Poll of the Day > Is it fair to exploit an ethnic group if their DNA has a cure for some disease?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Topic
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Deg7VrpHbM" data-time="
---

Oops_All_Berrys posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Deg7VrpHbM" data-time="

I'm making a reference to a book.
---

I wouldn't say exploit, necessarily, but letting them know about that capability and inviting them to share it with the world would be fair game. I'm reminded of this guy:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/14/611074956/australias-man-with-the-golden-arm-retires-after-saving-2-4-million-babies

Was he forced to donate blood/plasma? Not at all. He chose to do so because he wanted to make a difference, and as a result saved millions of lives. He should be lauded for that, and anyone whose blood has similar properties should be invited to take his place, but never forced into it.

It's only exploitation if they're forced to participate. If someone discovered that my genetic makeup could cure diseases, I'd be more than happy to help in any way I could, provided I don't get maimed or killed.

I'd agree that choice is the primary factor.

Even in the world as we know it, people with O-type blood are far more useful than people with any other type of blood when it comes to blood donation. Informing them of that fact and encouraging them to donate (which the Red Cross absolutely does if they find out you have it), or even establishing some sort of system to positively reward those people for periodic donation, would be entirely acceptable.

But the moment you start forcing those people to donate blood against their will, you've crossed a very significant line and you're basically an asshole.

Same reason I'm against things like mandatory organ donation or the like. YOU don't get to make those sorts of decisions for other people, even if those decisions might save lives.


---

Lokarin posted...

Oops_All_Berrys posted...

-snip-

I'm making a reference to a book.

Henrietta Lacks?
---

Not only fair but necessary, say someone has the cure for tennis elbow and carpal tunnel in their arm, well it's our duty to cut that sucker off and provide a cure for it so rich folks and computer nerds can go on leading fulfilling lives.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

I wouldn't say exploit, necessarily, but letting them know about that capability and inviting them to share it with the world would be fair game. I'm reminded of this guy:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/14/611074956/australias-man-with-the-golden-arm-retires-after-saving-2-4-million-babies

Was he forced to donate blood/plasma? Not at all. He chose to do so because he wanted to make a difference, and as a result saved millions of lives. He should be lauded for that, and anyone whose blood has similar properties should be invited to take his place, but never forced into it.

So what youre saying is that it should be up to an individual to give or withold to others and that no governing body should be allowed to step in to force them one way or another?

Thats a total 180 for you homie. Im proud of you.
---

darcandkharg31 posted...

Not only fair but necessary, say someone has the cure for tennis elbow and carpal tunnel in their arm, well it's our duty to cut that sucker off and provide a cure for it so rich folks and computer nerds can go on leading fulfilling lives.

If someone has to die so I don't get Gamer's Thumb anymore, so be it!
---

You can exploit people out of their kidneys to save a lot of diseases...civilized countries still don't do it, as it's commonly accepted that while unfortunate, it's better to let people die than to hurt someone to save another.

Now, if it doesn't do significant damage (and is mostly time and/or temporary pain/inconvenience) to make the "cure", just slap a price on it, and keep adding zeros until they agree to it and/or give them fame and glory. That's the best we can do.

Troll_Police_ posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

I wouldn't say exploit, necessarily, but letting them know about that capability and inviting them to share it with the world would be fair game. I'm reminded of this guy:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/14/611074956/australias-man-with-the-golden-arm-retires-after-saving-2-4-million-babies

Was he forced to donate blood/plasma? Not at all. He chose to do so because he wanted to make a difference, and as a result saved millions of lives. He should be lauded for that, and anyone whose blood has similar properties should be invited to take his place, but never forced into it.

So what youre saying is that it should be up to an individual to give or withold to others and that no governing body should be allowed to step in to force them one way or another?

Thats a total 180 for you homie. Im proud of you.

In this post, we see Schmen equivocate not being able to arbitrarily deny people service on the basis of prejudicial hatred with forcibly confining somebody and stealing their blood (or other bodily material) on a regular basis.

Fair? No.

Inevitable? Absolutely.
---

Though, a whole enticing group seems like a lot...
---

Why would you need to exploit an entire race for their DNA? Pretty sure you only need one copy, and it's pretty easy to get.
---

Yellow posted...

Why would you need to exploit an entire race for their DNA? Pretty sure you only need one copy, and it's pretty easy to get.

