Cube Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 Who does your political compass suggest you vote for? Political compass test Apparently the Scottish National Party, as I'm virtually right in the middle. I'll probably move to the right a little and vote Lib Dems.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 According to that I should be voting Green if I could vote in the British election.
Serebii Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 "People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce." I remember a Star Trek episode with someone with the philosophy of that. I do kind of agree as, and as much as I feel like a total bastard for saying it, those people very rarely contribute well to society in any form, they're just a drain. Now, I'm not saying we should go on a cull of them, but you have to admit that passing on serious genetic defects could be classed as child abuse. I feel like a total twat now :/ Anyway, according to that political compass, I should be voting whatever the green bit represents
Cube Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 "People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce." I remember a Star Trek episode with someone with the philosophy of that. I do kind of agree as, and as much as I feel like a total bastard for saying it, those people very rarely contribute well to society in any form, they're just a drain. Now, I'm not saying we should go on a cull of them, but you have to admit that passing on serious genetic defects could be classed as child abuse. I feel like a total twat now :/ The main issue of defining where the line of "serious" is.
Serebii Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 True enough. If I were to continue being an ass and continue on this train of thought, I'd say the kind that requires constant medical support such as nursing assistants tending to them constantly Is there actually a political party that supports it? If so, they aren't exactly vocal, for obvious reasons I guess lol
Daft Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 Why stop there? We should cull fat people. Don't want to pass on their bad habits and glandular problems.
MoogleViper Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 "People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce." I remember a Star Trek episode with someone with the philosophy of that. I do kind of agree as, and as much as I feel like a total bastard for saying it, those people very rarely contribute well to society in any form, they're just a drain. Now, I'm not saying we should go on a cull of them, but you have to admit that passing on serious genetic defects could be classed as child abuse. I feel like a total twat now :/ Anyway, according to that political compass, I should be voting whatever the green bit represents But that's why we have a society. To benefit people who need it rather than reverting to the animalistic nature of survival of the fittest. EDIT: Is animalistic a word?
chairdriver Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 But that's why we have a society. To benefit people who need it rather than reverting to the animalistic nature of survival of the fittest. EDIT: Is animalistic a word?
Serebii Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 Ah, but is it right to sire a child when you know it's going to have many problems and much pain in life to the point where they become a burden to others and have no chance of being able to survive on their own?
Supergrunch Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 Eugenics isn't a great idea even from a biological perspective, as it just shrinks the gene pool, ending up increasing the possibility of birth defects and so on. And of course these days it's pretty hard to justify from a moral perspective.
Sheikah Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 The real standpoint should be to allow genetic manipulation of embryos and screening to completely rule out these serious genetic defects, and to absolutely ignore anyone who has a problem with that. Such as certain religious groups with ridiculously backwards preachings.
Emasher Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 The real standpoint should be to allow genetic manipulation of embryos and screening to completely rule out these serious genetic defects, and to absolutely ignore anyone who has a problem with that. Such as certain religious groups with ridiculously backwards preachings. I agree with this, But I'd say it should be encouraged, not forced. Maybe if you don't get screened you wouldn't be able to get a tax credit, or financial aid for taking care of the child.
The fish Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 (edited) I've done The Political Compass before, and I'm pretty much where I was, and where I thought I'd be. I'm basically Green, as regards to the UK's parties, but they're too Left for my liking. I'm still saying Lib Dems. Edited April 29, 2010 by The fish
Razz Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 I did it, and it was in exactly the same place as Ghandi. I'm not sure what to think of that, but then again it's not the be all and end all.
Sheikah Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 I agree with this, But I'd say it should be encouraged, not forced. Maybe if you don't get screened you wouldn't be able to get a tax credit, or financial aid for taking care of the child. So then they'd grow up disabled and the parent would have no money to manage their condition. That's totally batshit crazy. The only way to stamp out most genetic diseases is to pay no attention to anti-embryology hypocrites (since if they had one of these diseases, they'd support this in a heartbeat). An embryo is initially a single cell; it just has the potential to trigger the development of a human. Just like any two people in the entire world have the potential to produce a baby; to hinder incredibly useful, life-saving/changing therapy because of 'potential' is totally fucking nuts.
