I'm here because I have opinions the left doesn't like.

submitted by [deleted] from self.Introductions

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]King_Brutus 31 insightful - 6 fun31 insightful - 5 fun32 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

Welcome! Certainly quite the range of opinions here and it's refreshing seeing them all mesh together.

Your eugenics stance is interesting. Immoral implies that morality is tied explicitly to genetics and without the genetic predisposition for crime that crime itself would not exist.

In my opinion at it's core, eugenics is a good idea. Pass on the best genes. The implementation and practicality is typically what makes people disagree with it. Who gets to decide who breeds with who? And does that not go against free will to an extent?

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Morality isn't tied to genetics, it's objective. However, if a genetic mutation promotes a certain behavior (like murder) and that individual breeds, the gene will be passed down. Without any checks, before you know it everyone's killing each other. If you implement a check, that doesn't mean people won't commit murder (there are still environmental factors) but they'll be less likely to have that gene.

I believe in semi-free will. Basically, you can make your own choices, but your genetics and raising inclines you towards certain choices. Someone with, say, a murder gene can resist the urge to murder, and someone without the gene can choose to murder. However, it's more likely that the former will commit the act than the latter.

[–]missdaisycan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

However, if a genetic mutation promotes a certain behavior (like murder) and that individual breeds, the gene will be passed down. Without any checks, before you know it everyone's killing each other. If you implement a check, that doesn't mean people won't commit murder (there are still environmental factors) but they'll be less likely to have that gene.

Just for fun, as I LOVE stirring people up, does your theory include XY - the Y mutation? XYs perform violence in a percentage higher than their percentage of total population.

(Have popcorn, am watching.)😀

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The XYY mutation is not hereditary, thus not applicable to this situation.

[–]Lahontan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Honestly the crime thing being passed down through generations, this is a Nurture thing. No evidence I know supports Nature in a tendency toward crime. I heard a story from a prison guard that an inmate wrote a letter to his mother explaining how he was trying to get out of the gang he was part of. The man's mother wrote back to him that she was disowning him for that. Also fathers and sons in the same prison wearing chambray blue.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If a gene mutates that promotes violence, it will be passed down. And the chances of such happening are quite high. I would need scientific proof before lobbying for any regulations, but it does make logical sense. Yes, nurture is a factor, likely much more than genetics, however, genetics does play a role in how one nurtures a child.