Baghdad (AP)–The world was shocked to learn that Saddam Hussein has been preemptively cloned and is currently in utero. A perfect clone of the recently hanged butcher–said to be eight weeks along–has been revealed to be “doing fine.” The identity of the Iraqi woman carrying the deceased dictator’s clone is being kept strictly secret.
Immediate cries for the abortion of the fetus were resisted by the Iraqi government at the behest of the Bush White House. In a short statement, President Bush stated, “As a civilized nation, we must fight for the sanctity of human life except in those instances where we decide it’s not sacred…and this is obviously not one of those times.”
Officials have declared that, shortly after the clone is born, it will be put on trial for slaughtering the Kurds, found guilty, and be executed. Upon announcement of that decision, there was much celebrating and shooting off of guns. Stray bullets were responsible for the accidental deaths of three children and two more US troops.
PAD
• 
Iowa Jim, if Robert Fuller is correct, then I will gladly acknowledge that I missed the boat about you missing the boat. 🙂
Jeffrey Frawley, I find it ironic that you complain about PAD’s demeanor. Using this blog’s search function revealed what I suspected: you’ve made a habit out of looking for excuses to pick a fight with PAD. In one instance you even upset PAD’s wife, which is extremely not cool.
If you find PAD so irritating it doesn’t make sense for you to keep coming back. Just walk away. And stop trying to pretend you’re serving a cause any greater than your own personal pique. Because frankly, there are a number of us who find PAD decidedly non-irritating. Like me.
Uh, Bill Mulligan, your last post has me a bit confused. Was there supposed to be more?
Yeah…and there was! But somehow I must’ve deleted it before I hit the post button.
Basically it was ruminating on the possible possibilities of cloning–a daughter giving birth to herslf, or her parents, and what a disater it would likely be. Tie that into the recent news of experiments on gay sheep and speculation by handicapped parents of the ethics involved in deliberately introducing defects into designer kids and it seems to me that we are in for one hëll of a ride.
Won’t be dull though.
I think the immediate risk of cloning is psychological. If sombody clones themselves or their dead child or a famous individual like Lincoln or Einstein, that clone wil always be pressured to be like the original.
Although it would be very interesting to clone people who have been dead for a long time, like Mozart or Newton, and see what happens to them in our scientific and artistic environment.
“recent news of experiments on gay sheep”
Is this an idea for an experiment or a hollywood movie?
Future quote from a delivery room somewhere near the Myers household–“I believe I will call him–Mini-Me. Wait, that’s taken, how about Mini-My?”
And for Mr. Mulligan’s scenario, the daughter cloning herself, in that case, who pays for the wedding?
Gay sheep–as though we Scots didn’t have ENOUGH people laughing at us.
Bill Myers: I began to answer a few hours ago, but the post would have been more venomous than my real intention. As for upsetting PAD’s wife, that was not my intention, but if I take his word for it, she was mortified that I mentioned that he had previously been married and, in fact, produced three daughters in the furtherance thereof. Well, I thought she already knew where those three girls came from; In fact, I still suspect she did know. Perhaps he just felt that such an appeal to her injured sensibilities would fill me with shame at criticizing him. It did not.
You counsel me to “stop trying to pretend (I’m) serving a cause any greater than (my) own personal pique.” That might be good advice, if I were either “trying to pretend” or pretending in earnest something other than this: when PAD says something I think wrong, I say so. That’s quite straightforward, and no pretense at all. Generally, when I criticize him my first post is rather direct, but not particularly foul tempered. Directly afterward, various devotees spring to his defense, proclaiming the monstrousness of disagreeing with such a fine, forbearing, incredibly wise fellow. After that (this hasn’t happened just yet) the threats, accusations and characterizations of idiocy follow. Of course, my argument then becomes much more extreme. Anyone who wants to spring to PAD’s side should remember this: When he feels it appropriate, he ridicules and belittles what he thinks craven, unfair or stupid. By doing so, he makes it very inappropriate to bemoan criticism of HIM using the same tools. Take him at his word: He is a grown man who proclaims that he is quite thick skinned, a man who hasn’t yet been shriveled by criticism. I’ll give him enough respect to believe he is telling the truth about that. Certain of his devotees do him far more damage than my criticism could ever accomplish, simply by linking their foolish tactics to his arguments and making it appear he would have said something so dumb. I’m no fan, but I don’t think he’s stupid.
“recent news of experiments on gay sheep”
Is this an idea for an experiment or a hollywood movie?
