[knox]

wasting your time? you can choose not to reply and stop looking like you just REALLY need to disagree with everything.

From that answer I take it that you did not take up and quit smoking, therefore you're just talking out of your ass.

everyone i know (including me) has tried to quit. The fact that it involves anxiety, moodswings, migraines, lack of sleep, depression and weight gain doesn't make it easier.

those are well known facts which is the reason why the medical community develops drugs and treatments to help people quit, and I think everyone knows that.

[ni'k]

don't give me that bullshit glice did "have to disagree with everything". doesn't even work.

those are the sypmtoms the medical community uses to sell your nicotine patches and therapy etc. etc. anything for you to avoid facing up to doing what needs to be done.

and i did quit knox. i quit after smoking since i was 14 years old. when i was 17 i used to put away a 50gram pouch of tobbacco in less than a week.
i could get through 5 20 decks in a weekend at my worst.

here's the thing knox, you've "tried", but you haven't actually quit.

you don't even want to or else you would.

not enough to actually do it.

there. is that enough?

[knox]

Originally Posted by ni'k

don't give me that bullshit glice did "have to disagree with everything". doesn't even work.

those are the sypmtoms the medical community uses to sell your nicotine patches and therapy etc. etc. anything for you to avoid facing up to doing what needs to be done.

and i did quit knox. i quit after smoking since i was 14 years old. when i was 17 i used to put away a 50gram pouch of tobbacco in less than a week.
i could get through 5 20 decks in a weekend at my worst.

here's the thing knox, you've "tried", but you haven't actually quit.

you don't even want to or else you would.

not enough to actually do it.

there. is that enough?

well, I've been on and off smoking for the past 15 years. Mostly on. So I guess I'd know. But either way, you're doing the usual blah. Save your indignation for something more relevant than how different people have different levels of difficulty when they try to quit smoking. Because that's pretty obvious.

Now, I don't want to quit - at this pont that's very much true.

[knox]

Originally Posted by Nefeli

i remember we had talked about this here before. although it makes sense, at the same time smth like this seems pretty scary to me. cuz those rules would be made by humans (weak, greedy, corrupted), to be followed and avoided by humans (same). moreover, those who would make the rules and supervise, gain a power over other people and we know what power does to people. its also a major messing with freedom. im sorry that this isnt the solution, because there are soo many bad parenting out there and so many cases of pure hell and nightmare for the children.
i think again the solution, not so effective as what you suggest, is in education...

anyway, you already know that smth like this wouldnt happen, because church and governments wouldnt allow it. especially the latter, they need new people to work, consume and pay taxes.

yeah like I said, I personally believe most people shouldn't probably have children because they aren't responsible enough... but who am I to say?

To suggest anyone should have any control over that would be the most fascist thing ever.

[knox]

still

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by Nefeli

this had come up in the context of cases of abusive parenting.

I still think that a lot of potential parents should be made to have tests to establish if they are mentally fit to look after a child. Besides, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people aren't fit to look after themselves, let alone bringing up a child. Not that I think it would really happen, but still.

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by Nefeli

its not simple and of course you know this.
where would that mentally fit and unfit line be?
who would be the judge and why, of this etc (and see above)
as i see it, it would be only for the extremely unfit and then those people should then be locked up?
it could prevent perverts from having children, but all i see apart from that is a chaos.
the more i think about it, the more dangerous it seems to me.
could start a fascist, parenting control system. knox is right.
the idea you use makes sense, but many ideas make sense and then in practice create more wrong than right.

to give some credit to parents out there..noone knows prehand how to be a parent. and all parents are bound to make mistakes.
it has to do with responsibility but there arent any rules. you see carefree people, turn the switch and become the most responsible parents. you see normal people, getting abusive after having a child, due to depression and stress.

Their assestement could be done in a similar way to how people are diagnosed for other psychological conditions, or something closer to a form of counselling. These methods exist already, so their existence is already a constant cause of debate on their merits and effectiveness in resolving other problems.

The whole fascistic thing I'm not giving much thought to, since we already live in a pretty controlled society as it is, so the imposing of certain new organisational rules within its structure wouldn't be, potentially, anything new or anymore dangerous than what's already here for all to witness.

Also, I am aware that maybe this could only work within a capitalist system in selected areas where ''acceptable'' parenting has become a widespread problem, and the personal conditions of a section of the reproductive population constantly highlight untackled issues.

In a way, what I mean is that it wouldn't be a ''punishing'' tactic couples would be stamped on with for their rest of their lives, more a monitoring of their well-being in order for them to reproduce at the best of their capabilities.

In saying that, I still don't think that it would be a real solution to all problems about parenting in a capitalist society and it never will be.

