99 replies to this topic

[niner]

And please, do not enter the president argument in relation to genetics. That non-sensical stance presupposes that W. was predestined because of his genetic stock, when it is entirely possible he was manipulated into office twice.

You got me there. Although, to be honest, Barbara Bush may never have actually told her dull child that he could be President, since they had planned that career path for Jeb, the smart one. Wasn't there an event some years back where GHWB was moved to tears over the likelihood that Jeb would never sit in the Oval Office because the dim son somehow got in? So yeah, I should have specified "middle class mom".

[mikeinnaples]

You know what 'entitlement' is? Thinking you are several notches above everyone else due to 'genetic' inheritance. And that you thus do not need to WORK for it. 

 

That is what entitlement is. And that is bullshit. 

 

 

No, that is not what entitlement means in the sense that I meant it.

 

Assuming that everyone is equally able to obtain the same level of performance is naive. Obviously someone who works hard is going to generally do better than someone who doesn't, however both the start and end points for someone with good genetics are going to be higher, sometimes vastly so.

 

In terms of physical performance capacity you could look at it simply this way.

 

Poor genes

 

Poor   |-------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------   Elite

 

Optimal genes

 

Poor   ----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|   Elite
 

 

There sure is a hell of a lot of overlap that can be accounted for by amount of hard work, but the person with bad genes is going to have a lower range. So no, we are not all 'equal' by any means.

[TheFountain]

 

You know what 'entitlement' is? Thinking you are several notches above everyone else due to 'genetic' inheritance. And that you thus do not need to WORK for it. 

 

That is what entitlement is. And that is bullshit. 

 

 

No, that is not what entitlement means in the sense that I meant it.

 

Assuming that everyone is equally able to obtain the same level of performance is naive. Obviously someone who works hard is going to generally do better than someone who doesn't, however both the start and end points for someone with good genetics are going to be higher, sometimes vastly so.

 

In terms of physical performance capacity you could look at it simply this way.

 

Poor genes

 

Poor   |-------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------   Elite

 

Optimal genes

 

Poor   ----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|   Elite
 

 

There sure is a hell of a lot of overlap that can be accounted for by amount of hard work, but the person with bad genes is going to have a lower range. So no, we are not all 'equal' by any means.

 

First of all "bad genes" is a misnomer.

 

If these theoretical "bad genes" existed the people with them wouldn't have made it out of the womb successfully. You want "bad genes"? Look to birth defects and situations where infants die before they reach a couple of years old. 

 

Pretty much everyone who survives the womb and infancy, with the exception of people who have survivable deformities, and chronic conditions that can be lived with a number of years, everyone aside from these rare cases is normal. Yes normal!

 

Within the normalcy spectrum there exists phenotype variations, but this does not posit such extreme differences people here continue to masturbate over. People are basically different, not drastically different to the point where they are different species altogether. 

[niner]

First of all "bad genes" is a misnomer.
 
If these theoretical "bad genes" existed the people with them wouldn't have made it out of the womb successfully. You want "bad genes"? Look to birth defects and situations where infants die before they reach a couple of years old. 
 
Pretty much everyone who survives the womb and infancy, with the exception of people who have survivable deformities, and chronic conditions that can be lived with a number of years, everyone aside from these rare cases is normal. Yes normal!
 
Within the normalcy spectrum there exists phenotype variations, but this does not posit such extreme differences people here continue to masturbate over. People are basically different, not drastically different to the point where they are different species altogether.

Ok, how about "ok genes" and "great genes"? It's just black and white thinking to believe that you either have genes so bad that you don't survive, or you're another Michael Jordan. Or that you are either the next Michael Jordan or you are a "different species altogether". No one but you seems to believe that everyone who makes it out of the womb can be the next Einstein. Maybe you should present some evidence to make your case if you want to convince anyone here.

[TheFountain]

 

First of all "bad genes" is a misnomer.
 
If these theoretical "bad genes" existed the people with them wouldn't have made it out of the womb successfully. You want "bad genes"? Look to birth defects and situations where infants die before they reach a couple of years old. 
 