It’s an experiment looking for a “cure” for homosexuality.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=experiments+gay+sheep
Jeffrey, I’m sure I’d have something to say about your last post — if I’d read it. But I’ve added you to my “ignore list.” Troll away to your heart’s content. 🙂
Hey, this “don’t even bother reading the trolls’ posts” thing is really cool once you get the hang of it! And the blog seems so much more fun once you filter out their nonsense. 🙂
Posted by: Michael Brunner at January 3, 2007 07:29 PM
It’s an experiment looking for a “cure” for homosexuality.
Lovely. I remember reading a magazine in which an editorialist warned gay rights supporters (like myself) that studies suggesting a biological basis for homosexuality could lead to attempts to find a “cure.”
You can cure a wound or a disease. But if you change someone’s sexuality, you have altered who they are. At best, that’s eugenics. And it disgusts me.
I have gay friends. They don’t need to be “cured.”
Sorry. Didn’t mean to step up on a soapbox but prejudice against gays really, really, really burns me. Probably because it is one of the last “socially acceptable” prejudices.
“Lovely. I remember reading a magazine in which an editorialist warned gay rights supporters (like myself) that studies suggesting a biological basis for homosexuality could lead to attempts to find a “cure.””
Yet, thee is a purely scientific interest in finding out the causes of homosexuality. I think it ould be wrong to suppress scientific research because we’re afraid the results won’t fit our world view.
In any case, homophobes have been trying to ‘cure’ homosexuality when they thought it was psychologically motivated, and when they thought it was a choise. They are willing to use any scientific, legal or social method as a tool so long as it serves their prejudiced agenda. But it would be similarly wrong to try to force science to fit our agenda, even if it’s a good one.
On the bright side, being pregnant with your own clone means it’s no longer tacky to hold your baby shower at a Kinko’s copy center.
Of course, if pre-natal treatment could reduce the tendency toward homosexuality, it could also be used to do the exact opposite. Is anyone willing to condemn a gay parent from seeing to it that their child is gay as well?
Before you answer that you have to consider a few things–would any of us, if we had the option to do so, refuse to allow a simple treatment of our children to be that would effectively eliminate any chance of severe birth defects? Probably not–we encourage women to take folic acid for just that reason.
Ok, what if we could ensure they would not get diabetes? Or bad eyesight?
(At this point there will be those whose mom’s did NOT get enough folic acid who will be pursing their lips and thinking “Why that &%#@$! Comparing gay people to diabetes!” Patience, oh easily offended ones!)
What if we could make them smarter?
I mean, every parent’s child is a genius…but what if you could actually make it so?
I’ve mentioned this to parents and had them scoff at the very idea of doing such a thing…but they’ve blown loads of money on mobiles and books on tape and talking books for 5 month olds and assorted other crap that doesn’t work. Apparently once the kid is born anything goes.
Ok, maybe intelligence…but not sexual orientation, certainly! Because…why? Is there anyone here who would rate the sexual orientation of a person as more important than their intelligence?
Sure, there will be people who will mean it when they say that they are willing to put it into the hands of God or chance or whatever. Their children will compete in a world where their peers were given the advantages of pre-birth enhancement…and they will lose.
The slope gets slippery…before you know it you are in a GATTACA world (one of the more underrated science fiction films, in my opinion). And that world is not all bad…and I’m not sure we can stop it…and I’m not sure I’m going to like it.
Posted by: Micha at January 3, 2007 08:07 PM
I think it ould be wrong to suppress scientific research because we’re afraid the results won’t fit our world view.
I never said we should suppress scientific research. Neither did the editorial I cited. The point is merely this: science is a double-edged sword. There are those who hope that the discovery of a biological basis for homsexuality will lead to acceptance. As the “experiment” with gay sheep points out, this will not necessarily be the case.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 3, 2007 09:40 PM
Of course, if pre-natal treatment could reduce the tendency toward homosexuality, it could also be used to do the exact opposite. Is anyone willing to condemn a gay parent from seeing to it that their child is gay as well?
Yes. Indeed, I would.
I don’t think Star Trek was far off the mark in this respect. Eugenics is simply dangerous. The possible benefits are by far outweighed by the potential for negative consequences.
Of course, I find it amusing (in a good way) that this discussion was spawned by a post that really wasn’t about cloning, but was about a perceived contradiction between supporting capital punishment and opposing abortion.
Cloning was certainly a disaster in Y: The Last Man: it killed everything on the planet with a Y chromosome!
(Um, that is, everything on the planet with a Y chromosome was killed, not that a Y chromosome was used as an instrument of murder, but I’m sure you knew what I meant)
I’m of two minds concerning the whole finding-a-biological-basis-for-homosexuality extravaganza. On the one hand, it will finally shut up everyone who still thinks it’s a “choice.” On the other hand, it will allow those same people to have their children tested for homosexuality and have it removed. So, clearly, that’s a high price to pay for shutting them up.
