Political Crossfire Forums

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Accountability solves the problem for us. Make experimenters responsible for their mistakes. If this is an insurmountable hurdle and cloning cannot progress because of it, oh well. That's the price of accountability. If you're wrong and such dangerous experimentation is unnecessary or negligible, all the better.

Accountability doesn't solve my problem. My point was that mistakes MUST be made by SOMEONE at some point in order to one day yield flawless human cloning. What we do with those who made the mistakes is moot; whether we tell them, "keep up the good work" or immediatily strap them into the electric chair, that hasn't changed the fact that a conscious mistake child was brought into the world.

How can you get to perfect cloning without screwing it up first? Punishing those who screw it up does not answer this question. You are implying that accountability is the magic wand that allows humans to make a perfect clone on the very first try?

Unless you are talking about such a strong deterrent that no one is gutsy enough to even try it due to the terrible risk of punishment. In which case bravo and that is just as good; for all intents and purposes you have banned human cloning just as well as an actual human cloning ban and this is exactly what I want.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: It's not pending because I addressed it.

Yes, NOW you have. :)

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Only you and Joseph Mengele have the balls to try to pass evolution off as an ethics issue.

You want to quote me on that? I suggested that human cloning will have negative consequences, and that is the truth. In saying the consequences I'm suddenly taking an ethical stance? I don't think so. I never suggested that it was ethically wrong or immorral to dillute the gene pool. I am rather suggesting that it is foolishly stupid, reckess and irresponsible to dillute the gene pool.

Besides, it's not like the arguments need to be ethical anyway. When you created this thread you asked for arguments against human cloning (besides a few) but you didn't indicate a mandatory nature for those arguments.

Now as far as my safety objection, that most certainly is an ethical stance.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: But because you consider human evolution so important...

Yes, because without the evolution, we wouldn't even BE HERE!! We would not even be having this conversation. We would be no more than primordial ooze. Yes I'd say that evolution is rather important. What else isn't all that important, the sun?

Evolution will continue to enhance our species and make us more adaptable. We are not at the pinnacle. Your cloning will not, considering that you already claimed there would be no enhancements or genetic engineering going on. You will just be playing reruns.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: ...the gods of evolution don't necessarily have humanity's best interests in mind.

They don't? Whose best interests DO they have in mind? The prairie shrew? The rhino? The portugese man o' war?

You ever heard of a guy called Darwin before? The living world is no more than cut throat competition. Think of the genetics of a certain species as that species own personal playbook against all the competing species in the game of life. It would be like suggesting that a football coach doesn't have HIS teams best interests in mind. Human genes are designed and function for human supremacy only.

Besides, since you aren't talking about genetic engineering, or humans taking over in natures place for evolution, what ARE you trying to suggest by that statement? That we need to halt or hinder evolution before it kills us all?

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Evolution might not even want us much longer. Technology may allow us a sporting chance to overstay our welcome.

You're going to have to elaborate on this one. Can you explain why we should believe that, after hundreds of thousands of years of evolving progressively, that suddenly the human genes are going to do a complete 180 and start instead behaving to erradicate us all? I can't take your word for it on this one.

Even so you said "might".. Not a good basis to start being reckless. It's the same as people who insist that Iran might build nuclear weapons and then might use those nuclear weapons to nuke Israel, and so we have to start a big war because of what they might do.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: As for the mutation part of the argument, positive mutations occur so rarely that you're talking on a millenial time scale. We'll be more than over the human genome hump in 1000 years.

I thought you weren't talking about genetic engineering.

[Phædrus]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: If you want to debate these peripheral cloning issues, start a thread titled "Peripheral Cloning Issues" and I'll be happy to debate them with you. This thread is for issues that relate directly to the ethics of cloning itself.



My arguments are intended for the 1% of the people on this forum who aren't functional retards. Just so we're on the same page, I and others like me know that cloning is only an "issue" for Middle American red state mongrel people to fuss over. To minimally intelligent people, there is no cloning controversy. There's only the problem of anti-cloning Luddites, and how best to marginalize them more than they marginalize themselves.

purely out of interest you understand ... but I was wondering if you thought of my contributions to this discussion to be representative of the one or of the ninety-nine percent?

[straw man]

John is part of the 99% himself so it doesn't much matter. In fact he went on to specify the minimal intellegence of people who try do deal with the anti cloning people:

John Wilkes Booth wrote: To minimally intelligent people, there is no cloning controversy. There's only the problem of anti-cloning Luddites, and how best to marginalize them more than they marginalize themselves.

I wouldn't have expected John to diss the cloning enthusiasts like that.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Accountability solves the problem for us. Make experimenters responsible for their mistakes. If this is an insurmountable hurdle and cloning cannot progress because of it, oh well. That's the price of accountability. If you're wrong and such dangerous experimentation is unnecessary or negligible, all the better.