[ploesj]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

I still think that a lot of potential parents should be made to have tests to establish if they are mentally fit to look after a child. Besides, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people aren't fit to look after themselves, let alone bringing up a child. Not that I think it would really happen, but still.

then what would you do with someone who accidentally gets pregnant? force her to have an abortion? there are so many factors that can determine who is a good paren and who is not. these ideas vary so much... a friend of mine has a child. she is a single mother, doesn't have too much money, lives in a tiny appartment etc etc. she is often frowned upon by the other mothers at the daycare when she arrives on an old bike with her baby in a sling. but the child is healthy, and one of the happiest and sweetest babies i've ever seen.

would rich people with busy jobs be able to have children? many rich kids i knew were very unhappy at home. they could have everything they wanted, but their parents were never there.

i don't want to start another fight but things are never as black and white as they seem. i agree that there are some people who would be better off if they didn't have children (especially for the kids themselves) but that doesn't mean that some higher authority should tell them wether or not they can do something that is as natural as it gets. when this friend i mentioned earlier got pregnant some people were shocked. she really didn't seem to be the type to be a parent, but she turned out to be a great mom.

[ni'k]

simply ducking out of this issue because its potentially "fascist" is a soon to be as backwards as believing the earth is flat.

because with biogenetics looming on the horizon a whole new minefield is opening up, and there's no way to reverse the tide. you can refuse to deal with it or deny it but thats just being regressive.

i find it fascinating actually. the fear is that we could genetically engineer ourselves into a kind of infertile retardation which would end the species.

will these technologies be used perfectly? of course not. will there be mistakes and monstrosities? of course. will it likely make things simply "better" or "worse". nope.

there will of course be regressive conservatives trying to get in the way and chanting "some things are best left up to nature!".

but rejecting this technology and leaving it up to "mother gaia" is more fucking retarded than any chromosome deficient damaged tard beast awakening to the world in the arms of a mad scientist.

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by ploesj

then what would you do with someone who accidentally gets pregnant? force her to have an abortion? there are so many factors that can determine who is a good paren and who is not. these ideas vary so much... a friend of mine has a child. she is a single mother, doesn't have too much money, lives in a tiny appartment etc etc. she is often frowned upon by the other mothers at the daycare when she arrives on an old bike with her baby in a sling. but the child is healthy, and one of the happiest and sweetest babies i've ever seen.

would rich people with busy jobs be able to have children? many rich kids i knew were very unhappy at home. they could have everything they wanted, but their parents were never there.

i don't want to start another fight but things are never as black and white as they seem. i agree that there are some people who would be better off if they didn't have children (especially for the kids themselves) but that doesn't mean that some higher authority should tell them wether or not they can do something that is as natural as it gets. when this friend i mentioned earlier got pregnant some people were shocked. she really didn't seem to be the type to be a parent, but she turned out to be a great mom.

Refer to my post above yours. I agree that nothing is just black and white, and there are always different scenarios to look into, but tell me when was the last time that a regulation made EVERYONE happy.

About the rich and poor thing - No, it would be the same for everyone.

[ni'k]

what would be the reverse, being "happy" with the world? i'd find this boring and stagnant, what would be the point then.

to put it mildly the question is not something i find appealing even answering

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by Nefeli

but the rich would be able to bribe the system and have children.


baby, i can answer more detailed (later or tomorrow)..many things, but im afraid its one of those discussions, better to take place in person.
i have no faith in people's objectivity regarding well..almost every kind of controlling, unless its stated by numbers.

That's why I admitted that as an idea it could only work in selected troublesome areas. It would overall fall foul with the limitations of being applied in a capitalistic setting and all its contradictions. Anyway, don't give it too much thought.

[ploesj]

i recently read an article on how dna could help us choose how our children are.

a japanese scientist recently discovered a way to derive stem cells from regular skin cells, so no dead babies needed.
this could mean that in the end we could give some skin cells, get the stem cells, alter our dna to get rid of the flaws and make a perfected clone of ourselves.

or parents could go see a doctor and say 'i want a blonde athletic girl who is good at guitar and tennis'

in the end normal baby making would be seen as terrible and irresponsible, since it would be too much of a guess to just go for it without knowing what the outcome will be. sex and giving birth would be completely separate things.

of course, this new technology will be expensive. only the rich will be able to get their dna superior children. don't you think this will lead to a society that is even less equal than it is now, with the few people who were lucky to have parents rich enough to pay for their dna treatments being in charge of the less rich and less fortunate? this would basically mean that your level of authority in our society is even more determined by how rich your parents were.

and something that came to my mind: if you already know what you are going to get before you are pregnant, where's the joy in seeing your child develop itself and discovering its talents?

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by ploesj

sex and giving birth would be completely separate things.


and something that came to my mind: if you already know what you are going to get before you are pregnant, where's the joy in seeing your child develop itself and discovering its talents?