And, just to come to the defense of yet another poster, I don’t think Jeffrey is a troll (I kind of hate that expression, actually), or that he deserves to be ignored (or, at least, not on the basis of his comments in this thread… I’m not familiar with his history of which Bill speaks). Just as I feel that Peter has a right to joke about what he pleases, I also feel that Jeffrey has a right to complain about the manner in which he does it, and I don’t think that anything he said was out of line. Of course, I also think Bill has a right to follow his own advice and ignore someone who irritates him, so maybe I should just shut up now.
But first I’d like to address one of Jeffrey’s complaints:
“The fact that I am posting is good evidence of that. Nonetheless, I still feel that he expresses an unsupportable certainty that his take on any subject is the only common sense position, and that anyone who finds fault with him “just doesn’t get the joke.””
Of course he does. Anyone with any real conviction to their beliefs is going to possess a certainty that theirs is the only sensible position. Satire is more or less based on the idea that every other position but yours is nonsense (and the appreciation of satire is more or less based on the ability to laugh at yourself… it’s the ones who lack the fortitude in their beliefs who take offense). But just because you think other positions don’t make sense, it doesn’t mean you can’t, or don’t, respect those who hold them.
Robert Fuller, if you use this blog’s search function to look for “Jeffrey Frawley,” you’ll see what I mean. If you’re not willing to spend that time (and I can understand why you wouldn’t) please trust me on this: I do not lightly call Jeffrey a “troll.” He’s come here on more than one occasion to start trouble. Some of the other longtime posters in this forum can hopefully back me up on this.
Anyway, I consider putting someone in the “ignore pile” a “nuclear option.” Right now there are only two in mine: Mike, and Jeffrey Frawley. I hope not to expand that number. Why? Because even people with whom I nearly always disagree can sometimes bring things to the table that forces me to look at something in a new way. Ignoring lots of people means cheating myself of opportunities to learn.
I’m of two minds concerning the whole finding-a-biological-basis-for-homosexuality extravaganza. On the one hand, it will finally shut up everyone who still thinks it’s a “choice.” On the other hand, it will allow those same people to have their children tested for homosexuality and have it removed. So, clearly, that’s a high price to pay for shutting them up.
They’ll simply say it’s a defect, like pedophilia or schizophrenia. It won’t shut them up one iota.
And if we actually CAN influence sexual orientation in utero it opens the very real possibility that we will eventually be able to influence it in adults as well. One of the valid critisizms of efforts to “cure” gays is that it doesn’t work. What if that is no longer the case? At that point, homosexuality would acually, finally be a choice, in the sense that one could choose to eliminate it.
Which probably behooves those of us who hope that gays will be acccepted as no big deal to get cracking, because the clock may be ticking on this.
On the one hand, it will finally shut up everyone who still thinks it’s a “choice.”
Wanna bet? These are some of the same people who say that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, the Grand Canyon was caused by the Great Flood, and bush is leading us to victory in Iraq.
Man, I was so unsure about posting this one after reading over it. Please try to read this as my honestly trying to work out whats “right” vs what “feels right” or “seems right” in a brain that’s starting to fry itself by going back and forth over this.
__________________________________________________
“I have gay friends. They don’t need to be “cured.”
As do I and I agree.
“…but prejudice against gays really, really, really burns me.”
As it does me.
But I’ve been reading those links and some others and this does bring up an interesting question. What of the yet to be born?
I know a guy who’s in his late 40’s who’s been blind since the day he was born. From time to time, we’ve talked about advances out there in organ replacement and what not. In some cases, you can get your sight back these days. However, he doesn’t feel that he lost his sight as he never had it to begin with. For him, being blind is the norm. Being blind is right for him.
He doesn’t want to be able to see at this point in his life. Not only would it change or destroy who he is, but it would make him an alien on a strange world overnight.
Think about that a moment. He doesn’t know and has never known what this world or its people look like. He has never, in 40 plus years, had the sense that we call “sight” to send pictures to his brain to match up with voices, sounds, people, places or things.
The idea of changing that at this point in his life scares him a little. Part of why he doesn’t want some doctor giving him sight at this point in his life, and this is what he actually says, is because he doesn’t know what that huge a change would do to him. He honestly doesn’t know if he could handle waking up with sight one morning after decades of having never had it or really knowing what it was.
But, he has no problem with medical science coming up with ways to fix blindness for people who lost their sight or babies born blind. He sees neither of those cases as comparing to his in any way, shape or form.
