Comment on Did UCLA Just Cure Baldness?
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 week agoIf scientists came up with a new treatment for multiple sclerosis, and an article mentioned “bad genetics” as one of the reasons people develop MS, that would be shitty, wouldn’t it? How is this different? Obviously in the context of that MS article, it’s “bad” to have MS and we want to cure it. But you wouldn’t shit on people who suffer from it by saying they have “bad genetics.” So how is it any different? It seems just as unnecessary and disrespectful here as it does there.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 week ago
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.
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 week ago
It’s judgmental language and totally unnecessary.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 week ago
It’s a bad gene. It’s literally the contextually appropriate description of a factor involved in a situation.
Sorry it hurts your feelings
scarabic@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Oh the last resort of he with no other leg to stand on: the hurt feelings bullshit. I’m not bald and my feelings are not hurt. I do care about quality writing though and this is not that. Your gyrations of justification have ceased being fun to watch. You believe you’re laying out some kind of hard logic progression but it amounts to: if one accepts a long string of assumptions, then naturally the word makes perfect sense. But that is not the tidy “if / then” mathematical proof you think it is but a bald declaration of your cultural values. I’m sorry that you think people suffering from diseases are bad. I’m not surprised to hear that you have eugenics notions in your head.