Pretty much everyone who survives the womb and infancy, with the exception of people who have survivable deformities, and chronic conditions that can be lived with a number of years, everyone aside from these rare cases is normal. Yes normal!
 
Within the normalcy spectrum there exists phenotype variations, but this does not posit such extreme differences people here continue to masturbate over. People are basically different, not drastically different to the point where they are different species altogether.

Ok, how about "ok genes" and "great genes"? It's just black and white thinking to believe that you either have genes so bad that you don't survive, or you're another Michael Jordan. Or that you are either the next Michael Jordan or you are a "different species altogether". No one but you seems to believe that everyone who makes it out of the womb can be the next Einstein. Maybe you should present some evidence to make your case if you want to convince anyone here.

 

 

I'm not the noner here. I am not the one pushing forth extremes. I am saying there is a spectrum of differences, but not so much so that the king resides permanently under x caste while the peasant resides permanently under y caste. 

 

I think most people have aspects of the king AND the peasant within them. Which they choose to pursue the most, in my philosophical view, is a matter of desire, not genes. 

 

I would like it if you presented clear cut evidence yourself, instead of just quotables from the interwebs that do not deal with specific individual comparison studies. 
 

Also, why are you forgetting epigenetic expression? 

[mikeinnaples]

 

 

You know what 'entitlement' is? Thinking you are several notches above everyone else due to 'genetic' inheritance. And that you thus do not need to WORK for it. 

 

That is what entitlement is. And that is bullshit. 

 

 

No, that is not what entitlement means in the sense that I meant it.

 

Assuming that everyone is equally able to obtain the same level of performance is naive. Obviously someone who works hard is going to generally do better than someone who doesn't, however both the start and end points for someone with good genetics are going to be higher, sometimes vastly so.

 

In terms of physical performance capacity you could look at it simply this way.

 

Poor genes

 

Poor   |-------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------   Elite

 

Optimal genes

 

Poor   ----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|   Elite
 

 

There sure is a hell of a lot of overlap that can be accounted for by amount of hard work, but the person with bad genes is going to have a lower range. So no, we are not all 'equal' by any means.

 

First of all "bad genes" is a misnomer.

 

If these theoretical "bad genes" existed the people with them wouldn't have made it out of the womb successfully. You want "bad genes"? Look to birth defects and situations where infants die before they reach a couple of years old. 

 

Pretty much everyone who survives the womb and infancy, with the exception of people who have survivable deformities, and chronic conditions that can be lived with a number of years, everyone aside from these rare cases is normal. Yes normal!

 

Do you even bother trying to understand what I was saying before complaining about the political correctness of whether or not I should have used the word 'bad' to describe less than optimal genes when it comes to physical performance? My use of the word bad was correct in the context of what I was communicating. What you are describing are defective genes.

 

Within the normalcy spectrum there exists phenotype variations, but this does not posit such extreme differences people here continue to masturbate over. People are basically different, not drastically different to the point where they are different species altogether. 

 

Please explain where I mentioned anything about extreme differences let alone masturbated over them? Where did I mention anything about being a different species?

 

I really hate to break it to you sunshine, but you aren't equal to everyone else regardless of what you were told when you got your participation trophy for your childhood soccer league. Some people are smarter than you, some are faster than you, some are stronger than you, and some are prettier than you. Yeah, you can overcome that gap by eating well, exercising well, living well, study, hard work, and excellent grooming but no matter what you do you if those same people put the same amount of effort in as you, they will always be one step ahead of you. That very diversity is what makes each of us unique and is what defines our humanity.

 

 

[TheFountain]

 

 

 

You know what 'entitlement' is? Thinking you are several notches above everyone else due to 'genetic' inheritance. And that you thus do not need to WORK for it. 

 

That is what entitlement is. And that is bullshit. 

 

 

No, that is not what entitlement means in the sense that I meant it.

 

Assuming that everyone is equally able to obtain the same level of performance is naive. Obviously someone who works hard is going to generally do better than someone who doesn't, however both the start and end points for someone with good genetics are going to be higher, sometimes vastly so.