Now, here’s where it gets sticky. Here’s where you have to think about your choice of answers and question whether you’re answering based on prejudice, being PC, wanting to help people or whatever else.
What if we woke up Monday to newspapers around the globe putting this research on the front page and stating that they had in fact found a way to flip the chemical or biological “error” back to “normal” in not only sheep, but humans as well? What would we do?
Well, I know that I would fight to the death over the rights of my friends to stay who they are. I know that I would get involved with every group out there who opposed any politician or religious leader pushing to use this “cure” to “fix” gay men and women in the general population.
But I’ll be dámņëd if I can figure out what I would actually do if some doctor said that you could see if the chemical balance was off in an unborn child and correct it in the womb. My first thought was like Bill’s eugenics comment. Not a good thing. But then it started crashing around in my head and plugging in to the devil’s advocate sections of my thought process.
There are any number of things that we can now detect and fix in the womb or right after birth that people have no problem with having medical science fix. There are any number of things that people say that they would love to see get to the point to where some physical problems could be caught and corrected before birth so that a child can live a “normal, healthy life.”
Well, can that be said to be the case here? Yeah, I know. Who defines normal? Even more debate pages just for that one. Lets just say that the answer, for now, is the parents.
“But it would be similarly wrong to try to force science to fit our agenda, even if it’s a good one.”
But is it a good agenda, a right agenda, or is it merely the socielly and politically correct response to the idea of the research?
Again, I wouldn’t change a thing about any of my gay friends. They are who they are, I like them for who they are and, of far greater importance here, they like who they are.
But there’s one thing that every gay man and woman I know has in common. They have all talked about how hard it was growing up and how badly some things went down when they fully came out to friends and family. They talk about, often painfully, what it was like growing up a square peg in a round world and how confusing it sometimes was because they didn’t really know until much later that they were a square peg.
I have one straight friend who is very much pro-gay rights because of what happened in her own family. Short version? Years ago, her brother killed himself over several issues. The main one in his suicide note was the reaction of friends and his parents when he came out a year prior to his death (at either 17 or 18). He basically got the “we have no son” bit from his parents and several friends turned their backs on him. Apparently one of his older friends told him to F off and then underscored his point by beating the crap out of him.
Now, I’m sure if asked that most of my gay friends (or this one girl) would say that “fixing” in the womb was wrong. Ok. Devil’s advocate again along with thinking outside of the box coming up.
What else are they going to say?
The basic idea of fixing something says that something is wrong and needs fixing to begin with. Well, if you look at it from a purely chemical, mechanical and unemotional way, something is wrong. But that’s not how most of my friends have been told that they are “wrong” for their entire lives.
Our society has, and unfortunatly will continue for generations to come, been telling them that they are wrong because they’re defective, evolution’s dead ends, evil, without morals, abominations against God and nature, going to hëll, etc, etc, etc. If you’ve been told your whole life that you were “wrong” in all those ways, could you look at such a question on a purely unemotional and mechanical way and not feel that the very idea was still in some small way a slap in your face and one further statement that your very existance is being said to somehow be “WRONG” in all those ways once again?
At this point, can the question or idea even be truly presented without those issues being a part if it? Can the idea even be looked at in a manner where it is actually meant to be helping people to not grow up with ten kinds of hëll in their life that they would not otherwise have?
Again, I wouldn’t want living person changed and I would fight to the death over keeping anybody from forcing change on others in this manner. But would offering the chance for some parents to correct what they may see as a problem caused by a chemical anomaly in their unborn child’s brain be the same thing as offering to “cure” an adult?
Like I said, I’m not putting forth an opinion here. But I do find it to be a rather… interesting question. I also find it an unbelievably hard one to answer. And I really don’t know on what side of this debate I would ultimately come down on.
My understanding is that the current theory on gender-preference is not that there is a drive to be homosexual or heterosexual, but the drive is to have sex with the male or female gender.
Just as likely as a therapy to change gender-preference is a therapy to switch genders. What girl-hungry guy would turn down the chance to experience a frenzy of lesbian action? I can only assume the same is true for the boy-crazy girls. As science advances, a homophobic agenda will only seem more and more pointless.
1I have not put Bill Myers on my ignore list, because I feel secure enough to read what he says without having palpitations.
Robert Fuller: Yes, it is true that people who think they are right tend to think opposing positions are inferior to their own. When they take this to the extreme of pretending any other argument is nothing but ignorance – to the point that they ignore their own prior statements or willfully misread the other person’s – that’s what I find objectionable. You are among the few here who have simply looked at all sides, expressed your opinion and treated others with respect. That shouldn’t be such an exceptional thing, but it is.
