Lots of interesting discussion in yesterday’s post on the (still debatable) cause or causes of homosexuality, but much of it has gotten away from the original premise. So I’ve decided to see if I can’t focus the discussion by reintroducing the question in a slightly different way:
If it is determined that homosexuality is biologically determined, the proof for such a determination would have to reside in identifying the determinant factors in the biology beyond doubt, and to the comfort of scientific peer review. Which, to follow this (hypothetical) finding out to its logical extreme, would mean that, ultimately, were science to pursue it (and that’s another question entirely: I imagine at that point gay rights groups, like the militant deaf groups before them, would become nishi’s BIOLUDDITES, and use political means to constrain the science), parents and — depending on the age at which “the cause” of the “homosexual turn” exerts itself — perhaps even children themselves, would have the choice to either embrace their biological anomaly (and I use “anomaly” here to suggest that the default and preferred evolutionary course favors heterosexual desire for means of procreation, your basic selfish gene hypothesis), or else to “correct” it.
Which means, ultimately, that this desire to privilege the determinism, as a scientific and social thesis for explaining homosexuality and conferring upon it certain rights, could be the very thing that leads to actual choice in the matter, rather than the current hypothetical battle between those who think homosexuality is innate and biological and those who think it a preference. And at that point, I suspect “correction” as a course of medical action (ranging from abortion to gene therapy) would win out — though doubtless there’d be people who embraced the anomalous biology, just as there are deaf people who embrace their deafness, because it provides them with a distinct identity — and as such, they reject the cochlear implant as a means of “cultural genocide.”
But at such a point — the political and identity politics arguments notwithstanding — I don’t think society would be under as much pressure to treat homosexuals as a protected class for the purposes of bestowing special dispensation, or granting the civil rights of a protected class, particularly if we can say that they have simply refused “treatment” to correct what is, as science has concluded, a biological anomaly with a workable correction.
I’m not saying this is my position necessarily, understand. But that has been the gist of this discussion for me: do we, as a society, privilege biology or do we privilege culture?
Or, to put it more provocatively, how much is our embrace of the rainbow a result of seeing it as inevitable, rather than as a kind of willful social Raleigh scattering?
****
note: as I was typing this, it seems Dan found examples that matched my predictions in the comments of my earlier post, namely
Meanwhile, my ears are burning, which means  in addition to my being called a “racist†for my “whitey†posts (my racism is akin to that of Sly and the Family Stone’s, only most of them can’t be racist, given that they’re black, so that’s kinda cool for them and sucks for me)  there are doubtless lefty sites out there noting my HOMOPHOBIA.
To these people I say this: I won’t be bullied, and I think raising these kinds of hypotheticals helps to throw into sharp relief the very kinds of questions that we should expect to run into going forward, particularly as science advances (which has been an ongoing point of contention in the comments here on a number of posts — something about which the douches who’ve attacked me were no doubt ignorant).
Trying to demonize those who raise the questions is as silly as demonizing someone for playing Devil’s Advocate, or for using the Socratic method. I don’t know whether homosexuality is biologically determined, culturally influenced, or some combination of the two. My post here is meant only to look at the consequences of the current movment to insist that homosexuality is attributable to the former.
That some people would completely miss that point in their rush to attack me personally is, well, par for the course these days. Learning is hard; memorizing political dogma is easy, particularly if you can find a really cool collector’s set of bumperstickers from the American Prospect gift shop.
As someone who has taught at the university level, I am accutely aware of how effective these kinds of thought experiments are in drawing out kernel assumptions of people’s positions, which can then be examined more closely for inherent strengths and weaknesses.
This is an intellectual endeavor. Having it pecked at by anti-intellectual grubs who’ve bought in to the notion of “authenticity” as a precondition for entering into the debate concerns me only insofar as it shows that anti-intellectualism is ascendant among many identity groups.
And it is precisely why these types of people will always be sheep, even as they (ludicrously) proclaim their liberation from the bourgeois traditionalists who represent the Establishment.
They have become, in short, parodies of themselves.
Socrates didn’t get half the kicking around he deserved. You ever read the “Apologia”? What a self-righteous PITA. Cripes, I’d have poured the hemlock down the jerk’s throat.
You expectin’ people to be NICE when you ask difficult questions?
Not nice, necessarily. Engaged. Civil. Willing to argue the question on the merits or in good faith. You know, all that outmoded classical liberal stuff.
I presume you’re kidding about the American Prospect gift shop Unless it’s a non-profit co-op.
Yeah, just a joke. But one that works because it’s so very believable.
The extra-delicious irony that flows from genetically fixed determanist sexuality is the complete and utter destruction of the Neo-Marxist “sexuality is a social construct of oppresive Western culture” theory of University GLBT studies departments worldwide.
Slightly OT
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/ap/national/main4198007.shtml
New Transgender Policy at New York Juvenile Jails
(AP) “Transgender youth in New York’s juvenile detention centers are now allowed to wear whatever uniform they choose, be called by whatever name they want and ask for special housing under a new anti-discrimination policy drawing praise from advocacy groups.”
Biology or culture. More confuzzlement.
Meanwhile, I’ve been accused, elsewhere, of helping get our friend anonymous.j3rk fired. I’m trying to determine if said firing has actually occurred. To me, though, someone’s IP address EQUALS their location, and if that means someone can figure out their place of work, so be it. I can do an IP address lookup in less time than it takes to yawn, and anyone else who knows how (which, I sincerely hope, is lots and lots of people) can do the same.
The broadest possible protection for individual liberty with minimal interference from the government for compelling interests only should remain the rule, if you believe in that wacky 18th century style of self-reliance and self-government.
If there should be a preventative treatment of homosexuality, what risks will it carrry? How invasive is it? What degree of benefit is guaranteed? Who will get the treatment? Would be fathers? Would be mothers? Pregnant women? Newborns? Children? Adults?
Some people are quick to translate choice into obligation. I frequently see falacious reasoning that a new choice ought to change one’s legal obligations. But the law is very highly constrained in such points and I would hope it remains so.
SGT Ted: that’s only because you’re using Dead White Male logic. Other Ways of Knowing have a different way of seeing things.
For example, consider these statements:
1) George W. Bush is a drooling chimp who can’t even tie his own shoes.
2) George W. Bush is an evil genius who could’ve resulted from one of nishi’s “human optimization” experiments, assuming your source material was Professor Moriarty, Fu Manchu, and Rodrigo Borgia.
To you or me, those two statements can’t possibly both be true, yet I know plenty of people who believe both. If you can do that, you’ll probably have no trouble believe that gender is both a social construct and an inborn trait at the same time.
Jeff G.: It’s hard to see how the leftoids could complain about this, given their penchant for defending abortion on demand for any and all purposes, no matter how trivial. We already hear of abortions being performed for sex selection. How would this be any different?
He got fired for describing, during work time, neo neocon getting gang banged by “niggers” while here husband looked on and jacked off, and for launching attacks on me as a “cunt” for having the “bitch” audacity to cite a Sly and the Family Stone song?
Why, what is this world coming to!
Like I said, I wouldn’t have contacted his employer, but then, I’m not the only one reading what he has to say. Evidently someone felt it appropriate.
Still, I find it hard to believe he got canned over this. But businesses tend to be risk averse, so I guess it’s not too farfetched. Sucks.
SGT Ted: that’s only because you’re using Dead White Male logic.
Dammit, I always forget about that. I keep my DWM logic right next to my White Priviledge and I get them confused sometime.
SGT Ted, would you concur that whilst sexuality itself isn’t simply a social construct of Western culture, the idea of sexual identity does stem from the marginalization of all but monogamous, heterosexual practice?
Just to clarify, by “sexual identity” I mean the need to identify as hetero- homo- bi- pan- or some other preface to “sexual” and for that self-identification to be inextricably tied to the individual as he or she is perceived by society.
Did he get fired, or is that one of those consequences like the Chimpy McHitlerburton gulags full of progressives that haven’t come to pass just yet?
With all due respect, you miss the point. The very fact of choice — set against what is currently being argued as the precondition for special dispensation, namely, biological determinism — could possibly undermine the determinism necessary for the special dispensation, based on essentialism, that leads to protected status.
Once it is known that the fact of a choice exists, people may be less inclined to grant special status to those who are seen as making lifestyle choice. The point being that science might very well alter the dynamic of the debate, moving it back toward earlier conceptions of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, and so not in line for any special or specific civil protection outside that granted to all citizens.
If someone reported me for flashing the bird and screaming obscenities at pedestrians while driving my company truck, whose fault would it be that I got fired?
Jamie–
Could you be more specific about whom you mean when you say “by society”?
Marginalization sounds as though there was some intentional action that pushed such behaviors into the fringe, when in fact, they are and always have been on the outskirts of mainstream sexuality by simple virtue of their relative scarcity. If you open an Indonesian restaurant in Omaha, it’s going to be on the fringe of gastronomical society at the outset. If you open a Honky Tonk in South Central, it’s going to be in the nightlife margins. It doesn’t need to be made so, it simply is.
Slart, if his employer fired him, it’s because the employer doesn’t want him as an employee anymore. You had a perfect right to complain about him, and Jerkwhatever made his own choice to make abusive intemperate remarks on machines linked to his employer.
But I wouldn’t assume he was fired, sounds like a petulant accusaton by someone else who feels entitled to sneak and be a jerk without risk of anyone knowing.
As to civility, I must give the posters and commenters at Feministe credit. I don’t know that we’ve had a proper meeting of the minds, but they have been civil in the engagement.
One thing that just occurred to me (other than being very dense) is the near identical match between labor unions and identity politics
Some races, like Asians, are (like some professions)non-union, while others such as blacks and hispanics are strongly unionized. In this schemea, whites are management, and can therefore never be unionized.
Compare the push back to the idea of secret ballots in a union shop and the assertion that independents are free riders on the union’s back to the cries of Uncle Tom, and the expulsion of the unauthentic minority (the black who goes independent, rather than belonging to the union).
There are a couple of other strong points – unions benefiting the business into bankruptcy, the whole formal grievance system, the business of aiming for mediocrity (at your job – not in your organizing) to avoid drawing unwanted attention. I haven’t had a chance to drill into this yet, but it struck me as interesting.
Dan: I’d define “society” in the collective term. The ‘sum of knowledge’ so to speak that defines us as Western culture as opposed to, say, Eastern or Middle Eastern. The reference I made to society was intended to include the perception of inherent traits of one who identifies in one of the typically used labels.
Pablo: I’d argue that the marginalization of homosexual acts (not homosexual lifestyle, mind you) was an indirect result of the rise in influence of the Christian church; it certainly was acceptable to many other ancient cultures. Though there wasn’t a direct effort to marginalize any certain activity per se, certain things, not only in the sexual arena, were actively marginalized by the rise of the church’s scope of power.
Glad they were civil to you, BRD. But the link to my post was placed under the categories “Racists” and “Assholes.” Which leads me to believe that the civility was but a show for your benefit.
“The point being that science might very well alter the dynamic of the debate, moving it back toward earlier conceptions of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, and so not in line for any special or specific civil protection outside that granted to all citizens.”
***
My difficulty is that I don’t see any popular conception of homosexuality resulting from choice vs. imposition of nature as an argument or variable to make it in line for any “special” or specific civil protection whatevernow. I don’t see it as a complete basis for any rational decision on such things.
“I can’t help being Gay” is not a reason to elevate same sex unions to the marriage state, even if “i can indeed help being Gay, but just like it better” is a reason to refuse it.
Any more than “I can’t help being blind” is a reason to give someone a liscence to drive taxis, even if “I can indeed help being blind, I just like it better this way” is a reason to refuse to bend over backwards to accomodate blind driving.
That is to say, there either is or is not a compelling, rational basis to *prevent* people from discriminating, or there isn’t.
In the case of race, there is so much more variability among the races than between them, it makes sense to prohibit discrimination soley on the basis of race. There should be some other reason to discriminate, like, hey this guy is good-looking and went to Yale and made law-review, and this guy got arrested three times and smells like garlic.
Just a quick one, Jeff, but i like i pointed out on the last thread the judgement that homosexuality needs “correction” is purely societal and dependent on the endorsement of judeoxian ethics that represent homosexuality as “wrong.”
If homosexuality is biologically determined, then it evolved, and it cannot be “wrong”. there is some selective advantage associated with either the phenotype or to consanguinous kin.
now if cochran is correct, and homosexuality is pathenogenic, then your argument might be that “correction” cures a genetic disease.
the moral argument doesnt apply.
It looks like I just got a letter from The Department of Redundancy Department, better answer.
I am strongly beginning to suspect that when they use the terms asshole and racist, it means approximately the same to them as a union member referring to someone in management. By one own circumstance, one is axiomatically wrong.
The thing that did strike me is that – unlike some left blogs I’ve read – there was no axiomatic assumptions about Iraq, Bush, and otherwise impaling grandma offered simply for not agreeing. They might not yet be ready for polite company, but I think there is an effort on at least the part of several people. But, after going through all that rigmarole, I’m not about to tell you or anyone else if you should or shouldn’t be offended.
Unfortunately, popular argument means nothing these days, and you aren’t on the California Supreme Court.
my point being, that homosexuals are citizens, and as long as their sexual orientation is not harmful to other citizens, they entitled to full legal benefits of citizenship under the law.
Thanks for this post. It confirms what I have predicted for a long time, which is that if a biological basis for homosexuality is proven, the right wing would label it a birth defect. Next stop is to create a “gay fetus” exemption to the push to end abortion.
It’s when people say stuff like “Well getting arrested 3 times and smelling like garlic is a [pick your protected class here] thing. So, if you don’t accept my arrest record and my odor, YOU ARE A RACIST/SEXIST LAWBREAKER DISCRIMINATING ON THE BASIS OF RACE/SEX!
One data point, I come down on the “biologically determined” side of the argument.
That’s interesting, though, Jamie, because the injunction against homosexuality proceeds from Semitic influences on Western culture, influences that still predominate in much less attenuated form in most of the area in which they were first, if not developed, then recorded. And there are certainly strong cultural injunctions against homosexuality, whether rooted in religion as narrowly defined in the West, or not, such as in much of Africa.
I would say that the generalized cultural meaning of sexual preference is largely a construct, but that within our culture it is susceptible in large part to construction by the individual who is its subject. People are free or not to frequent bathhouses and go to parades wearing a bikini with chaps or not, as they will. They may choose to drive Mini Coopers or Jeeps and still be authentically gay. They may choose or not to affect a lisp, in most cases, one would imagine, or to mince, or to enjoy HGTV.
I think that it is a feedback loop, if you like. People are free to opt into one of the “categories” applied by society insofar as they like. Insofar as they do decide to identify with a preconcieved category, they instantiate the category.
*belch*
And as I said in response on the other thread, the judeo christian ethics you’ve been so quick to mock are still controlling, and so you’re going to have to convince all the 2-digit theocons that you’re right and they are wrong.
Good luck with that. Call it cultural evolution, with your side taking a beating.
As for the rest, something being evolutionarily “wrong” is different than it being socially preferable. There are probably good evolutionary reasons why crocodiles have been around so long, but if I find one in my swimming pool, I’m going to shoot it. What I am NOT required to do is to let it stay in my swimming pool just because it has managed to make it this far in the evolutionary chain.
which was, coincidentally, the position of the cali supremes.
i think this whole conversation is funny, and rests upon a lot of wishful thinking. knock yourself out guys, but somehow i don’t think biological reductionism explains homosexuality any more than it does heterosexuality. primates are able to have sex for _pure enjoyment_ and the reasons why someone might _enjoy_ sex with someone of the same or different sex aren’t going to be reduced to some biological “cause.” it seems odd to me to see conservatives falling for such a naive “explanation” of sexual desire and pleasure – in my opinion that’s got more to do with the problems conservatives have with the very idea of pleasure that exists only for itself and doesn’t serve some ulterior purpose (“family,” “order,” or profit).
I don’t know but that it’s not parthenogenic. You know, like Athena.
Okay, londonamerican.
Hey, do me a favor will you? and suck my dick. Please.
crocs are not in your species Jeff, nor are they citizens.
Predicted it, it is a sort of birth defect. But like my HLA-B27 gene that predisposes me to some disease and protects me rather well from others, it might also be a birth “gift” in some ways. Or not. But it seems to me that people should be free to evaluate any treatment or prevention in light of existing rights, without feeling obligated to avail themselves or deny themselves such a treatment outside of a compelling interest of the government to regulate the choice.
…entitled to full legal benefits of citizenship under the law
What does this mean exactly? Do I, as a white male have the legal benefit of applying for a set aside contract for woman and minority businesses?
PredictedIt can’t read, which is really sad for someone in this day and age.
taking a beating?
Several things. 1) Why would you think only the “right wing” would consider it a “birth defect.” Scientifically speaking, it is either an anomaly or it is not. Value judgments about what that means in terms of social acceptance is a subsequent question, and — in case you haven’t noticed — many blacks, who are quite openly anti-gay, aren’t generally considered “right wingers.” The point being that to reduce this to a partisan issue is both cheap and self-serving.
2) I find it ironic that you’d suggest that pro-lifers, who oppose abortion, would push for a gay fetus exemption. Why wouldn’t you conclude that pro-choice folks would push for a moratorium on such screenings, just as they’ve tried to keep 3d untrasounds out of the mainstream of use? Are you so far gone in your paranoid beliefs in the genuine evil of “right wingers” that you fail to take notice of what’s happening on the left side of the political spectrum?
3) The question being raised here has to do with rulings being made based around the increasingly popular premise that homosexuality is innate. Perhaps rather than swatting at strawmen and then running away, you’d be willing to stay and read what people are saying. There are many “right wingers” here who are in disagreement with each other – something you might have noticed had you not been so quick to demonize those who you think you know, but who you fail to see even as fully human.
4) California is in the process of setting sexual orientation up alongside “race” and sex as protected categories. To do so, they must equate the categories in some way. One way that is being offered is biological determinism and its relationship to civil rights. So what this post is looking to explore is the consequences of categorizing homosexuality as an innate quality.
If you don’t want to discuss the issue like an adult, there are several sites you can visit that have me fucking a stuffed animal who I’m sure will welcome your contributions.
i don’t think biological reductionism explains homosexuality any more than it does heterosexuality.
Except that biological reductionism explains heterosexuality very well.
Conservatism isn’t, or shouldn’t be, tied to sexual pleasures denied, it’s not all Victorian throwback. When I’m banging I’m not representin’ my social values or my political leanings, I’m getting carnal and humping my animal best. Some of these conservative-goggled morons see everything through that politico lens, or pretend to here, granted, but not all.
I’d let Beckham watch (hell, and all his mates) as I banged Sporty. I’m a mad liberal when it’s nookie time.
#45 for #36
“Unfortunately, popular argument means nothing these days, and you aren’t on the California Supreme Court.”
Sorry for the impenetribility of my prose, but I think I meant something else. I thought I was addressing point you made about peoples conceptions of personal choice determining sexual preference, affecting opinion about matters of discrimination law.
The problem with the California deal, is that the civil union stuff was a mistake and camel nose under the tent. The largest “compelling interest” argument to be made was totally undermined. I can’t say that if I were on the California Supreme Court I would not have been persuaded that there no compelling interest to maintain the distinction.
And the crap spelling, apologies.
londonamerican —
Actually, conservatives are less convinced of the biological determinism explanation than you seem to believe. In fact, this post is looking at the consequences of that argument being embraced by certain liberal courts.
The rest of your comment seems to be a response to, well, nobody here — and honestly, nobody I know. I have no idea why people insist on commenting without having taken the time to understand what it is they are commenting on.
Unless it has something to do with seeing words like “homosexual,” mixing that together with the cartoon characters they have in their head of those introducing the argument, and then shooting from the hip, hoping that they hit a caricature.
Thanks for this post. It confirms what I have predicted for a long time, which is that if a biological basis for homosexuality is proven, the right wing would label it a birth defect.
You wrote that. Jeff didn’t. The commen-sense meaning of what Jeff wrote does not “confirm” your prediction, so are you saying that the simple fact that Jeff addressed the topic confirms for you that he believes what you assumed he would believe? Or is there some kind of penumbra or vibration around Jeff’s post that lends support for your counter-intuitive interpretation of what he wrote?
so you’re going to have to convince all the 2-digit theocons that you’re right and they are wrong.
no i don’t.
culture is evolving.
i predict eventually samesex marriage will be legal everywhere.
like Dale Carpenter said at Volokh–
Dan, you’re in running with the best of Irish poets.
BTW, I do believe “biological determinism” explains a lot about heterosexuality, including why it’s pleasurable.
Just to be clear, there is a site that has a Photoshop of Jeff fucking a stuffed animal.
Unless I missed some site that actually has Jeff fucking a stuffed animal. That’s possible, I’m guessing that would be some sort of pay site for Furries or something and I don’t really go there. But it would explain why Jeff blogs here less. ;-)
Yes, nishi. Taking a beating in terms of what ethics frame the American philosophical paradigm. That people are more willing to accept gay marriage, in fact, shows that the very ethics you malign are malleable and are able to evolve.
But my point was and is, should certain interested parties manage to have courts rule in favor of certain homosexual “rights” on the basis of biology (many race laws are based on erroneous ideas about “race,” as well), the law of unintended consequences could apply as science advances, making what was a matter of anomalous biology a matter, instead, of (potential) choice.
This hypothetical is, essentially, science fiction for now, in the same way Gattica is. But the questions it raises I find interesting. People like “PredictedIt” and “londonamerican,” on the other hand, would rather simply wave the questions away as the ravings of theocooks and “conservatives” (even though, as I pointed out, one of the biggest adversaries of the gay community happen to vote Dem 97% of the time).
hawhaw haw!
Athena! parthenogenisis!
O mighty Celt, i bow low before your wit.
;)
I went all Chuck Dickens there for a sec. Sorry.
or should i say metis.
;)
Actually, there’s something quite similar in Brown v. Bd. of Ed. There’s a citation in the opinion to some social study that later turned out to be of questionable validity. And it was entirely unnecessary, inasmuch as the 14th Amendment sorta covered it nicely. But the citation was most likely stuck in there to help the Supremes finesse the whole part about Plessy being a pantload.
I’ve come to the conclusion that blogs are not a good place to have debates. Nor are universities.
In fact, I think we should be done with talking and just start smashing the system!
I give up.
People are, in large part, morons. And I don’t much like them anymore. Some of my present company excluded.
the law of unintended consequences could apply as science advances, making what was a matter of anomalous biology a matter, instead, of (potential) choice.
kk, my answer is, only in a totalitarian state, where the state owned the bodies, the DNA, and the offspring of the citizens.
totalitarian eugenics.
otherwise free market eugenics will drive what enhancement therapies are available AND chosen.
at the point in time that we can engineer sexual orientation(a non-trivial problem), we will also be able to engineer senescense, IQ, comliness, and a variety of germ line enhancements.
Well bite my arse on the village green of Tara, I had to read Collins’ post twice to get teh funny.
