What's new
By:

If you could alter genetic makeup of your baby would you do it?

Darkwing Duck said:
And you'll find countless similar examples. So much so that's absolutely no possible way to define race. What's this "prototypical" person of a race when you try to specify a characteristic, the genetic pool, both in the phenotype and genotype, ends up being incredibly unique and diverse that renders "race" undefinable and when you try to generalize the characteristics, there are more exceptions than definites. You just can't define a race in humans. There are lots of "Asians" without the epicanthic fold, lots of very light skinned "black" people, lots of "white" people with nappy hair. The list goes on and on and on and on.
Click to expand...

This is kinda true, a Chinese and an Indian to me looks completely different but are both grouped as 'Asian'.


There are also supposed to be a lot of 'Asian' looking people in places like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan... some of them are VERY good looking I might add.
 
Reading the responses confirm my suspicions, race means nothing more than general look, or phenotype. However, the whole thing is defined arbitrarily. It was decided that people with European features are "white". However, white Italians and white Swedes look quite different. The two could have been different races. In fact, the Romans did not see themselves as part of the same group as the Nords. Had they been classified as two different races, people would defend the categorization with "well, I'm Italian and I have my racial features like olive skin and long nose, and so do my children. I look nothing like a Swede". But it isn't, so they don't.

Every individual, group, ethnicity, whatever, has unique identifiers. But race is not a natural group, and thus it has no genetic basis (because we made up who belongs to each race).

Another example, I'm considered white by the US government. However, people in general don't consider me white, because my features don't quite match their expectations. Which one is right? Neither. It is arbitrary. My cousin, who is just as Arab as me, has red hair and very fair skin. Another relative of mine can pass for a light-skinned African.

Race is a social construct. It's pretty obvious guys.
 
Last edited:
♪alt13 said:
eyesight?
Click to expand...

I'd fix poor eyesight to match base human level for normal sight. Same with hearing or anything else. But you bring up a good point about the noisy boundaries of what is and isn't a disorder. I don't know how I'd treat each aspect of human health.
 
colton said:
This is idiotic.
Click to expand...

Wow. Rare circumstance with Colton playing rough. Ok, I just started this thread on the last page, but now I'm gonna get some popcorn and start from the beginning.

Carry on, and please try and play nice for a while until I can catch up, at which point feel free to take the gloves off.;)
 
Siro said:
Reading the responses confirm my suspicions, race means nothing more than general look, or phenotype. However, the whole thing is defined arbitrary. It was decided that people with European features are "white". However, white Italians and white Swedes look quite different. The two could have been different races. In fact, the Romans did not see themselves as part of the same group as the Nords. Had they been classified as two different races, people would defend the categorization with "well, I'm Italian and I have my racial features like olive skin and long nose, and so do my children. I look nothing like a Swede". But it isn't, so they don't.

Every individual, group, ethnicity, whatever, has unique identifiers. But race is not a natural group, and thus it has no genetic basis (because we made up who belongs to each race).

Another example, I'm considered white by the US government. However, people in general don't consider me white, because my features don't quite match their expectations. Which one is right? Neither. It is arbitrary. My cousin, who is just as Arab as me, has red hair and very fair skin. Another relative of mine can pass for a light-skinned African.

Race is a social construct. It's pretty obvious guys.
Click to expand...

Couldnt it be that mixing races over the years has clouded the definitions a little bit. Maybe in the beginning, in each particular race, there were no differences at all in that race. Everyone looked exactly the same. Then the mixing began, and slowly developed all the different looks we see today.
 
Computer said:
Couldnt it be that mixing races over the years has clouded the definitions a little bit. Maybe in the beginning, in each particular race, there were no differences at all in that race. Everyone looked exactly the same. Then the mixing began, and slowly developed all the different looks we see today.
Click to expand...

Are you saying races were created whole in the beginning? They weren't. We all started out in Africa. People then migrated all over, and as relatively isolated groups they adapted to their new environment (along with random mutations), and they developed unique features. That's how it's been ever since. There are a million different "ethnicities". Which we group into a "race" is a cultural thing. And the whole concept did not exist before a few hundred years ago.
 
ONE LOVE said:
add a gene that make him/her love me unconditionally...
Click to expand...

Siro said:
You'd be better off getting a love-bot. I bet those will also be available by the time you're able to turn your children into unthinking slaves.
Click to expand...

Siro said:
OL gave the worst response in this thread. Editing a person's genetics to make them unconditionally love you! /facepalm
Click to expand...

