Originally Posted by Ele
I think there's a big difference in the effect that the new iPhone has on social stability than the effect of the introduction of an entirely new way to discrimante against the poor.
"People are already unequal" isn't a good defence to the introduction of something that would make it worse. It's like saying "Screw it, it's already broke, let's burn this baby down". That's not a good attitude to have on social class and inequality.
"... entirely new way to discriminate"? I don't think you have a pragmatic to bring that up besides "it makes a good line".
The only difference between the new iphone and gm is magnitude, and even then it's quite arguable. Depending on the cost and magnitude of legalized gm there may be a huge impact or no impact. Hell, even now you can order whatever you need online, if you were really game for it you could mod yourself some glow-in-the-dark skin fairly cheaply.
Calling it a defense implies I need to defend my position. Your argument is "inequality is bad" - something that you simply assert mind you - but inequality is a fact of life. By nature people are not equal. Using gm people can be made equal, yet you oppose it because of cost concerns - a concern that applies to literally everything from broccoli to lamborghinis. Then you arbitrarily decide that iphones are ok but gm isn't?
Social class and inequality are unsolvable problems without radical solutions like communism and widespread gm.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
"... entirely new way to discriminate"? I don't think you have a pragmatic to bring that up besides "it makes a good line".
Your English is bad. Pragmatic isn't a noun. I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
The only difference between the new iphone and gm is magnitude, and even then it's quite arguable. Depending on the cost and magnitude of legalized gm there may be a huge impact or no impact.
Yes, and that's my point. We don't know the impact this will have on society and you were saying before that that you know everything and that there's no cons to gm. We don't know the magnitude of the impact or even what impact it will have. It's totally wrong to be so certain in your position that there's no cons to gm.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Calling it a defense implies I need to defend my position. Your argument is "inequality is bad", blah blah blah, my deluded implications about your position that I don't understand
.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Social class and inequality are unsolvable problems without radical solutions like communism and widespread gm.
Nope. You don't know every solution to the problem. Class is much more intricate that just technology and politics.
Basically, you have a rigidly optimistic and teleological perspective about gm.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 3, 2015 at 02:14 PM.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Social class and inequality are unsolvable problems without radical solutions like communism and widespread gm.
Having good genes is important, but so is personality. I know a lot of brilliant people who are lazy shits and won't achieve much because of that.
Communism isn't working, what the fuck are you even on about? It contradicts human nature, unless you want to engineer people without ambition.
Originally Posted by Ele
Yes, and that's my point. We don't know the impact this will have on society and you were saying before that that you know everything and that there's no cons to gm. We don't know the magnitude of the impact or even what impact it will have. It's totally wrong to be so certain in your position that there's no cons to gm.
There are no long-term cons to gm. The weak must die for the race to advance. Humanity as a whole is lot more important than the individual feelings of some individuals who are affected negatively by that advancement.
Last edited by ynvaser; Feb 3, 2015 at 02:57 PM.