During his time away I forgot how good my hero was.
If we can’t modify cock size and staying power then what’s the point?
I start from where Jeff has ended up; it’s less traumatic that way.
why chose sexual orientation to transform? perhaps if the parents were religious that might be their first priority.
otherwise, why do it?
think about elective surgery in Japan.
epicanthic fold and removing the calf muscles are the most performed.
Jeff, if you like serious conversations about serious matters with other people who are likewise inclined, you could become a ‘tutor’ at St. John’s College, Annapolis or Santa Fe, your choice. That is what they do there all day everyday. I don’t think the pay is great, but the books and the people are.
Adjust your expectations downward. That’s what helped my parents see me through childhood.
Karl, what was the study about?
Comment by londonamerican on 6/20 @ 12:28 pm #
Don’t know any conservatives, eh?
SarahW,
I’ll be back shortly w/your answer.
Fine, nishi. Crocs aren’t in my species, and evidently the ability to understand analogies is not an innate human trait.
Sarah, I think it was about giving little girls dolls that looked like themselves.
So….who are these people who decide one day to be heterosexual? I never had that inner conversation. Not ever. I am interested to talk to the folks who say that sexual preference is a choice (one that they, apparently, made).
I would posit that if you had some moment where it was a toss-up whether you were gonna go for the beaver or the boner and you had to make a lifestyle choice…well…sit down and let’s chat about that.
Well, I have a diseasle right now. To the extent I was thick to the germane points, I blame my killer-T cells.
SarahW,
Here you go. It’s a Wiki cite, but consistent with my formal education on the topic.
I suggested in the last thread on this topic that we ought not to assume, given the knowledge, that the transformation will always go in one direction. We could also find ourselves look at cases deciding to become homosexual from heterosexual (by means of gene therapy).
If homosexuality is biologically determined, then it evolved, and it cannot be “wrongâ€Â. there is some selective advantage associated with either the phenotype or to consanguinous kin.
Not necessarily. Evolution isn’t a one-way path to progress, but a sloppy, “oops, screwed the pooch again” kind of thing.
This is obviously true, otherwise I’d have to see your arguments for the evolutionary advantage of retardation.
now if cochran is correct, and homosexuality is pathenogenic, then your argument might be that “correction†cures a genetic disease.
It isn’t necessary to conceive of homosexuality on a disease model, either. Left-handedness and laterality may be a mild form of birth defect, and there are some problems as well as some benefits to be derived from it – but out of mere preference and a wish to ‘design’ their offspring, a parent might indeed select against it.
This doesn’t mean left-handedness would breed out from the population, but that it would become less frequent than in a state of nature.
the moral argument doesnt apply.
It doesn’t have to.
Good catch, urthshu. nishi is sloppy and cannot be trusted on the science.
This “…here is some selective advantage associated with either the phenotype or to consanguinous kin. …” is rank bs.
Also, I was right about the study being among those cited to “refute” Plessy factually, rather than just admitting that the Plessy Court got it wrong. After all, they didn’t want to undermine the legitimacy of the Court in what was going to be a controversial decision. And the Court has let that general attitude sink into its thinking in most other areas.
Comment by Jeff G. on 6/20 @ 12:57 pm #
People are, in large part, morons. And I don’t much like them anymore. Some of my present company excluded.
You are totally getting bitter and clingy. For two weeks wish (or pray) for the health, wealth, and happiness for the people who annoy you the most. By the end of the two weeks, I bet you will feel a lot better about your enemies, frenemies, and the world in general.
It is kind of new-agey and crankish. But it totally works.
Must.Suppress.Nishi.Joke.
Good, Lisa. Now go further. If we are to conclude homosexuality is biologically determined — and we follow nishi’s line of thinking about designer babies (which is what put me in idea for this thread) — at what point do say that, because previously-fixed biological determinants can be altered, we are no longer dealing with a half-to. And from there, how will that revelation affect the way we as a society litigate for (or against) homosexuality? I hate to keep bringing up the deaf culture as an analogue, but it’s the best fit, in that a “fix” has been found for a “problem” (whether that problem is a defect, or an indictment of society for privileging hearing people as a “norm” is up to you to decide), and yet certain folks reject that fix in favor of maintaining a cultural identity, and in fact go further, insisting that their offspring not receive that fix.
Which, if that’s the case, should we as a society be compelled to respect their choice in light of there having been found a remedy to the biological anomaly.
This is a complicated question. Which is why the drive-by lefties haven’t dealt with it at all, but instead have left comments to the effect that conservatives hate teh gays — which is completely at odds with the entirety of this thread and the positions expressed herein.
i was attempting humor, Jeff.
i unnerstand that you believe judicial activism is the crocodile.
I’d have to see your arguments for the evolutionary advantage of retardation.
it is more evolutionary disadvantage of homosexuality in that the extreme forms do not reproduce.
no reps.
an older argument for the biological basis of homosexuality is linkage to a beneficial gene complex.
consider serial killers. their incidence in the population is much higher than expected given that they almost never reproduce.
retardation is multicausal, and the functionally retarded, IQ<70 i think, often reproduce.
Lisa is right. But Jeff is also right. As is Howard Johnson.
Lisa —
I find it hard to pray for those who Photoshop me fucking a stuffed animal, and who publish accusations of my racism and homophobia such that it can be picked up and cataloged and associated with my name for whomever trusts Google.
Which brings me back to my moron point…
I know 2 married couples, Lisa, that became divorced couples because a husband in 1 case, and the wife in the other, decided to switch teams. I also know a formerly gay due with a smoking hot wife, so it appears their tastes can evolve. It is so nuancey, that it is hard for me to keep track of. Don’t even get me started on some of the MILF’s that like to experiment with other women … ;-)
“…evolutionary disadvantage of homosexuality in that the extreme forms do not reproduce. …”
You are assuming what remains to be shown. There is no good data on this subject, I’m sorry to tell you.
should we as a society be compelled to respect their choice in light of there having been found a remedy to the biological anomaly.
see, Jeff, it is that word “remedy”.
homosexuality may simply be a naturally occuring variant of sexual orientation.
homosexuality in that the extreme forms do not reproduce.
Can you point out a non-extreme gay couple that was able to reproduce?
IQ<70 i think, often reproduce.
I am going to be nice and not note how nishit should make every effort not to become a statistic.
I realize that, nishi. But I’m talking about a societal perception. And as I say, you’re going to have to fight the judeo christian ethics you’ve long mocked. And I don’t think those holding to those ethics are going to take kindly to your condescension about their intelligence.
Is deafness not a “naturally occurring” variant of hearing? Or am I not to believe those in the deaf culture who tell me that deafness is not a handicap?
I find this comment interesting, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
And I don’t think those holding to those ethics are going to take kindly to your condescension about their intelligence.
Jeff G – Her arrogant condescension towards theocons /spit, two digits, and people of any religion except for her own, is well documented.
Similarly, nishi, I’m astounded that your oft-claimed pragmatism and “perception is reality” talking points have left you.
If parents believe that homosexuality is likely to cause their offspring troubles in the future — troubles that can be preempted with gene therapy — why, from a pragmatic perspective, would they chance anything else?
Karl – If I could write worth a shit, I could write a great book just from some of the events that happen in our neighborhood. Apparently, it is a regular Soddom and Gommorah beneath the quiet, tranquil middle-class veneer.
Okay. Be back later. Looking forward to the next round of Photoshops and misrepresentations.
Meantime, I have to work my abs. BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL SELECTION!
Nishi, never attempt humor in public until you’ve soloed without the training wheels.
JD
Biologists have often made what appeared to be ‘obvious’ assumptions about particular species they study.There are many instances of this failure. These baboons over here, for example, see how rigidly hierarchical their mating structure is? Only the most dominant male gets to mate with the harem of females. We’re certain of that. Only on closer inspection, it turns out not to be true. Certain females would watch for the dominant male to be otherwise occupied and take advantage of the opportunity to sneak off for a tryst with a sub-dominant male, who it turns out, was the parent of her next offspring. So, you don’t get to assert what you cannot demonstrate. And I believe there are no good ethological studies now extant to get us to the answer to the question, just how much do homosexuals reproduce?
Sdferr – Let’s say the gleeeeeens and Excitable Andy got married. How, biologically, could they reproduce? How about if Rosie and Anne Heche hooked up? Absent outside interference, and eye bleach, the chances of either couple reproducing is slim and none, no? Isn’t Anne Heche a perfect example of someone that switches teams?
JD,
Sexuality is indeed fluid. I was just reading last night that hetero-, bi-, or homo-sexual labels are all about how you identify yourself regardless of who you have sex with. Thus, according to author, a straight woman who plays around with other women can still have successful hetero relationships and still be a heterosexual woman.
Should those women get any special legal protection or only the women who exclusively identify themselves as Homosexual? What is the standard?
(And yes, I realize this is a little off Jeff’s question, but the author had already determined for us that sexuality was a choice and she was promoting that choice as one you make for yourself.)
If homosexuality is biologically determined, then it evolved, and it cannot be “wrongâ€Â.
If nearsightedness is biologically determined, then it evolved, and it cannot be “wrongâ€Â.
If a predisposition to heart disease is biologically determined, then it evolved, and it cannot be “wrongâ€Â.
Guess those are off-limits too, eh? Interesting line of argument you have there, nishi. And by “interesting” I mean “dullwitted”.
why chose sexual orientation to transform?
Why not? Haven’t you been blathering about the “right” to designer children lo these many months? What business is it of yours if parents decide that they prefe non-gay children? Won’t they just go to China, India, or Korea to have the work done if we ban it here?
Are you incapable of remembering your own positions from one week to the next?
Oh, what you actually meant was “parents have the right to alter their children’s genome, as long as I, personally, agree with the outcome”? Fancy that.
For any leftoid trolls who happened to wander in: I don’t have any problem with gay people. I have gay and bi family members and friends who I love deeply (and I STRONGLY suspect, that given the human propensity for fucking anything that will hold still for it, that just about all of us would be “bisexual” to some degree or another, absent cultural conditioning). That’s not what we’re discussing here.
I find this comment interesting, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Ditto.
Apparently, it is a regular Soddom and Gommorah beneath the quiet, tranquil middle-class veneer.
Can I come to your next block party?
SGT Ted, would you concur that whilst sexuality itself isn’t simply a social construct of Western culture, the idea of sexual identity does stem from the marginalization of all but monogamous, heterosexual practice?
Just to clarify, by “sexual identity†I mean the need to identify as hetero- homo- bi- pan- or some other preface to “sexual†and for that self-identification to be inextricably tied to the individual as he or she is perceived by society.
I think the modern notion of “sexual identity” and its politics is a failure of a natural, somewhat biological minority to come to grips with its minority status. It is one thing to be different and to say “I’m not like you”. It’s another thing to then posit that the majority isn’t a natural state of being, but is merely a social construct, and a result of “false consciousness”, but that their own sexuality is not.
Then again, the sexual identity mvovement is neo-Marxist in that it applies the economic and class templates of traditional Marxism to sexuality and divides people into groups that are then pitted against each other.
I’m left-handed, as it happens. It’s been a recurring low-grade pain in the ass over the years.
Now, I don’t believe that being left-handed is morally wrong (although there are some cultures that do).
Nonetheless, if I could wave Jeff’s magic wand and ensure that my (putative) offspring were all right-handed, I’d be strongly tempted to do it.
homosexuality may simply be a naturally occuring variant of sexual orientation.
Well, that’s precisely the point, isn’t it?
IF we’re designing babies, then variants no longer ‘naturally occur’. It simply doesn’t matter anymore.
But, if you wish to cling to the theory [unproven] that teh ghey is somehow advantaged versus the majority of naturally occurring variants – hey, that’s cool, knock yourself out.
You mind me asking what we, as a species, would miss out on if teh ghey were gone? Seriously, this isn’t a rancorous request. I’ve my own ideas, but I’d like to hear yours, as its your stand and not mine.
You mind me asking what we, as a species, would miss out on if teh ghey were gone?
Well, it would be a lot harder to get a decent haircut.
(stolen from a gay friend)
Well, it would be a lot harder to get a decent haircut.
Niche behaviors. Yes, that’s one area. Could be that homosexuality is a niche reproductive strategy, too, but we too often forget that we’re animals. And…. that would make it choice, perhaps primed by genetic predisposition but choice nonetheless.
Spies – You all have an open invitation anytime you wish. I already offered to open up my humble abode to any that would like to get together this summer.
Spies – Being left handed dramatically increases their opportunities to become professional baseball players. Why would you deny that opportunity to your children?
#83: Awesome topic for an ethics class. I suppose that one would have to address whether the gay gene is a “wrong” gene or a gene similar to that which determines eye color or ass size.
If we are to conclude that being gay is similar to being blonde vs. brunette…then it would get filed under the “designer babies” debate where we argue whether people get to decide whether they want to abort or genetically redesign babies that don’t fit their specifications.
If we are to conclude that being gay is similar to being predisposed to a fatal disease….well then how can we condemn a couple for tweaking the genes of or aborting a fetus who carries a gene that we as a society have classified as equivalent to lieukemia?
Only at pitcher and in the outfield. I never got to play SS simply because I was left-handed and a bias against having to go across my body to get the grounder up the middle… No, not bitter or clingy at all.
But I did learn a number of years later that I’m right eye dominant, which explains why I was a fairly decent switch-hitter.
But being left-handed hasn’t had the same problems for me that some others experience. Maybe it’s because I learned to do so many things right-handed? (I tie my shoes right-handed, for instance.)
“If parents believe that homosexuality is likely to cause their offspring troubles in the future  troubles that can be preempted with gene therapy  why, from a pragmatic perspective, would they chance anything else?”
Because, just off the cuff:
1. the treatment might be imperfectly effective, have risks, even be personally risky to a parent if the “treatment” must be done before conception or during pregnancy.
2. Because the phenotype opportunity costs might be too high – what “features” come along with the “bugs” of same sex preference? Are these intrinsically bad enought tdestroy along with the “difficulty causing” parts? Are new, unanticipated problems possible?
Karl, thanks for the wiki link to the doll study. I remember that now.
i wanted to make a gay joke about sondheim, flat abs and liza minelli, but i am way too tired.
I swear I don’t understand Nishi. It’s not even that I don’t agree, its just that her–his?–points are so obtuse that I am at a loss to understand if someone is being rebutted or not.
i denounce myself for this failure, natch.
Not much for hypotheticals, huh SarahW?
Yeah I want to drop in on JD’s pad (with a pair of binoculars to check out his wife/husband swapping, switch-hitting neighbors).
Damn. No wonder JD and the better half go out “hunting” so much (they are really checking out the neighborhood swinger action through the rifle scope). His wife accidentally shot a Canadian Goose when she came across her neighbor Marge and her pedicurist in flagrante delicto.
I mean, statins are helpful in managing heart risks in some people with genes that predispose to high cholesterol. But they have costs and risks and not everyone opts for them, even if there might be benefit, it’s not a perfect benefit and there could be a steeper price to pay if things go wrong than the at-risk individual would choose.
#115: Someone sent me a joke essentially saying that the recent gay marraige ruling had the effect of substantially decreasing marraige proposals to Liza Minnelli.
Made me chuckle.
Londonistanamerican.
I think you have missed the point here. And you are also as dumb as a sack of hammers to come to PW, of all places, and spew stereotypes.
It’s safe to assume they’re not. Generally, nishi argues not against what someone said, but what her glue-huffing-induced hallucinations said.
Again, Sarah, you are being way too literal. Assume that the treatment via gene therapy has the same likelihood for problems as, say, Lasik surgery, and that the science is good enough that it can single out the “gay” gene(s).
This is, after all, a longterm hypothetical. Are people more or less likely to opt for statins (or, to use another example, inoculations?)
I find it amazing that people get so wound up over your posts on the future of homosexuality in the age of
genetic engineering. This doesn’t strike me as a controversial question at all, but rather an obvious one.
A few simple truths;
1. The vast majority of babies are produced by heterosexual couples
2. The average hetro couple would just assume their child be hetro as well.
3. It follows that to many heterosexuals the ‘homosexual’ gene would be considered less than desirable.
4. When designer genetic engineering allows for casual and affordable choices as to a baby’s
genetic make-up and suppression of undesirable traits (eye color, hair color, hereditary diseases, etc)
a certain percent of the population will opt not to produce children carrying a recessive male homosexual gene.
The suppression of the gene through genetic engineering plus the fact that as homosexuality becomes more and more common and accepted in our society, fewer homosexual men will see a need to ‘hide their sexuality’ with a cover
heterosexual relationship means less of the ‘gay’ gene will be passed to the next generation..
It seems to me to beg the question: Does genetic engineering signal the swan song for genetically driven homosexuality?
(assuming of course that the ‘gay’ gene is real in the first place..and homosexuality is not simply a preference or the result of a psychological abnormality like gender identity disorder)
mcgruder –
nishi’s a she.
Nobody’s being rebutted, exactly. She’s going past the limits of nature, so she thinks, and she’s not even exactly bigoted against ‘theocons’ etc. so much as viewing them as already surpassed.
Which hypothetical do you mean, Sdferr? The one where it was asked, what might dissuade loving parents concerned for the advantage of their own offspring, from manipulating with gene therapy, a sex-preference that could result in problems for that offspring?
Aren’t there rules about Ascended beings interfering with the natural order?
Besides, she’ll write it for anyone who wants to read it (which means actually reading her posts) that she’s a griefer and wants to get you wound up.
This is a complicated question. Which is why the drive-by lefties haven’t dealt with it at all, but instead have left comments to the effect that conservatives hate teh gays  which is completely at odds with the entirety of this thread and the positions expressed herein.
You constructed an entirely legitimate (non-bigoted, non-homophobic) thought experiment based on the hypothetical premise that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon which might be prevented or reversed in the future using genetic science.
IThe word you chose to describe the fact that homosexuality is atypical, less-common, or not-the-statistical-norm was “anomaly.” You then added a completely superfluous sentence to the post in order to hammer home the point that you were using this value-neutral word in a value-neutral way.
Inevitably, some jackass showed up at #30 to take out the word anomaly and replace it with “defect”, so that he or she could proceed to shoehorn you into the culture’s stereotype of “right-wingers” as homophobes. I totally understand your frustration.
My answer to the question posed by the post: I have not delved into the legal reasoning behind the recent California Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, but in general terms I believe that you are overstating the degree to which the logic of special protections for homosexuals depends on an assumption of immutability.
I think Nishi is right to assume that by the time the science gets here to make homosexuality a choice, our cultural attitudes towards it will have evolved to the point that society in general will want the state to protect homosexuals from discrimination even if they are perceived to have consciously selected their orientation.
OPersonally, I am sympathetic to this view, but as a libertarian I am opposed in principle to allowing the state to make protected classes out of any identity group. I would hope that as we evolve culturally towards full acceptance of different identity types we also evolve away from the concept of according special legal status to some groups over others.
A
On the line of changing the gay gene because you want to avoid trouble for your kid: That is still in the designer baby category. A child that was as smart as stephen hawking but looked like Michelle Pfeiffer would have a lot less trouble in life than a kid who is of mediocre intellect and looks like Rosanne Barr. We still would find it abhorrent to know that parents were aborting their kids because they were possibly going to be stupid fattypigfatties.
Now if you could make the argument that the kid was doomed because of their gay gene to a quality of life akin to living on a ventillator in a vegetative state…it would still be questionable ethically to abort. But it would be different than the former situation.
“Comment by Jeff G. on 6/20 @ 12:57 pm #
People are, in large part, morons. And I don’t much like them anymore. Some of my present company excluded.”
Thanks. For a few years now, I’ve considered myself “over the edge” for having that thought flash through my head more than occasionally.
#127: Excellent.
Referring to the sveltly challenged as “fattypigfatties” ???
How Un-PC of you..
The approved term is “FatFattyFat-Fat”… “Fatty McFat-Fat” is also acceptable.
urthshu, there is no way to answer the question ‘what would the human species qua species lose if gays were gone’. Among other things, you lose the genomes of an estimated 2 to 5% of the current world population? Who knows what potentially beneficial mutations, what fortuitous alleles lurk therein? For another thing you would never get an answer to the question ‘could homosexuality be a niche reproductive strategy’? That is a question I’d like to see seriously taken up.
#125: What about an Arab or Indian couple who want their kids not to be so “swarthy” looking to give them more advantages in life (these people spend BILLIONS of dollars on skin whitening products so if they could genetically make it happen before birth, they would).
#131: I really like Fatty McFatfat. Very nice, lol.
SarahW, I think Jeff’s 121 pretty much covered my meaning.
by the time the science gets here to make homosexuality a choice, our cultural attitudes towards it will have evolved to the point that society in general will want the state to protect homosexuals from discrimination
If we truly reach the point where we can design babies down to sexuality and behaviors, what need will society have to protect an antiquated tribe?
B/c here we enter the loop Jeff was talking about: There’s no need whatever for that except for moral obligations, which is the argument ‘theocons’, etc. have for opposing the design of humans/eugenics/etc.
Anyway “igtg” and all that.
JD, you’re a brave, brave man. The likelihood that I’ll be able to do any traveling this summer is pretty slim, but I’ll keep your invitation in mind.
On the baseball player thing, yeah, I think I’d trade the (small) chance of them becoming a pro baseball player for the (much larger) chance of them being able to find a friggin’ can opener that works.
I’m frustrated by the complaint that I’m too literal. You understand that the same genetic blips that are to be “corrected” would likely to affect more than one trait? And that genetic manipulations would almost necessarily affect not only, in isolation, sex preference but a host of other traits?
Homosexuality is SO likely to be multifactorial that I concede I do not like boiling the argument down to the near impossible. And even if relatively safe and “effective”, the costs could be to high in loss of advantageous traits.
But lets assume, for the sake of argement, there is a host of genes in play and 1 or two single factors can make all the difference – suppose, vaccination prior to pregnancy of infection that is the tipping point to homosexuality, or suppression of one particular stress hormone during pregnancy. Well, hells yeah, almost any mother would do that. But then, the genetic traits are not eliminated from the gene pool, only managed like rubella .
Lasik was your example. I would love to be able to see without vision correction. But the risks are too high for me. Actually, even in people who are better candidates, the risks with some procedures are undereported, nerve damage resulting in chronic dry-eye is one of the lesser known side-effects.
Some people will always go with the glasses. Or the contacts, or the crap vision over the body mod.
Lisa – As always, you are more than welcome to join everyone. I am certain that Cowboy, Lost My Cookies, alppuccino, and BJ will be coming for a visit. I can never get Dan to commit, even when I promise drunk leprechauns. Karl and Jeff are too big-time for us small people ;-)
urthshu, there is no way to answer the question ‘what would the human species qua species lose if gays were gone’. Among other things, you lose the genomes of an estimated 2 to 5% of the current world population? Who knows what potentially beneficial mutations, what fortuitous alleles lurk therein? For another thing you would never get an answer to the question ‘could homosexuality be a niche reproductive strategy’? That is a question I’d like to see seriously taken up.