 

In terms of physical performance capacity you could look at it simply this way.

 

Poor genes

 

Poor   |-------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------   Elite

 

Optimal genes

 

Poor   ----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|   Elite
 

 

There sure is a hell of a lot of overlap that can be accounted for by amount of hard work, but the person with bad genes is going to have a lower range. So no, we are not all 'equal' by any means.

 

First of all "bad genes" is a misnomer.

 

If these theoretical "bad genes" existed the people with them wouldn't have made it out of the womb successfully. You want "bad genes"? Look to birth defects and situations where infants die before they reach a couple of years old. 

 

Pretty much everyone who survives the womb and infancy, with the exception of people who have survivable deformities, and chronic conditions that can be lived with a number of years, everyone aside from these rare cases is normal. Yes normal!

 

Do you even bother trying to understand what I was saying before complaining about the political correctness of whether or not I should have used the word 'bad' to describe less than optimal genes when it comes to physical performance? My use of the word bad was correct in the context of what I was communicating. What you are describing are defective genes.

 

Within the normalcy spectrum there exists phenotype variations, but this does not posit such extreme differences people here continue to masturbate over. People are basically different, not drastically different to the point where they are different species altogether. 

 

Please explain where I mentioned anything about extreme differences let alone masturbated over them? Where did I mention anything about being a different species?

 

I really hate to break it to you sunshine, but you aren't equal to everyone else regardless of what you were told when you got your participation trophy for your childhood soccer league. Some people are smarter than you, some are faster than you, some are stronger than you, and some are prettier than you. Yeah, you can overcome that gap by eating well, exercising well, living well, study, hard work, and excellent grooming but no matter what you do you if those same people put the same amount of effort in as you, they will always be one step ahead of you. That very diversity is what makes each of us unique and is what defines our humanity.

 

 

 

 

This is typical of you.

 

Saying that my take on 'differences' equates to me saying that nobody is different.

 

I said we are basically different, not drastically different. Either way I did pinpoint differences. Not sure what you are getting at here. 

 

I have observed in my martial arts training that on some days I am the stronger, faster more supreme one, and on some days the guy I beat yesterday is the stronger, faster, more supreme one. 

 

This just highlights circles within circles of differences within differences, meaning internal personal differences themselves vary (differences within yourself from day to day) more than external differences with another person, likely. 

Edited by TheFountain, 28 April 2014 - 08:52 PM.

[nupi]

 

This just highlights circles within circles of differences within differences, meaning internal personal differences themselves vary (differences within yourself from day to day) more than external differences with another person, likely. 

 

 

 

Uh no. Call me when you win an olympic gold medal, in, well really any sport.

 

[TheFountain]

 

 

This just highlights circles within circles of differences within differences, meaning internal personal differences themselves vary (differences within yourself from day to day) more than external differences with another person, likely. 

 

 

 

Uh no. Call me when you win an olympic gold medal, in, well really any sport.

 

 

Call me when you stop sitting back observing other peoples greatness and discover a bone in your body that isn't a fucking cowardly one that says "I don't have the genes to d this, boohoo". 

 

I know people who have been in the olympics and are now on the team. It isn't always 'genetics'. Sometimes its sponsorships and country of origin that plays a huge role. 

[TheFountain]

Oh, and I want to add an addendum to that last comment. I am not saying the people I know who are on, or have been on the olympic team are not AMAZING athletes, but this is not always the reason someone lands on an olympic team. Sometimes politics plays a fairly large role. 

 

At the Dojo, guy 1 can be whipping guy 2's ass on a regular basis, but guy 2 may get the spot on the team. Sometimes it's weight class, sometimes it's what country they are representing, sometimes it's just plain politics. That is not to say that guy 2 isn't an amazing athlete, but his 'genes' is not what land him on the team always. 

 

Why am I saying this? To pretty much further elucidate this "genetics is god" non sense. 

 

In short, Genes matter, but they don't make a King a king, or a peasant a peasant. That is so fucking stupid it is not even worth arguing the point but I guess I fell into the trap eh? 

 

I must have BAD GENES then!! But then, so must you! haha