Well, it was easier to say than Bone Marrow (from the book)
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Troll_Police_ posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

I wouldn't say exploit, necessarily, but letting them know about that capability and inviting them to share it with the world would be fair game. I'm reminded of this guy:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/14/611074956/australias-man-with-the-golden-arm-retires-after-saving-2-4-million-babies

Was he forced to donate blood/plasma? Not at all. He chose to do so because he wanted to make a difference, and as a result saved millions of lives. He should be lauded for that, and anyone whose blood has similar properties should be invited to take his place, but never forced into it.

So what youre saying is that it should be up to an individual to give or withold to others and that no governing body should be allowed to step in to force them one way or another?

Thats a total 180 for you homie. Im proud of you.

In this post, we see Schmen equivocate not being able to arbitrarily deny people service on the basis of prejudicial hatred with forcibly confining somebody and stealing their blood (or other bodily material) on a regular basis.

Uh no. In this ppst we see adjl being a hypocrite and believing he should be the one to decide what shit the government should and should not be allowed to force you to do.

Seriously bro, your flip flopping and you know it.

On the one hand, homeboy should never be forced to give blood, it should only be by his own choice even if it is for the benefit of others.

On the other hand youre a socialist (actually more of a commie, but hey, details) who believes the government should be allowed to forcibly take from people foe the benefit of others.

You wanted sooooo vad for this to be about a balrry not selling to gays or what the hell ever you were going for that you forgot it applies to your entire, ill-concieved political philosophy.

Only some people in some circumstances are allowed to keep what is theirs. Magic curative blood? Yours. The money adjl makes? Yours. The money everybodh else makes? Woah woah woah, pump the brakes. That money belongs to EVERYONE.

Its hypocrisy homie. You can try to spin it however you want, but hopefully this helps you take that scary scary introspective look youve been avoiding and actually grow as a person. Ill be rooting for you little homie. You can do it.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

YOU don't get to make those sorts of decisions for other people, even if those decisions might save lives.

If you can't force people to save other people's lives, how can you force somebody to protect their own? Surely by that same reason, personal safety regulations are immoral.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

On the other hand youre a socialist (actually more of a commie, but hey, details) who believes the government should be allowed to forcibly take from people for the benefit of others.

Except it's not forcible if those people agreed to it. Nobody's keeping you in a country that taxes its citizenry. It is 100% your choice to stay and work there, knowing full well that taxes are the fee you pay for doing so. Taxation is not an example of "exploitation" as the topic presents it, given that it's a voluntary exchange for everything else the country provides.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you can't force people to save other people's lives, how can you force somebody to protect their own? Surely by that same reason, personal safety regulations are immoral.

Did you really just compare seatbelt laws to mandatory organ donation?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

YOU don't get to make those sorts of decisions for other people, even if those decisions might save lives.

If you can't force people to save other people's lives, how can you force somebody to protect their own? Surely by that same reason, personal safety regulations are immoral.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you, though that becomes a more complicated issue because other factors (like insurance rates) come into play.


---

_AdjI_ posted...

Troll_Police_ posted...

On the other hand youre a socialist (actually more of a commie, but hey, details) who believes the government should be allowed to forcibly take from people for the benefit of others.

Except it's not forcible if those people agreed to it. Nobody's keeping you in a country that taxes its citizenry. It is 100% your choice to stay and work there, knowing full well that taxes are the fee you pay for doing so. Taxation is not an example of "exploitation" as the topic presents it, given that it's a voluntary exchange for everything else the country provides.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you can't force people to save other people's lives, how can you force somebody to protect their own? Surely by that same reason, personal safety regulations are immoral.

Did you really just compare seatbelt laws to mandatory organ donation?

And he ignores the rest of the post where this was addressed because its devastating to his viewpoint. Always fun dropping a verbal beatdown on ya homie.

Hope you learned something.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

And he ignores the rest of the post where this was addressed

Nah, I'm pretty sure I covered everything. If you feel otherwise, please point out what you feel I missed, since I'd hate for you to feel like your hard work went unappreciated like that.

_AdjI_ posted...

please make my argument for me. There are no wiki articles that I can copy and paste so i dont know what to say

Nah homie. Im good.
---

Asking you to point out the part that you feel I didn't address is asking you to make my argument for me? I take it we've reached the point where you give up any pretense of intelligent conversation and try to pretend you accomplished anything?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

YOU don't get to make those sorts of decisions for other people, even if those decisions might save lives.

If you can't force people to save other people's lives, how can you force somebody to protect their own? Surely by that same reason, personal safety regulations are immoral.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you, though that becomes a more complicated issue because other factors (like insurance rates) come into play.

I don't see an issue with requiring to compensate for damages from negligent behaviour.

_AdjI_ posted...

