Travis Ekbom  💣

I have made no argument against removing the condition. The method by which eugenics removes the condition is through sterilization and controlled breeding. Eugenics does not remove the condition in the individual. It removes it from the population by targeting individuals.

You most certainly did. Then you argued when I pointed it out. A bit late now to pull back. Are you going to ban people from getting treatments when we have the ability to stop the immune system from attacking the body, thus eliminating auto-immune disorders?

Provide the quote where I argued against eliminating the condition. My argument is against eugenics. Eugenics is controlled breeding and sterilization for the purpose of producing a superior population. Why would I oppose people getting treatments for auto-immune disorders?

No, no more disingenuous dancing and dodging. Answer the question.

No, of course I wouldn't ban people from getting treatment for auto-immune disorders. Why would I? My entire argument here has been that people with faulty genes are making valuable contributions that enrich humanity. Still waiting for you to provide that quote.

You can keep waiting, or you can just scroll up. Disingenuous games are disingenuous. Those people would still be making valuable contributions without the faulty genes. Which is my entire point, no matter how much you want to twist what I'm saying.

I didn't claim the faulty genes are how they made contributions. Eugenics does not treat faulty genes. That's called gene therapy. Eugenics is the elimination of people from the reproductive pool by controlled breeding and sterilization. We would lose those with faulty genes.

If you didn't intend to link the condition to the person in order to create a moral argument against treating the condition, you'd have no need to keep falling back on eugenics, which is a red herring to this conversation.