Well, nishi didn’t take it up and I have to go, but I’ll say a coupla things…
-Homosexuality as a niche reproductive strategy could be as simple as [relatively stronger] males taking an active interest in the raising and protection of others’ [perhaps sibling’s] children. The behavior/predisposition could thus be inherited from males who stuck around monogamously after the birth of their offspring vs. males who roamed about for the next Neanderthal Fertile Myrtle.
-If gays were gone? The above might answer that, too.
OK, ttylkthxbye
Lisa: You beat me to the punch.. Couldnt this same discussion be had over the future of dark skinned races? Even among black people lighter shades are preferred. What will millions of balck couples opting for Halle Berry toned babies do to the future of the black race?
Spies – That whole notebook ring binder on the wrong side is a pain in the ass too. That, and getting ink on your hand when writing. The bastards had you in mind when they decided our language would be written left to right.
Ah, don’t be frustrated, just continue to be literal, we can take it.
I’ve seen that hypothesis, urthshu, and while having merit, doesn’t put the stamp of confirmed down on the question.
#141: My fingers have been hovering over the keyboard for 10 minutes trying to articulate that very thought.
This conversation COULD be interchanged with race. Though we generally think of race as value neutral these days on the surface: There are a lot of blacks who, if they could genetially ensure that their children had “good hair” and fair skin, they would do it in a minute (hell, they would try to engineer the kid to come out looking like Jessica Simpson if they could). This would not be because they hate their own race – but because they want their kid to have as many advantages and as few obstacles in life as possible.
Am I not saying this clearly enough? There IS no “magic” genetic tweak that will not come at some other cost, if what you are talking about is changing genetic sensitivity to hormones, which is very likely to be the case, nor will there ever be one. You can try to shoot everyone down some path of homogeneity of genome, and even get very pretty people, strong and smart – but I only think of my lovely line-bred collies that paid the price in other ways, when I say, going natural will always be chosen by some if there is ANY risk or ANY trade off.
Uh, wasn’t #127…you, actually, Lisa?
Gotta remember that one. Might try it myself.
JD,
IIRC, you’re in the Midwest, so if you do a pw mini-con, I would consider showing up, as long as I don’t have to wear the funny costumes.
I am not a costume kind of guy, Karl. Plus, I am scared of clowns. I am in Indianapolis, if that qualifies as the Midwest.
‘that gay people are entitled to be judged on their merits and not on the basis of outdated opprobrium, and that these beliefs should to a significant degree be reflected in law.’
Now, how can you judge ‘gay’ on their merits if anyone can say they’re gay?
Isn’t the point of this post, IF there is a gene identifying homosexual would not the designer baby market eliminate the ‘gay’ gene? In other words, why would parents want children who cannot produce grandchildren?
Further, there was a time when marriages were arranged (some cultures still practice arranged marriage), primarily to improve economic standing; how then did ‘genetic enginneering’ occur under those conditions?
“homosexuality may simply be a naturally occuring variant of sexual orientation.”
It IS a naturally occuring variant, but seems to have no evolutionary value, unless extinction is the goal.
As Sam Kinneson said “I just can’t imagine shoving my dick into a hairy asshole a screaming ‘I love you’!” I have nothing against anyone who is into that, but it just seems silly to me. I have many gay friends whose friendship I value very much, but when I say “NO”, I don’t want to be disregarded. THAT can tend to piss me off. I also tend to be turned off by gross public displays affected simply for shock value. And that goes for both “H”s – hetero- and homo-.
As I can’t stress enough, I am a Jerkist, and that’s the only “…ist” that I am.
Lisa, and do you doubt there would not be some parents who would absolutely, on principle, (leave alone questions of efficacy and safety), insist on transmitting their OWN genes, the way their bodies racked them up.
Loud and clear. No way, no how. Gottcha.
And, yet, still love their children, and try to give them advantages in other ways than straiter hair or fairer skin.
JD, give me the details, and if I can swing it financially (after sending Brendan to summer intensive language study in Beloit), I will come.
I am left handed but my father grilled writing underhand into me. He was pretty easy going in most things, but he was positively Franco-ish in his zeal to make sure our hand-writing and diction was perfect.
I can picture him sitting across from me at the table with a Kool hanging from the corner of his mouth, making me write random passages from books out, over and over (and then read them aloud, over and over….)
That shit pissed me off, but I am glad he did it. My sister’s and I can call each other fucking stupid bitches in perfectly enunciated English (or write it with lovely handwriting).
Uh, wasn’t #127…you, actually, Lisa?
I noticed that the number references seem to be off in several of Lisa’s posts.
Since she doesn’t seem to be losing it, I conjecture that there’s some active troll-whacking going on which is causing the posts to be renumbered from time to time.
I’ve no doubt, which is why we have people who don’t inoculate.
The premise, though, has to do with an aggregate. Surely you’d concede that, should the tradeoffs prove to be worth it to those who take the leap, increasingly, more people will take the leap. And then we begin getting to the point where those who “go natural” — like fringe eaters or Christian Scientists — will be looked upon as a kind of BIOLUDDITE by a society accustomed to design. After all, what’s a little predisposition to manboobs when the tradeoff is not suffering the perceived societal discomfort of being a homosexual?
Remember, I’m using nishi’s premises, here. At what point, then, does society no longer accept that they “have to accept your right to X” when in fact X is something that you have, in effect, chosen?
This is the ethical and legal question at the heart of the matter — or at least, it is one of them.
#147: Heh! No I thought it was a post by someone named “Aldo”. It was very well reasoned and articulated.
But I would totally post dialogue between my own posts if I were bored enough. Luckily, this blog is not boring.
I am not a costume kind of guy, Karl.
But what about your lesbo-MILF neighbors? That’s what I want to know.
Also, does your neighborhood have a Mrs. Sugartits*reg;, Midwest Division contest?
Ahh… new laptop.
143 – I’ve seen that hypothesis, urthshu, and while having merit, doesn’t put the stamp of confirmed down on the question.
Agreed. Do you know where it fails? It argues that gays reproduce through the agency of weird uncles. LOL
Ahem. Everybody knows gays reproduce via furtive old men in malls with nervous, cold hands.
TLD, there is a recent paper I know of proposing, that genetic traits for male homosexuality ( no correlate to female same sex attraction is proprosed) are transmitted through the female line, and that the females carrying these traits tend to produce more children, that is, they have a higher fecundity rate. Moreover, their offspring are not all homosexual. The apparent evolutionary “dead end” of homosexuality may actually be outweighed by the advantage conveyed in the fecundity of the females.
I should link that, to prevent my giving a false impression of the study or its findings. back in a sec
Make that a Mrs. Sugartits®, Midwest Division.
Stupid right-handed keyboard. Yeah, that’s my story.
Sarah most parents would not want to alter their kid in that way. But some would. The same crowd that puts lemon juice on their kid’s face at night and frets over their overly nappy locks (way too many of those types for my comfort).
Lemon juice on the face? Any capers? Because if so, I’d say all they’re trying to do is perfect a slow cooker version of Veal Piccata.
Okay, more ab and core work. The quarters aren’t going to bounce themselves off my midsection.
#147: Heh! No I thought it was a post by someone named “Aldoâ€Â. It was very well reasoned and articulated.
Thank you! (I am only a figment of your imagination)
I should link that, to prevent my giving a false impression of the study or its findings. back in a sec
Nishi and I have been discussing that study at the pub. You can find a link there.
TLD –
Link to PLoS ONE: Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality
And an article about the paper in the lay press ( Science Daily) here
Sara
I think what is missing in this whole thread is the fact that single genes do not necessarilly account for biological outcomes. It is usually much more complicated than that, and the interplay of genes seems to be of more importance than single genes.
BTW SarahW, you are being too literal for this post. Jeff was hypothetically postulating the genetic engineering assumptions in order to get at legal/civil rights issues, and you are still stuck on trying to work out how the (hypothetical) genetic engineering would work.
LD, it isn’t missing, Sarah has been laying it out there time and again. And she’s right to do it. But that doesn’t get to the level of generality Jeff’s hypothetical drives to, see 157 “At what point, then, does society no longer accept that they “have to accept your right to X†when in fact X is something that you have, in effect, chosen?”
I feel it would be wise to demure to Scott McClellan’s vagina on this issue.
Sorry to be repetitive Aldo.
Take ‘feets demurer and add Eisenhower’s suggestion ‘if you have a problem you can’t get your hands around, make it bigger.’
Well, if science were able to wave the magic wand and make me straight today, I probably would decline the gift. I have accepted my life as it is. I am very conservative, probably in the top 5% of voters nationwide. I have no desire whatsoever to ‘marry’ my same sex partner of 20 years, despite living in Massachusetts.
Now if I had been able to to be ‘cured’ when I was a teenager, I would have snapped that up in a hot second. So I must be one of those “self-loathing” Republican gays that one hears about.
I hereby denounce myself!
LC, my question is, do you want a baby (or two or three)?
I can see that Jeff G, like extremists everywhere, only wants to hear from people who agree with him. I don’t agree with you, Jeff, so I’ll leave you to your echo chamber to listen to your echoes. Have a good day.
Yeah, skeedaddle nitwit.
I can see that Jeff G, like extremists everywhere, only wants to hear from people who agree with him.
Yes, we can all see that everyone in this thread is agreeing with Jeff.
Are you stupid, illiterate, or both?
Tard.
Sdferr, I got my baby boy 26 years ago. The old fashioned way. With my (ex)wife. Would I want to make a kid or adopt one with my partner now? Probably not. As much as militant leftist gays like to say our relationships are exactly the same as straights, I don’t think they are. For me, it’s more like having a best friend that you sleep with, than a spouse.
Again, I denounce myself.
LC, the other question I have is, given the ‘magic wand’ and since it works in the one direction it must also work in the other, would I have it waved over myself in order to become attracted to my own sex? This, I would maintain, under the hypothetical, is a distinct possibility.
would I have it waved over myself in order to become attracted to my own sex?
Or perhaps have waved it in order to become attracted by both, thus doubling one’s chances of having a date for Saturday night. Also a distinct possibility.
To explore a little further, if I may, I believe many people think that the urge to procreate is simply missing in gay people. I myself do not know, don’t particularly believe it (guess it to be false), and suspect that the proposition is simply not true: that in fact many if not most gay men want children, same as heteros, to say nothing of a stronger if not comparable drive in lesbians.
What do you think about this?
Aldo, I’m saying even if it would possibly work, that it would not change everything.
One, because many people would reject such a treatment out of hand. I don’t give up on the argument that they would reject such a treatment because it would be imperfect, but assuming it was fairly reliable and fairly safe there would still accrue no obligation to avail oneself of it and a long list of other reasons not to do it.
But assuming most did avail themselves of it. There might be social pressures increasing on those who reject that sort of manipulation. A reduced population of homosexual individuals, who then lose society with like-minded individuals.
The thesis seems to be, if I’m stating it correctly, that society would lose interested in these individuals as deserving status as a protected class because the argument that “they choose that lifestyle” will have come full circle.
First problem with that – the case is more like others will have made the determination for them when they themselves were not able to make such a choice for themselve. Individuals left to be all naturally gay, will not then be able to choose away their phenotype as adults.
If parents can choose the gayness away, it doesn’t follow that Gay individuals choose their traits, they take the hand that is dealt them.
Second problem – I dont for one minute accept that law about special protections for Gay persons is or every should be – or ever will be – contingent on whether homosexuality is chosen or thrust upon a person by chance.
SBP, remember the old joke about the nun rushing to the mother superior, breathlessly intoning, Mother, Mother, there’s a case of syphilis in the convent! And the Mother Superior replies ‘O, good! I was getting so tired of that Fresca.’
And you can see quite plainly that I have not had any sort of successful LASIK procedure. Because of the HYPOPYON!
#80 – Karl
The Court admitting that an earlier Court was wrong on a big issue would advance the argument of what is to be done when the Court comes to an unConstitutional decision? Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessey would have been sufficient if the Brown Court had admitted that the majority in Plessey got it wrong and that the dissent was correct, and that reviewing the history since the Plessey decision demonstrates the correctness of the dissent. That is actually done in state court decisions, but again, those decisions usually do not impact such a basic area of society (I have seen it in utility law cases, and the general public does not follow those cases with quite the same level of interest, nor do those decisions usually impact on Constitutional law). As a short-term tactic Brown worked, but the Plessey dissent would have been better for the long-term.
I don’t know about the urge to procreate. I certainly was terrified when I found out my wife was pregnant, but mostly because I didn’t want to have another person dependent on me in what was already kind of a lie. But that’s not the same thing (and my son turned out to be the greatest blessing in my life!) that you are talking about.
It seems many, many more gay couples are having and/or adopting
than they used to. I think that may be a reflection of how much more accepting of it society is now. Back in the 80’s, it was very uncommon for gay couples to have kids, unless it was ‘legacy’ kids from earlier hetero relationships. If pressed, I’d bet the percentage of gays wanting offspring in is close to that of the general population.
‘Others making the determination for them’ is the most likely scenario, to be sure. In which case, all things being copacetic, the never-having-been never know what it would have meant to have been otherwise.
I’m curious to see if Predict It could, if given twenty tries, point out my “extremism.”
In point of fact, s/he has no idea what this thread is about, I’m guessing.
Back to that “most people are morons” thing, and the “it’s useless to have debates on blogs. Or in universities” thing, too.
Is deafness not a “naturally occurring†variant of hearing?
no, it is an impairment or absense of hearing.
nothing like the spectrum of sexual orientation.
I dont for one minute accept that law about special protections for Gay persons is or every should be – or ever will be – contingent on whether homosexuality is chosen or thrust upon a person by chance.
WiseSarah.
the Yuck factor is in operation.
ima read this and answer each point. it may take me a bit.
If hearing is an impairment, nishi — a handicap — what do you make of claims by the militant deaf community that they have a “right” to produce, using their own brand of genetic selection, impaired children? It is a cultural argument they are making, one connected to identity.
Should the state be able to step in to prevent this? Why or why not?
By the way, that you all for agreeing with me (though I haven’t taken a position) to the tune of coming up on 200 comments. That’s a lot of affirmation, baby! HATERS UNITE!
Thanks for the thoughtful reply LC. I grew up a church singer as a kid in the 60’s-70’s. In those days many of my directors and vocal coaches (and their friends and colleagues) were married gay men, almost all with children, most with more than one child. Some would eventually divorce but not as quickly as people today seem to do. And they had to all appearances good lives going on. These men would be in their 80’s or older today I guess.
#83 – Jeff:
To run with your deaf culture analogy – let us suppose that a deaf couple were tohave a child, and the child was determined to be able to hear. Now what? Could they insist on aborting that baby, or could they insist that gene therapy be applied to make that child deaf?
The first seems to be allowed under abortion laws as they now stand, but could the second be allowed? In order to preserve “deaf culture” a hearing-destined child could be modified to make him deaf?
That question, I think goes beyond the ‘can we do it’ argument and falls into the ‘should we do it’ argument. And arguments could be made each way supporting the genetic modification or not. Yet, society, at some point, will make a decision based on ‘should we do it’, and that argument will bear on ethics and morality, no matter how much matoko wants to dismiss that argument out of hand.
‘Can we do it’ is a mere matter of skill and technology and goes without saying. ‘Should we do it’ is where the argument always falls, and dismissing it with a claim that because we can we should, or that we should formulate a new set of ethics to permit the ‘can’ is not answering the question. we exist with the society we have – we can advocate change, but there are no guarantees that change will come or if it does how fast that will be. The hard work of convincing people that the ‘should’ argument is correct frequently leads advocates to short-cut the convincing the public part and go for a governmental-power solution, imposing from the top down.
This patient explaining is something matoko does not want to do – it is hard work; it invovles compromising, it invovles taking arguments against with the seriousness of formulating a reply. That is why I see her as having totalitarian tendencies. She does not want to explain and convince, she wants to do, and if others object, then just ram it through over the objections.
Addendum to 194. Not that I would claim to know whether their wives were happy about the situation. At a guess, meh, probably not. On the other hand, the children were talented, well schooled, well fed, the bills were all paid, the got to worry about nuclear war with the rest of us and they and lousy sex lives, what’s new?
It makes a decided difference, I think, Sarah. If homosexuality is a choice, then, for instance, Darleen’s frequent argument that homosexuals have the same “right” to marry, under the current definition of marriage, as everyone else, becomes much stronger. That homosexuals, under that description, instead “choose” to couple with a person of the same sex, is a choice that keeps them from being able to enter into “marriage” as it has always been understood.
If homosexuality is something innate, than that particular argument against same sex marriage is significantly weakened.
Mikey —
See 192.
sarah, you are thinkin of evolution, which operates as guess and test, not the deliberate excision or in insertion, the deliberate switchin on and off of loci.
there won’t be the same sideeffects.
urthshu, consider myopia or peanut allergy.
in the EEA those traits were likely sometimes fatal. we have removed the selection gradient.
as we have removed the selection disadvantage of non-reproduction from homosapiens homosexualis.
i have heard of the uncle niche theory–it may play more into sexual antagonism theory than gaygerm. i linked that up thread.
The case of Buck v Bell illustrates where society had made a ‘should’ decision when the ‘can’ be came possible. And that case should be set up as a warning to all ‘should’ people – you may be wrong, and the Law of Unintended Consequences applies to all of the best-laid plans of mice and men.
Should the state be able to step in to prevent this? Why or why not?
in a libertarian society the parents own their bodies and their germ plasm. the state cannot interfere.
but parents deliberatly maiming their own children should not expect monetary compensation from the state.
like deciding to bear a Downs, and then hitting the state for social security benefits.
it is like how the beggar guilds would deliberately maim their young apprentices in the middle ages.
And if the parents decide to have the children anyway, and then can’t pay…the children suffer? Even though they had no say in how they were born?
What, they should wait until they’re 18 and then vent on Springer?
but sexual orientation harms no one, and doesn’t require welfare.
like the lilies of the field.
#111 – interesting. I am right-handed for everything – except throwing a frisbee. With that I am left-handed.
Odd, what?
Only rich people, then, can have Downs babies — many of whom have a very good quality of life. The poor should simply snuff that shit out. After all, who are they to be parents.
Got it.
in a libertarian society the parents own their bodies and their germ plasm. the state cannot interfere.
So you’re saying that you do, in fact, support the right of parents to abort and/or genetically alter their children to ensure that they’re not gay.
Uh, what if the gay person doesn’t want to be gay?
then the children should be removed from an abusive situ, Jeff.
personal responsibility ;)
i read a Vonnegut short short story a when i was young….children were allowed to sue their parents at 18 for negligence, both over environment and genetics.
it was a method of population control.
do you know anyone with Downs Jeff?
Removed from the abusive situation and THEN get government aid. So you’re not against the government aid, just against the parents being there when it’s put to use.
Why not just put a pillow over the kids’ heads and save the state some money, then?
My neighbor teaches Downs kids.
So you’re saying that you do, in fact, support the right of parents to abort and/or genetically alter their children to ensure that they’re not gay.
(sound of crickets chirping quietly in the night)
and we are discussing the future.
where someone might deliberately inflict Downs or congenital deafness on their child?
right now the only choice is to bear or not to bear.
its fine for the state to give aid in a nonpreventable situ.
nishi: Is it, or is it not, acceptable in your scientist-king utopia for a parents to choose what sexual orientation their children will have?
It’s a simple question.
Mikey,
I agree completely that doctrinally, the Brown Court would have been better off just going with Harlan’s dissent in Plessy — which is why in my initial comment I wrote that the 14th amendment really had it covered. That social studies were thrown in to discredit Plessy was (imho) a purely political move for the Court. Just as Warren demanded unanimity in Brown for political reasons, it seems that the Brown Court did not want to be pointing out the Court’s fallibility in an opinion they knew was going to be as controversial as Brown was at the time. And on a political level, I understand it. But it was another step toward the Court becoming less willing to admit its own fallibility even as it became more willing to overturn democratically enacted law in controversial areas. Brown had the correct outcome, but became a political precedent for later mischief.
With regard to “people are morons” let me state what I told my Torts professor back in 1993.*
“By definition, half the people in this country are dumber than the other half.”
I didn’t get any good points for that observation.
*The case example was a guy who reached across the frame of a dump truck whose bed was stuck in the raised position. He pulled on the hydraulic hoses and one came loose. Result: One very dead guy. And a decision that said the manufacturer should have put a sticker telling people to put up the safety pole before doing that.
Jeff you are confusing spacetime.
in the future Downs would be deliberate.
do you think Downs is the same as sexual orientation for quality of adult life?
nishi: Is it, or is it not, acceptable in your scientist-king utopia for a parents to choose what sexual orientation their children will have?
It’s a simple question.
We were certainly not talking about a Downs culture. Deaf culture and identity, yes. Downs?
Come now. Where was that possibility even broached. I’m not confusing spacetime. You are backpedaling.
Is not aborting a Down’s baby your idea of something that was “preventable”?
wrote the griefer who is all too keen to proffer science-fiction as a test-drive of the future — when it suits her
lulz
SBP
yup.
but i think nearly all parents will chose the best genetic enhancements they can afford for their offspring.
sexual orientation probably won’t peg as high as a lot of other things.
Maybe they can get it in a package deal, nishi: Buy two genetic upgrades, get a third for free!
How far does the manner or technique of choice determine our view of the morality of the choice made? For instance, supposing that we will know how to scan a blastomere cell for desired and undesired traits, a choice made at that level is ‘positive’ in choosing this one right here (which has a ‘deafness’ gene), but an implied ‘negative’ to that one over there (which does not have a ‘deafness’ gene). This strikes me as somehow different from the act of inserting a gene or genes (that code for deafness) into an egg in order to obtain a deaf child.
Again, with Downs syndrome, choosing a non-Downs Blastomere to implant strikes me as quite different from aborting a Downs fetus. Or am I nuts?
>I?If hearing is an impairment, nishi  a handicap  what do you make of claims by the militant deaf community that they have a “right†to producing, using their own brand of selection, impaired children? It is a cultural argument they are making, one connected to identity.
It’s also connect to denial.
But it’s a chance you;re willing to take, eh? You crypto-homophobic eugenicist, you.
well Karl, many possible scenarios have played out in scifi.
Have you read Altered Carbon?
sure Jeff, in the future parents mich choose to inflict deafness. i doubt they would choose to inflict Downs.
Downs kids are adorable.
like kittens that will never grow up.
i know a young man that is 30 with Downs.
his quality of life has been pretty awful since puberty.
he would have like to have a girlfriend and and a wife and a family.
sexual orientation probably won’t peg as high as a lot of other things.
I think you’re huffing paint thinner again.
Or hadn’t you noticed that your opinions are…er…somewhat at variance with those of society as a whole?