Jerry C–very interestig comments.
Science has a habit of complicating the issues, doesn’t it? Live long enough and it can make you a hypocrite. I have a friend, as hardcore a feminist as there could likely be and still be willing to put up with me, who used to be (and still thinks she is) as “pro-choice” on the issue of abortion as one could be. It’s a woman’s choice, any reason is a good reason if it’s her choice, etc.
Confronted with what’s going on in India–where abortion is being used to selectively eliminate daughters–and she’s suddenly all for laws to eliminate the practice (Well, she’s against it being used for sorocide or filicide or whatever specific cide this would be).
Me, I think it’s a dreadful reason but being pro-choice doesn’t mean pro-only approved reasons choice. Time and demographics will eventually solve this issue.
The point is, we are rapidly reaching the point where we may have more options than we ever wanted. It wil make for an interesting time.
In that “30 Days” tv show, they sent an unemployed American to work as a telemarketer in India. He visited the overcrowded hovel of someone who worked full-time, suited, supervising a staff of a dozen.
India has an oppressive system of poverty and locked sex-roles that make your citation of hypocrisy ridiculous and self-serving.
Coercion is Choice. Lies are Truth. Denial is Normal Psychology.™ Typical.
“My understanding is that the current theory on gender-preference is not that there is a drive to be homosexual or heterosexual, but the drive is to have sex with the male or female gender.”
Well, if that’s the case–and since sex drive stems from the hardwired genetic need to perpetuate the species–then one wonders whether or not homosexuality…who’s gay and who isn’t…isn’t arbitrary at all, but instead nature’s way of controlling who reproduces and who doesn’t.
After all, if someone is carrying some sort of undesirable genetic component, then isn’t the simplest means of weeding out that component to “flip a switch” in utero and ensure that the carrier will have no desire to perpetuate it? Yes, dampening the sex drive of the individual is also a possibility, but that’s so hardwired into humanity that it would be much easier simply to redirect it in a direction where creating progeny isn’t an issue.
I’m not saying that *is* the reason for some people being gay. What am I, a geneticist? I’m just saying it’d be interesting. Has anyone ever postulated that?
PAD
PAD – Although you are likely to find some who are disturbed at the very idea of associating homosexuality with the weeding out of undesirable genetic material, it is an entirely valid area of investigation. Although you are writing more to those who already respect you than not, it still takes a fair amount of courage to say what may be unpopular or misconstrued. Neither of us really knows the whole truth, but it is very bad science to refuse to even consider such ideas. Another area that is very touchy is the consideration of any racially-based differences within the human population. Although my first impulse is to say that humanity is really so homogeneous that notable differences wouldn’t occur between groupings, it is not an invalid field of study. If the “PC” view is correct – as I expect it is in this case – the only result of such investigation would be validation of the more progressive position. (I’m not saying this is the most worthwhile study to do, but rather that it isn’t good science or good logic to forbid it, as some would.)
My personal theory is that it’s nature’s way of doing a little population control.
The impression I got was that the source of the drive to have sex with a man, while obvious in women, is what gets passed to men to make them gay. The drive to have sex with a woman, while obvious to every straight guy, is what gets passed to women to make them lesbians.
In terms of evolutionary advantages, women whose drive to have sex with men is so strong she passes it on make up for non-reproducing sons by having more children.
then one wonders whether or not homosexuality…who’s gay and who isn’t…isn’t arbitrary at all, but instead nature’s way of controlling who reproduces and who doesn’t.
If this is true, then nature missed a whole LOT of people who shouldn’t be re-producing.
Unfortunately, I’m only partially joking.
“India has an oppressive system of poverty and locked sex-roles that make your citation of hypocrisy ridiculous and self-serving.
Coercion is Choice. Lies are Truth. Denial is Normal Psychology.â„¢ Typical.”
Um, Bill’s statement of hypocrisy was on the part of pro-choicers who suddenly oppose abortion on specific grounds (such as aborting potential daughters). He was not accusing “India” of hypocrisy.
I referrred to a specific accusation of hypocrisy. Where did I say it was to India?
Jerry, I agree with Bill Mulligan that you brought up some very interesting points. Normally, I try not to discuss myself in great detail in other people’s blogs. But in this case I think a personal perspective might be appropriate.
I take five different medications every day. Three of them are for conditions that likely have a neurological component: Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Depression, and Restless Legs Syndrome. My other two medications are for allergies and acid reflux, respectively. Sleep apnea requires me to use a CPAP device at night in order to sleep properly.
There are people with far worse conditions than mine. But compared with your average person, I’ve got more than my fair share of ailments.