Did you really just compare seatbelt laws to mandatory organ donation?

They are both depriving people of sovereignty of their body to save lives.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They are both depriving people of sovereignty of their body to save lives.

For one thing, most personal safety-related laws tend to also increase the safety of those around the person (hence things like skydiving, bungee jumping, and mountain climbing are legal, despite being personally risky). For another, they tend to be such blatant common sense that one could easily argue that anyone who doesn't want to follow them shouldn't be considered competent enough to make their own decisions. For another, one of those two is vastly more invasive than the other, rendering them pretty incomparable.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Same reason I'm against things like mandatory organ donation or the like. YOU don't get to make those sorts of decisions for other people, even if those decisions might save lives.

*in the hospital after a minor accident*
Doctor: Hmm, the card say's he's a donor and he's not married and has no kids. Lawrence the drunk needs a new kidney, and Ethel Banks the millionaire needs a new heart. Whoops, what do you know the guy just died.
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Asking you to point out the part that you feel I didn't address is asking you to make my argument for me? I take it we've reached the point where you give up any pretense of intelligent conversation and try to pretend you accomplished anything?

so youre just devolving to insults now. typical adjl. just giving up on the pretense of having a logical argument or a morally superior viewpoint? good. glad we settled this homie. hope you learned a little bit about yourself and your closed minded hypocritical viewpoints.

_AdjI_ posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They are both depriving people of sovereignty of their body to save lives.

For one thing, most personal safety-related laws tend to also increase the safety of those around the person (hence things like skydiving, bungee jumping, and mountain climbing are legal, despite being personally risky). For another, they tend to be such blatant common sense that one could easily argue that anyone who doesn't want to follow them shouldn't be considered competent enough to make their own decisions. For another, one of those two is vastly more invasive than the other, rendering them pretty incomparable.

"Tend" is quite a way of tying irrelevant shit to my point. What effects others is not applicable to my point and you know it.

To your actual point, it's more invasive as it's more successful. It also doesn't matter to you once you're dead.

Miroku_of_Nite1 posted...

*in the hospital after a minor accident*
Doctor: Hmm, the card say's he's a donor and he's not married and has no kids. Lawrence the drunk needs a new kidney, and Ethel Banks the millionaire needs a new heart. Whoops, what do you know the guy just died.

This is why for-profit hospitals should have to pay for all body parts.
---

Noop_Noop posted...

so youre just devolving to insults now.

Nope, just making an observation. If you find my observation of reality insulting, you should perhaps consider changing that reality. If my observations were incorrect, you should easily have been able to answer my invitation. The floor's still open for that, if you want to change the failure I'm perceiving.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

"Tend" is quite a way of tying irrelevant s*** to my point. What effects others is not applicable to my point and you know it.

It's not directly applicable to your point, but it is applicable to the real-world practical applications of your point. I actually happen to agree that the concept of regulations that exist purely for personal safety is overreaching into the citizenry's personal control over their lives, but in practice, there aren't many laws that are truly just for personal safety. The only one that comes immediately to mind is drug prohibition, which I do disagree with (if for no other reason than that it just doesn't work), and even that isn't necessarily the best example because personal safety isn't the only reason those laws exist (no matter what the people upholding them try to tell you).

Seatbelt laws? Being buckled up prevents further loss of control of the vehicle, prevents occupants from being ejected into other cars and causing further collisions, and reduces the severity of crashes so they can be cleaned up more quickly (helping the city's traffic function more efficiently, as well as reducing the risk to emergency personnel because they spend less time in the field). Helmet laws? Reduces the severity of crashes (see above), as well as reducing the burden on society that brain injuries can be (there are a number of studies linking brain trauma to aggressive behaviour). Most real-world examples have benefits beyond personal safety, and that does make the "invading personal freedom" less applicable for objecting to them.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

To your actual point, it's more invasive as it's more successful.

No, it's more invasive because it's more invasive. Being ticketed because a cop glanced in your car and noticed some missing seatbelts is infinitely less invasive than having a body forcibly taken away and carved up without consent.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It also doesn't matter to you once you're dead.

That, I can actually see being an argument in favour of the idea. That does fly in the face of the accepted cultural trend of the next of kin having authority over the body, and could very easily be interpreted as a violation of the separation of church and state (since the government would be imposing the view that there's no afterlife and the person won't be able to care what's going on with their body), but I do generally agree with the idea that my body might as well be used to do the most good possible once I'm not using it anymore, and I think anyone who disagrees is being pointlessly selfish. That selfishness is their prerogative, though.