OK, I support siro in this thread. On an unrelated note, the fact is homosexuality really isn't a physical trait that can be avoided by genetic design. Anyone who thinks that, has never really known a true homosexual(bi-sexuals are different and harder to define). For reference, I have a nephew who we could tell had a feminine spirit from the time he was 6 freakin years old, long before the kid himself knew he was gay. By the time he was 12, nobody who ever met the kid had any doubt of his orientation. Anyone who believes that it is a choice, really doesn't have a clue.

For some people, this is a natural/spiritual condition, and as someone who has experienced it first hand, it's comical to me that anyone might think you could avoid it through genetics like some disease. TOTAL ********, but whatever.

Having said that, Siro can **** off with his trashing of OL for wanting to be loved unconditionally. Nothing wrong with that. However, OL, forget about it when having kids. Those ****ers are going to hate you and make your life hell. When you get the chance, do it anyway, because human interaction was NEVER supposed to be about unconditional love, no matter what religion tells you.

But don't give up, because God DID want you to experience unconditional love!

happy-dog-running-by-500px.jpg


*This has been a Freakazoid production*

*Time is counting down, up to the return of Freakazoid*
 
Last edited:
Cappy_Smurf said:
OK, I support siro in this thread, as for the fact homosexuality really isn't a physical trait that can be avoided by genetic design. Anyone who thinks that, has never really known a true homosexual(bi-sexuals are different and harder to define). For reference, I have a nephew who we could tell had a feminine spirit from the time he was 6 freakin years old, long before the kid himself knew he was gay. By the time he was 12, nobody who ever met the kid had any doubt of his orientation. Anyone who believes that it is a choice, really doesn't have a clue. For some people, this is a natural condition, and as someone who has experienced it first hand, it's comical to me that anyone might think you could avoid it through genetics like some disease. TOTAL ********, but whatever.

Having said that, Siro can **** off with his trashing of OL for wanting to be loved unconditionally. Nothing wrong with that. However, OL, forget about it when having kids. Those ****ers are going to hate you and make your life hell. When you get the chance, do it anyway, because human interaction was NEVER supposed to be about unconditional love, no matter what religion tells you.

But don't give up, because God DID want you to experience unconditional love!

happy-dog-running-by-500px.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks bro, great post :)
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
Having said that, Siro can **** off with his trashing of OL for wanting to be loved unconditionally. Nothing wrong with that. However, OL, forget about it when having kids. Those ****ers are going to hate you and make your life hell. When you get the chance, do it anyway, because human interaction was NEVER supposed to be about unconditional love, no matter what religion tells you.
Click to expand...

I did not trash OL for wanting to be loved. I trashed him for wanting to mind-control his children through genetic engineering. ;)

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be loved. What's life without love?!
 
Colton with some truly bizarre takes in this thread.


And you simply have to love LogGrad immediately calling me condescending when my post to him was far from it
 
Siro said:
Reading the responses confirm my suspicions, race means nothing more than general look, or phenotype. However, the whole thing is defined arbitrarily. It was decided that people with European features are "white". However, white Italians and white Swedes look quite different. The two could have been different races. In fact, the Romans did not see themselves as part of the same group as the Nords. Had they been classified as two different races, people would defend the categorization with "well, I'm Italian and I have my racial features like olive skin and long nose, and so do my children. I look nothing like a Swede". But it isn't, so they don't.

Every individual, group, ethnicity, whatever, has unique identifiers. But race is not a natural group, and thus it has no genetic basis (because we made up who belongs to each race).

Another example, I'm considered white by the US government. However, people in general don't consider me white, because my features don't quite match their expectations. Which one is right? Neither. It is arbitrary. My cousin, who is just as Arab as me, has red hair and very fair skin. Another relative of mine can pass for a light-skinned African.

Race is a social construct. It's pretty obvious guys.
Click to expand...

This is a great post. I can get on board with this definition of why race is a social construct.
 
b_line said:
Maybe, but my neanderthal DNA definitely predisposes me to allergic reactions. It still is a factor that people without neanderthal DNA do not have. It's different. Not the same.
Click to expand...

I would need to see the paper that made the link-- but keep in mind that allergic sensitivity is much more complex than simply having a gene that makes one's mast cell response or histamine production different or whatever.


Geneticists VERY rampantly exaggerate the potency of "predispositions" as it's beneficial for their research interests and financial funding
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top