Richard Branson to launch the world’s first dyslexic-only sperm bank - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Arc Nova;52039528]Never heard about Einstein being dyslexic, I think Leonardo Da Vinci was though, same with Thomas Edison.[/QUOTE] Well, they are all dead, and we don't have enough documents to prove that they had or not whatever mental issue it's hot with the news at the moment The closest thing we can do is to say that based on available evidence, they [I]might have[/I] developed some sort of disorder, but no definite conclusion can be drawn. Maybe they were simply normal people with quirky personalities

is this the bank? i couldn't read the sign but id like to make a deposit

You people know what the fucking date is right?

This sounds kind of fucked up, doesnt it?

[QUOTE=CanUBe;52039602]You people know what the fucking date is right?[/QUOTE] It was the 31st when they posted it. I would be extremely surprised if they actually posted this as a joke.

[QUOTE=CanUBe;52039602]You people know what the fucking date is right?[/QUOTE] The 31st?

[QUOTE=MADmarine;52039231]No offence but what is the incentive for people to go here if they want to have a child via this method? I don't get why you would go to a place where the selling point is that your child has a greater chance of inheriting dyslexia. The condition is nothing to be ashamed of, but I find it weird that you might actually choose to expose your child to inheriting it. Is the sperm going to be cheaper than other banks? If so, that just sort of presents a different problem because you're essentially saying people with dyslexia are worth less. Donating sperm isn't a human right, if your genes are considered high risk for a condition, it doesn't affect your life to be denied for donation. Maybe I'm not getting it, can anyone explain?[/QUOTE] Not every "defect" is seen to be so by the people that have it. For the blind and the autistic, for instance, there are people that feel their conditions make them unique but not disabled. Those conditions can confer a different perspective, people adapt and can accomplish just as much as others. Occasionally their unique insight ends up being very valuable to humanity.

[QUOTE=B!N4RY;52039550]That's because none of those three people are dyslexic. Anecdotes along the lines of "Einstein never learned to speak until he was four" or "Einstein was a middle school drop out" are all bullshit madeup stories.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=T553412;52039566]Well, they are all dead, and we don't have enough documents to prove that they had or not whatever mental issue it's hot with the news at the moment The closest thing we can do is to say that based on available evidence, they [I]might have[/I] developed some sort of disorder, but no definite conclusion can be drawn. Maybe they were simply normal people with quirky personalities[/QUOTE] Yeah you guys are right. After looking up more info on Edison and Da Vinci it's pretty obvious where the rumors came from. I knew that Einstein stuff was bull but thank you for clarifying it B!N4RY.

[QUOTE=B!N4RY;52039479]This article kept on repeating this point, and yet they didn't bring up a single name or discrete example. Hmmm.[/QUOTE] Branson mentioned himself, but the tone of the article (and his quotes) gave me the impression he's trying to compensate for it. Assuming it isn't an April Fool's thing of course.

[QUOTE=SparkDog;52039004]Is March 31st the new April Fool's?[/QUOTE] it IS april fools [editline]1st April 2017[/editline] ever hear of a timezone before?

[QUOTE=abcpea2;52039929]it IS april fools [editline]1st April 2017[/editline] ever hear of a timezone before?[/QUOTE] No, you don't understand - it's not April Fools' yet in [I]America[/I], the only country that matters. Why would companies think of other countries???

This really doesn't sit well with me. I really do not understand why anyone with a possibly genetic disease/syndrome/disorder should have children. They just don't see past their want for a child and forgot that not only is there a chance the child might be even worse than you currently are (disorder wise) but they might come out normal which leads to them having children who have the disorder its like this with autism and other possibly/certified genetic spread things [B]just fucking stop[/B]

[QUOTE=abcpea2;52039929]it IS april fools [editline]1st April 2017[/editline] ever hear of a timezone before?[/QUOTE] It wasn't April fools when this got posted either, it was still March 31st considering the messages on the page go back to 11 hours ago.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52040014]It wasn't April fools when this got posted either, it was still March 31st considering the messages on the page go back to 11 hours ago.[/QUOTE] Which is just about when April Fools' starts in Australia and New Zealand.

[QUOTE=CanUBe;52040048]Which is just about when April Fools' starts in Australia and New Zealand.[/QUOTE] It says it'll be in London and as far as i can see he lives there (though he does own a house in Australia) so why would that be relevant. If it is an april fools prank, its a bad one.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52040232]It says it'll be in London and as far as i can see he lives there (though he does own a house in Australia) so why would that be relevant.[/QUOTE] Because April Fools' is celebrated across the entire Western world??? So logically they would post it as soon as the holiday has started somewhere in the West.

[QUOTE=CanUBe;52040259]Because April Fools' is celebrated across the entire Western world??? So logically they would post it as soon as the holiday has started somewhere in the West.[/QUOTE] Wouldnt it be smarter to do it when a majority of the western world is on April 1st?

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52040331]Wouldnt it be smarter to do it when a majority of the western world is on April 1st?[/QUOTE] No, because this way it also (somehow) catches people off guard and they think it's real. Not that it should, seeing as we get a few "early" articles every April Fools'.

