Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, one need not be a practicing geneticist to make such points.

Yes, one need be, at least if one is sure as hell he's right about something, like you are, for one.

I'm pretty sure that stripping genetic variants from the genome reduces variability. That's kind of the definition, you know.

My point about genetic diversity is knowledge available to anyone with some college-level biology education.

College level knowledge is not good enough to not make any mistakes when talking about such things[as we're bound to do]. All I'm saying is let's drop it down a notch on the whole assurance thing you've got going on here, eh?

Implicit in every one of my posts is the possibility I could be wrong. I'm offering you an opinion about a hypothetical event. I had relied on your ability to interpolate in order to see that I am opining, and not speaking from a position of certitude. If it will make you feel better, I will add to every opining post to you the disclaimer "in my opinion", just so you're clear that it is indeed an opinion. If you actually need that, I'll happily oblige.

And it seems obvious to me that eugenics is going to cull genetic diversity, given its stated purpose.

I'm sure it does, as it does to me. I never said otherwise. Check twice, before you reply to something.

Did I impute that view to you? No, I didn't. You need to quote the post where I did if you're going to insist on being rude. Justify your snark here, or apologize for it.

We'll have to disagree about the proper role of government.        

You don't agree that the government is there to watch our backs, so to say?
 Do you think maybe that it's there to stab us in the back?/sarcasm

Clearly at this point you're looking for an argument and not a conversation. I'd suggest that you take my words at face value.

I don't find your mention of the religious threat very compelling as an argument-by-analogy.  

Oh, good, you don't!  
It wasn't meant as such. It was meant as a joke. I guess you missed it. It's called tongue-in-cheek humour. I hear only some people can get up their mantras* for this. wink wink.

You're not very funny, kid. I love good humor, but that requires wit and pertinacity, and both seem in short supply from the comedian here.

* I know, but it has such an apparent visual component to it: like it's some sort of shield. Idk why. But I love playing with words like that. There's also the original sanskrit meaning to it: a thought. So that, combined with the eng expr give rise to, is a perfect match.

*yawn*

Simply because an entity may serve one purpose well is no reason to grant it overweening power in another, unrelated issue.    

I never implied such a thing either. Would you stop that! It's starting to bug me.

Good! You clearly need to have your preconceptions, shallow as they are, rattled a bit. But to address your lie in the quoted passage above:

We might all catch a virus that makes us incredibly stupid and violent[oh, wait, that already happened over and over with the religious outbreaks]. What then? I would want for my government to watch my back. After all, that's what it's there for in the first place.

Perhaps you should at least scroll back and check what you've posted before you contradict yourself like this? Your views are incoherent, and apparently ad hoc ... you cannot even remember what you've posted earlier in the evening.

Hopefully your next reply will have more thought and less of those useless tags that only clutter shit up. Focus on content, rather than presentation -- that is where your weakness lies. To wit: look at the ratio of content to pointless html tags in this screenshot:



Quit dicking around with forum features, and tighten up your thinking. It's got holes in it that would sink the Lusitania.

I never said I would be willing to let the government violate my privacy in any manner at all.

Actually, you did:

If I had the choice between extinction and anything else at all, I would choose anything else.

"Anything else" clearly includes government intrusion into wombs. Another example of you contradicting yourself within the same thread.

In a perfect world the government wouldn't fuck up... ever ... in any way, shape, or form. That's the only kind of world I'm willing to talk about, at least as far as these kinds of talks go. Keep that in mind.

What a pointless discussion you look for. There's no such thing as a perfect world, there never can be one, and if that is the only conversation you're willing to engage in, you should perhaps retreat to an ivory tower and resume your mental masturbation without inflicting it on others who are equipped to deal with the complexities of the real world.