Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Genetic Discrimination Bill.
iGrandTheftAuto.com Forums > GTA4.TV/GTA-SanAndreas.com Archive > Old Forum Archive (Read Only) > General > Political & World Issues
psychÝ
Clicky

I think I agree with this in the cases shown in the article as insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to raise your insurance levels as you may never contract the illness you have a predisposition to, however of course then there is the fact that if you know this and do nothing to reduce these effects would insurance companies be able to make a case not to pay out, as for all intensive purposes you have brought it on yourself, then again if you were living a lifestyle of that kind they would most likely raise your premium.

However in some cases such as choosing between two people with exactly the same credentials, could using their genetic information as part of the equation be useful?

The problem with that is if one person is better for a job genetically, but the other person has done as well as them so far that implies that they have more motivation as they have less natural talent, so who would be better, someone who works hard or someone who doesn't but is as good?

A case could be made that the person with inferior genetics could be betters as if they were promoted they would adapt better for the new situations which the other person may not be used to?

QUOTE(Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy )
"Discrimination based on a person's genetic identity is just as unacceptable as discrimination on the basis of race or religion."
He clearly doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, as it is a far better reason to discriminate than either of those reasons, I mean the person is actually better or are more likely to contract a disease ceteris paribus, it isn't some arbitrary point to make a judgement on.
Screw Loose
I'm completely for genetic discrimination...

If a petty officer who guides military aircraft is genetically prone to seizures, i sure as fuck wouldn't let him keep his position, but i also wouldn't fire him. I'd offer him an alternative with equal pay and benefits in which their genetic disadvantage isn't as much of a liability

It isn't the same as racial or religious discrimination, it is practical discrimination because possible problems are being prevented because of it

...Of course, each case should be treated individually, if somebody has worked a position for a long time and has plenty of experience, as well as a strong DESIRE to keep the job, then they should be entitled to keep their job and tell the people applying for it to fuck off

...Of course, just because somebody is genetically prone to it, doesn't mean the illness will EVER happen.

"Discrimination based on a person's genetic identity is just as unacceptable as discrimination on the basis of race or religion." - He doens't know what the fuck he's talking about, this sort of discrimination will prevent possible problems
Skinny†
QUOTE(psychÝ @ Apr 27 2008, 02:15 AM) [snapback]1422545[/snapback]
QUOTE(Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy )
"Discrimination based on a person's genetic identity is just as unacceptable as discrimination on the basis of race or religion."
He clearly doesn't know what the hell he is talking about,

Yeah, he must have been smoking some serious crack when he wrote that. People who differ in nationality have no real diffrences other than phisical appearence while genetic identity would mean thay actualy do have diffrent capabilities.
Severus Snape
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.

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."
Skinny†
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?
Severus Snape
QUOTE(8 Ball @ May 2 2008, 09:14 AM) [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?

Bolded for effect.

I will agree that being black or jewish won't affect your ability to perform your job. But due to discrimination, it CAN affect your ability to obtain said employment. Which is discrimination. Imagine this:

YOU are a normal, healthy person trying to get a job as a bank teller. You would be handling money all day, and interacting with customers all day. You also happen to (this isn't true, it's just for this scenario) have a genetic pre-disposition (a family history of) for some horrible, contagious disease that would make interacting with customers impossible. You don't have any signs of it, and you probably won't ever contract it fully. But your prospective employer says "Well, you are a great candidate and have all the qualifications. We can't give you the job, however, because you MIGHT infect other people. Sorry." How would you feel?

This is no different than people being disciminated against for jobs in the 80s and early 90s during the major AIDS scare.
Skinny†
QUOTE(Leon Kennedy @ May 3 2008, 02:50 AM) [snapback]1428886[/snapback]
QUOTE(8 Ball @ May 2 2008, 09:14 AM) [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?

Bolded for effect.

I will agree that being black or jewish won't affect your ability to perform your job. But due to discrimination, it CAN affect your ability to obtain said employment. Which is discrimination. Imagine this:

YOU are a normal, healthy person trying to get a job as a bank teller. You would be handling money all day, and interacting with customers all day. You also happen to (this isn't true, it's just for this scenario) have a genetic pre-disposition (a family history of) for some horrible, contagious disease that would make interacting with customers impossible. You don't have any signs of it, and you probably won't ever contract it fully. But your prospective employer says "Well, you are a great candidate and have all the qualifications. We can't give you the job, however, because you MIGHT infect other people. Sorry." How would you feel?

This is no different than people being disciminated against for jobs in the 80s and early 90s during the major AIDS scare.