Gizmo Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 I wish Gordon Brown would talk less about the problems with Tory policy and more about why I should be voting for his party
Emasher Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 So then they'd grow up disabled and the parent would have no money to manage their condition. That's totally batshit crazy. The only way to stamp out most genetic diseases is to pay no attention to anti-embryology hypocrites (since if they had one of these diseases, they'd support this in a heartbeat). An embryo is initially a single cell; it just has the potential to trigger the development of a human. Just like any two people in the entire world have the potential to produce a baby; to hinder incredibly useful, life-saving/changing therapy because of 'potential' is totally fucking nuts. True, I admit they were very bad examples. But you can't force things like this. You can ignore the people who are against it, but if you force someone to do something, even something that will benefit the country, you reduce people's freedom, which promotes rebellion.
Raining_again Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 The real standpoint should be to allow genetic manipulation of embryos and screening to completely rule out these serious genetic defects, and to absolutely ignore anyone who has a problem with that. Such as certain religious groups with ridiculously backwards preachings. I think I do agree in theory, although there are risks, its worth the research. Also I think there should be a lot more research in genetic modification for existing cases like... if you could find a "cure" genetically for what I have (psoriatic arthropathy, a immune disease), I reckon millions could be saved in treatments and care.
Nicktendo Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 I wanted to hit David Cameron after watching that. What a truly massive knob. YES. OR. NO? Twat.
Sheikah Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 (edited) True, I admit they were very bad examples. But you can't force things like this. You can ignore the people who are against it, but if you force someone to do something, even something that will benefit the country, you reduce people's freedom, which promotes rebellion. I can't see the nation rebelling about curing life debilitating illnesses. The same reason people didn't rebel on the streets when they forced the smoking ban. The fact is, a lot of people are idiots, and they shouldn't be allowed a say in things. Some things have to be forced, because there's often always too many people who either object or sit on the fence compared to people with sense. So, yeah... I think I do agree in theory, although there are risks, its worth the research. Also I think there should be a lot more research in genetic modification for existing cases like... if you could find a "cure" genetically for what I have (psoriatic arthropathy, a immune disease), I reckon millions could be saved in treatments and care. True, but it's one of those things that is infinitely more feasible to cure at the embryo stage; a single cell, rather than target every afflicted cell in an adult body. Plus, if they implemented mandatory embryo screening then in 100 years time there wouldn't be anyone left (in theory) suffering from certain diseases. Edited April 29, 2010 by Sheikah
gaggle64 Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 I spent most of that debate snorting into my tea every time Cameron promised "change". If they wanted to do something different from Labour they would've done more in opposition before this election.
dazzybee Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 I wanted to hit David Cameron after watching that. What a truly massive knob. YES. OR. NO? Twat. Oh my God yes. How many times does he utter the words "13 years". Fuck me. The guy is uselsss, he's completely non-committal, barely actually answers any of the questions and resorts to snipes. I just can't fathom how anyone can vote for him. My brain can't comprehend it!
Emasher Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 Regardless, no matter what freedom you take away, its still a step towards more and more freedoms being taken away. The more freedoms you take away that people see as acceptable to be taken away, the easier it is to make people accept something being taken away that isn't normally acceptable. Although, the people who I'm talking about accepting things are for the most part the ones who we can agree are idiots and don't deserve a say in some things. The problem is that as much as people like you and I would like to, or would like others to, we can't just go around controlling these people and still call our countries democracies. Which is the fundamental problem with democracy, idiots who are easily swayed by propaganda one way or the other get a say without any knowledge of what they are saying.
Sheikah Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 Regardless, no matter what freedom you take away, its still a step towards more and more freedoms being taken away. The more freedoms you take away that people see as acceptable to be taken away, the easier it is to make people accept something being taken away that isn't normally acceptable. It's nothing like that. What we're talking about is helping future children who currently have no say in whether or not they'd like a serious illness or not (although if they could talk, I'd guess they'd say "No fucking thanks!"). Because they have no voice, someone has to intervene. This is nothing like taking away freedom. In fact, it's giving freedom. It's giving people that would otherwise perhaps have lives rather confined to healthcare institutions and indoors, and allowing them to enjoy life and the world. The problem is that as much as people like you and I would like to, or would like others to, we can't just go around controlling these people and still call our countries democracies. Actually, we can. And that's exactly what we did with the smoking ban. A democracy doesn't mean that we, the public, get to have a say on every law in the country. It basically means we get to choose our party. Chances are, if it was solely down to us we'd keep taxes as low as humanly possible.
dazzybee Posted April 29, 2010 Posted April 29, 2010 y. Chances are, if it was solely down to us we'd keep taxes as low as humanly possible. Only if you know NOTHING about politics....or truly don't give a shit about 'society'. But surely the right of the right still believes in taxes
Recommended Posts