(08-15-2025, 08:26 PM)Ninurta Wrote: The authors are attempting ti hide a core of authoritarianism behind a thin veil of projected "morality". There is no morality in attempting to be overlords over others, and trying to force their lifestyles into one's own mold. That is not "morality", nor is it "ethical" - it is nothing more than power projection over those deemed to be inferior to one's self.
In this case, it appears the authors are conspiring to commit terroristic acts on their "inferiors", or what THEY see to be inferiors. Conspiracy is a felony, as is terrorism. I don't know why they are still allowed to walk among polite society, or why they are not, this very moment, being housed in Gitmo for their crimes against humanity.
They are neither moral nor ethical. They are authoritarian and terroristic instead. We used to handle such people roughly. Now, it appears, we sit idly by and allow them to write papers spewing their volatile hatred amongst humankind, normal people, people not like them.
My points exactly. Plus, I can't believe they made up a term for this, "moral bioenhancer". That sure makes it sound scientific when morality and ethics are totally unrelated to science. It just goes to show that these liberal academics are willing to compromise their professions for these agendas.
If I were really hot to tear this up, I'd find the study, but it is obviously not necessary and not really worth more time after all this.
A trail goes two ways and looks different in each direction - There is no such thing as a timid woodland creature - Whatever does not kill you leaves you a survivor - Jesus is NOT a bad word - MSB