#155 Lisa – I can remember penmanship drills and how I hated them, and having to practice for hours over Christmas vacation, but I can write clearly in cursive. I cannot match my dad who, after over thirty years as a teacher, can write in cursive so beautifully that it is a joy to read. Penmanship is a wonderful skill to have, and I mourn its passing. Beauty for the sake of beauty (and clarity).
I do find it funny in the interesting (not ha-ha) sense that girls usually have better penmanship than boys. I did four and a half years as a substitute teacher, and the difference was noticeable.
Have you read Altered Carbon?
I have. Preposterous, pretentious, and poorly-written.
The science was absurd as well.
I have Altered States on DVD. Widescreen. Does that count?
Penmanship is cool, but it’s too late for me. Save yourselves.
No, #177, he wants you to consider the implications and take them down a long term road.
So far as I understand a hypothetical. “Imagine A; then assuming B, what would the result be? Please show all work.”
well..that is exactly the kind of things that should be discussed, SGT Ted. i dont think the state can force totalitarian eugenics on citizens.
but in the future, the state might pay for gene therapy for the disadvantaged, or like in Pandora’s Star, you might buy an insurance policy to pay for germline enhancement or rejuvenenation.
some sects might reguard gene therapy as against their religion, and categorically refuse it. freedom of religion.
there is a whole spectrum of variants.
i dont know the answers, IANAL, heh, but i think a healthy discussion is wunnerful.
Dan – I will email you tonight. Would love to have you visit.
LC – Serious question. Why a hetero marriage if you knew you were gay?
Mikey NTH, when I was a TA I used to grade a lot of tests. I could almost always tell if the student in question was male or female without looking at the name, simply by the handwriting quality.
BTW, mine is atrocious, and the advent of computers has saved me.
#198 Jeff – I was commenting as I was reading through the thread. I just got to your comment #198 now.
I could have read everything before commenting, but I did different this time. Now I have to read #199 on to here.
May be back soon – if I find something I want to bloviate on. I’m good with bloviation – and bombast too!
I have. Preposterous, pretentious, and poorly-written.
The science was absurd as well.
Oh, add “derivative” to that. Every single one of Morgan’s themes were mined out decades ago by John Varley (who is a much better writer to boot).
Jeff yyou said–
Only rich people, then, can have Downs babies
in the future, when Downs would be a deliberate choice.
kinda like breeding a pet?
Every single one of Morgan’s themes were
I preemptively denounce myself for that disagreement between subject and verb.
Morgan really does suck ass, though.
#201 matoko – but we are not in a libertarian society. You have to argue based on the society you are in, not the one that would be most conducive to what you propose. And that means taking the hard road and convincing sufficient numbers that you are right; or going straight to a governmental imposition. Based on society as it is, that is what you have to do; and you do not argue that way.
/shrug
in Altered Carbon catholics refuse to be “resleeved”(downloaded into a new body) so they live only one life. they all have do not resleeve orders. so do muslims. Meths rule earth society, the richfolk who have lived dozens of lives.
it is going to be a movie.
these are interesting topics to me.
Altered Carbon catholics refuse to be “resleevedâ€Â(downloaded into a new body) so they live only one life.
So? What makes you think those issues haven’t been explored dozens of times before, by better writers than Morgan?
I like Morgan quite a bit.
Can’t you see Jesusland happening SBP?
hey dan, regarding your comment in post #38, i’m assuming you must not get it very often if that’s how you go about it. if you want to make passes at me then please make sure to include a face and full-body pic. thanks.
education guy, in your post 44 you make a typical mistake. biology explains why male-female couplings produce offspring. biology does not explain in any way why anyone would find that pleasurable, nor why some people find only that kind of sexual contact pleasurable.
I like Morgan quite a bit.
That would because you’re a naive child who’s only recently graduated from Sweet Valley High novels.
Recipe for Morgan:
1) Take one part each stolen plots from Varley, Heinlein, Gibson, and Mickey Spillane.
2) Add one heaping dollop of hackneyed rhetorical tricks (gleaned from an undergrad creative writing workshop).
3) Garnish with pretentiousness.
4) Serve before the stench of the resulting turd becomes overwhelming.
thoratlas, i think you are spot-on in your post 45.
#215 – Karl
I wasn’t disagreeing with you (so I thought) but expanding on the politcal climate, and what would happen if the Court provided fodder for a discussion on what to do if the Court comes to an unConstitutional decision (which in my opinion Plessey was). We now have another Court case Boumedaine(sp?) in which it could be argued that the Court made another unConstitutional decision. What is to be done about that? Create a correction mechanism that the other two branches can use, or just ignore the unConstitutionality (as we do now) and hope it goes away eventually?
That is why the Court usually decides cases on any basis it can before tackling a Constitutional question. Judicial review is fragile and could be thwarted if the other two branches had sufficient support to do so.
I was just blathering on in my professional area.
Can’t you see Jesusland happening SBP?
No, I can’t, actually, any more than I can believe in Margaret Atwood’s ridiculous scenario in The Handmaid’s Tale.
I will admit that (unlike Morgan) Atwood can write. She just can’t write anything believable.
Believable? I don’t know about that, but Lady Oracle is a great novel.
Face and full body pic? You’re a slave to acculturation, you are.
jeff g, post 49. actually i’ve always been surprised at how often politics tends to get cast in terms of biology and naive biological metaphors. conservatives used not to do that, but it seems clear that on this thread a number of people arfe doing so. it seems a pointless ploy when indulged in by leftists or those on the right. i always thought conservatives had more common sense than leftists, but clearly that’s not the case.
i think it’s plain stupid and unimaginative to try to use “science” or biology to determine some political or legal position. i don’t give a toss whether something is biologically determined or not – and when it comes to things that are heavily freighted with psychological and moral meaning why would anyone even care?
Oh. It’s been a long day. A long week really, so I bailed for like twenty minutes and went to the patio on another floor and sat in the heat with a Java Monster and some chocolate chip cookies that girl who runs the lunch counter makes and also had a couple smokes and it hit me that what it would be wise to do is to demur to Scott McLellan’s vagina on this issue. Demure makes no sense at all. I musta gotten thrown off cause I was picturing it in my head when I was writing that. I’m glad we could clear this up.
Lemon juice on the face? Any capers? Because if so, I’d say all they’re trying to do is perfect a slow cooker version of Veal Piccata.
LOL.
So, LondonAmerican The ‘Global Warming’ bug-a-boo, for instance?
and it hit me that what it would be wise to do is to demur to Scott McLellan’s vagina on this issue. Demure makes no sense at all. I musta gotten thrown off cause I was picturing it in my head when I was writing that. I’m glad we could clear this up.
Can’t figure out what conversation string that goes to, but it is an extremely funny sentence.
Go to 172, Lisa
Believable? I don’t know about that, but Lady Oracle is a great novel.
Which is why it is a novel. Of course, reality trumps the imagination of most novelists anyhow.
Took me two hours to get to the end of this thread, but well worth it.
On another thought – the idea of ‘free market genetic engineering’ would permit the creation of a deaf baby for a deaf couple who wish to propogate ‘deaf culture’. According to matoko if it ‘can’ be done it ‘should’ be permitted. Why is that a good thing? Why should a society permit that decision of the parents?
Avoiding the ‘should’ argument allows the state to intervene, without question, and regulate. And if a couple goes elsewhere to have the genetic engineering they want done, could the state also decide that such an act is a crime and those parents can not return without facing penalties, up to having the child removed from their custody, if not a forced abortion carried out?
The ‘should’ argument is the sticking point, and that is the argument matoko avoids; yet it is the argument that must be addressed thoroughly.
53, biological determinism may explain why sensations on the penis or clitoris feel good. but heterosexuality as practiced in the us (the insistence on engaging in only one set of pleasurable activities) can’t be explained by biology unless we assume that the vast majority of people in all places and times are somehow biologically “defective” (and how could that be)? when dan indulges his masturbatory fantasies he’s being anything _but_ heterosexual. he’s just focusing on his own cock.
252, well of course i’m acculturated dan. it would be impossible to even have this kind of crappy banter if we weren’t both acculturated. why on earth would you think anyone would deny that obvious fact?
Well, haps, demur is one word and demure is another. To pass on the argument is one thing, but you do not have to be shy to do so.
Because the courts seem to, first of all.
It’s happened with cases of “race” (based on bad science), and now it is happening with homosexuality. So I guess I care because laws can and will be crafted based on bad science, or on a misunderstanding of what that science implies — and I’d like to get the conversation started in advance of such laws.
“jeff g, post 49. actually i’ve always been surprised at how often politics tends to get cast in terms of biology and naive biological metaphors. conservatives used not to do that, but it seems clear that on this thread a number of people arfe doing so. it seems a pointless ploy when indulged in by leftists or those on the right. i always thought conservatives had more common sense than leftists, but clearly that’s not the case.
i think it’s plain stupid and unimaginative to try to use “science†or biology to determine some political or legal position. i don’t give a toss whether something is biologically determined or not – and when it comes to things that are heavily freighted with psychological and moral meaning why would anyone even care?”
Well how plain stupid and unimaginative are you? Have a pint or two, and toss off!
Demur is the opposite of what most commenters here do; demure is a description that does not fit most commenters here. “In Your Face” would cover most commenters here, adequately.
# 70, actually i know plenty of conservatives – those of the paleo persuasion mostly. most are prety nihilistic once you scratch the skin.
londonamerican, you make a great deal of fuss about minor variations on a theme, largely exhausted by the time of the Kama Sutra. Masturbatory fantasies aren’t all that cock-o-centric; if they were, there would be little use for the fantasy part. But I think you already know all of this, and don’t care much about the facts, because they don’t conduce very well to your POV, and your argument boils down to “cultural determinism for thee, but not for me,” which is as tedious as it is tendentious, you radical, edgy, fringedweller, you.
#263 – actually I am better at this after having a pint or two. Must be the Anglo-Scots in me coming through. Genes, and all that.
*ahem*
Doesn’t I don’t give a toss mean approximately the same thing as I give a toss? I find this very confusing.
t’s happened with cases of “race†(based on bad science), and now it is happening with homosexuality. So I guess I care because laws can and will be crafted based on bad science, or on a misunderstanding of what that science implies.
Hell to the yeah. It may or may not be stupid or unimaginative, but to brush it off blithely would be foolish. If everyone doesn’t examine the science and its possible implications, then we leave it to the cranks to examine. And they always do such a great job drawing societal implications from genetics don’t they…
Oh. Thanks, Mikey. But for sure I would never ever use the phrases “Scott McClellan’s vagina” and “in your face” in proximity to one another. That would be wrong.
# 70, actually i know plenty of conservatives – those of the paleo persuasion mostly. most are prety nihilistic once you scratch the skin.
Do you have any upcoming motivational seminars?
since some of the research shows that gay men typically have larger cocks than straight men (seems true enough in my experience) and cock size is usually determined by levels of androgens while in utero, i’m hoping that at least one of the therories about the “causes” (the one that posits that gay men develop in uteruses with _too little_ androgens floating around) of being queer is put to the test by elevating the levels of androgens in a control group of fetuses in utero.
i think it would be fantastic for scientists to develop a race of donkey-dicked uber-gays by mistake.
That’s very broad minded of you, and you’ll have to send me a copy of the movie when it goes directly to DVD.
cock size is usually determined by levels of androgens while in utero
See for me that’s just a very jump the shark moment with respect to this thread. It’s very unfortunate.
#150, i’m with you. no hairy butthole for me either. they’ve gotta be shaved and smooth. on the other hand, i can’t imagine sticking my cock in a hairy vagina and screaming “i love you” either. and does anyone actually scream that when they cum anyway?
255, i’m sorry but i’m not sure what you are referring to?
#235 – cranky-d:
It is odd, isn’t it? That such a fine motor skill seems to come out in girls more than boys? Of course, the penchant for the girls to make the dots above their “i’s” look like little circles or hearts was a dead giveaway. :)
Believable? I don’t know about that, but Lady Oracle is a great novel.
Haven’t read that one, Dan, but on your recommendation I’ll check it out.
As I said, I didn’t have any problem with Atwood’s writing, per se.
I can swallow a lot of stuff in fiction. Wizards. Trolls. Sapient whales that engage in mutual vendettas with monomaniacal sea captains. Honest politicians.
A world where the U.S. is ruled by a totalitarian government of what nishi would call “theocon patriarchy daddies”, but somehow Canada is still just fine? Couldn’t handle it. It really interferes with the flow of the novel to be saying “Oh, COME ON!” every two pages or so.
266. dan, i don’t know what you may be thinking of when you pull your pud. _but_ whatever you think of, it’s clear that making yourself cum through your own hand hardly fits the definition of heterosexuality. that’s one of the reasons why dr freud had such a problem with it – especially in adults.
Hf, I hope this isn’t alarming or anything but I wrote a tone poem/jingle with you in in today . It had the word “perspicacity” in it.
I’d like to go on to the Pinky Tuscadero episodes of the convo, but I’m pretty out of it with fever and flank pain. I sent my husband out to get me a chocolate ice. and when it gets back I’m going to recline.
262, jeff g. so what if the courts use that reasoning? that doesn’t make it right or interestimg. it just means that’s the rhetoric used in courts.
#268 – haps:
I could care less isn’t the same as I couldn’t careless. The latter is the floor, so to speak, the former implies that there is still a level of not caring that could reach. So the former means that you care, if only slightly.
See for me that’s just a very jump the
sharkdonkey moment with respect to this thread. It’s veryunfortunatebestial.It’s Friday, he’s drunk, and the animals want it anyway!
. I sent my husband out to get me a chocolate ice.
Damn, just remembered that we have Ben and Jerry’s in the freezer.
Their politics may suck, but those hippies make some righteous ice cream.
Thank you! Feel better, Sarah. It’s going to be a wicked hot weekend here is all I know. Hope it’s better where you are.
“…i think it’s plain stupid and unimaginative to try to use “science†or biology to determine some political or legal position…”
And the global warming campaign is not science based? How about Ed Wilson’s species diversity preservation campaign? Anti-logging efforts in the Pacific Northwest over spotted owls? Polar Bears being considered for placement on the endangered species list? The endangered species list itself? Not based on science? Banning the use of DDT? Not science based? Of course you know this list could go on for page upon page.
#271 – haps:
Thanks; I just got worked over for a brief I wrote and I thought I was making perfect sense when I wrote it. Apparently (and upon reflection) I did not. The brief got filed, but I am now trying to be extra-careful when I write. The working over was pretty gentle; very much in the ‘constructive criticism’ field; but my errors were still pointed out, and I do not like making those kind of errors.
That should have been #270 – see what I mean about errors?
Freud? Gee, and I was told that he was a discredited patriarchalist.
266. dan: you are throwing around the kind of talking points i’d expect from melanie klein. what do you mean “cultuiral determinism” for thee but not for me? and do you think i consider myself or care whether i am a radical? that’s 1funny.
i just don’t believe in big overarching theories that have little going for them besides well-rehearsed rhetoric and wishful thinking.
289. dan, please don’t tell me you’ve gone all feminist on me now!
Well, let’s retrench a bit, then. What exactly do you consider to be culturally determined about the category of “heterosexuality”?
268. don’t worry. they mean about the same. which isn’t much.
283. roboc: enjoy your symptoms!
286. sdferr: well, you won’t get any argument from me on that. science can’t ever determine what is the right political position. even if they were able to determine that global warming is real and that it is man-made (which they haven’t, especially the second part of that), that still wouldn’t tell you anything about what if anything should be done about it.
_that_ decision would be political, not scientific, and would have everything to do with what people believe, want (both stated and unstated) and are willing to do to get what they want.
— which, when you’re holding a thread that redounds to legality, how we get there, and the potential unintended consequences of legal reasoning, seems to me to be rather important to introduce.
If you don’t find the topic interesting, find something else to do. If you don’t find it “right” that the courts would hold such a position, then it’s a wonder why you wouldn’t take an interest.
Me, I find the question interesting. Which is why I posed it. Here. On my blog.
JeffG wrote:
You disagree with Predict It’s views, therefore you are an icky awful extremist. Probably a poopy-head too. QED.
;-)
#281 referencing to #297.
See Buck v Bell, and then consider that decision in light of what society can do when the ‘should’ question is asked and answered after ‘can’ is made possible. The society will make the decision on should – that is what the cold record of history says, and that cite is not refutable.
300!
sarah, you are thinkin of evolution, which operates as guess and test, not the deliberate excision or in insertion, the deliberate switchin on and off of loci.
there won’t be the same sideeffects.
Do you know that? Switching one thing off in one gene may impact other genes. Humans are very complicated beings, and that is why caution must always be exercised, not just retreating to the castle on the crag and tapping the lightning storm.
293. dan: firstly, i haven’t been throwing around ideas about what “determines” anything. don’t assume that because i am not a biological reductionist that i therefore believe in some kind of absolute cultural determinism (as if that cvould somehow be apart from nature). that would make even less sense, since culture is created by people living in the world.
i do think that people who go about heterosexuality being the only biologically-correct option contradict themselves at every turn. if sexuality is only about reproduction then there’s no need for it to be pleasurable – it could be reflexive, compulsive and even unpleasant or painful – as long as it were engaged in that in itself would satisfy the “reason”. it would certainly be hard to argue against rape if sexuality is just about reproduction, and any arguments against polygamy go out the window as well.
and if sex were all about reproduction then why have our bodies been programmed for sexual pleasure that has no connection with reproduction? how could you wank? how could you have any sex other than cock in vagina? no blowjobs, no carpet munching, no buttfucking the girlfriend. and no other games that lots of men and women like to play.
i think one of the big mistakes that people make when they try to understand something is to find something that explains some of the mechanism behind it and then say “that’s all it is.” but even though it is true that male/famale penis-in-vagina-to-orgasm couplings produce offspring that doesn’t mean that offspring are the _reason_ (unless of course you believe that god invented everything and its reasons – which is faith) for sex or that other things don’t feel just as good or even better.
so the idea that there is some kind of normative heterosexuality (which is behind a lot of the posts here) seems to be honoured more in the breach. when you wank, or have oral sex or do anything deliberately for genital pleasure that doesn’t involve ejaculating into a vagina you aren’t being heterosexual in the terms that many of the posts here assume is normative. you’re enjoying yourself at the very least, maybe giving pleasure to your partner, maybe physically expressing love but none of those things is going to produce offpring.
our bodies have lots of ways of giving and receiving pleasure. i don’t think that would be the case if there were some over-riding reason for sex (and i am NOT saying that sex does not lead to offspring). reason implies either a maker or some kind of immanent telos and i don’t see any evidence for either. heterosexuality when people try to live it as some kind of norm contradicts the very reasons given for it’s “rightness.” at the end of the day, i don’t believe that everything has to be able to be reduced into something else nor do i think that everything has to be able to be interpreted according to some theory to be able to exist.
sex doesn’t need a justification.
Mikey – Penmanship is interesting. It has been a practical impossibility to differentiate between my father’s handwriting and my own since high school, through this date. I wonder if there is something genetic, or if it was just exposure to that early and often.
sry, couldn’t resist.
i think that if we could suck up a chunk of contemporary culture and offer ppl the choice, there wouldn’t be many homosexuals.
but technological advances don’t operate in a vacumn.
but the time we can alter sexual orientation, we will be able to alter so many other things it prolly won’t matter much.
the deaf and the Downs examples….in contemporary society we do have parents that have refused to give their children insulin for example.
faithhealers and christian scientists.
if the child dies the parents are prosecuted by the state.
so in the future, if the parents withheld treatment that could cure a severely debilitating genetic disease, could they be prosecuted?
I think homosexual is not such a big deal. homosexuals function perfectly well in society.
Mikey says im not willin to commit to persuade.
hes right.
it is obvious to me, why should i have to persuade?
urthshu is right.
i want to move beyond your antique religious hangovers and talk about the important stuff.
297, jeff g. actually i find other parts of the conversation interesting. i’ll leave the legal discussion to the lawyers and constitutional scholars among you. but don’t try to reduce sexuality to legal categories and then try to appear like you know something interesting or worth talking about.
What do you mean when you say “the reason”? I agree that such things may be multiply motivated. Indeed, evolution seems to attempt to aggregate functions whenever it is possible. On the other hand, it is ludicrous to state that the primordial function of sex is not reproduction. You cannot wall it off, as much as you would like, as a kind of Wildean aesthetic. It has a function, a fact that we are reminded of willy-nilly and continually.
Let me ask you this: what are your feelings with regard to Dawkins’ Selfish Gene?
I dunno. I haven’t been following the bouncing ball as well as usual this week so maybe it’s already been more than said, but the whole gay marriage thing is really a lot lemmingesque cultural suicide if you ask me. Marriage, kids, and bitching about losing equity. How can you tell the gay ones apart anymore?
306, dan. yes i have read dawkins. no i don’t anthropomorphise genes or imagine that they can think, want or “decide” anything since they are just complex snippets of chemical code. there’s nobody inside those genes.
i don’t believe that evolution implies a telos – certainly no theory of darwinian evolution does – all the theory posits is long-term changes result from certain slightly-randomly-different forms doing better in a particular environment than others and leaving offspring. that tells me nothing about there being a _reason_ for anything, it just notes results of certain combinations from one particular vantage point.
307. happyfeet, nobody is stopping you from fulfilling your biological purpose if you think there’s one.
How can you tell the gay ones apart anymore?
With the lesbians, I start with the haircut.
sorry.
Mikey says im not willin to commit to persuade.
hes right.
it is obvious to me, why should i have to persuade?
And thus your totalitarian, authoritarian, tendencies are displayed. If you cared about the opinions of others you would try to persuade. You don’t care; thus you will fall back on ‘because I said so’, which is not an argument – it is a demand.
You now have no right to complain about others imposing their ‘judeoxian’ will on you when you are more than willing to impose your will on others. Welcome to failure in your ‘should’ argument, and thank you for finally answering, clearly, Jeff’s question.
There’s no telos, per se. I don’t think that he says that, and neither do I. I don’t think he anthropomorphizes, either, and neither do I. I just think that form and function constitute a positive feedback loop. I certainly don’t get as reductionistic as Dawkins does. I don’t think, for example, that it is worthwhile for us to regard ourselves as epiphenomena of genetic expression as a matter of how we experience our existence and how we choose. Furthermore, I agree with Hamlet that there exist things that are not dreamt of in our philosophies.
To state, though, in a sort of Foucaultian rapture, that our identities are the potentially the fluctuation of a mobile of shifting subjectivities, is equally a cop-out. As far as that randomization being subject to pressures of fitness, that would seem to be an argument for the utility of various cultural concepts of sexuality and its concomitant performances.
london
sexual pleasure is the payoff for executing the prime directive.
reproduction.
thus dancollins selfish gene referrence.
dur, london, you are so not getting it.
the selfish genes means we are just vectors, hosts for our DNA.
it doesnt matter if we walk or talk or cogitate…except as it relates to increased reps.