My neurological conditions and my sleep apnea weren’t diagnosed until I was an adult. This made for a difficult childhood and adolescence. People with ADD struggle not only with impulsivity and a tendency to talk too much and out of turn, but also a marked inability to interpret social cues. Between my social awkwardness and my lack of physical prowess, I was always at the bottom rung of the popularity ladder.
Believe it or not, I was labeled a “gifted” child at an early age and placed in accelerated learning programs. Many people had high expectations for me upon my graduation from college, but I floundered instead, getting stuck in unsatisfying jobs and finding myself unable to extricate myself from them. ADD, Depression, and sleep deprivation conspired together to limit my ability to realize my potential.
I can, to an extent, relate to your friend who committed suicide. When my depression was at its worst I would contemplate suicide on an almost daily basis. I never attempted it, but there are one or two instances where I came dámņ close.
For most of my life I have regarded myself as “fundamentally damaged.” I have often wondered to myself if I don’t belong on some genetic “scrap heap.” Now, what if doctors had been able to “fix” my genetic structure before I was born? What if they had been able to ensure that I’d have a normal brain chemistry and a healthier body?
I suppose you could say it’s anyone’s guess. But having actually lived my life, I’m confident that I would have had an easier, happier time growing up without these problems. I would have been more popular, and more successful in school. I might even be further ahead in my career today.
I’d also be an entirely different person.
That’s really what we’re talking about. Ensuring that people like me never come to exist.
It’s a chilling thought, at least to me.
See, things have been coming together for me over the last few years. I’ve been getting my health problems identified and treated. I’m finally starting to establish a career where I believe I can be successful and happy. I’ve been living with the same woman for the last five years. I have plenty of wonderful friends.
I had a hëll of a time getting to this place in my life. It was largely an excruciating journey, and one I often hated while I was on it. But without those experiences, as awful as some of them were, I wouldn’t be who I am. I wouldn’t have gained the strength, the knowledge, the passion, and the emotions that I have today. I wouldn’t be me.
Yes, it would be wonderful if the science of genetics would allow us to rid the human race of birth defects like Down Syndrome. But the other edge to that sword is that you’d likely be preventing people like me from ever existing as well. I mean, what loving mother would say, “Oh, no, don’t correct my child’s ADD, Depression, RLS, allergies, or stomach issues. I want him to have a šhìŧŧÿ time of it growing up!”
I’d rather be given the chance to prove that I can contribute something to the world, even with all of my flaws, than to be turned into an uber-human.
I realize that my anecdotes don’t provide any more answers than you were able to, Jerry. But that’s okay. My intention was to ask more questions.
“My personal theory is that it’s nature’s way of doing a little population control.”
Actually, I’ve read studies on wildlife where that theory was seriously discussed when the observers noticed an increase in homosexual activity in animals in areas where population began to outstrip resources and living area. In at least one paper I read (I’m sorry, but I can’t remember who wrote it or from what group they were from so that I could quickly look up a link), someone was citing that as further support for gay rights. His (or her) position was that this is a naturally occurring phenomena in mammals to deal with overpopulation and should therefore not be treated as a stigma or abnormality.
It was an interesting piece. I wish I could give you all a better lead for tracking it down yourselves.
“I realize that my anecdotes don’t provide any more answers than you were able to, Jerry. But that’s okay. My intention was to ask more questions.”
I think that’s all I’m doing at the moment. When these things came up when my friends and I were growing up, some of these concepts seemed like things that would never be seen in our lifetimes. They were pure science fiction. Then progress, science and technology went through what seemed like dramatic explosions in their rate of advancement. Now, we have science fact forcing us to decide where it is that we’ll all stand on issues that many people likely never seriously considered as anything more then a clever twist in a sci-fi novel.
Believe it or not, my household can kind of relate to what you were talking about. Jenn has a seizure disorder that developed in her mid-teens. She hasn’t had one in years due to proper medication, but there was a time in her life when that was hitting her pretty hard. Thing is, she’s thankful for what she went through and wouldn’t trade it for anything.
She once told me that the woman I love wouldn’t have been here if this hadn’t happened to her. She’s the youngest of three girls. She’s the baby. She said that she was a bit spoiled growing up and that she would likely have grown up to be a right proper terror (her words) had this not hit her and forced her to deal with things in her life in a completely different way. Who she was and who she feels that she would have grown up to be are as different as night and day from who she is now.
So, yeah, I kinda know how much things like this can change how someone turns out and who they grow up to be. But, I’ve also met people who would trade what they grew up dealing with for a “better” life in a New York Second.
