desperado2008
-
Posts
68 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by desperado2008
-
-
please don't take it personally, I'm just respecting the truth.
Yes, I am not a native english speaker, I can fairly read but hardly wirte.
Good Day to you as well.
-
*off topic*
I'd be careful, holmes. Hammonds can smash you into little desperado meatballs. The staff here has enough grief. Just some friendly advice.
*back on topic*
*off topic*
she won't, she treat me nice.
they just want to isolate me.
*back on topic*
-
"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't know about you guys, but I don't want to see Hilter's ideal of 'Übermensch' coming true now or ever. Imagine genetically enhanced humans superior to the rest of humanity. They would be smarter, faster and stronger than the rest of us. Maybe even better-looking. How could we compete with that?
On a base-line level they would get all of the academic and sports scholarships, freezing the rest of us out. Job promotions would go to them and 'ye gods' forbid if they could propagate without a test tube.
Of course, I've given an extreme example of what could happen. But IT COULD HAPPEN. The wrong person in power at the right time and place could take the science and apply to their own ends. And then we would all be screwed.
Just leave it alone and let nature run it's course.
my opinion.
that's right.
@LHammonds
maybe you can accuse me of spamming. :biggrin:
-
I suggest that you nip the personal attack ideas in the bud right now.I don't expect you are able to understand.In prior conversations you have been extremely sensitive to your appearance regarding intelligence and if you don't learn to control that problem, it will be controlled for you.
LHammonds
he doesn't understand, does he? so it's not a personal attack but a fact.
I emphasized I was not talking about intelligence, are you able to read?
-
Since when hemophilia could be cured by medicine? I wonder.
As far as I know, if a patient of hemophilia get internal or external bleeding, the only way to save his life is tranfusing blood constantly.
the fate of human is(shall never) not for scientists to decide. Enrico Fermi invented atomic bomb but it's Trumen who decided to use it.
I don't expect you are able to understand.
-
-
My second example was ignored, deliberately. let's make it clear, all descendants of "Grandmother of Europe" Queen Victoria are victims of hemophilia, you can put them all on the lists of extinction, can't you?
I am not talking about ethical issues nor anyone's intelligence of which I have very little curiosity(nice sarcasm, right?), it's a question of POWER. I don't think those who promote human genetic engineering are powerful enough no matter what their true motivation is.
-
Uhm...The universe is entropy and we're footnote in world history. In the future, intelligent bug-people will fill their gas tanks with the fumes of our rotting corpses. We can't stop it. Sorry guys.
Yes, we can, we always can be optimists by burning the body into ash, they shall never feed combustion engine with calcium powder. :thumbsup:
-
as a reasonable man, I am not going to confront an old lady, we all know that would be pointless and dishonorable.
there are too many casualties of innocent passerby unintentionally involved.
I'd like to say history is a knowledge with minimum importance if you don't specialize in it, concentrate fire on me without missing
-
"your name, life, EVERYTHING is unimportant?"
of course not, to those who don't know you exist.
example:
everyday you piss more than once, everytime you piss is an event, such events are not historical to you and you hardly remember, unless oneday you find youself gotten contagious disease while pissing, that event becomes historical to you.
that is "Only an interest resulting from present life can move the inquiry of an historical event"(see the article above)
-
I made this topic because I thought history isn't too important. I think we often learn about the past but we don't learn from the past. (if that makes any sense)
that's the difference between history and chronicle, history is thought and nothing exists outside thought while chronicle is rememberance, both are based on testimonies, documents... though.
I quote the full article about Croce, hope it helps.
Croce's main identification of philosophy and history influences all his historiographical methodology. The reference work on methodology of history is Zur Teorie und Geschichte der Historiographie. Every history is contemporary history, for history is the unity of life and thought. Every thought is historical, for thought has already been and every history has already thought. Contemporaneity is an intrinsic character of every history, for history is thought, a synthetic unity with life. Only an interest resulting from present life can move the inquiry of an historical event; and contemporary history can be defined really history only if it answers the demands of the present. History is always constructed on documents, for without reference to documents it would remained unproved. As testimonies, documents are simple data or simple facts, they are the statement of the historian's living interest. The difference between history and chronicle is based on the historian's spiritual attitude and not on the selection of historical or non-historical events. Events are historical, for they are thought and nothing exists outside of thought. A non-historical event would not be thought and therefore would not be existing. History is living history, while chronicle is dead history, and after all it is not longer history. Contemporary history as an act of thought is opposed to chronicle as an act of volition. Every history becomes chronicle when it is not more thought, but only remembered. History separate from the alive document is chronicle and it is no more a spiritual action, but just a complex of sounds and empty words. Even if recombined and reordered, chronicles remain empty narrations. Restored, reproduced documents remain always and solely dumb things. Philological history is a simple compilation, often useful, but always deprived of historical thought, for truth does lie in itself but in the extrinsic authority of the documents. Croce criticizes not only the historical form of chronicles, but also poetic pseudo-history. If history is the history of spirit, and if the spirit is the only conceivable value, it follows that history is always history of values. The determining value, however, is not the artistic feeling expressed by poetry, which is neither life nor thought. It is not an error to write poetic pseudo-history, it is an error to pretend to write history instead of poems or narrations. In fact, poetry is a subject that is spiritually inferior to history. Not all history, however, can be universal history if it does not regard a concrete action or event and claims instead to construct empty narrations out of a number of elements. History must not to universal history, but it must be history of the universal. History is thought, therefore it is thought of the universal in its concreteness always determined in the particular. History is expression of judgments, it is synthesis of the individual and the universal. The individual is the subject of the judgment and the universal is the predicate. According to Croce, however, the true subject of history is the predicate, because the judgment determines the way to characterize the universal. Before the Second World War, Croce excludes from his historical methodology the moral evaluation of events. Historians must not apply moral qualifications to events or human beings. Historical consciousness, as thought, is logical and not practical consciousness. The lived history is thought in consciousness, and in thought disappears the antithesis of volition and feeling. In history there are no bad or good events, all events are good if they are conceived in the light of the concept. The history is never executioner, it justifies always. It could be executioner only by becoming unjust, i.e, when it confuses thought with life or the judgment of thought with the attractions and the repulsions of feeling. The task of history instead, according to Croce, lies in setting man free from the oppressive weight of the past. Philosophy is a necessary moment of the methodology of history, i.e., it is the clarification of the constituent categories of the historical judgments.