I cannot decide if this londonamerican is a cock or an ass. Nishit is proclaiming herself to be superior. Just another normal evening round these parts.
the selfish genes code for 3 things.
reproduction, survival and death.
without death there is no evolution.
death rocks and evolution rolls.
but if we can control our own evolution….no need to die so young.
we can fix it.
;)
#303 – JD:
I am closest to my dad in penmanship. My brothers are in the ‘small, scrunched-up’ school of writing. Mine was the same until I made it a habit to try to write in cursive clearly ten years ago, and mine has improved, and one thing was to expand the size of my letters. One thing that helped was finding these Pilot liquid ink ballpoint pens at work. They write like a fine-nibbed fountain pen, and are fun to use. So with more practice my penmanship has gotten better.
I will note that my Colombian sister-in-law has very fine penmanship no matter if she writes in Spanish or English.
Back to Jeff.
I do not see samesex marriage as the end of Western Civ.
No religious guild will have to perform marriages of samesex couples…you do not believe that Jeff.
Are catholic priests forced to marry divorced people?
are orthodox rabbis?
were clergy ever forced to perform interracial marriages?
legal marriage and sacred marriage are two different things.
and Dawkins doesnt anthropomorphize.
selfish is oppositionary to altruistic.
Sir Richard says there is no altruism in nature.
the bird that warns the flock is part of a mathematical equation that optimizes reps of related DNA, even while it puts it own at risk
I read the first seven hundred comments and didn’t see this mentioned, so I’ll chime in:
I use “anomaly†here to suggest that the default and preferred evolutionary course favors heterosexual desire for means of procreation, your basic selfish gene hypothesis
The problem with labeling homosexuality as an anomaly based on Dawkins’ hypothesis is that Dawkins himself addresses kin selection extensively in the “Genesmanship” chapter. But you needn’t even read that far. From the introduction:
This book will show how both individual selfishness and individual altruism are explained by the fundamental law that I am calling gene selfishness.
Homosexual pair-bonding has been linked to group survival — a class of committed sentinels who don’t compete with other males for dominance, &c. — such that a homosexual would be no more anomalous than a sterile worker in a eusocial species. And if it’s not anomalous, it’s not akin to correctable deafness, which means there’s no non-cultural reason for the elimination of this particular genetic expression.
Mikey – I am taking a calligraphy course at a local art shop. Rather enjoyable. Cool pens.
samesex marriage is sort of a dénouement of homosexual evolution though I think. After all this and ten years from now they’ll be arguing about who gave them the Weber grill at their wedding. Oh that was from Suzie and Samantha they got it from Sears. No it was from Brad and Tommy and they so don’t shop at Sears. They got it from Home Depot when they were picking out the recessed lighting for the nursery. No, I love you but I don’t think so.
Gack is what I say. The end of history.
Now the nishit is telling our host what he believes?
You’re going to have to clarify this for me, because I’m not quite sure what to make of it. “Try to appear like” I “know something interesting or worth talking about”?
First, I am not reducing sexuality to legal categories. I am pointing out what can happen when the courts chose a particular category by which to explain sexuality, and then asking people to participate in a thought experiment. In two comment threads, we’re somewhere around 500 comments on the topic. So maybe you shouldn’t be telling those of us who’ve participated in those threads what is interesting or worth talking about.
Nishi —
This thread isn’t about gay marriage nor the clergy. It is about designer babies, the law, and how homosexuality would be affected by both genetic design and legal definition. Quit with the red herrings. Like I said, we’re discussing what you’ve been on about. I should think that would make you want to stick to the topic.
312. dan, i am at the airport and my plane is about to depart soon so i’ve got to call this off for now. but i’ve enjoyed it.
just a few things. i would think it’s obvious i am no foucauldian — the only po-mo frenchie who i can stomach is baudrillard and that’s mainly because he’s the embittered, impotent and incredibly cliched voice of dead europe’s revenge and because i thought his idea about what the masses should do in their spare time at beaubourg was actually pretty funny.
i’m actually much more proudly reactionary than you give me credit for.
anyway, don’t try to ascribe various trendy po-mo ideological positions to me when all i have done so far is argue against radical reductionist epistemology as being a useful way to understand sexuality or _any other human phenomenon_. that way is just madness. we are not “really” just chemical reactions, or genes, or our class or our race or our sex anything else. aside from just flying in the face of how we perceive ourselves in the world, you would have thought that people would also see how much horror those kinds of crazy theories introduced into the world over the past few centuries (and even before if you include the horrors of monotheism).
anyway, see you guys later.
certain slightly-randomly-different forms doing better in a particular environment than others and leaving offspring. that tells me nothing about there being a _reason_ for anything
The reason is they do better in particular environments. You seem to be discounting both evolutionary theories and creationism, I don’t think I have encountered that before.
Have a good flight, you.
Oh. Gee thanks, nishi. You’re gonna get me in trouble with your herrings.
314, jeff g. actually, i’ve not seen a shred of legal argumentation in the initial post – lots of other stuff but no legal argumentation.
SEK, do you disagree with Jeff’s thesis, or are we going to argue over the popular cultural reception of sexual utility vs. Dawkins’ kinship calculus?
326. you should read more evolutionists then. evolution only describes a physical process — like freezing or how electrons interact via the weak force – it cannot tell me why anything about lived human experience or why anything should or shouid not have value.
Also, do you really believe that the “sentinel” idea is factual? I’m not stating that there is no such social function; I think it almost certain that there is one. But don’t you think you’re going a bit to far by characterizing it as such?
327. thanks happyfeet.
Yes, have a good flight. But I still don’t see how these categories need necessarily be mutually exclusive. Perhaps when you have a chance, you can explain it to me. Bon voyage.
And I’m sorry, but I think that biology is by nature rather a radically reductionistic epistemology, but that doesn’t make it untrue.
SEK, do you disagree with Jeff’s thesis, or are we going to argue over the popular cultural reception of sexual utility vs. Dawkins’ kinship calculus?
I thought I’d made it pretty clear that I disagree with the premise of his thought experiment.
The horrors of monotheism obviously are to blame for Aztec misconduct, I’d imagine.
I’m sorry? You disagree with the premise that, given the choice of whether or not to abort a pregnancy that was genetically predisposed to homosexuality (according to our momentary understanding) not many people would opt so to do?
#321 – JD
Calligraphy is an art, as opposed to penmanship. I do like looking at calligraphy as I do like looking at or hearing anything beautiful. I did know, twenty years ago a guy, Scott Gratson, who could do calligraphy with a ballpoint pen and patience. He had it, whereas I do not.
IIRC the Coca-Cola emblem, the flowing script, was produced by an accountant, after many months of work.
Oops. I mean “many”. Not “not”.
SEK —
When I said “your basic selfish gene hypothesis” I wasn’t referencing Dawkins specifically. It was just sloppy shorthand for evolutionary favoritism in procreation based around the idea of some kind of genetic determinant for that feature (if in fact there is a “gene” for gay or straight, the “straight” would be favorited). I haven’t claimed to believe in a biological basis for homosexuality; what I think is, in fact, immaterial here.
I asked a question earlier about the deaf culture that, given your familiarity with that group, is worth reintroducing: if the deaf self select for the genetics necessary to guarantee a fully deaf child, is that a cultural choice? And should the state have a say in the matter? Similarly, if homosexuality is not at all “anomalous” — but it does have a certain function (sentinel, which is a theory not universally accepted) that perhaps those who carry the genetic predisposition for homosexuality (if such a thing exists) don’t particularly want to fulfill, and so would want to resist by way of screening and gene therapy — doesn’t that just replace “anomaly” with something similar? Culturally speaking?
Jeff – please see comments #304 and #311 in reference to your comment #324.
Also, do you really believe that the “sentinel†idea is factual? I’m not stating that there is no such social function; I think it almost certain that there is one. But don’t you think you’re going a bit to far by characterizing it as such?
I kept it deliberately vague because I didn’t want to lard my comment with fifty links … but yes, I do believe homosexuality works as a kin selector in a highly socialized species. I don’t necessarily buy the sentinel argument — most evo-psych arguments partake more of Kipling than Darwin — but I do think that the existence of kin selection in the majority of close relatives indicates that it’s likely present in us too. So if homosexuality turns out to have a genetic basis, I’d say it’s something selected for and start trying to figure out why, if only because “persistent genetic anomaly” usually signifies “we don’t understand why it’s there.”
evolution only describes a physical process  like freezing or how electrons interact via the weak force – it cannot tell me why anything about lived human experience or why anything should or shouid not have value.
You value is different from reason. The reason for most behavior is the physical process, certain attributes and behavior are more successful than others. Human experience or values have little to do with it.
londonamerican —
There really isn’t the legal precedent yet to do any kind of analysis. The idea was, what happens when the courts determine homosexuality to be similar to race or sex — immutable, biologically determined.
The California court seemed to be leaning in that direction when it made sexual orientation a category akin to race or sex.
“persistent genetic anomaly†usually signifies “we don’t understand why it’s there.â€Â
Ahhh. Belgium.
Im sowwy master.
I was confused by by crocodiles. ;)
How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!
How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in,
With gently smiling jaws!
Back to the ballgame. Will check in later.
LEPIDUS
What manner o’ thing is your crocodile?
MARK ANTONY
It is shaped, sir, like itself; and it is as broad
as it hath breadth: it is just so high as it is,
and moves with its own organs: it lives by that
which nourisheth it; and the elements once out of
it, it transmigrates.
LEPIDUS
What colour is it of?
MARK ANTONY
Of it own colour too.
LEPIDUS
‘Tis a strange serpent.
MARK ANTONY
‘Tis so. And the tears of it are wet
The way we will legally deal with homosapiens homosexualis in the future is largely dependent on the biological basis.
if homosexuality is caused by benevolent linkage, sentinel theory, sexual antagonism, some condition that is detecable by aminiocentisis and karyotyping in utero, the capacity to correct the “anamoly” will be vastly different than if homosexuality is discovered to a pathenogenic response…and what if homosexuality is multifactorial, and all theories are correct to some degree?
and what if homosexuality is NOT an anomaly, but a natural expression of human sexuality?
Either way you shouldn’t steal their parking spaces at Trader Joe’s when you know they were waiting for it.
if the deaf self select for the genetics necessary to guarantee a fully deaf child, is that a cultural choice? And should the state have a say in the matter?
yes, because it is child abuse, like the FLDS, like the faithealers that let their child die for lack of insulin.
I asked a question earlier about the deaf culture that, given your familiarity with that group, is worth reintroducing: if the deaf self select for the genetics necessary to guarantee a fully deaf child, is that a cultural choice?
I’ve discussed deaf culture vis-a-vis identity politics before: deafness is only cultural if it can be enforced, and once it is enforced, it is a viable culture. So yes, if someone in a deaf community chose to self-select for deafness, it would be a cultural choice. It wouldn’t be one I agree with, but it would only be challengeable in the way any cultural conflict is challengeable in contemporary America, be it polygamy, female circumcision, &c.; namely, through arduous legal wrangling by parties who wish they had common fundamental precepts to fall back on.
Similarly, if homosexuality is not at all “anomalous† but it does have a certain function (sentinel) that perhaps those who carry the genetic predisposition for homosexuality (if such a thing exists) don’t particularly want to fulfill, and so would want to resist by way of screening and gene therapy  doesn’t that just replace “anomaly†with something similar?
If they don’t want to fulfill it and are rational actors, then there’s absolutely nothing wrong with gene therapy to cure them of a genetic trait they find abhorrent. But if they’re not rational actors — if they’re fetuses — and it’s their parents who don’t want a homosexual child, we have a problem. It’s one thing to talk about creepy cosmetic improvements like ensuring your child has blue eyes; another to talk about removing traits no one would find desirable, like a predisposition to thrombosis; and another still to talk about a trait its possessors can run cost-benefit analyses on, like a predilection for musical genius that entails manic depression. To be frank, in the latter case, I think the moral imperative should be to allow the possessor to do the analysis — to weigh the benefits against the risks and decide whether their love of music is such that they’ll be able to weather the inevitable bouts of soul-crushing despair. The question is, then, which category do you place homosexuality into?
#343 – SEK
Homosexuality being biologically determined was only produced as a hypothesis to have matoko make a clear statement on genetic engineering and why or why not it should be pursued.* She did make that statement and it was that she did not see the need to explain herself or the need to convince others that she was correct. She may or may not be wrong, but she will not attempt to persuade others. She will not debate; if she had her druthers she would impose.
*So I understood the purpose of this exercise; I could be wrong.
Speaking of the game, LET’S GO METS!
oh feets
u are splendid.
sure Mikey.
then why the crocodiles?
What about gay people that get gene therapy and then have sex with guys anyway just to fuck with our minds?
#155
That’s a dad thing. It’s part of our dad genes.
#163
Or mothers who start they’re daughters using makeup at an early age. Something I don’t get.
But I can’t help wondering if there comes a time when we can assemble our offspring by every gene, that the physical act of coitus may no longer be necessary to have children. It would make hetero/homo a wash.
nishi, would you please use italics or quotation marks to indicate when you are quoting someone? It would make you a bit more coherent, anyway.
#352 – then why should not the state have a say in all matters of genetic therapy/engineering, no matter how beneficial the proponent thinks it would be? And who is the state but the citizenry? No state is truly legitimate without the consent of the citizenry. And if you are not willing to persuade the citizenry that you are correct, then why should you balk when others take the time to persuade them otherwise?
Democracy is a hard road; authoritarianism is easier. And you prefer authroitarianism because you know you are right, no matter what the two digit judeoxians say.
Authoritarian, totalitarian, tendencies.
By that, you mean the parent(s), correct? Which one(s)? Or do you mean the individual so gifted/afflicted (as with melancholia) ought to have the opportunity to resolve himself into adieu?
What if the kid doesn’t want to have piano lessons?
#357 – the crocodile was Jeff’s metaphor, not mine. I only argued with your own words. Two very different things.
Ah well, soon I shall have to call it a night – been up since 5:00 a.m. EDST.
and ill remind you all……everyone starts out XX.
It’s not a question of where I place homosexuality. It’s a question of how (and more importantly, why) the law would differentiate between who makes the choice with regard to that trait and, say, blue eyes.
#358 – matoko, you are still not addressing the ‘should’ argument.
Of course you did say that you didn’t see the need to ‘persuade’ others to your view; which leaves open only the ‘force’ others to your view.
Welcome to authoritarianism; the antithesis of democratic debate.
I meant #365 above for #358. Darn, am I getting sleepy or what?
Homosexuality being biologically determined was only produced as a hypothesis to have matoko make a clear statement on genetic engineering and why or why not it should be pursued.
lielielie
Jeff is wondering whether judicial activism and genetic engineering will eliminate homosexuality in homosapiens sapiens.
genetic engineering WILL be pursued.
it is pointless to argue about whether or not it should be.
this is why i get so frustrated.
how many times do i have to quote this before it sinks in?
It’s like Dollhouse, really. Coming to Fox this fall. Your intrinsic you stuff gets overwritten in obeisance to the demands of your mission. Hilarity ensues.
It’s a question of how (and more importantly, why) the law would differentiate between who makes the choice with regard to that trait and, say, blue eyes.
Blue eyes are not discriminated against.
Altho neither trait causes harm to society.
Well… Maybe not societal harm but someone’s not gonna get loved what was going to.
Improved? You mean as in able to ambulate?
It’s not like the genetically modified ones are gonna be considered any kind of particular catch either. I can definitely see a market for a “have they been genetically modified” home test kit.
To be clear, since this thread kind of goes all macro all of a sudden and then reels back, I mean specifically a “have they been genetically modified to love you when for real if things had just developed naturally he would be so down with your little brother” home test kit.
genetic engineering WILL be pursued.
it is pointless to argue about whether or not it should be.
So you say – but you do not know. And you do not understand what can be done by a society to restrict those things. Can does not equal should, and the should argument is where you need to focus your efforts, but by your own admission you will not do so.
There are many things a society can do to prevent genetic engineering, the non-therapeutic enginnering you so much desire. Fines, imprisonment, and even death can be imposed on those who engage in that action. And if you do not deign to advocate why it should be pursued you give up the entire argument to those who do not want it pursued, and they WILL impose penalties on those who practice genetic engineering outside of what the state permits, if it permits it at all.
Your druthers are not an argument in support; your druthers is the response of a petulant child when told that her choice is not acceptable. You must argue to convince and so far you have not demonstrated either the inclination nor the ability to do so – in fact you flat out said you would not persuade.
You have given the floor over to those who oppose you, those who can and will write laws banning what you want to do.
No market place is totally free, every market place is regulated even if it is just a court enforcing contract laws. Your ‘free market eugenics’ cannot work without state licensing and state approval, it is far too delicate and far too risky to be a mere ‘back-alley’ operation.
In your obstinate innocence you do not understand what a state may impose, and not even a totalitarian state. Again, see Buck v Bell for what a non-totalitarian state can impose. You better persuade, Dr. Frankenstein, before you try to just do, or else villagers with pitchforks and torches won’t be your worst nightmare; that will be a federal police agency with tanks coming through your front door.
Child! Wake up to the reality you live in and address that before soaring off into your cloud-cuckoo land of designer babies!
In the past version of the future, we’d all have flying cars starting in 1980 or so. Where’s mine?
genetic anomaly
Sorry, not buying that terminology. There are way, WAY too many homosexuals for it to be called anomaly. A few million gays; possibly a lot more than that, and we have something of a pattern, don’t we?
According to Wikipedia, anomaly in its scientific sense means deviation from the common rule. Homosexuality occurs so frequently that it’s part of the common rule.
Of course, if you’re using anomaly in its celestial-mechanics sense, none of the above applies, but then I’d be much more con-fused.
Well, I’m up to #369, and will have to refresh to continue, but I would like to nominate londonamerican for this thread’s Missing the Point Award, with gold oak leaf cluster to indicate more worthy incidents than awarding a star for each would leave room for on the ribbon.
And as long as we’re using science fiction as a “test drive”, I would like to mention Elizabeth Moon and Lois McMaster Bujold. In the former’s “Familias Regnant” series, pay close attention to the concept of “registered embryo” and the character initially known as “Bubbles”. In Bujold’s “Vorkosigan Saga” both londonamerican and Log Cabin are likely to find Ethan of Athos thought-provoking if they like that sort of thing.
Regards,
Ric
If homosexuality is something innate, than that particular argument against same sex marriage is significantly weakened.
JeffG, since you do want to keep this thread on topic, I will only answer briefly that I do not believe nature/nurture or somewhere inbetween is relevant to the SSM argument. Indeed, I believe such an argument is really an insidious misdirection of the discussion.
Back on-topic, IMO there will always be a faction of people willing to push the envelope on “designer babies” because children really are flashy charms on the bracelet of life to show off to one’s friends. And at the other end, you’ll have the natural/back to nature people. Look at how peole approach birthing. You have people so dedicated to high tech science that we have vanity 4d ultrasounds and scheduled c-sections, and then you have others attempting to find the most “natural” experience with the whole family gathered around a family birthing bed or warm pool, with maybe a midwife in attendance.
Reading the nishichild one finds the totalitarians voice that will turn choice into legal obligation. For all her “parents own their dna” blather she immediately contradicts it to require people with “anomalous fetuses” be forced into abortion. She considers the live birth of a Down’s child as prima facia child abuse.
And
Slart —
I admit, when I chose “anomaly,” I was reaching for something that wouldn’t get me called ‘homophobic.’ That didn’t work.
I still say that from the perspective of procreation, which is how I framed it, it is an anomaly — but then, I’m not sold on the sentinel theory.
As I pointed out to SEK, if not anomaly, try “amounts to one, when considered socially”. Or else, give me a workable term, and I’m happy to use it.
Unless there is a totalitarian world government…
One of the many things nishfong doesn’t understand is how amoral, incoherent raving like hers leads to things like totalitarian governments.
I also would question her and Dr. Hawkings definition of “improved”.
then you have others attempting to find the most “natural†experience with the whole family gathered around a family birthing bed or warm pool, with maybe a midwife in attendance.
You also, of course, have the people who say they want that, then start screaming for drugs the instant the first contraction hits.
I’d bet a sizable contingent of lefties would publicly oppose orientation selection (complete with rallies featuring giant papier-mâché Charles Nelson Reilly heads), but when it turned out that little Cody or Dakota was going to turn out gay, they’d have the treatment (or abortion) on the QT.
The hypocrisy of the modern left is breathtaking. These are the same people who want to take guns away from the honest urban poor, while living in gated communities with private security guards.
anyway, don’t try to ascribe various trendy po-mo ideological positions to me when all i have done so far is argue against radical reductionist epistemology as being a useful way to understand sexuality or _any other human phenomenon_. that way is just madness. we are not “really†just chemical reactions, or genes, or our class or our race or our sex anything else. aside from just flying in the face of how we perceive ourselves in the world, you would have thought that people would also see how much horror those kinds of crazy theories introduced into the world over the past few centuries (and even before if you include the horrors of monotheism).
Interesting game, Professor Falken. The only way to win is not to play.
yours/
peter.
B Moe: Unless there is a totalitarian world government…
One of the many things nishfong doesn’t understand is how amoral, incoherent raving like hers leads to things like totalitarian governments.
One of the other things she doesn’t get is that you do not need a totalitarian world government for some pretty horrendous penalties to be visited on anyone dabbling in this.
Added to the things Nishi is utterly blind to is the inherent gap in her logic. Deafness is so “wrong” in Nishi’s eyes that to her, it should be illegal for a parent to genetically induce it in their child. Given the ever increasing number of “disabilities” recognized for special status by the government, which ones are so wrong that they cannot be selected for. It also raises the question that if these things are so wrong, would it be child abuse not to go out and select against these traits? If you think this is a stretch, it’s basically the point in laws against incest that you’re preventing genetic offspring with a high chance of disabilities. Would a propensity towards obesity be a case of child abuse? How about a mental disability like Aspergers?
And that’s begging the important question: who makes the decision?
Final thought, hasn’t this ruling effectively made homosexuality the equivalent of disability? It’s a trait that, because it’s not entirely a free choice (in the view of the California court) and causes social difficulties for the people with it, is deserving of special protections to offset its effects.
No way have I read the entire thread, but I found this kind of interesting:
The suppression of the gene through genetic engineering plus the fact that as homosexuality becomes more and more common and accepted in our society, fewer homosexual men will see a need to ‘hide their sexuality’ with a cover
heterosexual relationship means less of the ‘gay’ gene will be passed to the next generation..
If they “gay gene” has been passed down through sham marriages … and the propensity for such dwindling … then societal evolution could evolve them out of existence.
Carin, I think ‘sham’ goes too far. If you read my posts above you’ll see what I mean. Plus there is the further question LogCabin and I discuss as to how far the drive to procreate resides in gays, whether it is acknowledged or not. Elimination through evolution does not appear to be in the cards, but it is in the hypothetical for the purpose of questioning the distinctions proposed in law.
hasn’t this ruling effectively made homosexuality the equivalent of disability?
if race and gender are disabilities, then homosexuality is a disability.
again, the idea that homosexuality is harmful either to the individual or to society, is purely religious.