Well, of coarse it is pretty outrageous but I was mearly pointing out that they actually do have diffrent capabilities so it's nothing like not allowing someone to do a job due to race or religion.
Severus Snape
QUOTE(8 Ball @ May 5 2008, 06:45 AM) [snapback]1430566[/snapback]
QUOTE(Leon Kennedy @ May 3 2008, 02:50 AM) [snapback]1428886[/snapback]
QUOTE(8 Ball @ May 2 2008, 09:14 AM) [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?

Bolded for effect.

I will agree that being black or jewish won't affect your ability to perform your job. But due to discrimination, it CAN affect your ability to obtain said employment. Which is discrimination. Imagine this:

YOU are a normal, healthy person trying to get a job as a bank teller. You would be handling money all day, and interacting with customers all day. You also happen to (this isn't true, it's just for this scenario) have a genetic pre-disposition (a family history of) for some horrible, contagious disease that would make interacting with customers impossible. You don't have any signs of it, and you probably won't ever contract it fully. But your prospective employer says "Well, you are a great candidate and have all the qualifications. We can't give you the job, however, because you MIGHT infect other people. Sorry." How would you feel?

This is no different than people being disciminated against for jobs in the 80s and early 90s during the major AIDS scare.

Well, of coarse it is pretty outrageous but I was mearly pointing out that they actually do have diffrent capabilities so it's nothing like not allowing someone to do a job due to race or religion.

It is exactly the same concept. Discrimination on the grounds of genetic pre-disposition is the same premise as discriminaton on the grounds of religion or race. Discrimination is discrimination, period. Doesn't matter why you are doing it. You can't discriminate against someone because of race, religion, creed, origin, or sexual orientation. So why should you be able to discriminate against someone because of their genetic make-up?
Hardcore Ottoman
It all comes down to real examples. Not general ideals. In the case of jobs, if their genetic disease can cause a problem in the future and there is another person just as qualified without a genetic disease--the latter should get the job if he isn't selfish. He knows what he has and he shouldn't be trying to make an example out of himself by screaming discrimination. Of course, there is discrimination. Maybe you should rethink the true definition of the word before you place conotations before denotations.

In general, there shouldn't be any bill passed at all. The circumstances in cases of employment are too vast to create a law that successfully ensures that justice is carried out in the hiring process.
Screw Loose
Read my first post... each case should be treated differently
Severus Snape
QUOTE(Screw Loose @ May 5 2008, 07:06 PM) [snapback]1430999[/snapback]
Read my first post... each case should be treated differently

I did, and I still stand by my argument on this issue. Discrimination is discrimination. You shouldn't be allowed to tell someone that they can't do this, or that they need to be with "those" people, just because they have a pre-disposition (genetically) for something. It would be like telling someone with AIDS that they can't be a cashier at a store because they have AIDS. It's discrimination, and it's against the law.
Hardcore Ottoman
Stop talking about AIDS... start talking about what actually happens in the real world. AIDS is only genetic if the mother contracted before impregnation.

And stop being idealistic. Ideals never solved the problem, neither do bills that are tackling these impossible issues of today. And re-read what descrimination denotes... and stop equivocating.
BRKS
I dont wanna rain on your parade but....
QUOTE
Nobody should be discriminated against for something they have no control over. It's like discriminating against someone because of skin color.

U cant change your skin colour? Look at Micheal Jackson, dont tell me that shit was genetic. So if they CAN change their skin colour (Do have control) does that make it alright?
Hardcore Ottoman
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.
Severus Snape
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.
Hardcore Ottoman
I'll concede I forgot your stance. The way you kept going on and on I thought you were one of those people that believed we were all created equal and to be treated equally.

Calling me psycho is facetious, however. I don't measure up to the stubborness of him and if you read my earlier posts, I don't support the bill either. We don't need it. It will do no good. My point is that arguing against it based on a parallel between racial discrimination and genetics discrimination is different on the topic of people who carry diseases that endanger the welfare of people in day to day contact with them, for an example. And in noticing that each case deserves unpretentious discretion in deciding whether one be hired or not, I rejected the argument you used against this bill--although I am against it as well. I find it weak. Too idealistic.
psychÝ
QUOTE(Screw Loose @ May 2 2008, 05:53 AM) [snapback]1428552[/snapback]
I'm completely for genetic discrimination...

If a petty officer who guides military aircraft is genetically prone to seizures, i sure as fuck wouldn't let him keep his position, but i also wouldn't fire him. I'd offer him an alternative with equal pay and benefits in which their genetic disadvantage isn't as much of a liability

That isn't genetic discrimination in anyway, that is due to them being unfit to do the job.
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.