-
Tutta la storia e' contemporanea---Benedetto Croce
translation:"all history is contemporary."
-
I am not sure if you are spamming.
Who?
admin
he seems to encourage us to do so.
-
I am not sure if you are spamming.
-
@Trandoshan
You forgot thanking me.
why haven't you realized that simple fact untill now since you learnt it in high school?
-
it reminds me of residential evil V in which virus are researched to improve humanbeing, say, Wesker.
as a side note, if so, there's no more possibly potential Van Goth, Nietzsche, Hemingway etc, anyone here think he's superior enough to qualifies for perfecting any of them?
-
Gandhi sympathized Axis, he intended to cooperate with japanese army in order to obtain independence from british rule and Nazi gemany organized an Indian SS volunteer legion.
-
I'd just like to point out that FDR was physically impaired because of Polio a disease he was afflicted with in early childhood not at birth or within the womb...
yes, poliomyelitis is not inherent. I made a mistake . let me put another example---hemophilia(including almost all the blue blood royal members ), See, my point still stands.
-
With some stipulations, of course, as to avoid certain ethical issues that no one likes very much. But first, the why of it. There are a number of paths I could follow to support the proposition, Ill just choose one.
Almost all creatures employ their own natural abilities to the fullest of their potential in order to survive and reproduce.
The application of a species natural abilities to the fullest of their potential generates the most good for that species. (here good only means what most of us would intuitively consider as the greatest benefits with the least detriments. This would be true even if these abilities werent enough to save a species from extinction.)
Humans commonly desire the greatest good possible on an individual basis as well as for all humanity in many cases, and much individual benefit can be derived from the most good for all humans, and vice-versa.
So Humans ought to employ their own natural abilities to the fullest of their potential in order to achieve that end.
Part of doing that would be to allow genetic engineering to stifle negative traits and promote positive ones, something we are capable of doing as a result of our own natural abilities.
Therefore, we ought to allow genetic engineering.
Now for the stipulations, which I add at the end only as my own personal feelings about the matter. Since the argument obviously doesnt touch them at all and I think they are needed to protect and preserve certain values I (and many others) possess.
Only the engineering of traits which inherently contribute either to the detriment or benefit of an individual should be allowed. So changing eye color, hair color, sexual orientation, etc. would not be allowed. Those things do not inherently contribute to either the detriment or benefit of any individual. They are neutral traits. The only time they do cause detriment or benefit is under certain social conditions. Most of which, if not all, are arbitrary.
However, things such as intellect, physical strength, speed, and stamina, as well as a strong immune system are all inherently beneficial to all individuals. While things such as down syndrome, and other genetic disorders are things that do not contribute to the benefit of any individual, and often cause a great deal of detriment to those who suffer from them. These are the sorts of things on which genetic alterations/manipulations should be allowed to be performed.
I see no immediately apparent ethical issues with this stance. Any disagreement/agreements?
according to your theory, the gene pools of Van Goth, Nietzsche ect ect ect...could be eliminated for inherent mental illness, F.D.Roosevelt's for physical diseases.
-
Columbus and Vespucci both are italian origine, not spaniards.
-
You are right, I didn't get it. So what's the point?
So basicly "the job" secret services are doing is regarding the potential dangers necessary. The question is: How far is a secret service allowed to go?
If things like torture are in fact illegal than a governemental organisation should not be allowed to do so. If they start feeling kind of standing over the laws, then you can't trust them any longer. And we would have to stop them, because they are becoming a potential danger itself.
Or am I completely wrong?
nothing but truth, there is also a homonymic film, take a sight and it helps understanding how the world actually works, btw, Kate Beckingsale is beautiful.
-
@tortured Tomato
you are good guy but you don't get the point, though they make it very clear.
@jaysus
I understand exactly what you feel. we all are mortals so we don't have to blame ourselves for weakness.
@Vagrant
intimidation works.
-
@Vagrant0
you are an american patriot, i can see that, don't be upset.
anyhow people elsewhere have no obligations to make judgement as you wish, they are loyal to their own country and view things with their own mind.
that's it.
-
@Balagor
then what about "national sovereighty"? I mean, does it violate sovereighty of Denmark?
I read a book named "postmodern war" which talks about such things.
Lets allow genetic engineering for humans
in Debates
Posted
what you don't understand is that you can't decide anything of significance, whatever you are debating here is useless, you as an expert can't even deny my contra-argument, that means you arenot able to predict the consequence of HGE, not to mention convincing people that you can handle all the potential possibilities.
do I make it clear enough?