of Independence:

QUOTE
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."


Are you willing to take these rights away from someone because of genetics?


Irrelevant. You seem to be doing the American thing here, pulling a quote from an old war decloration with Britan, that is apparently somehow patriotic, in hope that other Americans will start to back up your argument.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Severus Snape
post May 21 2008, 02:17 PM
Post #29


Litterer


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 8-March 06
From: Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
Member No.: 28,564



QUOTE
You have to understand that some people are better at certain tasks because of their genes. Nobody said they're better people (you put that in people's mouths). Nazis, lol.

Actually, psycho stated it. Re-read his response. He stated that they are biologically better, meaning they are better people.

QUOTE
QUOTE
So, then, show me a few good examples where a genetic pre-disposition to something will hinder your ability to perform a task?


Police, Military careers?

How does having a pre-disposition (not having the actual condition, but a pre-disposition, mind you) hinder your ability to be a cop or in the military?

QUOTE
QUOTE
Well, I wouldn't hire a Jewish pork taster.

Well, that would be to say that Jewish people, are unable to digest/ingest pork. Jewish people just choose not to eat pork, they don't want to, so, if you found a Jew who didn't care about eating pork (some Jews do eat pork) they could work as a taster for the product.

Right on.

QUOTE
QUOTE
If he is the most qualified candidate to stack shelves, then yes I would hire him.

I suppose you would also hire an achondroplasic person to move pianos and a dyslexic person as a court typist...

Yes, and yes. Why? Just because the achondroplasic person happens to be short doesn't mean they can't assist and/or supervise the operation.

Furthermore, dyslexic people find ways to overcome their disorder to lead normal lives. And as far as examples of people who are dyslexic and need to rely on reading or writing: Harry Anderson, Orlando Bloom, John Lennon, Agatha Christie, and W.B. Yeats to name a few.

QUOTE
Irrelevant. You seem to be doing the American thing here, pulling a quote from an old war decloration with Britan, that is apparently somehow patriotic, in hope that other Americans will start to back up your argument.

1. It is completely relevant. You want to take away rights from people for no reason other than you think you can. And the Declaration of Independence shows that we shouldn't be able to take rights away from anyone just because they are different.
2. Apparently somehow patriotic? The most patriotic document in American history.
3. I am not hoping that other Americans back my argument. I am hoping other PEOPLE will back my argument.
4. Brits are still pissed at us cuz we took back that which you tried to take away from us - OUR RIGHTS. Which goes to further prove my point that you shouldn't be allowed to take away the rights of people cuz they are different. And if you wanna still be mad cuz we whooped up on you more than 200 years ago, then be mad. You are just placing yourself in the same category as every black person in America who still bitches about slavery.


--------------------
QUOTE (Massacre @ Mar 14 2011, 02:10 PM) *
We're more than capable of answering you, we're just not doing it because you're being a cunt, and it's you specifically we don't care about, we do care about the rest of the forums.


Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post May 21 2008, 05:00 PM
Post #30


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE

QUOTE
You have to understand that some people are better at certain tasks because of their genes. Nobody said they're better people (you put that in people's mouths). Nazis, lol.

Actually, psycho stated it. Re-read his response. He stated that they are biologically better, meaning they are better people.


An idiot might take that as the definition of what I said, anyone else would know biologically better and genetically better and interlinked concepts, having better genes will make you more likely to be biologically better.


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

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Severus Snape
post May 21 2008, 07:07 PM
Post #31


Litterer


Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 8-March 06
From: Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
Member No.: 28,564



QUOTE(psychÝ @ May 21 2008, 12:00 PM) [snapback]1439258[/snapback]
QUOTE

QUOTE
You have to understand that some people are better at certain tasks because of their genes. Nobody said they're better people (you put that in people's mouths). Nazis, lol.

Actually, psycho stated it. Re-read his response. He stated that they are biologically better, meaning they are better people.


An idiot might take that as the definition of what I said, anyone else would know biologically better and genetically better and interlinked concepts, having better genes will make you more likely to be biologically better.

No, a logical person will draw that conclusion based on what you said. In Nazi germany, the "master race" had traits such as blond hair and blue eyes. Which are determined in a person BY THEIR GENETICS. Now, considering that genetics is a branch of biology, one can conclude that being biologically better and being genetically superior are the same thing. Which means that you DID mean that some people are better than others because of their genetics. You, sir, are no better than the Nazis.