What about pregnancy though? I doubt that all women would be sterilised to pave the way for completely artificial methods of reproduction. Good point you make with the last observation, I think genetics' main purpose is to improve the condition of humans to start with, not necessarily to wipe off all their natural functions and replace them with something else. Of course it can and should be used to help healthier reproduction in the earth's population, but without the dramatic sci-fi undertones that so often are associated with it.

[ni'k]

yes, it will, but you can't fight against this for the sake of some impossible equality. its as ethically irresponsible to do that as it is for some christian to refuse their child a blood donation because of their primitive superstitions.

as i said before, its pointless to try and fight against it because you are being regressive. you can try to work on the difficult moral and ethical dimensions and try to draw up a code of how we should regulate the technology, but even then, there will be people who flout the rules, or pay to flout the rules.

what people DO NOT WANT TO FACE is the fact that it is very very possible that the human race, under a capitalist system anyway, without sufficient regulation, would genetically engineer themselves into a kind of horrible homogenuous state that either results in their extinction or drastically sets back diversity and the health of the species.

also, the potential for advancement, for the eradication of diseases etc. is astonishing. but when you face up to these possibilities you face the fear people have of their own shallow biological security be threatened by the potential nihilism of "well why bother to make any more humans anyway". a whole spectrum of questions open up that threaten and challenge the ways people see themselves and the imagined value they put in existence. people don't like the face the idea of a human being created for a specific "purpose". like for example if you were some fantasist who wanted to bio engineer a race of humans designed for a specific type of labour.

the obvious counter point is that by refusing to consider these purposes you are not actually leaving it up to "nature" (which doesnt really exist and wants us all dead anyway unless we fight back). like for someone know to pretend they don't have specific purposes in mind for their children is just denial. children are already "bred" in capitalist societies to replace the labour force and grow up to be able to look after their parents and contribute to making money. this isn't how it is officially explained but it's how things are.

because to even face this possibility means to lose all sorts of primitive illusions about our special place in the world. for christians and secularists alike.

but as i say, denial is irrelevant and you can't go back. unless you are some sort of eco terrorist, and i'm sure there will be a whole movement of those aswell.

you have to be able to see nihilism through to the very end, or else you are just projecting a load of false "purposes" and feel good denailisms into the point of human existence. facing up to bio genetics means you have to face up to the purposelessness of your own existence and that's something that threatens people to the extreme when the find themselves unable to properly come up with a good answer.

my own belief is that these technologies should be used to replace humanity, as tools on the process of engineering ourselves OUT of our current reality and into something else entirely, post human, ex human, whatever you want to call it. and i think it would be a greater tragedy if we destroyed them and our capacity to ever use them and were stuck for millenia in some primitive hippie dystopia than it would be if we went completely extinct.

[SONIC GAIL]

Originally Posted by ni'k

addiction can only be the act of refusal to quit. not inability to quit. for if you are to see it like this you shall never actually quit.

now, i really have said all i will say on all this.

I'm jumpin in on the addiction topic as we all know I have a bit of a problem in this area. It is a refusal to quit, but that refusal to quit is directly caused by the substance not only the person. Unless someone TRULY (and I mean you panic can't live without it will do almost anything to get it cant stop thinking about it act out violently when without it physically withdrawl from it) has been addicted to something there is no way they can even fathom what giving up an addiction is, how it feels, how that person feels. It not as easy as just quiting like ppl say. If it was than the world would not have such a huge problem with addiction. It is not ONLY psychlogical it is physical. Your body's chemistry is altered after being addicted to something. Any addiction is a chronic illness. Nicotine is very addictive even more so than most illicit drugs.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by ni'k

... nihilism through to the very end... false "purposes" ... face up to the purposelessness ...my own belief...

[img]billycorganlulz[/img]

[ni'k]

try harder

[knox]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

That's why I admitted that as an idea it could only work in selected troublesome areas. It would overall fall foul with the limitations of being applied in a capitalistic setting and all its contradictions. Anyway, don't give it too much thought.

You are not considered the moral debate of taking away someone's right to reproduce (personal "freedom").

One thing is allow science to evolve and research ( people to do whatever they want in that sense) another thing is to give the government the right to determine who's good enough to "reproduce" and who's not. It's really twisted if you think about it and not much different from most fascist ideas - some people are "superior" and we determine who they are, other people are "inferior" and we opress them and control their reproduction.

When you say this idea would work in "troublesome areas" you're pretty much saying the richer would get away with it and the poorer would be the victims.

We're also living in a world in which the great majority of the population (the poorer) have no access to education, birth control or even the idea that there could be any other objective in life.

I agree with Nefeli, education is key, people need choices, not more control.

[ni'k]

ok, replace "my own belief" with "what will happen regardless".