Me? Got nothing to speak of in these areas. I’m screwed up just because that’s who I am.
But that’s what makes these issues such a bear for some. I can’t make an truly informed decision based on my own personal experiences. I have to learn from others and get their advice or perspective from their experiences. Well, like I said, I know people who would come down on both sides of this issue (like this should be any different then any other debate) and both sides can put forth equally compelling arguments.
This isn’t like debating murder. I know very few people (and I really wish that I had never had to have any contact with those people) who would argue that the cold blooded murder of some random innocent is a good or right thing. This kind of falls under what is right for each individual person. That basically means that the debate comes down to deciding if it is right or wrong to deny those who would make a “right” decision for themselves or their families the right to do so in order to keep those who would make the “wrong” decision from screwing up. That, and figuring out what in the hëll a “right” decision or a “wrong” decision really is here.
Kind of like I said above…. It’s and interesting question and debate, but it’s hard as hëll to say who really has the “right” answer here.
In completely unrelated news, Bush now says he can read out mail.
Ðámņ, I meant “our mail”.
Too much insomnia.
Jerry, to muddy up the waters further, let’s look at this from the reverse. What if I had been genetically altered so that I’d have had normal brain chemistry? I’d probably be quite happy that I’d been given such treatments and been allowed to be “normal.” If asked whether I’d rather have been allowed to be born with neurochemical imbalances in my brain, I’d probably answer with a resounding “no!”
But that, of course, would be a different person.
As Bill Mulligan said, we’re probably going to soon have far more options than we’d ever imagined — and realize that that’s not necessarily a good thing.
Posted by: Den at January 4, 2007 01:58 PM
In completely unrelated news, Bush now says he can read our mail.
As long as he pays my bills, too, he can have all of my mail.
Seriously, I’ve chided people in the past for exaggerating Bush’s misdeeds. But if the article Den linked to is accurate, this is just beyond the pale. This power that Bush invented is contrary to existing law and the U.S. Constitution.
Seriously? I’m beginning to reconsider my position that Bush needn’t be impeached.
In completely unrelated news, Bush now says he can read our mail.
We can only hope that one day Bush will pay the price for thinking he is above the law.
Preferably in a jail somewhere, on charges of war crimes or something along those lines.
This power that Bush invented is contrary to existing law and the U.S. Constitution.
So what else is new? Warrantless wiretapping, infinite detentions, signing statements, etc. bush has been making up his own laws & powers for the last several years.
It seems to me that there are three possible reasons for the existence of homosexuality:
1. Population control, a theory that I’ve always prescribed to. I rather like this theory, as it not only makes sense, but it makes me feel useful (even if I wasn’t gay, I don’t think I’d want to have children, because the world’s human population is too large as it is, and growing way too quickly… and anyway, I hate babies).
2. Peter’s “genetic control” theory, which I never thought about before, but which also kind of makes sense. It could certainly apply in my case, since I seem to have inherited a genetic bipolar disorder that almost everyone on my dad’s side of the family has, and which has been traced back for several generations. So far I’m the only gay person in my family, but we’ll see if any of my sister’s kids or my cousins’ kids turn out to be gay, and thus support this theory.
3. It’s just a biological mistake, like nipples on men. I wouldn’t have a problem with this, either.
Posted by: Michael Brunner at January 4, 2007 02:25 PM
So what else is new? Warrantless wiretapping, infinite detentions, signing statements, etc. bush has been making up his own laws & powers for the last several years.
The administration argued that indefinite detentions of suspected terrorists was allowable because terrorists in essence fell between the cracks of the law. On the one hand, they were committing acts of war and thus the Bush administration asserted they were not entitled to due process in our criminal courts. On the other hand, they were not part of a recognized national army, and thus the Bush administration contended they were not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. A thin argument? Yeah, I’d say so. But completely meritless? I wouldn’t go that far.
Many of the other powers the Bush administration asserted were granted to him under the Patriot Act. I think the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, but I can’t imagine impeaching the president for, y’know, acting within the law.
But if the article we’re discussing is accurate, Bush is taking things to a new level.
As I keep saying, just because I don’t loathe Bush with the same passion that many of you do doesn’t mean I worship the guy. I’ve been saying on this board for months that Bush is a horrible president. I voted for his opponent in 2000 and 2004. And I agree that he’s been playing fast and loose with the Constitution. But now he’s just making up powers without even trying to justify it.
Hey, I just thought of something — maybe he’s not asserting he has the right to read our mail. Maybe he just completed “Hooked on Phonics” and he’s excited because now he’s actually literate. 🙂
A cheap shot? Yes. I’m allowed from time to time.