Not a religious question for the single child parents of a homosexual who they fear will not bring them grandchildren though is it nishi?
the drive to procreate resides in gays
well, this whole thread started on the issus of samesex marriage.
it seems they have exactly the same drive to have a partner and a family as heteros.
i said to the individual and society.
have the grandparents get a sperm donation, and contract with a host womb and oocyte donor if they nedd a grandchild.
Again with the assuming what remains to be proved. Why?
How so? What’s the data for that?
the idea that homosexuality is harmful either to the individual or to society, is purely religious.
Perception is reality.
Carin, I think ’sham’ goes too far. If
Actually, my comment was a tad tongue-in-cheek. Teh narrative has always been that gays married only to hide their gayness.
If you think this is a stretch, it’s basically the point in laws against incest that you’re preventing genetic offspring with a high chance of disabilities.
That may be the effect, but that’s not really how the laws are written.
It’s common that unions of first cousins are allowed (and not just in Jesusland — many blue states allow this), but not unions between (say) stepmother and stepson. The latter wouldn’t pose any special genetic risk, in general.
What the incest laws really are is a codification of our tendency to be skeeved out by the thought of having sex with people who were around a lot when we were kids (there was a study of kids raised in Israeli kibbutzim — very few of them wound up marrying the other kids with whom they were raised, even though those kids had no close genetic ties).
I have no doubt that this behavior evolved as a hack to cut down on inbreeding, but it’s still a hack.
the idea that homosexuality is harmful either to the individual or to society, is purely religious.
If homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, it’s a harmful trait in the Darwinian sense as well, busu. No need for “religion”.
Funnies are ok, but sometimes hide the question, like in magic, look over here.
The narrative is the thing. What’s the truth is the objective.
still…Master isnt the whole homosexual question a distraction?
at the point that we can engineer sexual orientation we are gonna have much bigger problems to deal with.
parents might want to engineer a child as a slave or a sextoy. or xenobiolgy, adding nonspecies DNA to human DNA. not a lot of parents will, but some will.
there should be laws to prevent that.
maybe laws to prevent deliberate genetic engineering beyond some societal phenotypic norm, like 8 foot giants to kill at b-ball.
it is pretty complicated, but a lot of the variants have been dealt with in scifi.
in Pandora’s Star, parents can augment their own DNA, the child’s natural DNA with the best improvements they can afford. but the improvements are limited to human DNA in stock.
homosexuality would have died out in the EEA(Environment of Evolutionary Advantage) if there was no selective advantage associated with it.
it is not an anomaly, but a naturally occurring variant of human sexuality.
t seems they have exactly the same drive to have a partner and a family as heteros.
How so? What’s the data for that?
If they had the SAME drive to have a family, they would take the path of least resistance and marry someone of the opposite sex. I suspect that many people who “discover” their gayness late in life, in actuality, merely have reached the point where they have satisfied the baby/procreation urge. NO longer driven by that (stronger) desire, they then take stock and decide to switch teams.
My child-hood best friend’s mom turned gay late in life. When I knew her, she was dating all sorts of men, and it was she that actually gave me “the talk.” From my innocent perception at the time, she described hetero sex as something she enjoyed. She was obviously attracted to men.
if homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals
perhaps that was true in the EEA, but in modern society we have reproductive therapy.
homosexuals can reproduce.
in the EEA women would have been severely penalized in rep count for limiting number of offspring.
in contemporary society, not so much.
still…Master isnt the whole homosexual question a distraction?
No. It’s the topic of this thread.
parents might want to engineer a child as a slave or a sextoy. or xenobiolgy, adding nonspecies DNA to human DNA. not a lot of parents will, but some will.
there should be laws to prevent that.
maybe laws to prevent deliberate genetic engineering beyond some societal phenotypic norm, like 8 foot giants to kill at b-ball.
Why?
perhaps that was true
“Perhaps” that was true?
Idiot.
“…If they had the SAME drive to have a family, they would take the path of least resistance and marry someone of the opposite sex. …”
Isn’t it possible that the ‘urge’ to procreate resides in a different brain complex than the ‘sexual attraction’ complex? Why must these two phenomena be assumed to be co-joined?
i dunno Carin….my homosexual friends just arent attracted to the opposite sex.
it seems like a lot people here think they are just pretending and should just get over it!!.
that simply doesnt seem to be true.
there should be laws to prevent that.
What happenened to in a libertarian society the parents own their bodies and their germ plasm. the state cannot interfere.?
nishit marches forward with her inability to persuade, and her lack of desire to even try to do so. It knows better than all of you theconz /spit and she and her merry band of scientists will rule the world !!!!!
haha, no Moes im not sayin it.
why?
for the good of society
I’m not sure the merry band would have her.
SBP, it is the same libertarian society which judges where your fist leaves off and your neighbors nose begins.
a fine line to be sure in designer evolution…but one that deserves discussion.
which might just be Jeff’s original point.
It was an ad hoc addition to my argument. I know there’s an additional “ickiness” component to social taboos against incest, but that “ickiness” factor had to come from somewhere. Put it down to my reading too much Heinlein when I was younger.
The general point still stands, when we reach the point of designer genes, where does the line stand between “acceptable but backwards”, “unacceptable to engineer”, and “unacceptable to not engineer out”, and who draws the line? Is it impossible to imagine that some parents, or some governments, might decide that “capacity for violence” or “non-conformity” are disabilities to be engineered out, even at the price of “individuality” or “creativity”? Apparently, our resident “true libertarian” has no problem with a self-selecting elite government making that distinction, as long as it’s her government.
I don’t get it either, SPB. If I can genetically engineer me a little honey that enjoys being a slave and a sex toy, where does nishfong get of interfering with our rights to live how we choose? We wouldn’t be hurting anyone.
A sterile sextoy slave clone of yourself, like masturbation 2.0. Come on nishi, you got a problem with that?
no..im saying the topic should be discussed in advance is all.
B Moes read Neuromancer.
the meatpuppets are illegal, but the rich still manage to get them.
“…Is it impossible to imagine that some parents, or some governments, might decide that ‘capacity for violence’…”
Scarce resources would be a problem under your hypothetical engineering out capacity for violence, wouldn’t it? The next door neighbor leaves capacity for violence in then takes all your stuff, no?
have any of you read Pyscopathia Sexualis?
the spectrum of variants of human sexuality is enormous.
some of them are harmful, some are not.
but all of them are naturally occurring.
I don’t get it either, SPB.
Nishi wouldn’t like it. That’s all you need to know. To her, libertopia means total freedom for nishi, no freedom for anybody else.
I have read Neuromancer, nishi, I don’t care if they are illegal in that book, my question is should they be illegal? Who are they hurting?
A sterile sextoy slave clone of yourself, like masturbation 2.0.
Some dog DNA would probably be helpful, from the loyalty and obedience angle.
in all the scifi ive read (which is considerable but not exhaustive) breeding a sexslave or a torture doll for personal use is illegal.
have any of you read Pyscopathia Sexualis?
Hint: that book was written in 1886.
I have heard people advocate going to the world court for legal precedents, but by God this is a new one, nishfong.
Moes dont be dim.
it hurts society, and the individual doll.
Trace the meaning of the term ‘nature’ from its beginning down to today. Starts out as a term of distinction, like ‘dogs bark, women menstruate (physis) but our tribe buries its dead, whereas that tribe over there eats its dead and that other one over there burns its dead, yuck (nomos)’ and becomes everything that is is nature. Awesome dude.
in all the scifi ive read (which is considerable but not exhaustive) breeding a sexslave or a torture doll for personal use is illegal.
1) Science fiction is not reality. Really.
2) Your “considerable” reading list is anything but. Hell, even Star Trek had the “green Orion slave girls”.
Some dog DNA would probably be helpful, from the loyalty and obedience angle.
Yeah, but if they fucked up she would only come in heat once or twice a year.
i dont know B Moes….how does one think into the future?
for me it is guess and test.
generate a possible future, test it by writing it into virtuality.
scifi works for me.
that book was written in 1886.
so?
have some new variants come since?
it hurts society, and the individual doll.
How does it “hurt the individual doll” if it wants to be a sex slave?
There are people who enjoy that sort of thing now, yes? And if the behavior didn’t have an “evolutionary advantage” it would’ve “died out”, yes?
it hurts society, and the individual doll.
How does it hurt society? It is between me and her in the privacy of my own home. And she would be designed to enjoy it.
Are you saying that my idea of a New and Improved Human 2.0 might be different from yours? Or societies? And that you should be able to force your will on me just because of some abstract rules of behavior your “society” have agreed to?
Gee, nishi, that is starting to sound almost like a religion to me.
it is still slavery.
well..that is exactly the kind of things that should be discussed, SGT Ted. i dont think the state can force totalitarian eugenics on citizens.
Adn parents should not be able to inflict a defect on their child for socio-political reasons. Which is why even non-Christians like me want scientists and society as a whole to be very very careful in this particular field of study and its applications.
have some new variants come since?
Well, among other things, Krafft-Ebing viewed any desire for sex among post-menopausal women (and any other sexual act which could not result in procreation) as abnormal.
Why do I suspect that you haven’t actually read the book?
it is still slavery.
Nope, she could leave if she wants to, she just won’t want to. She is designed to be a sycophant.
Exactly. Yet those progressives that hyperventilate at the idea of children playing with toy guns will probably be the first in line to suggest that bit of human improvement. After all, “think of the children!”
It’s a debate that is bound to come up eventually, and needs to be openly debated. I don’t know if shaving a little off the top of the IQ curve would be worth eliminating ADHD or even autism. I know that I wouldn’t want my mind tampered with to make me “normal”, but I know parents of autistic children who would definitely think it worthwhile. YMMV.
it is still slavery.
Not if the “doll” was free to leave at any time.
And that you should be able to force your will on me just because of some abstract rules of behavior your “society†have agreed to?
this happens in contemporary society.
the FLDS and the faithhealer parents that withheld insulin from their diabetic son are two examples.
the line between freedom of religion and harm to other members of society.
Not if the “doll†was free to leave at any time.
how could she leave if she was engineered to have no free will?
that is why fabricating puppets is illegal in Neuromance.
they have no free will.
Quote the whole post, nishfong, that wasn’t what I meant. You are getting desperate.
How can you say it is still slavery if the government doesn’t recognize it as such? When I put forth the same question to you, substituting a hypothetical sentient AI as the subject, you said that the AI was property unless the government explicitly recognized it as such.
how could she leave if she was engineered to have no free will?
Aren’t you arguing that homosexuals don’t have free will when it comes to sexual attraction?
What’s the difference?
how could she leave if she was engineered to have no free will?
None of us have free will, genetic determinism, remember? If we have no free will, why not make our destinies a happy one?
Is not treating your future child to cure its Aspergers in vitro fall under the definition of harm? Who decides on the definition of harm?
Yeah, but if they fucked up she would only come in heat once or twice a year.
Some husbands would probably be happy to settle for that. Heh.
In Morgan’s Thirteen, the feminization of society that Jeff talks about has become so complete that western society has been forced to breed soldiers to compete against islamic fundamentalists that have preserved a virulently aggro strain of XY.
A reversion to the aggro type of alpha male endemic in the EEA.
Once the world problems have been settled martially, the problem becomes what to do with the “thirteens”.
Who decides on the definition of harm?
that is what we are trying to talk about i think.
in the begining the costs will be ferocious.
i think correcting Aspergers or homosexuality will be elective, kinda the same as cosmetic surgery.
the state might fund genetic engineering to correct severe anamolies like Downs, CID, cri du chat, stuff like that if the parent cant pay or refuses on religious grounds.
or maybe not.
praps the state will stay out of the correcting genetic anomalies bidness altogether, and just intervene in the slave fabrication business.
i dont know.
n Morgan’s Thirteen
Again with the Morgan.
Sigh.
Hack writer.
Crappy science.
Derivative plots.
Yawn.
praps the state will stay out of the correcting genetic anomalies bidness altogether, and just intervene in the slave fabrication business.
Or “praps” they won’t.
Hint: institutionalized, government-sanctioned slavery has been common throughout human history.
there should be laws to prevent that.
And there is that ‘should’ argument that you said we did not need to have because it was settled, it was going to happen.
Thank you for finally agreeing with me.
you may not believe in free will but i do, Moes.
so do all cultures except the Calvinists i think.
correct me if im wrong.
genetic determinism has nothing to do with free will…im a transhumanist, remember?
we plan to seize control of our own genomes.
It really is a mental midget, despite its proclaimed IQ. Consistency only extends to the point where it clicks Say It.
we plan to seize control of our own genomes.
You’re using the royal “we” there, I guess?
You’ve already said that people won’t be allowed to do anything with their genomes that you, personally, don’t like.
Total freedom for nishi.
No freedom for others.
Sieg heil!
Mikey, i din not agree with you.
Hawking and I both say that human improvement will happen.
it is not preventable.
laws to regulate parts of it, sure, but not to prevent it.
That’s just the problem, isn’t it? The main problem with terminology is that there’s no convenient label for that which we don’t yet understand. We might never understand it, or at least not for a long time. Also, I think there are all kinds of things that are “anomalies” in terms of the genetic passing-on of reproductive failure (another descriptor that I don’t like, but I don’t have a better one). The thing about genes is they’re not smart. They’re not thinking “OHNOES! If we combine in THIS way, we won’t get passed on!” Combinations happen, and if some of the theorists are correct, the result is someone whose sexual orientation or fertility drastically decreases the probability that those genes will get passed on to the next generation.
Think of reproduction as a self-sustaining chain reaction. Most times the absorbed neutron results in fission, but sometimes not. The chain reaction nevertheless proceeds apace. If the balance tips too far in one direction, though, we get extinction. This doesn’t appear to be in the cards in the near futyre, but I’d like to think that we have nishi’s shiny future in which we can root out pesky genetic mechanisms and/or gestate outside the body in our collective hip pockets. I just don’t necessarily think that it’s a good idea for us to meddle too much in the natural selection process.
Not that we aren’t, already. Depends on how you define the process, I guess.
we == transhumanists.
…and reading downthread, I see that nishi is still having trouble distinguishing fiction from reality.
…and reading downthread, I see that nishi is still having trouble distinguishing fiction from reality.
And Richard Muhfuckin’ Morgan, at that.
I’d rather base my worldview on Doogie Howser/Saved By The Bell crossover fanfic.
it is still slavery.
Baracky will make you work.
Slarti – Its perception is its reality. Sad, kind of.
That sounds pretty sciencey, B Moe. Damn the bioluddites, full speed ahead!
haps, he gives no choice whether to work on Scott McC’s vagina or not? cause that’s some mean thing right there
Regulating can mean banning, matoko. Government can do that, and can make violating the ban very, very painful. And you do not need a totalitarian world government to do that. What we have right now is more than capable of visiting punishment on transgressors.
And you already said that we did not need to have the should argument, but here you are, finally having the should argument. The should argument only comes about when the can argument is answered yes. The one follows the other, inevitably, and no matter how much you appeal to authority you cannot get past the should argument – it will be held. History says it will be held, and history is a better authority to cite than any scientist no matter how brilliant. So you better up-arm and get your arguments in favor lined up and polished for you are going to need them.
There. Fixed.
Doesn’t competitive advantage work to determine the should in the end?
genetic determinism has nothing to do with free will…im a transhumanist, remember?
we plan to seize control of our own genomes.
That is not what you have argued before, your positions was that most behavior is genetically predetermined as I recall. And I want control of my genomes, too. I own them, right? Why can’t I create a transhuman from my own genomes as I see fit?
How dare you deny the Narcissist his one chance at true love, nishi?
this is a difficult discussion to have here i think.
and this is why.
i am begining to think not only do conservatives hate science, but also scifi.
;)
Do classic liberals hate science? I don’t think so. I offer Dr. Reynolds, techno-fiend.
Slavery can be done. Should it be done? The should argument was finally answered no in this country, answered with vats of blood and with the destruction of vast swathes of the country.
Does slavery occur? Of course, but it is still banned. And transgressors face severe punishment.
That is reality. Address and win the should argument, matoko.
Unilateral disarmament always seemed poor policy to me.
This is a difficult discussion to have at protein wisdom because of the National Review.
Check. Maybe it would help if you were capable of effective communication, logical consistency and the ability to type like a grown up.
this is a difficult discussion to have here i think.
This is a difficult discussion for you to have here because your are getting your ass kicked. I love science fiction, I am not a conservative, and I have studied and worked in the scientific/engineering fields my entire life.
You can’t argue here because there are holes the size of fucking suns in your premises.
Conservatives do not hate science or sci-fi. We do hate people who try to set themselves up as little tin gods and dictate that which is a proper subject for a democratic Republic to debate. We despise those who refuses to debate and just impose; and we are amused by those who appeal to fiction as the sole support of their argument, because fiction is the will of the author alone, and nothing else.
#471 – Big Reason One: science is amoral, it is a tool used by humans. We humans get to decide who uses that tool and how and when. We debate whether humans can use the tool; we are not debating the tool.
Big Reason Two: It is irrelevant how religious they are, they will be regulated by the society, as anyone using a potentially dangerous tool is regulated. Doctors and dentists are regulated, society will insist on regulations not because of science, not because of the religious or irreligious nature of the scientist, but because they are humans.
Here is another one for you, nishi. If free will exists, how could it be overridden genetically? If free will is a genetic trait, then it is genetically determined and isn’t really free will. If it is not genetically determined, where does it reside?
Humans have interests too.
And dance, monkey, dance.
I love how the nishit uses the “we” construct when placing herself in the company of Hawking, etc …
Perhaps she’s referring to the handicapped, JD.
Hawking is in my cohort.
you are not.
this is the base problem Karl wrote about the other day.
it is factionalism all the way down.
its why the lefty intellectual blogs attack Jeff so virulently.
because he is the conservos token intellectual.
its why we cant discuss this here with out you proteins yelling Hitler! Eugenics!
we can’t discuss, man that’s rich.
Classic nishit. When getting her ample ass handed to her, it is time for dodge, parry, and CONSERVATIVES HATE SCIENCE !!!!!!!!!
its why we cant discuss this here with out you proteins yelling Hitler! Eugenics!
LMAO! Who said anything about that lately? You are the one being all anti-science now, telling me I can’t have my Lil Ms B Moe SoulMate 2100.
Where does free will reside, nishi?
Hawking is in my cohort.
Although I must admit, if my narcissism argument didn’t resonate with nishi that is a pretty devastating refutation of it.
No, sweetie. Hawking is smart. And sane. And published. And respected.
Hawking just puked.
Dance wheelchair, dance.
nishit just made my day. I am not one of its cohorts !!!!
even before if you include the horrors of monotheism
Quite revealing. Because, as we all know, non-ethical-monotheistic regimes have been so much better for the individual (Soviet, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Mugabe).
this is a difficult discussion to have here i think.
Yes, how dare we ask you to explain and justify your opinions?
i am begining to think not only do conservatives hate science, but also scifi.
I’ve forgotten more about science and science fiction than you ever knew, nishi.
And really, Bach’s Matthew’s Passion is so way better than Shostachovich’s Leningrad Symphony, it’s not even a close call.
Does slavery occur? Of course, but it is still banned. And transgressors face severe punishment.
That is reality. Address and win the should argument, matoko.
She can’t answer, because there is no scientific argument against genetically engineering people to be sex slaves, only a moral one.
Which, of course, means that the “science has no need of your twodigit judeoxtian morals” argument she’s been yammering about for lo, these many months, is completely untenable.
Q: Could science and judicial activism lead to the eventual eradication of homosexuality?
A: Maybe.
No, sweetie. Hawking is smart. And sane. And published. And respected.
You forgot “literate”. He communicates better with a voice synthesizer than nishi does with the full use of her hands.
500!
That is the incoherency of your argument, amtoko. You have argued that since we can do this, we should not bother to ban it because someone somewhere will still do it. Then you argue for regulation; but regulation ends up being trangressed against as a full ban would be.
Your argument is contradictory, that is why you are having difficulty discussing this.
Why should it be done? What are the arguments in favor of it? Because we can is not an argument, that is a dismissal and it concedes the field to your opponents. In a democratic Republic we get to debate these questions, and as that is the reality that you have to deal with you better start adressing that before you get to Jeff’s question regarding biological determinism for homosexuality as opposed to choice, and how homosexuals arguing genetic determinism (see the California Supreme Court decision) may lead to homosexuality being genetically eradicated, and what that means to the homosexual subculture or lifestyle as opposed to using choice as the foundational argument.
500!!
I love science fiction, I am not a conservative, and I have studied and worked in the scientific/engineering fields my entire life.
Ditto, on all counts.
Is he still using Fred?
500.
thor got it in. 500 to you, thor.
Yep, I hate scifi all right. I’ve only got an entire 3’x8′ bookcase devoted to it, and TWO the same size devoted to everyting else. Clearly it’s because I hate scifi.
But let’s rewind: i am begining to think. No, you give yourself way too much credit.
Jeff could have written “The Rise and Fall of Homosexual Culture: could science and judicial activism lead to the eventual eradication of homosexuality, 2 (follow up) OR How to Long and Windingly Get to a ‘Maybe’ and a Struggle Over the Natural Number 500”
Pointing out the history of eugenics and how people like Hitler and Stalin used it is part of the should argument that you do not want to have. History is experience writ large, and ignoring experience is very unwise. Buck v Bell and Plessey v Ferguson are cautionary tales. They are ‘look before you leap’.
You may be correct matoko, on all counts. But you have not deigned to put together an argument explaining why you are correct and then defending the argument. Failure to do so is tantamount to abandoning the argument, and we are not obligated to articulate your position and search out authority in support of it, and then argue your position. You must first prime the appellate pump.
All wrong, happy.
Here, let me help:
Q: Could science and judicial activism lead to the eventual eradication of homosexuality?
A: HOMOPHOBE! — AND HERE, LOOK! IT’S YOU FUCKING A DOG! HATER!
Lil Ms B Moe SoulMate 2100
Maybe we could even set up a trade; I’d trade you a copy of my SpyGRRRL FemmeFatale FuckBunny v. 2.0 for a dupe of your Lil Ms B Moe SoulMate 2100. No one’s business if we do, right? It’s our germ plasm, according to nishi. We own it.
Same sex sexual attraction is not harmful to the individual just as opposite sex attraction is not, nor somewhere on the sliding scale of bi.
It is the how of its expression that can be harmful to either the individual or society.
No one argues that every inmate in a state prison who engages in same sex relations is “gay”. In the context of being locked away from prefered, many – already used to not conforming with society expectations – resort to second or third tier perfered. Every prison has policy against sexual relations within the institution – same or opposite – while providing for conjugal visits as a carrot for obediance. The is because unconstrained and/or unregulated sexual relations is harmful to both the individuals and the institution.