QUOTE
It's like discriminating against someone because of skin color. Or eye color. Or their name.
You can quite easily change your name and your eye colour, that is completely forgetting the point that skin colour and eye colour are genetic.
QUOTE
We would once again find ourselves back in a time where people were segregated based on skin color.
Not really as there are very few examples where being black or white will help or hinder your performance at a task.

QUOTE
You people get to use THAT water fountain, and THAT restroom, and your children have to attend THAT school.
Genetic diseases aren't infectious so that would be completely pointless and you could argue that is the case already many schools and all universities have an admission policy based on intelligence and some of that will be genetic.

QUOTE
YOU are a normal, healthy person trying to get a job as a bank teller. You would be handling money all day, and interacting with customers all day. You also happen to (this isn't true, it's just for this scenario) have a genetic pre-disposition (a family history of) for some horrible, contagious disease that would make interacting with customers impossible. You don't have any signs of it, and you probably won't ever contract it fully. But your prospective employer says "Well, you are a great candidate and have all the qualifications. We can't give you the job, however, because you MIGHT infect other people. Sorry." How would you feel?
Genetic diseases aren't infectious, you really don't have a clue what you are going on about, plus the fact that people will lead a normal life up to the point when the phenotypic effects of the genes preside so they would still be able to do the job, but they would have to be got rid of if it did develop as they wouldn't be able to do their job to a satisfactory level, many people lose their jobs due to illness already.

QUOTE
Discrimination on the grounds of genetic pre-disposition is the same premise as discriminaton on the grounds of religion or race.
No it isn't this is actually based on probability, discrimination based on religion or race is just people not understanding it.

QUOTE
AIDS is only genetic if the mother contracted before impregnation.
No AIDS is never genetic.

QUOTE
I am trying to draw a parallel between disciminating based on genetics to any other form of discrimination.
Which you are failing really badly at as you don't even seem to understand the concept of a genetic disposition to something. Then of course you seem to be focusing on disease when there are plenty of cases when people will be better at something due to their genetics.

QUOTE
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.
Awesome, you don't even no what the bill is saying either that or you just like contradiction yourself and looking like a fool.

QUOTE
I don't support the bill either. We don't need it. It will do no good.
Lol, what world are you living in, you clearly don't understand the implications of what this means for the future, it is clearly needed, whether it should have such a broad spectra as this is the real question.

QUOTE
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.
Only if you call it discrimination, if someone is genetically better or worse at something that isn't discrimination they are actually better. In your idealist society test marks would have to be scaled to stop reduce peoples "genetic advantage".
Screw Loose
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
psychÝ
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
And, if you had any concept of the condition AIDS and how it occurs you would know why that is.

No I don't mean genetically unfit I mean unfit due to the phenotypic properties the condition has resulted in.
QUOTE
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

I fail to see how any of this is even relevant, have any of you even read what the article says the bill is for?
Severus Snape
Hey psycho: I have an idea for you on this topic. Try reading someone's entire post and digesting the whole thing instead of taking it word by word and analyzing what you think it means.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Screw Loose @ May 2 2008, 05:53 AM)
I'm completely for genetic discrimination...

If a petty officer who guides military aircraft is genetically prone to seizures, i sure as fuck wouldn't let him keep his position, but i also wouldn't fire him. I'd offer him an alternative with equal pay and benefits in which their genetic disadvantage isn't as much of a liability

That isn't genetic discrimination in anyway, that is due to them being unfit to do the job.

See, you don't read. Screw Loose stated GENETICALLY PRONE. If they are being fired/reassigned based on this, it would be genetic discrimination.

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.

QUOTE
QUOTE
We would once again find ourselves back in a time where people were segregated based on skin color.
Not really as there are very few examples where being black or white will help or hinder your performance at a task.

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

QUOTE
QUOTE
You people get to use THAT water fountain, and THAT restroom, and your children have to attend THAT school.
Genetic diseases aren't infectious so that would be completely pointless and you could argue that is the case already many schools and all universities have an admission policy based on intelligence and some of that will be genetic.
Again, you need to read the statement in the context of the entire post. The statement was that we would be back in an age similar to racial segregation. And you are wrong on intelligence. Intelligence is a learned behavior and not a genetic fact. I know - studies have been done. And I'm sure you'll quote Bouchard and McGue (1981), or Daniels (1998), or Franke (1999), or some other study that has the same thoughts as you. Read the rest of them before you spout off.

