You think a person’s worth is tied to their genes. Pretty yuck. I disagreed and explained how.
For the record I was calling YOU out for linking a person to their genes, just not directly, trying to be courteous to the conversation.
Keep replying now, and you’re just slapfighting. Not worth it. I said in the last comment our positions are well known and the conversation is functionally concluded.
It’s a bad gene. It’s literally the contextually appropriate description of a factor involved in a situation.
Sorry it hurts your feelings
We’ve both made our points and opinions known here.
I mean if it’s a damaged or failed it’s a bad gene. It caused ms!
It’s not shitting on a person, it’s discussing a condition.
I can understand that discussion can lead to eugenics style thoughts.
“Oh that person has tons of bad genes, they therefore are bad”. That’s wrong though, a person can have a super fucked up body but it doesn’t change their value or goodness.
When discussing a condition, the genes that improve or cause that condition can be described as good or bad.
Context matters.
It’s an article about curing baldness, all context is pre determined.
Like sure, if we’re just bringing anything up, why care about baldness when I can’t breathe underwater, or if I can’t raise the dead?
If the topic is undesired head hair loss, “bad” appropriately describes the genes that may contribute to that. The discussion is limited by the context to avoiding hair loss, it isn’t a universal conversation on cosmetics
Unfortunately, looks like buying Twitter was a very effective choice if you take profit off the priority list
My God my general but shallow knowledge of many things will grow more powerful
Read all the signs at the checkpoint. They are important.
Those are the charges yes, but how is this any different than what all sorts of corporations do
And ultimately if you are trying to macgyver together anti drone tech you are beyond fucked and should have spent that energy pursuing other means of privacy.