Comments on: Weeding Out the Unfit Arguments http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/03/weeding-out-the-unfit-arguments/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Kerbvessy http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/03/weeding-out-the-unfit-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-2890 Kerbvessy Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:48:17 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1959#comment-2890 There's one special secret Sale link on Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/2r7ldr [b]This is open every Friday and ONLY on Fridays! [/b] You can find very good discounts here, although some Fridays you can really get lucky and make off like an Amazon bandit - I´ve seen discounts there as low as 75% off sticker Price. There’s one special secret Sale link on Amazon:

http://tinyurl.com/2r7ldr

[b]This is open every Friday and ONLY on Fridays! [/b]

You can find very good discounts here, although some Fridays you can really get
lucky and make off like an Amazon bandit – I´ve seen discounts there as low as 75%
off sticker Price.

]]> By: iceseBimB http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/03/weeding-out-the-unfit-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-2889 iceseBimB Fri, 05 Oct 2007 04:28:39 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1959#comment-2889 I’ve got an Amazon gift certificate burning holes in my pocket, and I want to get the most bang for my buck. Enter the Secret Amazon Web Pages: http://tinyurl.com/38sojf This is where you’re going to find the "latest sales, rebates, and limited-time offers" from Amazon, and you can score some pretty deep discounts if you’re a savvy shopper. Next, there’s the special Sale link. This is open every Friday, and ONLY on Fridays. You can find the same good discounts here as you would in hidden Deals, although some Fridays you can really get lucky and make off like an Amazon bandit - I’ve seen discounts there as low as 75% off sticker price. I’ve got an Amazon gift certificate burning holes in my pocket,
and I want to get the most bang for my buck.

Enter the Secret Amazon Web Pages:

http://tinyurl.com/38sojf

This is where you’re going to find the “latest sales, rebates, and limited-time offers” from
Amazon, and you can score some pretty deep discounts if you’re a savvy shopper.

Next, there’s the special Sale link. This is open every Friday, and ONLY on Fridays.

You can find the same good discounts here as you would in hidden Deals, although some
Fridays you can really get lucky and make off like an Amazon bandit – I’ve seen discounts
there as low as 75% off sticker price.

]]> By: markofando http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/03/weeding-out-the-unfit-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-2888 markofando Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:07:17 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1959#comment-2888 Want to start your private office arms race right now? I just got my own USB rocket launcher :-) Awsome thing. Plug into your computer and you got a remote controlled office missile launcher with 360 degrees horizontal and 45 degree vertival rotation with a range of more than 6 meters - which gives you a coverage of 113 square meters round your workplace. You can get the gadget here: http://tinyurl.com/2qul3c Check out the video they have on the page. Cheers Marko Fando Want to start your private office arms race right now?

I just got my own USB rocket launcher :-) Awsome thing.

Plug into your computer and you got a remote controlled office missile launcher with 360 degrees horizontal and 45 degree vertival rotation with a range of more than 6 meters – which gives you a coverage of 113 square meters round your workplace.
You can get the gadget here: http://tinyurl.com/2qul3c

Check out the video they have on the page.

Cheers

Marko Fando

]]> By: John Goes http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/03/weeding-out-the-unfit-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-2887 John Goes Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:54:55 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1959#comment-2887 I've replied with an additional post. I probably did missread Ross' argument, even going back I'm having trouble understanding exactly what it is he's trying to say. Your post may have dealt adequately with his argument's specific shortcomings, but it still seems quite clear that eugenics is a valid description of this new specific class of abortions, as part of a wider trend toward genetic engineering, sterilization of the "retarded" and genetic narcissism in general. I’ve replied with an additional post. I probably did missread Ross’ argument, even going back I’m having trouble understanding exactly what it is he’s trying to say. Your post may have dealt adequately with his argument’s specific shortcomings, but it still seems quite clear that eugenics is a valid description of this new specific class of abortions, as part of a wider trend toward genetic engineering, sterilization of the “retarded” and genetic narcissism in general.