The administration argued that indefinite detentions of suspected terrorists was allowable because terrorists in essence fell between the cracks of the law. On the one hand, they were committing acts of war and thus the Bush administration asserted they were not entitled to due process in our criminal courts. On the other hand, they were not part of a recognized national army, and thus the Bush administration contended they were not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. A thin argument? Yeah, I’d say so. But completely meritless? I wouldn’t go that far.
The problem with that argument is that Bush wanted a category C that didn’t exist in any previous conflict. Either they’re prisoners of war or they’re criminals awaiting prosecution. There is no third option and eventually, you have to decide whether they fit in column A or column B. Bush didn’t want that. He wanted, like he always does, to be able to do whatever he wanted free from any restrictions.
The administration argued that indefinite detentions of suspected terrorists was allowable because terrorists in essence fell between the cracks of the law.
Key word here is suspected . A perfect example is Jose Padilla. Notice that when he was finally charged with a crime, there was no terrorism charge. bush’s description of a suspected terrorist is whoever he says is one.
Many of the other powers the Bush administration asserted were granted to him under the Patriot Act. I think the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, but I can’t imagine impeaching the president for, y’know, acting within the law.
Even if one accepts that the Patriot Act justifies the use of some of these powers, He’s still claiming more powers & authorities than the Patriot act allows.
Further, his use of “signing statements” shows that he feels that NO law applies to him if he says it doesn’t.
For example, Congress not too long ago passed a law saying that the president has to brief Congress on war progress on a regular basis. When signing it into law bush also signed a statement that bascially said “The president does not have to do this”, a complete contradiction of the law he passed.
As for enacting within the law, since The Constitution (which bush twice swore to uphold) is still the supreme law of the land, Hiding behind the Patriot Act might not be a good defense.
“3. It’s just a biological mistake, like nipples on men.”
Wait, you’re saying that my having nipples is a mistake? But, that…. that would mean that I’m not actually perfect in every way.
Ðámņ you, Robert Fuller!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then there was the law Congress passed after Katrina that said that any future head of FEMA had to have real emergency management experience. Bush signed it and attached a signing statement that basically said, “I’m still going to appoint whomever I want.”
“Key word here is suspected . A perfect example is Jose Padilla.”
Jose Pedilla? Hëll, take it a step further and look at Maher Arar’s case. Not only does that shoot down many of Bush’s dimmer ideas, but it also adds one more case to the file marked, “Why torture doesn’t work and does not give you information that you can trust.”
Are those of you who are outraged about Bush’s use of signing statements to alter the law aware that Bill Clinton did the very same thing?
The use of signing statements to alter the law goes back to Ronald Reagan. I think it’s wrong, mind you, but it’s not at all new nor is it unique to George W. Bush’s presidency.
As far as my assertion that this particular act is more egregious than Bush’s other excesses (you see, I agree that he has committed excesses; I am merely asserting that this is one of the worst excesses he has committed), I point to the following passage from the New York Daily News Article Den himself linked to:
“You have to be concerned,” agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush’s claim. “It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we’ve ever known.”
It appears I’m not alone in believing that this “I can read your mail” schtick is taking things to a new level.
1 and 2 imply intent in Nature, and as far as I know there are no theories of evolution worth mentioning that depend on intent in Nature.
Stephen Jay Gould cited a creature in the early evolutionary stages of animal life on earth that had a mouth that operated like an iris, like the kind that opens and closes on James Bond in the opening of a film. It had no disadvantage in eating, it was just šhìŧ out of luck it didn’t pass the trait along. Should a human baby also be born with an iris, I don’t think there’s any inherent reason to believe it couldn’t mature like any other human.
Vonnegut, specifically in Galapagos, characterizes humanity as an evolutionary abomination. The isolated surviving humans evolve into fish-diving seal-like creatures, and he challenges the reader to cite a survival advantage conventional humanity has over them.
“The use of signing statements to alter the law goes back to Ronald Reagan.”
It’s not really the use itself that some (like myself) find to be a problem with Bush. It’s how often he uses the things and how often the use is so that he can do whatever he feels like doing, including bending the Constitution, based on the wonderful legal ideal of, “because I said so.”
Vonnegut, specifically in Galapagos, characterizes humanity as an evolutionary abomination. The isolated surviving humans evolve into fish-diving seal-like creatures, and he challenges the reader to cite a survival advantage conventional humanity has over them.
I haven’t read the book, so I have to ask: In the specific circumstances they’re living in, or in general? Because (based on that brief description, anyway) it doesn’t sound like they’d do very well living in the Himalayas or the Sahara; survival advantage is relative, not absolute, after all.