Not to mention that you contradicted yourself in your response by saying "an idiot make take them take that as the definition..." and then finishing with "...having better genes will make you more likely to be biologically better.". Which side of the fucking fence are you on? Let's explain this to all who don't understand yet:

Psycho states that some people are biologically better than others.
I state that this logic makes him sound like a Nazi.
Someone else comes in and says that psycho did not state that these people would be superior to someone else.
I state that psycho meant exactly that and reference his original post.
Psycho states that only an idiot would take that as the meaning.

Psycho, you really gotta figure out what you truly mean and then let the rest of us know. Considering that in a post in RNR, I stated that people were acting childish and you came back and gave the legal definition of a child. You have no idea what anyone is talking about, and you can't follow a conversation because you confuse even yourself with your double-talk and backtracking and legalese definitions that have no bearing on any subject.

So I ask you, one more time, in the hopes of getting an honest, intelligent, simple answer: Do you feel that some people are superior to others based on genetics alone? Do you truly support the Nazi theory of a master race (because, if someone is genetically superior, they would be part of the master race - read Mein Kampf if you don't believe me on this)?


--------------------
QUOTE (Massacre @ Mar 14 2011, 02:10 PM) *
We're more than capable of answering you, we're just not doing it because you're being a cunt, and it's you specifically we don't care about, we do care about the rest of the forums.


Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post May 21 2008, 08:04 PM
Post #32


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE(Leon Kennedy @ May 21 2008, 08:07 PM) [snapback]1439339[/snapback]
QUOTE(psychÝ @ May 21 2008, 12:00 PM) [snapback]1439258[/snapback]
QUOTE

QUOTE
You have to understand that some people are better at certain tasks because of their genes. Nobody said they're better people (you put that in people's mouths). Nazis, lol.

Actually, psycho stated it. Re-read his response. He stated that they are biologically better, meaning they are better people.


An idiot might take that as the definition of what I said, anyone else would know biologically better and genetically better and interlinked concepts, having better genes will make you more likely to be biologically better.

No, a logical person will draw that conclusion based on what you said. In Nazi germany, the "master race" had traits such as blond hair and blue eyes. Which are determined in a person BY THEIR GENETICS. Now, considering that genetics is a branch of biology, one can conclude that being biologically better and being genetically superior are the same thing. Which means that you DID mean that some people are better than others because of their genetics. You, sir, are no better than the Nazis.

Not to mention that you contradicted yourself in your response by saying "an idiot make take them take that as the definition..." and then finishing with "...having better genes will make you more likely to be biologically better.". Which side of the fucking fence are you on? Let's explain this to all who don't understand yet:
Clearly you have no concept of this subject, definitions with in this subject or how this subject even works in slightest, just get the hell out already.

Of course some people are better than other because of their genetics what kind of smacktard are you, this is all quite obvious, do you know why scientists are better than the Nazi's because they are basing it off fact, people have the potential to be better and certain genes are better than others, however in contrast in certain situations that have occurred in the past the other alleles may have been of greater benefit and therefore preserved. The Nazi's just choose an abstract set of phenotypic properties and said they were best when clearly most chosen had no actual advantage, genetic barely existed in those times and even mentioning them as stated before proves you don't have a clue about the subject of genetics or biochemistry at all.

QUOTE
Considering that in a post in RNR, I stated that people were acting childish and you came back and gave the legal definition of a child.
No you said and I quote
QUOTE
My "little" brother is older than most of you children out here.
My statement was perfectly correct, you are the one who doesn't understand what you are talking about; as per normal.

QUOTE

So I ask you, one more time simple answer:
Well it is quite obvious you need that.

QUOTE
Do you feel that some people are superior to others based on genetics alone?

No why would I believe that, I have never said that and you would know that if you even had a concept of what I was talking about in this discussion or a knowledge of this subject. Clearly your statement is utter crap and just wreaks of ignorance to anything anyone has written in this topic, you might as well leave now as you clearly don't have a clue what is going on.

This post has been edited by psychÝ: May 21 2008, 08:05 PM


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

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hardcore Ottoman
post May 21 2008, 08:33 PM
Post #33


Goon
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 469
Joined: 2-August 04
Member No.: 41
PSN Name: punxtr



I may not have read the actual bill, but I have read the summary you supplied us from the BBC. Basically, since this bill would piss off lots of insurance companies and various other employers I could see many people taking up cases against them only to lose in horribly long legal battles. That is, if this bill turns out to be like most of the civil rights acts and the Sherman Anti-trust Law--lax in enforcing or weak in language to fully protect individuals.

