Kuro, first off, I said nothing against education. I am actually quite fond of it. I merely pointed out that I had asked for real world experience and then that education is not it. But, let me refine your analogies a bit. Einstein would be a great guy to ask about the physics behind an atom bomb. But I would not ask him to repair one. And a forensics expert who has never fired a gun is the wrong guy to take hunting, unless you just want somebody to carry your gear.
Secondly, I gave a single example. YOU assumed that that is all I know. I've raised livestock most of my life and I've had tons (literally) of experience with the effects of inbreeding. And I know for a fact that you get too many culls to try to replicate that kind of practice with humans.
Third, you said abuse implies harm. Well, you are welcome to think that. However, as Chemus said, negligence can be abuse. Child neglect, for instance, is child abuse. Hmmm, kinda funny how that fits into this conversation so nicely, isn't it ?
Fourth is genetic testing. Yes, I meant it is expensive. There is no 'violence' involved and if you think there is, maybe you should switch doctors.
Fifth is my mudhole. No, I did not misread. I volunteered the information. You can find my patriotism a joke if you want, although I don't know where you get the idea. I do happen to be patriotic fella, but now we are ranging far afield. I do wish to point out, however that I did not say anything about 'us being smarter than you' or anything like it. I am sorry if you took it that way, that was NOT my intent. My apologies.
Finally, the bit of folk wisdom was intended as a (very) thinly veiled jibe at AJ. Since you want to argue with EVERYTHING I say, though, let me add that the vast majority of all medicines on the market today are derived directly from folk wisdom and folk remedies. There is a lot we can learn from our elders, if only we would listen.
Einstein would refuse anyway.
Also, we're talking about PEOPLE here. People are not livestock. If anything, I'd assume genetics works the same way for everyone, but there are significantly more factors to consider on a human being's life than there is on cattle. As a general rule, cattle are also fairly more resilient (though obviously more stupid). You're making a fairly unreasonable demand in this matter, by the way: it appears to me that you would only accept anyone's opinion on the subject if they were A) incestuous with multiple children or B) doctors (the only two kinds of people I see, under this situation, that could have hands-on experience on the subject. correct me if I'm wrong).
Now, as for what Chemus noted (negligence can be abuse), there is a slight misconception there. Though both negligence and abuse cause harm, the main difference here is INTENT. That's the biggest qualifier that separates them. As I noted before, choosing to ignore the chances of something going wrong IS irresponsible, yes, but unless they did that with the SPECIFIC purpose of harming the child, then what happens there is negligence and NOT abuse. There are several reasons behind the differentiation of the two. Some of them are semantic in nature, while others pertain to the realm of the law - there is a REASON why negligence carries a smaller penalty than abuse in respect to children all over the world. That reason is intent.
As for the testing, I didn't mean literal, physical violence (puh-leeze, I know what it takes to test someone's DNA). I meant emotional violence. I mean, really. Don't you think it's awfully selfish of the parents to make sure to mate only if the child is perfect? Not to mention that it's an unrealistic expectation even among so-called "healthy" parents. There are just too many things that can go wrong with the formation of a person's body (and mind!) to only allow conception to those who'd be 'perfect'. Also, though people are not rocks, there's a little point I'd like to make: the strongest steel is not the purest. Many of our greatest discoveries were made by people who weren't AT ALL right in the head, lots of which displayed what would be later described as genetic pre-disposed forms of mental illnesses, and I assume the majority of which were not inbred.
And yes, I DO believe you DID misread. I actually asked what kind of cultural situation you thought the people at large lived in nowadays. The information about where you live is mostly irrelevant to the discussion as it only displays what your side of reality is - and I'm certain you know there are more sides than that. I showed mine as well, and even my side of reality is irrelevant to this particular discussion. We need a big picture, not a small one - otherwise there's no point in arguing.
I do accept your apology on the matter, though, since it is largely my prerogative to see lots of double-meanings to many things (I live among people who tend to make of it an artform).
And I don't mean to argue with everything you say. That'd be childish and counterproductive. Although I suppose saying that, in and of itself, apparently proves your point. That said, folk wisdom merely pointed them in the right direction, it didn't provide people with a complete answer. It's not as if our elders came up with such medicine in its refined form completely on their own. I do agree there's a lot to learn from them, but one should always be aware that knowledge is always a better thing to acquire when you have lots of ways to look at it, because the truth is never singular.