What if someone had a pretty excellent genetic history - no diseases or conditions running in the family, is in a good financial standing and comes from a family with no history of drug abuse (i.e. has a good family background, has a fair personality, etc), has good facial/height/other qualities, etc, but happens to be dyslexic? At what point does a genetic trait become bannable to donate sperm? People have cancer or heart disease running through their family, or relatives with drug abuse or mental disorders, why is dyslexia somehow a deal breaker? Are sperm banks soley for ubermensch to donate to? Are ugly people not allowed to donate sperm? What about people with terrible personalities? What if they ever needed a perscription drug for something non-sickness related? What if they ever did an illegal drug? What if they're gay or trans? I have a friend who is dyslexic who graduated college. His life is perfectly normal, but he has trouble reading without having to go over it a bunch of times and had assistive technology to help him proofread papers/read to him sometimes in college. But he's a great person, friendly, and not ugly. Why should he be barred from donating sperm? A lot of these arguments are like selective eugenics. Some traits are arbitrarily banned while others are arbitrarily okay. I mean people in real life don't get perfect mates - the mothers who wish to have a kid could have bad traits that would normally bar sperm donors. I can understand lethal traits like huntingtons or cystic fibrosis, or extreme mental retardation/ low functioning autism being banned. But even then I feel like they should still be allowed to donate. Its not a 100% chance for these things to be passed on. Hell just let them donate sperm and put it in the record that the donor is dyslexic/whatever.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;52040397]What if someone had a pretty excellent genetic history - no diseases or conditions running in the family, is in a good financial standing and comes from a family with no history of drug abuse (i.e. has a good family background, has a fair personality, etc), has good facial/height/other qualities, etc, but happens to be dyslexic? At what point does a genetic trait become bannable to donate sperm? People have cancer or heart disease running through their family, or relatives with drug abuse or mental disorders, why is dyslexia somehow a deal breaker? Are sperm banks soley for ubermensch to donate to? Are ugly people not allowed to donate sperm? What about people with terrible personalities? What if they ever needed a perscription drug for something non-sickness related? What if they ever did an illegal drug? What if they're gay or trans? I have a friend who is dyslexic who graduated college. His life is perfectly normal, but he has trouble reading without having to go over it a bunch of times and had assistive technology to help him proofread papers/read to him sometimes in college. But he's a great person, friendly, and not ugly. Why should he be barred from donating sperm? A lot of these arguments are like selective eugenics. Some traits are arbitrarily banned while others are arbitrarily okay. I mean people in real life don't get perfect mates - the mothers who wish to have a kid could have bad traits that would normally bar sperm donors. I can understand lethal traits like huntingtons or cystic fibrosis, or extreme mental retardation/ low functioning autism being banned. But even then I feel like they should still be allowed to donate. Its not a 100% chance for these things to be passed on. Hell just let them donate sperm and put it in the record that the donor is dyslexic/whatever.[/QUOTE] Don't most sperm banks take a photo to use for filtering later on by the person looking for a sperm donor? "Ugly" people would get filtered out fairly naturally there.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;52040397]What if someone had a pretty excellent genetic history - no diseases or conditions running in the family, is in a good financial standing and comes from a family with no history of drug abuse (i.e. has a good family background, has a fair personality, etc), has good facial/height/other qualities, etc, but happens to be dyslexic? At what point does a genetic trait become bannable to donate sperm? People have cancer or heart disease running through their family, or relatives with drug abuse or mental disorders, why is dyslexia somehow a deal breaker? Are sperm banks soley for ubermensch to donate to? Are ugly people not allowed to donate sperm? What about people with terrible personalities? What if they ever needed a perscription drug for something non-sickness related? What if they ever did an illegal drug? What if they're gay or trans? I have a friend who is dyslexic who graduated college. His life is perfectly normal, but he has trouble reading without having to go over it a bunch of times and had assistive technology to help him proofread papers/read to him sometimes in college. But he's a great person, friendly, and not ugly. Why should he be barred from donating sperm? A lot of these arguments are like selective eugenics. Some traits are arbitrarily banned while others are arbitrarily okay. I mean people in real life don't get perfect mates - the mothers who wish to have a kid could have bad traits that would normally bar sperm donors. I can understand lethal traits like huntingtons or cystic fibrosis, or extreme mental retardation/ low functioning autism being banned. But even then I feel like they should still be allowed to donate. Its not a 100% chance for these things to be passed on. Hell just let them donate sperm and put it in the record that the donor is dyslexic/whatever.[/QUOTE] Do you think learning disabilities are a good thing? Not that people can learn to live with them (I know they can), but [I]Good[/I]? I don't think that people with Dyslexia are bad people, however disabilities are exactly that, a disability, and if anything it's a noble pursuit to try and prevent them.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52040417]Don't most sperm banks take a photo to use for filtering later on by the person looking for a sperm donor? "Ugly" people would get filtered out fairly naturally there.[/QUOTE] Use the same system for dyslexics - in addition to the standard photo, mention in the report that he has dyslexia. It will naturally filter him out from patients who find it a deal breaker, while people who don't care/are dyslexic could choose him, and the guy still gets to donate.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;52040452]Use the same system for dyslexics - in addition to the standard photo, mention in the report that he has dyslexia. It will naturally filter him out from patients who find it a deal breaker, while people who don't care/are dyslexic could choose him, and the guy still gets to donate.[/QUOTE] Fair enough I doubt that people would opt for that though

i am opening the world's first inbred-only sperm bank. many successful leaders were inbred. it is a strength not a weakness. deliberately fuck up your future child's life on the off chance that they might be successful because some unrelated person centuries ago once had it