I have the bill up right now. I'll have it read by this weekend hopefully.


--------------------
"BAKING A LASAGNA IN YOUR PUNANI MIKE PARADINAS IN YOUR PUNANI INTELLVISION BASKETBALL IN YOUR PUNANI HE-MAN AND SKELETOR IN YOUR PUNANI UNDERGOING PLASTIC SURGERY IN YOUR PUNANI WEARING LEATHER JACKETS IN YOUR PUNANI DRIVING MY CAR IN YOUR PUNANI WELFARE WEDNESDAY IN YOUR PUNANI I WANT TO PUT ORANGE JUICE IN YOUR PUNANI EGG SALAD SANDWICHES IN YOUR PUNANI HOT-DOGS AND FRENCH FRIES IN YOUR PUNANI CHEF BOYARDEE IN YOUR PUNANI"
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post May 21 2008, 10:41 PM
Post #34


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE(Leng Tch @ May 21 2008, 09:33 PM) [snapback]1439395[/snapback]
I may not have read the actual bill, but I have read the summary you supplied us from the BBC. Basically, since this bill would piss off lots of insurance companies and various other employers

Which is contradictory to anything else you have said in this topic.

One problem is with insurance companies though as in a way surely you should be able to make a fair judgement of someone's physical state or at least have as many facts as possible to be aware of what their physical state will become to give a fair policy. As otherwise people who have "good" genes are going to be paying extra for the inevitable claims that could have had been address by the insurance premium before.

I'm not sure if this bill will even apply to insurance companies anyway as if something may effect your future health it isn't discrimination, of course whether they should be allowed to acquire your genetic information is another question all together, maybe the only way they should be allowed to gain it is via you "voluntarily" agreeing to a genetic test, but then insurance companies may only give people insurance if you do agree or they may make people who don't pay a premium.

In the case of most business I don't think they need your genetic information to make a choice for nearly all jobs, I mean your performance from testing and qualifications shows how good you are and if someone has better genes than you and you have the same grades it may show that you are harder working, however of course their are other reason why this is the case.

I think in some extremely specialist jobs it should be allowed such as in the military and i'm sure there are other examples that could be applicable.

This post has been edited by psychÝ: May 21 2008, 10:49 PM


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

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hardcore Ottoman
post May 22 2008, 05:13 PM
Post #35


Goon
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 469
Joined: 2-August 04
Member No.: 41
PSN Name: punxtr



QUOTE(psychÝ @ May 21 2008, 06:41 PM) [snapback]1439489[/snapback]
QUOTE(Leng Tch @ May 21 2008, 09:33 PM) [snapback]1439395[/snapback]
I may not have read the actual bill, but I have read the summary you supplied us from the BBC. Basically, since this bill would piss off lots of insurance companies and various other employers

Which is contradictory to anything else you have said in this topic.




Not if they were in opposition to your own opinions not in agreement with the bill in the first place, which you started in the OP.

But, off the digression, this last post of yours is exactly what I agree with and what I've been trying to say before. I just got caught up in your arguments so much I didn't know what exactly the bill was for anymore.

Possibly on the effect of the bill on insurance companies, it could affect them if they were planning to use the breakthrough of genetic info from 2003 but had not made it so as of yet. They may have done it already... I don't know. I don't pay my own health insurance yet.

This post has been edited by Leng Tch'e: May 22 2008, 05:18 PM


--------------------
"BAKING A LASAGNA IN YOUR PUNANI MIKE PARADINAS IN YOUR PUNANI INTELLVISION BASKETBALL IN YOUR PUNANI HE-MAN AND SKELETOR IN YOUR PUNANI UNDERGOING PLASTIC SURGERY IN YOUR PUNANI WEARING LEATHER JACKETS IN YOUR PUNANI DRIVING MY CAR IN YOUR PUNANI WELFARE WEDNESDAY IN YOUR PUNANI I WANT TO PUT ORANGE JUICE IN YOUR PUNANI EGG SALAD SANDWICHES IN YOUR PUNANI HOT-DOGS AND FRENCH FRIES IN YOUR PUNANI CHEF BOYARDEE IN YOUR PUNANI"
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny†
post May 23 2008, 10:14 AM
Post #36



**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Leon Kennedy @ May 22 2008, 12:17 AM) [snapback]1439148[/snapback]
QUOTE
QUOTE
If he is the most qualified candidate to stack shelves, then yes I would hire him.