QUOTE
QUOTE
YOU are a normal, healthy person trying to get a job as a bank teller. You would be handling money all day, and interacting with customers all day. You also happen to (this isn't true, it's just for this scenario) have a genetic pre-disposition (a family history of) for some horrible, contagious disease that would make interacting with customers impossible. You don't have any signs of it, and you probably won't ever contract it fully. But your prospective employer says "Well, you are a great candidate and have all the qualifications. We can't give you the job, however, because you MIGHT infect other people. Sorry." How would you feel?

Genetic diseases aren't infectious, you really don't have a clue what you are going on about, plus the fact that people will lead a normal life up to the point when the phenotypic effects of the genes preside so they would still be able to do the job, but they would have to be got rid of if it did develop as they wouldn't be able to do their job to a satisfactory level, many people lose their jobs due to illness already.

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. The disease itself is not genetic - the disposition to possibly have it is. Read the entire post in the context it was intended.
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.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Discrimination on the grounds of genetic pre-disposition is the same premise as discriminaton on the grounds of religion or race.
No it isn't this is actually based on probability, discrimination based on religion or race is just people not understanding it.
Which part of "discrimination is discrimination" do you not understand?

QUOTE
QUOTE
I am trying to draw a parallel between disciminating based on genetics to any other form of discrimination.
Which you are failing really badly at as you don't even seem to understand the concept of a genetic disposition to something. Then of course you seem to be focusing on disease when there are plenty of cases when people will be better at something due to their genetics.


QUOTE
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.
Awesome, you don't even no what the bill is saying either that or you just like contradiction yourself and looking like a fool.

How do I look like a fool? I draw the parallel, I make my case, and you are the only person who thinks that I don't know what's going on. Again, you cannot exclude a segment of the population from something just because they are genetically different. And again, you aren't reading the whole topic in its context.

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.
psychÝ
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.
Screw Loose
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
Hardcore Ottoman
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.
Severus Snape
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?
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
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.
Severus Snape
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?
psychÝ
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.
Skinny†
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.
Severus Snape
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.
psychÝ
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.
Severus Snape
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)?
psychÝ
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.
Hardcore Ottoman
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.
psychÝ
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.
Hardcore Ottoman
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.
Skinny†
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.

psychÝ
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.
Hardcore Ottoman
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?
psychÝ
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.
psychÝ
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.
Hardcore Ottoman
Ah. I'll see where this goes. Hopefully not for the worse. I just hope insurers don't create a loyalty oath that compells their clients to submit to a disclosure of their genetic information unless the insurer will consider them "irresponsible and devious" and deny them insurance.

Get what I mean?

Edit--Whoa, I meant insurers don't create...
Severus Snape
QUOTE(Leng Tch @ May 27 2008, 10:31 AM) [snapback]1442080[/snapback]
Ah. I'll see where this goes. Hopefully not for the worse. I just hope insurers create a loyalty oath that compells their clients to submit to a disclosure of their genetic information unless the insurer will consider them "irresponsible and devious" and deny them insurance.

Get what I mean?


As I work for an insurance company (medical insurance), I have to put another 2 cents in here.

Insurance companies don't consider people as "irresponsible and devious" when they attempt to defraud the insurance company. Defraud, you might ask? By intentionally or unintentionally withholding information about their past or current medical history for the purposes of either obtaining insurance or securing a better rate for the coverage they have selected. They simply consider those individuals to be attempting to defraud the company, and appropriate measures are taken to account for this when this type of activity is found.

With that said, it goes to note that the application for insurance has a disclaimer that the prospective member has to read and sign that states, basically, "The information presented within this application is, to the best of my knowledge, 100% complete and accurate as of the date this application is signed. If any of the information presented herein is found to be false, or any information has been found to be withheld, either intentionally or unintentionally, the insurance company may, at their discretion, take any applicable measures to adjust the coverage provided to the signer of this application, or any of the signer's dependents (if applicable), up to and including termination/recission of the provided coverage." Or something along those lines. Essentially, this statement on the application already provides for what you stated above - a "loyalty oath". The person attempting to receive coverage already, at the time the app is signed, is agreeing that the information they have provided is correct and accurate.

It must also be stated that insurance companies are highly regulated, and one of the federal regulations in the states indicates that insurance companies may not accept or decline coverage based on the submission of a blood or dna sample. Which means that this bill cannot compel an insurance company to require a DNA or blood sample for the purposes of applying for coverage as the bill would be in violation of multiple sections of the Medicare laws. So I don't believe that this bill will have any impact on insurance companies in the US.
Hardcore Ottoman
Well, in that case, I'll see if that federal safeguard changes for the worst... and does allow insurance companies to require DNA/blood samples. Because that is all that is preventing such discrimination.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.