[QUOTE=tehMuffinMan;52040496]i am opening the world's first inbred-only sperm bank. many successful leaders were inbred. it is a strength not a weakness. deliberately fuck up your future child's life on the off chance that they might be successful because some unrelated person centuries ago once had it[/QUOTE] Dyslexia and being inbred are literally incomparable

[QUOTE=glitchvid;52040446]Do you think learning disabilities are a good thing? Not that people can learn to live with them (I know they can), but [I]Good[/I]? I don't think that people with Dyslexia are bad people, however disabilities are exactly that, a disability, and if anything it's a noble pursuit to try and prevent them.[/QUOTE] Its impossible to have a pure baby, without any negative traits. They will always have some sort of flaw. They might be short, have a shit personality, have a higher chance for cancer/heart disease, be ugly, have some cosmetic disorder, etc. I don't believe in Eugenics in any form, mild or not. People who pass along cystic fibrosis or are carriers of other diseases are allowed to breed, and thats a much worse condition than dyslexia. Drug addiction is a much more crippling condition than dyslexia. Patients arent forced to use dyslexic sperm - its should be an option along other donors. I don't care about having a pure human race and honestly dyslexia is challenging but not worth banning, and if I was looking to adopt or have my significant other artificially inseminated while dyslexia would be a mark against a donor it is not a deal breaker. I would marry a dyslexic person and have a child with them. I don't want some ubermensch baby and i think its ridiculous to bar something like dyslexia for donating sperm. If anything we should focus on finding a cure or effective therapy for making dyslexia a non issue rather than banning dyslexics from donating sperm, and who knows if the future will find a way to stop that gene from being inherited.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;52040517]Its impossible to have a pure baby, without any negative traits. They will always have some sort of flaw. They might be short, have a shit personality, have a higher chance for cancer/heart disease, be ugly, have some cosmetic disorder, etc. [/QUOTE] I never said anything about a "pure" baby, I'm saying allowing for someone predisposed for a learning disability that's genetically inheritable. Shit personality has nothing to do w/ that, that's P much all about how someone is raised. [QUOTE=SleepyAl;52040517]I don't believe in Eugenics in any form, mild or not. People who pass along cystic fibrosis or are carriers of other diseases are allowed to breed, and thats a much worse condition than dyslexia. Drug addiction is a much more crippling condition than dyslexia.[/QUOTE] Not talking about breeding, nor do I condone (at least the blanket term) eugenics, the jury is also still out on whether drug addiction is strictly tied with genetics either. [QUOTE=SleepyAl;52040517] Patients arent forced to use dyslexic sperm - its should be an option along other donors. I don't care about having a pure human race and honestly dyslexia is challenging but not worth banning, and if I was looking to adopt or have my significant other artificially inseminated while dyslexia would be a mark against a donor it is not a deal breaker. I would marry a dyslexic person and have a child with them. I don't want some ubermensch baby and i think its ridiculous to bar something like dyslexia for donating sperm. If anything we should focus on finding a cure or effective therapy for making dyslexia a non issue rather than banning dyslexics from donating sperm, and who knows if the future will find a way to stop that gene from being inherited.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying we should gas/sterilize undesirables my man, I'm saying in cases where we know of a learning disability (Something that isn't a benefit to have, by its definition) it shouldn't be encouraged that they become candidates for sperm (or egg) donation.

Pretty weird that Richard Branson wants to purchase dyslexic cum

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52040505]Dyslexia and being inbred are literally incomparable[/QUOTE] the article repeatedly touts dyslexia as a virtue simply because because some important historical figures in the past have had it, with no other reasoning besides "it m[I]ake[/I] me cretive". you could apply a different genetic disability also tied to important historical figures and i think it would make just as much sense. it's a mistake to deliberately have a kid with a disability hoping they'll be successful because of it

[QUOTE=tehMuffinMan;52040610]the article repeatedly touts dyslexia as a virtue simply because because some important historical figures in the past have had it, with no other reasoning besides "it m[I]ake[/I] me cretive". you could apply a different genetic disability also tied to important historical figures and i think it would make just as much sense. it's a mistake to deliberately have a kid with a disability hoping they'll be successful because of it[/QUOTE] Sure and I'm not arguing that asking for a kid with a disability is good. I'm arguing that your comparison is worthless