I suppose you would also hire an achondroplasic person to move pianos and a dyslexic person as a court typist...

Yes, and yes. Why? Just because the achondroplasic person happens to be short doesn't mean they can't assist and/or supervise the operation.


Clearly, when I said 'move pianos' I was talking about picking up the pianos and moving them around. Of coarse an achondroplasic chap could superivse the operation, but that's obviously a diffrent job.

QUOTE
1. It is completely relevant. You want to take away rights from people for no reason other than you think you can. And the Declaration of Independence shows that we shouldn't be able to take rights away from anyone just because they are different.
Slaves were still being used in America when that document was written, so it really is a pile of shit.

QUOTE
2. Apparently somehow patriotic? The most patriotic document in American history.


Care to elaborate?

QUOTE
4. Brits are still pissed at us cuz we took back that which you tried to take away from us - OUR RIGHTS.
No, they're not. What the hell are you talking about, do you even know what that war was about?

QUOTE
Which means that you DID mean that some people are better than others because of their genetics. You, sir, are no better than the Nazis.


I can think of several reasons people who make these claims are better than Nazis:
1. It's based off fact, not strange shit-fetished racism.
2. When people say 'biologicly better' it means they actually are born better suited to perform certain tasks, having blonde hair and blue eyes is nothing that can better advantage you at all.
3. I don't see psycho putting people with certain genes in gas chambers.



--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post May 23 2008, 02:15 PM
Post #37


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE
3. I don't see psycho putting people with certain genes in gas chambers.

Indeed, gas costs a lot of money, stabbing them is quicker. wink.gif

In other news I actually bothered to go to a lecture today, giving me an example of a gene for intelligence.

The NMDA receptor is essential for mammals to be alive however if this gene knocked out in the hippocampus (part of the brain) therefore meaning that the NMDA receptor isn't created then the organism in question will be far less intelligent, having a shorter memory.

However, if the opposite was done causing greater expression of the NMDA genes then they were found to be more intelligent. This would therefore mean that if there are different alleles for this gene, which could change the affinity for the ligand binding domains on the protein this would effect a persons intelligence due to their genetics.

This also one of the receptors effected by alcohol due to it being an analogue of the receptor, however with lower affinity.


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

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hardcore Ottoman
post May 23 2008, 09:44 PM
Post #38


Goon
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 469
Joined: 2-August 04
Member No.: 41
PSN Name: punxtr



This forum should have an essays topic for stuff that psycho and others might write their own arguments on.

Q for psycho, can this receptor change in any way as an organism develops is it it thought to stay fixed/or lack of further studies to know for sure?


--------------------
"BAKING A LASAGNA IN YOUR PUNANI MIKE PARADINAS IN YOUR PUNANI INTELLVISION BASKETBALL IN YOUR PUNANI HE-MAN AND SKELETOR IN YOUR PUNANI UNDERGOING PLASTIC SURGERY IN YOUR PUNANI WEARING LEATHER JACKETS IN YOUR PUNANI DRIVING MY CAR IN YOUR PUNANI WELFARE WEDNESDAY IN YOUR PUNANI I WANT TO PUT ORANGE JUICE IN YOUR PUNANI EGG SALAD SANDWICHES IN YOUR PUNANI HOT-DOGS AND FRENCH FRIES IN YOUR PUNANI CHEF BOYARDEE IN YOUR PUNANI"
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post May 24 2008, 03:47 PM
Post #39


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



QUOTE(Leng Tch @ May 23 2008, 10:44 PM) [snapback]1440563[/snapback]
This forum should have an essays topic for stuff that psycho and others might write their own arguments on.

Q for psycho, can this receptor change in any way as an organism develops is it it thought to stay fixed/or lack of further studies to know for sure?

It will be fixed, however I am not sure if there are different alleles for the receptor, but if there is one example of a receptor like this it is inevitable that there will be others, that have similar function.


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

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
psychÝ
post May 27 2008, 03:05 PM
Post #40


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 04
From: The Steel City, England
Member No.: 1,279



Signed

Well there we go it is now law, oh and as the article says it doesn't apply to the military but it does to insurers.


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

Dragonfly
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd September 2014 - 02:23 PM

GTA 5 | GTA San Andreas | Red Dead Redemption | GTA 4