]]> By: Julian Sanchez http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/03/weeding-out-the-unfit-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-2886 Julian Sanchez Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:58:24 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1959#comment-2886 Also, I can certainly imagine someone making the argument you sketch, and it's not without some plausibility: Widespread abortion of fetuses with certain kinds of genetic conditions may signal to adults who share those conditions that they are regarded as "undesirables," and this is, all else aside, a bad thing. But I don't think this is the argument Ross was making. Also, I can certainly imagine someone making the argument you sketch, and it’s not without some plausibility: Widespread abortion of fetuses with certain kinds of genetic conditions may signal to adults who share those conditions that they are regarded as “undesirables,” and this is, all else aside, a bad thing. But I don’t think this is the argument Ross was making.

]]> By: Julian Sanchez http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/03/weeding-out-the-unfit-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-2885 Julian Sanchez Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:38:00 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1959#comment-2885 Well, I hate to engage in Fermat-rebuttal, but I had thought rereading the argument would clarify that the point of disagreement wasn't centrally what John had read it as being. Then I realized that the argument was spread out over so many posts that it was probably necessary to just tie it together in one place. Well, I hate to engage in Fermat-rebuttal, but I had thought rereading the argument would clarify that the point of disagreement wasn’t centrally what John had read it as being. Then I realized that the argument was spread out over so many posts that it was probably necessary to just tie it together in one place.

]]> By: LP http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/03/weeding-out-the-unfit-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-2884 LP Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:18:30 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1959#comment-2884 This a a helpful breakdown -- much better than the 'you're wrong but I don't have time to explain why' thread at Crash Landing, so thanks for posting it.<br /><br /> This reminds me a bit of the hate crime legislation that was so popular in the 1990's. It's not okay to harass or assault other people, for all the standard reasons, but it's especially not okay to harass or assult people in order to punish them for certain characteristics like race or sexual orientation. Similarly, it seems like Ross wants to say that abortion is never okay, but it's especailly not okay when done because of the genetic characteristics of the fetus. Although I suspect that hate crime legislation really stems from a desire to punish certain bad intentions, it's usually defended on the basis of the larger harms that accrue to society in general from these special kinds of crimes. Similarly, it's also especially not okay to harass or assault witnesses in criminal trials, and it carries higher penalties not because anything worse was done, but because of the potential disruption to the criminal justice system. So it doesn't seem terribly incoherent to say that abortion in general is not okay and should be illegal, and abortion for certain types of reasons should be even more illegal (even higher penalties) because it causes harm to society over and above whatever harm it does to the fetus. Of course, I don't know whether an increase in abortions of genetically inferior fetuses really meets this 'greater societal harm' requirement, and am very skeptical that any putative meta-harm ought to trump the personal autonomy issue. But I don't see anything really objectionable in the 'redundancy' of the argument. This a a helpful breakdown — much better than the ‘you’re wrong but I don’t have time to explain why’ thread at Crash Landing, so thanks for posting it.

This reminds me a bit of the hate crime legislation that was so popular in the 1990′s. It’s not okay to harass or assault other people, for all the standard reasons, but it’s especially not okay to harass or assult people in order to punish them for certain characteristics like race or sexual orientation. Similarly, it seems like Ross wants to say that abortion is never okay, but it’s especailly not okay when done because of the genetic characteristics of the fetus. Although I suspect that hate crime legislation really stems from a desire to punish certain bad intentions, it’s usually defended on the basis of the larger harms that accrue to society in general from these special kinds of crimes. Similarly, it’s also especially not okay to harass or assault witnesses in criminal trials, and it carries higher penalties not because anything worse was done, but because of the potential disruption to the criminal justice system. So it doesn’t seem terribly incoherent to say that abortion in general is not okay and should be illegal, and abortion for certain types of reasons should be even more illegal (even higher penalties) because it causes harm to society over and above whatever harm it does to the fetus. Of course, I don’t know whether an increase in abortions of genetically inferior fetuses really meets this ‘greater societal harm’ requirement, and am very skeptical that any putative meta-harm ought to trump the personal autonomy issue. But I don’t see anything really objectionable in the ‘redundancy’ of the argument.

]]>