On the larger scale within society, similar accepted codes of behavior serve the same purpose. As “unfair” as some may view religious or legal constraints on public behavior, it is only the most childish who do not see the value of those constraints. Debate, discussion and democracy go along way in reviewing and editting those constraints from time to time. That is the problem with judicial fiat or philosopher kings. The ‘constraint’ comes from top down with little or no input from the public at large.
Race and gender are different. The is no difference between males of “different races”. But males are far different from females – not only in their biology but in their sexuality. What secondwave feminism and Left (not liberal) dogma has been trying to do for 40 odd years was/is to wipe out that distinction culturally – even as they have failed on the biological reality. (that’s why you get hysterical screeds from some like Linda Hirschman who rail against women who decide to get married, have more than one child and not immediately go back to a career two weeks after birth). Part of the push to wipe out sex differences is the elevation of same-sex marriage to be THE SAME as opposite-sex marriage. SSM advocates push to even criminalize the disagreement with that premise. And the harm to society is real. Society is now in the position that “Fathers are not important”. Even though studies show what a vital role fathers have in the lives of their children.
Such a contradiction between a political theory and reality cannot stand forever. It will rend the society apart.
And we already are witnessing it.
argh – please excuse typos above — my grandsons are due here for a swimming date any time now and I’m typing in hurried mode.
And #508 Jeff – I hope I articulated the issue correctly in my second paragraph in #499. If not, well mea culpa.
it seems they have exactly the same drive to have a partner and a family as heteros.
Except without those bothersome children that demand to be raised. The vast majority of same sex couples do not want children. Which leads me to believe that the majority of homosexuals are narcessistic, and it is therefore a choice.
I’m with Sara. When you choose the genes you want included in your designer child, what genes are you breeding out?
Oh
and anyone that believes the judeoxtians are just a bunch of old poopieheads in the way of people’s fun and that unconstrained sexual expression doesn’t lead to some pretty spectacular displays hasn’t visited San Francisco’s annual Folsom Street Fair … which has corporate sponsors and city police to watch over.
Why are you using the word ‘gender’ in place of the proper word ‘sex’ Darleen. That’s a Ruth Bader Ginsburg thing to do. I say don’t do it, take back the language!
In Re: #511 a very off topic question: How old is everyone commenting here? I’m forty-two.
I am curious because it may explain a lot about the style and direction of debate here, because experience plays a big role in what our positions are on issues and how we express those positions. When I was younger I had a preference for ramming ideas through; now not so much.
Q: Could science and judicial activism lead to the eventual eradication of homosexuality?
A: No.
1. Homosexuality is a naturally occurring variant of human sexuality.
2. Culture is not static. By the time we CAN change sexual orientation, no one will WANT to do it. We’ll have bigger problems by then.
Sdferr
I keep catching myself on the gender/sex thing. Does show how much political correctness has taken sway over how we conduct our conversations.
Though, gender and sex are different. Vast majority of the time they are the same. It is only in miniscule percentage there is true ‘transgender’.
And I do NOT agree with policies that say if a biological female demands to be called “male” we have to refer to her as “him”, else we are “haters.” (ie Oprah had the “pregnant man” on her show. No, if you have a uterus and XX dna you are a woman, regardless of political theory)
And once again to climb on my personal hobby horse here, ‘philosopher king’ is an intentional oxymoron. There are no philosopher kings, there never have been and there almost certainly never will be. To misunderstand this basic proposition is to misunderstand the concept altogether. Philosophers do not want to be kings and we cannot make them be what they will not.
#516 Mikey
I turned 54 this month….
Grandsons just arrived! Back later this evening.
Oh. No, then. But me I think genetically engineering straight people would be sort of contrived anyway. And a lot redundant.
By the time we CAN change sexual orientation, no one will WANT to do it.
Because you say so.
Them’s some mad debatin’ skillz you have there, GURRRRRRRRLJEEENIUS.
Philosophers do not want to be kings and we cannot make them be what they will not.
What if we genetically engineered them to want it?
For real nishi made a superlative contribution both in substance and tone to this discussion and I think we should buy her an ice cream cone with sprinkles.
Take back the genetic engineering!
well……pythagoras and plato are lookin to be right on mathematics…..perhaps they will be correct on government as well.
;)
No, they don’t. The chromosomes for males are XY from the moment of fertilization. That sexual differentiation doesn’t kick in until later is a different matter.
You’re really into swinging your ignorance around, aren’t you? You’re allowed to post on Gene Expressions as comic relief, right?
And when we solve those bigger problems and decide to revisit the issue…?
And where is your proof that no one will want to change sexual orientation?
Here’s another question that I haven’t yet raised but that I suppose fits here: is there a “natural” revulsion involved in the heterosexual male reaction to homosexual (male) behavior — something that is only constrained by the live and let live attitude of particular liberal cultures?
And if so, doesn’t that speak precisely to the necessity of, in our case, “judeochristian ethics,” to circumscribe natural inclinations?
Or is the other way round. Personally, the reaction I get is visceral at times, and seemingly has nothing to do with being religious (which I’m not). I feel guilty for my reaction, and I have worked hard to move past it (and here I’m talking about seeing intimate homosexual interaction, like, eg., two men making out).
Because I have to tell you, every time I see those pics of the Folsom Street Fair, I feel like breaking out the Lysol and the 409.
#522 – matoko is no Agatha Heterodyne.
That 409 left on the skin for long can be some really caustic stuff.
And that has what bearing on the real world? Seriously, it’s called science fiction for a reason. Everything in an SF book is the product of the authors’ minds; no matter how attractive you find their predictions, it has no more bearing on the development of society than a Stephen King novel or a churned-out bodice-ripper romance.
well……pythagoras and plato are lookin to be right on mathematics…..perhaps they will be correct on government as well.
Or “praps” they won’t.
Rachael Ray is lookin to be right on the best way to make a killer sammy…..perhaps she will be correct on government as well.
Billy Bob Johnson is lookin to be right on the best way to make moonshine…..perhaps he will be correct on government as well.
While we haven’t had any scientists as President, we have had two engineers (Hoover and Carter) and one college professor (Wilson).
Hint: those administrations are not exactly well-known for being Golden Ages.
No, it’s that way in Neuromancer because Gibson wrote it that way. It’s fucking fiction, nishi. He could have just as easily have written it the other way, if that had fit his story line better.
Hawking’s a physicist, you’re an idiot. I don’t trust either of your opinions on genetics.
I think the gender/sex thing is an attempt to be precise. Sex can mean gender, but it can also mean other things. Gender means only gender. With regard to Justice Ginsburg, it is not unusual for a judge to reach for the most precise word available as the law is built entirely on words and only expressed that way.
I cannot tell you how much time I actually spend trying to properly frame the issues for a brief; I can only say “a lot”. If any of you have read any of Brian Garner’s works (mandatory for the office), you would know what I mean by “a lot” and how necessary that time and effort is.
yup rob, the gender genes dont get switched on until later in utero.
maybe homosexuality results from developmental switching errors.
that was my point.
sry if it wanst clear.
is there a “natural†revulsion involved in the
No. That’s cultural completely. It’s in the same category as the personal space zone differential thingies they’ve found are different in different cultures. I know this is true cause even in America there are different norms for lots of varieties of the revulsiony thing. I mean for real, atm fees are just as violatey as about anything and you don’t see anybody really freaking out, but show them a photoshop of some lady bonking a dog and they get all queasy. It just seems very cultural and kind of arbitrary.
I don’t think I’m explaining this very well.
praps darleen has succumbed to the notion of our new tri-gendered society: male, female, and homosexual.
hahaha
Mikey I hate to tell you this but Ginsberg coined the usage back in her ACLU days and even explained why she was doing it. People, she said, were uncomfortable using the proper word for the distinction, sex, so we’ll just grab this other sort of similar word over here from linguistics, ‘gender’, and use that in it’s place instead. That way, we can get them to talk about the stuff we want them to talk about, neato, huh?
You forgot lesbians, nishi. I do that a lot too.
Improve in what way? Who gets to decide what actions will mean ‘improve’ and what should be improved? Again, the history of eugenics shows that the efforts to ‘improve’ led to some very sharp curtailment of individual liberty, and a totalitarian government wasn’t necessary. Certainly the state of Virginia wasn’t a totalitarian state, yet individual liberty was curtailed with respect to having children – see Buck v Bell and Loving v Virginia. Cautionary tales, both of them, if you have the experience necessary to see that.
Mikey
The inherent problem with the gender/sex thing is that sex is almost always easy to prove (intersexed people are rare, as is XXY type of dna). However, gender is subjective. It is self reported. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist … the horrible Dr. Money demonstrated that in his little twin experiment (with real life tragedy to follow).
How much priority are we to give to gender over sex?
Sdferr – I wasn’t aware of that little piece of history. Thanks.
38, Mikey. I love how nishit just knows how everything will be in the future. Because she knows. And everyone else must submit to her science and her lack of morality.
Which, essentially, means you’ve returned to your call for philosopher kings. You’re not a libertarian, nishi, you’re a totalitarian. You have such deep contempt for the rest of humanity that you’d prefer being a slave along with everyone else than everyone be free — because others make decisions you don’t like.
Between that, your inability to distinguish between fiction and reality, and your admitted anti-social tendencies, I think you seriously need to get some help.
516- I am 50, and
528- fucking dreading my upcoming prostate exams.
Ok, we are off to the pool. It’s already 90 degrees here and the twins (5 1/2 years old) are bouncing around the house. Litterally (the cats are hiding). Swimming should ensure a quiet afternoon nap.
Wish me luck!
You had a point? Perhaps if you took the time to actually try to communicate to people rather than texting, you’d be able to get complicated ideas across.
In any case, your statement was bald-faced wrong. You got it wrong — so wrong you couldn’t be more wrong if you bathed in wrongness, drank wrongness, and dressed in wrongness. That wasn’t a mistake of clarity, it was a mistake of facts.
Seriously, you need help. Or perhaps you need to take a month or so off from the Internet, and try to relate to people in person.
And work on your understanding on the difference between fiction and reality.
conservatives hate science, but also scifi.
You are a simplistic bigot. I’ve been a conservative from the get go, voting for Reagan at age 18, yet I’ma huge fan of science fiction and fantasy and am always hopeful for scientific advances to make life for people better. I just am more morally evolved than you and willing to consider all the implications seriously. That you blithely dismiss these arguements by resorting to anti-religious and intellectual bigotry says more about your lack a maturity and a sort of child-like binary thinking.
IF you are really a scientist, you are a particularly crappy one. I know General Education Diploma holders that have more intellectual depth than you.
Darleen – I see where you are going – I was looking at gender as meaning exactly what parts you physically have, not what you are identifying with mentally no matter the physical parts.
I love how nishit just knows how everything will be in the future. Because she knows.
Also, because Richard K. Morgan said so.
There is no God but Science and Morgan is its Prophet!
(except for the inconvenient fact that Morgan doesn’t know jack shit about science)
Merry band still not interested in the nish.
#547 Good Luck! We found at the Youth Camp that running the little beggers around outside was good for a quiet night. A game of soccer with the counselors as goalies was good – when the counselor got the ball he was to wale it down the field to keep ’em running.
They’d drop by nine p.m.
feets
the wisdom of repugnance
the idea that gross == evil
I like the scifi too but the liking of the scifi does not mean what it used to I don’t think. Is BSG science fiction or just a really cool soap opera that just happens to be in space?
The important thing to remember is that sci-fi isn’t just history that hasn’t happened yet. It is made up shit.
Oh. Well I think that wisdom is retarded. I mean like for example it’s undeniably icky but it never occurred to me that pilates was evil.
Do you believe in instincts, nishi?
Roger Kimball today: “One reason that innovation has survived with its reputation intact, Stove notes, is that Mill [J.S. ed.] and his heirs have been careful to supply a “one-sided diet of examples.†You mention Columbus, but not Stalin, Copernicus, but not the Marquis de Sade, Socrates, but not Robespierre.
transtesticled by birth and transgendered by surgery are dramatically different things. The idea that a person with a crank can claim to be a woman, or a person with a vi-jay-jay can claim to be a dude is laughable.
#555 – all sci-fi and fantasy fiction is taking human problems into a different setting. You can have Star Trek, and you can have the Horatio Hornblower novels. All in different settings, but it still deals with human questions.
Really, in Star Trek who were the Klingons but the Russians, and the Federation was the United States, and the Cold War was palpable – especially in the ‘Trouble With Tribbles’ episode. The neutral port, the two opposed warships in for ‘liberty’, the contested planet, the needed cargo, the spy, and then the little furry guys to toss a twist into everything. The Cold War.
Read that, Sdferr, but decided to pass on giving it a link. Didn’t need to hear matoko hare off again on judeoxians and so on. I wanted to try and get her to address the topic without making another distraction.
Odd how nishi thinks that running society based on a religious book that billions of people have adhered to and has been a part of and contributor to societal evolution that led to the pressent is BAD BAD BAD, but running same society based on science fiction books is GOOD GOOD GOOD and inevitable.
Like I said: shallow thinking at its best.
That’s a good point, Mikey. But it’s just that the sciencey stuff is more a hook a lot than what’s driving the piece, at least on tv and in movies, and I think that’s what’s more responsible for identification with scifi now than literature. I had to do an analysis once of SCI FI’s female audience over time and more and more they are less differentiated from the women who watch any other networks. Pay attention to their promos where they do their branding. The If thing was all about saying hello, ladies.
Without [another] distraction is impossible by definition.
A good point haps. Sci-fi can attract a female audience no matter the setting if the storyline is one that females like. A lot of bodice-rippers are set in the past. So is Hornblower, but the intended audiece is very different,and the storylines reflect that.
Yah, I know Sdferr – but why give more ammunition to matoko to bloviate on and get very, very wrong?
Is BSG science fiction or just a really cool soap opera that just happens to be in space?
I haven’t seen the new BSG (keep meaning to, but haven’t got around to it).
To me, science fiction is fiction in which the author makes an effort to get the science right. Just as a competent author of historical romances set in the Regency period won’t include ahistorical characters (e.g., punk rockers or Trotskyites), a competent SF writer won’t violate the laws of physics (sometimes an author can get away with ONE violation of known physical laws, say, by having some kind of hyperspace drive, but he can’t violate all of them at a whim). It’s a devilishly hard literary form to get right, since it demands that the author be both a good writer and have a scientific background.
Stuff like Star Wars is not science fiction. It’s fantasy with a pseudo-scientific overlay.
Nothing against fantasy, mind you — I enjoy it if it’s well done. It’s just not science fiction.
Gibson and Morgan aren’t really science fiction, either.
The important thing to remember is that sci-fi isn’t just history that hasn’t happened yet.
well…if you subscribe to Tegmark theory (and i do!), all possible permutations of history exist somewhere.
;)
Besides, philosophers really do appear to be insane to non-philosophers, who make up the vast bulk of the population of anywhere planet earth. Why would these non-philosophical people be willing to be ruled by crazy people? They really wouldn’t. They would much rather be ruled by the cool looking dude with the fancy suit and mellifluent speech stuffed with hopey small words they think they can understand. And so they are.
Forgetting can be interpreted as repressing one’s desires, Hap. Talking is helpful to combat repression. What’s the first thing you think about when you see a picture of the Olsen twins?
Are they the ones that look like those little troll dolls from the 60s?
To me, science fiction is fiction in which the author makes an effort to get the science right.
I should note that this isn’t my original formulation. It’s a fairly common view, actually.
What’s the first thing you think about when you see a picture of the Olsen twins?
Death-camp survivors?
I case someone has not pointed it out yet, you are all a bunch of mouth-breathing knuckle dragging racist sexist homophobic theoconz /spit lusting after lipstick lesbian action.
Now, JD, I’m just an Unrelenting Mouth Breather Apprentice.
I wouldn’t want to get a swelled head here.
Spies – Don’t sell yourself short. You are the real deal.
And I would rather not know when your head is swelling. Too much information and all. Kind of thor-ish ;-)
Odd how nishi thinks that running society based on a religious book that billions of people have adhered to and has been a part of and contributor to societal evolution that led to the pressent is BAD BAD BAD, but running same society based on science fiction books is GOOD GOOD GOOD and inevitable.
And if the Bible isn’t the literal word of God, wouldn’t that make it science fiction?
Olsen twins. I usually think empire.
To a large extent I imagine the improvees will. And they’ll do it the old-fashioned way: with lawyers, in a court of law. Children will sue there parents for making them deaf, or light-skinned, or straight. Probably won’t see too many suits against parents for correcting soft palates or susceptibility to obesity or breast cancer. Thus these issues will probably break along the lines of disability avoidance being okay, but trait modification being limited in common law in deference not to parents but offspring.
yours/
peter.
For a non-interesting, homophobic thread, this thing is threatening to reach 600 comments — coupled with the previous posts near 200.
I’d say maybe we’re on to something here.
Sleepy boys now on way home with mom. I have done my duty as grandma in wearing the little guys out! (also stuffing them silly with grilled cheese sandwiches, sugar snap peas, apples, and glasses of milk)
just notice this bit of fucking nonsense from nishitwat
praps darleen has succumbed to the notion of our new tri-gendered society: male, female, and homosexual.
hahaha
sexual orientation has squat to do with gender. The majority of gay males are happy being males.
Again, gender is an eternal identification, vast majority of time in sync with one’s biological sex.
I really am alarmed at the promotion of transgenderism. Especially in minors. I wonder at the professional competency of a doctor that puts a TWELVE YEAR OLD on hormone therapy pre-op to surgical reassignment.
o crap
eternal = internal
I think I’ll go make myself an iced coffee.
maybe we’re on to something here
I think it’s a lot cause it’s about the future when the present is sorta so not the future.
Except for India and Ellen Paige and remote keyless entry systems.
Iced coffee. Ooh. This might be a good day for those horchata/agua fresca mix thingers I got at Latino Target. I think I’ll give tamarindo a try. If nothing else it’s fun to say.
That was easy really. It tastes kind of like a mix of iced tea and orange juice and the plastic bag it came in. Muy refreshing. But then, Conficorp, S.A. de C.V. del Tepotzotlan is sorta synonymous with refreshment, no?
HF
I think I’m getting cranky with old age, or picky or something. I’ve gotten to the point I just don’t want to buy stuff with fancy names on the front and “high fructose corn syrup” as one of the first couple of ingredients listed in fine print on the back.
I’ll brew my coffee and add the sugar, cream, dash of vanilla over crushed ice myself.
It says it uses for real azucar, but I know what you mean. Also I’m kind of disappointed it wasn’t cinnamony, but next time I’ll throw it in the blender with some bananas and skim milk and just add a little cinnamon myself.
Happyfeet – I bet you would like the Arnold Palmer drink made by Arizona. It is 1/2 sweet tea and 1/2 lemonade. I could live on it.
I’ll look for it. It’s gonna be a hot summer. Is Arnold Palmer still alive? Not that it matters.
Yup. He is. He’s like 80 or so. Here’s a page on that drink.
True enough, though anti-gay marriage laws have everything to do with gender.
Yeah, it worked out pretty well in the end. Even nishi grudgingly admitted that maybe there were SOME circumstances under which science might have to take morals and ethics into account.
For a while I thought it was going to turn out like this.
That was awesome.
Yeah, I love that site.
600!
600!!
600!!!
I never got around to learning to like cold coffee unless it was a flavor of ice cream.
If I want something cold laced with caffeine I’ll chat up Andrea Mitchell.
hf – They sell it at Sam’s by the case. Good stuff.
Nice works turning out the funny SBP
Oh. They don’t allow us to have Sam’s Club here. Unless you want to drive all the way to Long Beach, which is very far for me. We can only have liberal-approved retail outlets here. Target and Latino Target and Costco are on the list, but Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club aren’t even pending I don’t think.
Then head to the nearest golfcourse. Before Sam’s started to carry it, the only places in Indianapolis that carried it were golf courses, which forced me to stop and hit balls on the range on my way to work, so I could get an Arnold Palmer.
Datadave, banned? Heresy. Everyone loves double d.
Yes, nice work SPB, enjoyed the dramatic happy ending most. Belly dancers swinging Uzis, my fav, beautiful and lethal.
True enough, though anti-gay marriage laws have everything to do with gender
Wha?
Um, there are no “anti-gay” marriage laws. Marriage statutes don’t ask or require ANY declaration of gender or sexual orientation. Marriage statutes only define, by sex, number, age and consanguinity, those eligible to obtain a state license.
No one stops anyone from forming relationships outside of state sanction.
Jaysus on a pony, but can’t we have at least SOME precision on what we are talking about?
I realize the visceral need of SSM fanatics to demonize anyone who dares tread on their paperthin talking points, but I don’t have to like it or accept it.
598. Comment by thor on 6/21 @ 6:48 pm #
600!
599. Comment by thor on 6/21 @ 6:48 pm #
600!!
600. Comment by thor on 6/21 @ 6:48 pm #
600!!!
Dear, there are medicines out there to help you.
HF
I’m curious, but is a “Latino Target” one in which all the signs in the store are in both English and (Mexican) Spanish?
One of the Targets close to me has that. I always wonder what the rather large group of Asians in my area think of it.
This seems relevant. Holy burrowing ejaculate how did we miss this here?
Holy burrowing ejaculate – I am literally afraid to click on that link.
Oh. Exactly. The signs and also a festive atmosphere with rather more children than the other Targets.
Oh and also the link at #611 didn’t really actually seem relevant just kinda sorta. Ok not really at all but the comments are kind of kicky.
My bet is that the Latino Target is no less painful than the SuperTarget by us. I am also quite sure that since Better Half does not pay attention to street signs written in English, the bilingual signs would pose no problems to her, and she would manage to by useless crap with red sale stickers on it in any language.
I think if Buckley weren’t already dead, that would kill him, ‘feets.
So, that link is about Buckley in a menage a tres with Rosie and Ellen?
My opinion is that there should be no protected classes of people; all should be equal under the law. That hasn’t always been the case, but we are making progress, despite occasional backsliding into quotas and the ilk.
Rights are not something that can be granted; they can only be forcibly withheld. Read the entry for ‘inalienable’ in your favorite dictionary.
“I am accutely aware of how effective these kinds of thought experiments are in drawing out kernel assumptions of people’s positions, which can then be examined more closely for inherent strengths and weaknesses.”
O.K. It’s a fun game.
I see you assume that if there is a switch, the only time it’s use would be contemplated would be to ‘correct’ an anomaly. Hopefully it won’t be something that can only be activated at puberty or I think this might become a common event: “Well, Mom & Dad want me to like girls, but the gay boys a year older than me are having sex every weekend, and the straight boys hafta wait for years. . . I’ll tell Mom that I’ll switch back as soon as I’m old enough to marry & have kids.”
I think you’ve forgotten to factor in the Prospective Orgasm Count in Heterosexual vs Homosexual Couples, Ages 15-24. In an anti-homosexual society, your assumption is probably correct: the anomaly is not attractive because it comes with a hefty social burden.
