Shadowkiller00 t1_j9d3rfl wrote on February 21, 2023 at 1:11 AM

Reply to comment by Quamtotious in When will genetic engineering be available for psychiatric disorders? by undefined2937

Change your brain chemistry temporarily. You can stop taking them if they do more harm than good.

Quamtotious t1_j9d4bxa wrote on February 21, 2023 at 1:15 AM

There is no conclusive evidence that it's only temporary and it's rather hotly debated but the evidence leans in flavor of lasting effects if you take it for an extended period of time.

Shadowkiller00 t1_j9d6ynl wrote on February 21, 2023 at 1:35 AM

Okay... even if you are right, which I'm not arguing either way, how does that make what I originally said less accurate? Are you saying that taking drugs, that you can stop, is more permanent than gene therapy? Drugs at least have been heavily tested and we know most of their side effects. It certainly seems like you are arguing that gene therapy to remove something as innocuous as ADHD is a better idea than just taking some meds to reduce the overall symptoms so that you can function.

It also certainly seems like you are downvoting me, which seems odd because I can't imagine that you'd argue that the permanancy of taking these drugs is hotly debated while disagreeing that gene therapy is bad. If you think taking drugs are bad and permanent, then I can only imagine you would be wholeheartedly supporting me that gene therapy is also bad. But to argue that drugs are bad while disagreeing that gene therapy is bad seems insane to me.

What's your goal here?

Quamtotious t1_j9djkau wrote on February 21, 2023 at 3:14 AM

Your asking my personal opinion?

I think we should exhaust all therapeutic options long before prescribing medication of any form.

Shadowkiller00 t1_j9dn284 wrote on February 21, 2023 at 3:43 AM

Including permanently changing someone's genome. Cool. Far be it from me to try to talk you out of genome manipulation to try to make the perfect human.

Edit: And no, I didn't ask your opinion, I asked what your goal was. What are you trying to achieve with your argument?

Quamtotious t1_j9dolg7 wrote on February 21, 2023 at 3:56 AM

You're on your own path man I'm not saying anything of the sort.

Idk how you got that out of me saying therapy.

I don't argue with emotional people with an agenda.

Shadowkiller00 t1_j9dtou4 wrote on February 21, 2023 at 4:42 AM

I'm not the one with an agenda. I said permanently changing other people's genome might be risky and unethical which matches the subject of the OP. You decided to go off on drugs for some strange reason.

Edit: You also know the OP is talking about gene therapy, right? If therapy is the first measure, then gene therapy is one of those steps to be taken before drugs.

Edit 2: Ha, he blocked me which means I can respond no further. The guy wanted to be pedantic and pull an "Um actually..." I knew he was never explicitly promoting gene therapy, but by never acknowledging its potential risks, he implicitly supported it over medications.

The fact that the OP threw ADHD in with more serious issues implies that the OP sees neurodiversity as a problem that must be solved instead of part of what makes an individual unique and special. Anyone who thinks that genetic manipulation is the method to fix minor differences in humanity is one small step from eugenics and the uber mensch.

All this guy had to say was that he felt that the permanent change from genetic manipulation was the same as the potential permanent side effects of medications and I would have backed off. But he never wanted to acknowledge what I said because it would have undermined his original statement.

He also could have downvoted me and moved on with his life as my post got downvoted into oblivion. He threw the first punch hoping for a knockout. But he just had some anti drug agenda he wanted to push and, when he realized I wasn't falling for it, he blocked me so he could pretend he won. If I blocked him, it would have meant he won, but him blocking me means he realized he couldn't win and blocked me so I couldn't get the last word.

And don't think for a moment that I think I won. I didn't win. To win would be to get him to acknowledge what I said had merit even if he wished I would have said more, which he didn't do. All I did was not back down and, in doing so, I chased him off.

Winning on Reddit involves a meeting of minds where both people walk away feeling better for the conversation. No, I didn't win. We all lost.

Quamtotious t1_j9duv98 wrote on February 21, 2023 at 4:54 AM

It's almost like ideas and arguments can be made independently of one another and we were having an entirely different conversation until you derailed it on a tangent. Bye now.