Correcting skin color would be much easier than correcting something as complex as sexual orientation; obviously, no one would want carcinogenic, wrinkling skin that burns easily – and so your assumption seems to be that there will be no racial discrimination, since the anomaly of pale skin will be a thing of the past.
Biology appears more rational than society in this regard: black skin is simply structurally superior to white skin, resisting cancer, radiation burns, and wrinkling much better than the thin, fragile Caucasian variety, which more than offset’s its slightly higher propensity to scarring. The appearance of rationality is demonstrated by Black skin’s genetic dominance.
“. . I don’t think society would be under as much pressure . . . granting the civil rights of a protected class, particularly if we can say that they have simply refused “treatment†. . . (ranging from abortion to gene therapy) . . . ”
Ohhh, there seems to be another assumption lurking there. I don’t think the No Civil Rights For Those Who Should Have Been Treated With Abortion is really a winning platform; you might want to rewrite that assumption.
Sex vs Gender
The difference between gender and sex used to be clear: gender is masculine, feminine, or neutral; sex is female or male. Here’s an easy way to remember the difference: words have gender, people have sex.
Sadly, so many people have been unable to say “sex” when they mean sex that now gender means sex as well as gender. I suppose I can understand; I felt reluctant to say the word sex when I was 11, so I know what it’s like for those people…
Crap. I did forget to factor in Prospective Orgasm Count in Heterosexual vs Homosexual Couples, Ages 15-24.
I see you assume that if there is a switch, the only time it’s use would be contemplated would be to ‘correct’ an anomaly.
Where is he (or the rest of us) “assuming” that? I see discussion in this thread of using genetic modification to alter everything from heart disease to left-handedness.
black skin is simply structurally superior to white skin
Not if you’re living in a cloudy northern environment, it’s not.
Hint: Vitamin D.
I said “civil rights of a protected class,” David D. The distinction is made in the premise of the thought experiment (of which this is round 2).
So, that link is about Buckley in a menage a tres with Rosie and Ellen?
Nah, pretty tame, JD. I do think Buckley ca. 1960 would’ve boggled at the notion that threesomes would ever be discussed in the pages of that stodgy (if influential) journal.
Could science and judicial activism lead to the eventual eradication of homosexuality? I would say that shunning and imprisonment would be more effective. And appropriate.
I would say that shunning and imprisonment would be more effective. And appropriate.
Sure thing, trollbot.
We all know that throwing people in prison is the absolute best way of minimizing homosexual behavior.
I would say that shunning and imprisonment would be more effective. And appropriate.
Homophobe.
Doesn’t throwing people in prison actually increase the buttsecks?
I think Fnordson is trying to be a moby or something.
To be real honest I’ve never shunned before but I’m open to experimenting I think.
I think Fnordson is trying to be a moby or something.
That was my evaluation as well.
To be real honest I’ve never shunned before but I’m open to experimenting I think.
If this were a democracy, I’d vote that we start with Fnordson.
I think we will have to add shunning as a new layer in the same category as denounce, disown, and condemn.
Fnordson is hereby shunned.
I just never know what to do with my hands.
One of those instances where the words “homosexual” and “eradication” being so near each other set the outrage glands to pumping. Who needs to read and consider when you can just act shocked, appalled, and indignant.
It’s the modern day equivalent of, “well, I never!” — only with the stodgy old dowager replaced with the self-righteous, underschooled, overconfident, and supremely entitled microbrew aficionado.
Sorry Darlene, maybe I should have added another hyphen? I didn’t mean marriage laws are “anti-gay,” I was referring to laws that ban marriage between gays, and there are plenty of those, and they discriminate based on gender. And even though I’ve read this entire thread, including the posts regarding gender vs. sex, I’m using the term gender as a synonym for sex. Considering the prior debate, I’m sure I should have mentioned it, but I didn’t, and to a certain extent we’re arguing past each other because of it.
No one stops anyone from forming relationships outside of state sanction.
I never made such a claim in the first place. What IS being stopped is a subset of men and women from forming the same legal households with the same rights and responsibilities enjoyed by the majority, and the government prevents this subset from doing so based purely on physical gender (sex).
I realize the visceral need of SSM fanatics to demonize anyone who dares tread on their paperthin talking points, but I don’t have to like it or accept it.
That’s not fair. I’m not an SSM fanatic. I can however be accused of being a First Amendment fanatic, and a Fourteenth Amendment fanatic. Is that so wrong?
I bet that at the very least, in a general sense, you believe that justice is better had when The People are a race-less and sex-less entity in the eyes of the law.
yours/
peter.
592 Comment by happyfeet on 6/21 @ 6:00 pm #
I’ll look for it. It’s gonna be a hot summer. Is Arnold Palmer still alive? Not that it matters.
593 Comment by happyfeet on 6/21 @ 6:02 pm #
Yup. He is. He’s like 80 or so. Here’s a page on that drink.
I would like to point out that in two minutes happyfeet found out Arnie was still alive, found the website for his drink, and posted a link to said website. Two fucking minutes. I am in awe.
black skin is simply structurally superior to white skin, resisting cancer, radiation burns, and wrinkling much better than the thin, fragile Caucasian variety
Yeah but what about the band-aids? It is part of white privilege, go ask Jill and them over at Feministe. Black people can’t get matching band-aids.
It’s like this story I heard at lunch this week. Well it was this lady we took to lunch and she works at a very liberal place what makes liberal news stories and that sort of thing. And she identified herself as liberal… a lot and gratuitously. I notice this because I don’t identify politically hardly ever.
So turns out she’s one of those people who do this insane commute from like north or west of the city where first they drive a good bit to the train station and then the train takes them into the city.
So she says her kid is in private school cause the local schools suck and all the mayors were sucky until recently cause the new mayor is gay with kids. Yay. She likes that cause he’ll still bring the liberal sensibility she likes, him being gay and all (no shit she said that) but also he will understand the needs of parents, so she’s hopeful the schools will get better.
Well what’s wrong with the schools? They’re all immigrants. It’s less than ten percent white there she said. Mostly looking at me and not my immigrant non-white boss next to me. I nodded understandingly.
Oh. Thanks, B Moe. Sometimes it all just comes together.
Oh. I kind of got in trouble on the black skin thing when my friend J said she wanted to get a tattoo and I gave her a funny look. I said I just think that would be kind of a waste of money is all. She told me I needed to get out more, and she’s probably right.
Have you ever ad a Band-Aid that looked like you? Flesh colored my ass. Though they didn’t say what flesh, exactly, so they can always fall back on that.
Shut up, Pablo, it is white privilege and your argument only proves it. Jill’s friends explained it all to me.
Flesh colored my ass.
They might look okay on a K-Mart mannequin from 1958, but that’s about it.
I usually get the Scooby ones anyway.
I’m using the term gender as a synonym for sex
but it’s not so don’t be surprised if you’re misinterpreted.
I was referring to laws that ban marriage between gays,and there are plenty of those
link me some. I have yet to see a law that “bans” gay marriage
and they discriminate based on gender
no marriage statute demands a declaration of gender.
The law defines who can be INCLUDED, it has a standard by which one is qualified or not. It doesn’t allow 3 or more people to take out a marriage license, or minors, or a stepmom and her adult stepson.
If you want to have a home and a group of people there in a kind of Harrad Experiment style cohabitation, the law isn’t going to swoop down and jail you (unless you call yourself fundie mormon). But society is not obligated to recognize your relationship. Indeed, there is a whole body of law – landlord/tenent – that puts all sorts of constraints on contracts that would appear to interfere in a “private” living arrangement.
I want government to be as colorblind/sexblind as possible in the application of law, especially criminal law. However, contract law or employment law can/does legitimately carve out exceptions due to sex.
Because men and women are fundamentally different.
If they have a Band-Aid that matches one of them I’ll concede.
It doesn’t match brown or black people, that is all that matters. I need to find that link, they had a list of shit that proved white privilege that was beyond parody. Band aids that didn’t match was one of their no-shit examples of white privilege. That was when I had to break off communications and head her on back to the base.
That would be weird like if the school nurse only had black bandaids cause she had run out of white ones and had to put a black one on a white kid. Or vice versa. God knows what would ensue.
“…I’m using the term gender as a synonym for sex…”
Consider the (remote) possibility that peter jackson IS Ruth Bader Ginsberg. How cool would that be?
We only have Disney Princess band-aids in our home. Clearly we are racists.
I take that R.B.G. crack back right now. I just read peter jackson’s rant on More Summer Swallows and conclude there is now way in hell that peter jackson could be RBG, no way, no how. Which leaves me puzzled, kinda. Why buy into her creepy word substitution?
C’mon Darlene, certainly you’re not trying to argue that by defining legal marriage as being between parties of the opposite sex we avoid discriminating against homosexuals. If we defined private property as stuff possessed by white people, would that not deprive non-whites of their right to property? Anti-gay is as anti-gay does. This nation decided that The People were sex-less when we passed the 19th Amendment.
I want government to be as colorblind/sexblind as possible in the application of law, especially criminal law. However, contract law or employment law can/does legitimately carve out exceptions due to sex.
What other contract law other than marriage law and it’s derivative family law discriminates based on sex?
And no, I’m not Ruth Bader Ginsberg. I own too many guns and frankly my tits are nicer.
yours/
peter.
I fear this thread will not see 700.
C’mon thor, you can do it! Light fuse and run away!
Dammit, I told you to stop looking at my ass.
This is why the precise term best used in these discussions is “same-sex marriage,” which does not — cannot — in any way reference sexual orientation. If you make SSM legal you have to let straights do it too if they want, unless you put the state in the business of checking people’s sexual orientation at the license counter.
Nobody wants that.
The fact is, a gay man and a lesbian woman can marry each other if they want, it happens, and they are not prevented from doing so just because they don’t happen to crave access to each other’s privates. It happens far more often than is likely for two straight men or two straight women to want to marry each other, but if anyone believes the latter will never happen they are fooling themselves.
Don’t get hung up on the sexual orientation part of this. The laws on marriage simply do not deal with it and nobody with an ounce of sense wants them to.
You know, twenty to thirty years ago in this country, it was a pretty standard thing for those who chose to live the homosexual lifestyle to be shunned by normal members of society. There were laws against it homosexual behavior. At the very least, there were not grade school classrooms teaching that such aberrant behavior as they do today. I happen to believe that there is a correlation between the relaxation of these social standards and the pro-gay society we find in the United States now.
Maybe I was ineloquent in describing my position in my first post. The responses: name calling, childishness, etc., are, while perhaps expected, hardly any more eloquent.
To think that–in a time where many parents can barely be troubled to teach their children respect and basic manners–corrective therapies for homosexuality of any kind would eliminate this deviant lifestyle is patently absurd. Full stop.
That’s why “gay marriage” is a misnomer. It simultaneously appeals to sympathy on the part of the excruciatingly open-minded, and also appeals to the fears of the moralistic, while obfuscating what actually happens when the desired change to the laws is made.
You need to deal in realities, not desires or intentions. Supporters of “gay marriage” will lose control of the issue as soon as laws start changing.
Mr. Fredson’s much-improved #655 came in while I was composing #656 as as follow-up to my #654. To clarify.
I don’t know how much-improved it is really. He’s still a bigot I’m pretty sure. Gack on the how wonderful things were thirty years ago thing. Get a coping mechanism or something.
Again, nishi’s citations from science fiction make it clear that all she reads is from the Bradbury/Vonnegut/Zelazny axis. That makes sense, since those are the ones that get the Official Stamp of Approval® from academia.
She needs to make the acquaintance of the E.F. Russell branch, in particular Jack Chalker, Rudy Rucker, and Steve Sterling (whose byline is “S. M. Sterling”, and that’s for a reason.) The Draka would not only do your sex slave for you, they’d run off three or four alternatives for you to try out before purchase. What was done with the rejects would be something you should pay attention to…
Regards,
Ric
Well, much-improved for tone. For content maybe not so much.
Five more to go after this one! Come on, you can do it!
well….im really into bucknell and morgan just now.
bucknell is pretty much all about the us vs them satrapy stuff.
morgan is teh awesome “hard” scifi.
i dont unnerstand why SBP thinks he is derivative.
i dont see any analogies for karakuris, marstech, wire-heads, nanostacks, digitzed personalities and q-math in the older stuff.
happyfeets rules.
he’s a superhero in disguise im sure.
morgan is teh awesome “hard†scifi.
i dont unnerstand why SBP thinks he is derivative.
1) Bullshit. The “science” in his stories is pure fantasy.
2) Because every single idea in his works was explored decades ago. By better writers.
Name one original idea in Altered Carbon.
What other contract law other than marriage law and it’s derivative family law discriminates based on sex?
What about employment/workplace law and how pregnant women are treated? How about single-sex public restrooms? How about single-sex schools/programs/facilities/jails/scholarships/sports, et al?
How about women barred from combat positions within the military?
Indeed, I’ve made an analogy between the public institution of marriage (restricted membership, priviledges bestowed unavailable to non-members) and the public institution of the military (ditto).
The SEXES are not equal.
And if you give any credence to precedence, then no where in the history of human civilization has same-sex marriage existed. Ever. Even in ancient Greece or Rome where same-sex behavior was celebrated, marriage was STILL restricted to male/female.
SBP
i dont see any analogies for karakuris, marstech, wire-heads, nanostacks, digitzed personalities and q-math in the older stuff.
And if you give any credence to precedence, then no where in the history of human civilization has same-sex marriage existed.
dur, darleen, culture evolves.
that is how it is different from the rocks.
child
shush, adults are talking about things that are beyond your capacity to appreciate.
and child
you’ve never read Heinlein, I take it. or Asimov.
not surprising
dont see any analogies for karakuris, marstech, wire-heads, nanostacks, digitzed personalities and q-math in the older stuff.
That’s because you haven’t read it.
Hope this helps.
Recording and playback of personalities into cloned bodies? Used as a plot device for a murder mystery? See Overdrawn at the Memory Bank by John Varley. Published in 1976.
Not to mention that the whole “dark cyberpunk” crapola was mined out by Gibson and Sterling 20 years ago. Not even they write in that genre any more.
Whoops, The Phantom of Kansas in the same collection. Overdrawn at the Memory Bank is a different story, but also one that deals with personality recording and playback.
nishi, all these things have been done to death. The reason Morgan seems fresh to you is because you are poorly educated and only marginally literate.
Sucks to be you, huh?
Recording and playback of personalities into cloned bodies?
“Time Enough for Love” Robert Heinlein 1973
“Time Enough for Love†Robert Heinlein 1973
Yep. Also in some of his earlier Future History stories, if I remember right.
Morgan’s concept of the “stack” (an implanted personality backup device) has been around for ages, too.
Hell, even Spider Robinson, who isn’t exactly the first person who comes to mind when you think of “hard SF”(he’s an ancient hippie writer, though not too bad if you skip the occasional page or two of moonbattery), had similar devices in his Mindkiller series. Also wireheading.
SPB
yes Heinlein touched on “rejuvenation” in several stories. Also, he had sentient computers, too … with some yearning (pinochio-like) to become human.
I’m actually quite behind in a lot of my sci-fi reading. I just hate reading derivative stuff and kind of gave up with my usual method of haunting the stacks and picking at random. I’d really rather reread the old masters than waste time with lesser copie-cats.
:::sigh:::
I’m going to miss the new BSG when it finishes.
Darleen,
Neal Stephenson is pretty good.
His writing is immensely better than Morgan’s and he actually knows what he’s talking about.
thank you SBP
I’m taking notes! Going to the bookstore is like visiting a candystore … I’ve been a voracious, eclectic reader since childhood. I move from genre to genre, but sci fi is what I enjoy most.
The only genre I just could never get into is “romance”. argh.
Be warned, nishi also claims to be a Stephenson fan.
However I’ve seen no evidence that she’s ever actually read any of his books (or any other book for that matter), so I suspect that’s just because Stephenson is trendy in her gamer group.
You might want to start with Cryptonomicon.
Often into blind alleys and dead ends, just like species.
A culture that embraces same-sex marriage is likely to be just such an evolutionary dead end.
hahaha
im a stephenson head!
i sent joe katzman(winds of change) a copy of cryptonomicon and the Derb a copy of snow crash.
i wrote this.
i wrote this.
Stopped reading at the first illiteracy.
Sorry.
Rawlins virus.
wheres that in the old stuff SBP?
Rawlins virus comes from this
why does this sound like, ….back in the day, we had real science fiction, by cracky!
Bored with you now, child.
Go read a couple of chapters of Morgan’s latest Flash Gordon pastiche, masturbate to your Warren Christopher poster, and go to sleep.
just such an evolutionary dead end.
if that was true, there would be no homosexuals today.
;)
haha!
i punkd SBP!!!!!
w00t!
lolololll1!!1llolol!
Whatever you say, child.
But tomorrow morning I’ll still be a literate adult with a responsible job, and you’ll still be an illiterate child who works as a glorified file clerk.
It really is a mental midget.
ship-djinns….im sure that has been done before….morgan just does it better.
Jesusland……came from the 2004 elections….
And what about Bucknell?
the Lamina?
Read these.
If you can.
i’ve read lot of those.
i learned to read with one of older brothers Nebula Awards books.
i think ur behind the curve SBP.
What about Bucknell’s Lamina?
i think that is original.
i learned to read with scifi.
i cut my baby teeth on Heinlein and Asimov.
weaned from the teat straight to Dr. Pepper.
i’ve read lot of those</I.
Liar.
i learned to read with one of older brothers Nebula Awards books.
Liar.
What about Bucknell’s Lamina?
If you think I’m going to dig Morgan’s piece of shit out of the “to be sold used on Amazon.com when I get around to it” pile and reread that turd so I can debate every plot point with an illiterate, lying child, you’re friggin’ insane.
But we already knew that, didn’t we?
You know how a couple of years ago you used to think that R.L. Stine was the greatest writer in human history?
You’ll feel the same way about Morgan one of these days. Trust me.
nishi @682
outside of the fact that your link loads up wrong, you do realize, don’t you, that “The Puppet Masters” is a 1951 Heinlein story?
i cut my baby teeth on Heinlein and Asimov.
I don’t believe you.
haha!
i punkd SBP!!!!!
w00t!
lolololll1!!1llolol!
Damn! Could you do it again? Because I completely missed the first one.
i cut my baby teeth on Heinlein and Asimov.
I buy her books and she just chews the covers off them.
700, bitches
darleen…..my link doesnt load wrong.
morgan took Rawlins virus from Carl Zimmers concept of bio-memes, as illustrated by toxoplasma gonodii influencing reckless behavior in cats.
Zimmer used the old title in humor.
;)
in all of Morgan’s books, he gives props to whatever bleeding edge technology has influenced his future projections.
he also cited the Jesusland maps from the 2004 elections as the inspiration for the Jesusland in Thirteen.
from the link…
cats carry it, rats eat it and become less anxious about cats. it’s not teh kitteh behavior that’s altered.
there’s another example o’ that reading comprehension thing…again.
dummie, the argument is about whether Morgan uses new paradigms or just recycles.
he cites Zimmers work in Woken Furies preface.
i havent read it in a cuple years, sowwy.
;)
and actually, Morgan doesnt cite this particular article….i could have linked Parasite Rex but this article was more accessible.
he also cited the Jesusland maps
Done better by Heinlein (Revolt in 2100), Atwood (Handmaid’s Tale), Heinlein again (JOB), George R.R. Martin (the Steel Angels in several of his shorts)…..
Yawn.
maybe for you. but for some us it’s about how factually inaccurate you usually are. can’t get a simple fact right from an article you link and people are supposed to accept any other “argument” you might make? just tryin’ to keep others from being led astray, here.
sowwy, i misspoke then maggie.
i havent read that article recently
thank you for the correction.
;)
SBP, but they didnt cite the maps on the internets in their preface.
what about Rawlins virus?
and the Lamina?–but that is from Bucknell, not Morgan.
Have u read Bucknell?
….and the karakuri, and nanostacks, and wire-heads….theres tons of new stuff.
im tired and you are boring old geezers that can’t accept that new scifi is bein written all the time.
nite.
;)
Darlene!
What about employment/workplace law and how pregnant women are treated? How about single-sex public restrooms? How about single-sex schools/programs/facilities/jails/scholarships/sports, et al?
I’m surprised, you forgot affirmative action.
The SEXES are not equal.
So what? What does that have to do with the equal protection of the laws? None of us are equal to any other, ever. Hell, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, we’re not equal to ourselves on different days of the week. What about not being equal necessitates unequal treatment before the law?
And if you give any credence to precedence, then no where in the history of human civilization has same-sex marriage existed. Ever. Even in ancient Greece or Rome where same-sex behavior was celebrated, marriage was STILL restricted to male/female.
We all agree that the law should evolve slowly and deliberately, even to a fault, but that’s not to say the law shouldn’t evolve at all. Precedence is a tool for protecting and retaining what we know, not for creating stasis in spite of what we ever come to know. All human progress is by definition a break from precedent. Conservatism is a virtue because it is a means to an end, not because it’s an end itself.
yours/
peter.
All human progress is by definition a break from precedent.
Not all breaks from precedence is progress. When Prohibition was passed, was that progress? If a future SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade, will that be progress? Was the Kelo decision progress?
Again, putting parameters on a PUBLIC institution, be it marriage or the military, is not an out-of-hand abbrogation of “equal protection”.
IF you believe a father is an integral part of a child’s life (or a mother) then you cannot support the idea that same-sex marriage is the equivalent of opposite-sex marriage.
The majority of Americans want SS couples to have legal rights to protect property, inheritance, medical care, etc. However, if it comes to things like adoption, then they are second tier in priority to having a child placed with them.
argh
hit “say it button too soon”
Marriage for one man/one woman; civil unions/domestic partnerships for all other arrangements. Thus if two maiden spinster sisters want to protect their assets, they can avail themselves of civil unions, too.
yo
Nishi’s string of being completely mistaken remains unbroken. Nishi, how do you expect us to take you seriously when you’re so consistently off-target? Is there anything at all that you’re right about, even occasionally?
You know what’s hilarious? How much you conservatives have to lie to yourselves to be convinced that the world is actually moving in the direction of conservatism. Conservatism is the antithesis of progress. Start thinking in secular terms brothers if you want to be ahead of the curve. In reality you are desperate religio-monkeys holding onto your “precious” (judeo-christian belief systems) until atheism finally stomps your fingers and throws that piece of shit into the fires of Mordor where it belongs.
You know what’s hilarious?
You attempting to butt-fuck that gigantic straw man you’re setting up?
In reality you are desperate religio-monkeys
In reality, you are a jabbering moron. I mean, considering that you’re checking into this thread well over a year late.
Hope this helps!
Its probably just like attempts to eradicate or ‘correct’ the left handed (though this is seeminly much harder to change). Scientifically possible? Perhaps. But I think people will just be over it, like the left handed, by the time that is possible.
PS: And don’t pretend homosexuality could have no evolutionary purpose. If it didn’t, it would have died long ago. Most higher mammals have non-reproducing populations that serve a purpose for the population as a whole.