Accountability doesn't solve my problem. My point was that mistakes MUST be made by SOMEONE at some point in order to one day yield flawless human cloning. What we do with those who made the mistakes is moot; whether we tell them, "keep up the good work" or immediatily strap them into the electric chair, that hasn't changed the fact that a conscious mistake child was brought into the world.

How can you get to perfect cloning without screwing it up first? Punishing those who screw it up does not answer this question. You are implying that accountability is the magic wand that allows humans to make a perfect clone on the very first try?

Unless you are talking about such a strong deterrent that no one is gutsy enough to even try it due to the terrible risk of punishment. In which case bravo and that is just as good; for all intents and purposes you have banned human cloning just as well as an actual human cloning ban and this is exactly what I want.


Your arguments also apply to surgery. Were the first surgeons, by definition, immoral?

[Cato]

Quote: Wrong. It's entirely up to them. If 100% of the clones decide not to help the scientists involved in the project, too bad for the scientists.

Answer the rest of my post, and I'll respond. By the way, strawman made a very apt comment after your response. Anyway, the whole thing is so very ridiculous... Just respond to the rest of my post.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote:

You want to quote me on that? I suggested that human cloning will have negative consequences, and that is the truth. In saying the consequences I'm suddenly taking an ethical stance? I don't think so. I never suggested that it was ethically wrong or immorral to dillute the gene pool. I am rather suggesting that it is foolishly stupid, reckess and irresponsible to dillute the gene pool.
If you say something shouldn't be done because it's irresponsible, you're making an ethical claim. Quote:
Besides, it's not like the arguments need to be ethical anyway. When you created this thread you asked for arguments against human cloning (besides a few) but you didn't indicate a mandatory nature for those arguments.

Yes, because without the evolution, we wouldn't even BE HERE!! We would not even be having this conversation. We would be no more than primordial ooze. Yes I'd say that evolution is rather important. I see. So exactly how indebted are we to evolution, that future policy must pay it homage? Quote: What else isn't all that important, the sun? The sun is great. Does that make sunblock a sacrilege? Or lightbulbs? Quote:

Evolution will continue to enhance our species and make us more adaptable. We are not at the pinnacle. Ask any evolutionary biologist: there is no pinnacle. We, like all animals, are a quirk. Quote: Your cloning will not, considering that you already claimed there would be no enhancements or genetic engineering going on. Perhaps developing brains capable of creating the science of cloning is an adaptation. Quote: You will just be playing reruns.

They don't? Whose best interests DO they have in mind? The prairie shrew? The rhino? The portugese man o' war? Nobody's. Quote:

You ever heard of a guy called Darwin before? The living world is no more than cut throat competition. Fine, I'll make sure my clone avoids the Serengeti. Quote: Think of the genetics of a certain species as that species own personal playbook against all the competing species in the game of life. It would be like suggesting that a football coach doesn't have HIS teams best interests in mind. Human genes are designed and function for human supremacy only. Your DNA is designed to spread more of your DNA. Period. It doesn't give a damn about the human species. I've never heard of any species that behaves with its entire species' interests in mind. In fact, outside the hive, all other creatures, other bees included, are enemies, regardless of species. Chimps kill chimps. Lions fight lions. Some cats and bears even eat their young (or more telling, the young of the male who came before them, so as to better the odds of their OWN offspring). And of course, people, even in nature, kill people.

You have a gross misunderstanding of evolution. It is not something sacred to be upheld. It is an observation about nature. We need only understand it. Quote:

Besides, since you aren't talking about genetic engineering, or humans taking over in natures place for evolution, what ARE you trying to suggest by that statement? That we need to halt or hinder evolution before it kills us all? It's nothing but false dichotomies with you. Evolution is a natural phenomenon meant to be studied for the betterment of humanity. If evolution will help us, hinder us, kill us, or leave us be, it's better that we know. Quote:

You're going to have to elaborate on this one. Can you explain why we should believe that, after hundreds of thousands of years of evolving progressively, that suddenly the human genes are going to do a complete 180 and start instead behaving to erradicate us all? I can't take your word for it on this one. Your problem is that you think of evolution in terms of progressing when in fact progress is the exception. More often, evolution is merely about changing to fit an environment. Evolution does not move ever forward. You will not find that in any modern text. That is a proto-religious concept based on the assumption that we're fundamentally better than other animals. We're smarter. I hope that means "better" to you, because that's the only thing that makes us an improvement in any way.

Don't believe me that evolutionary improvement is merely a matter of perspective? Give me any example of a descendant being an improvement on an ancestor that doesn't involve our specific lineage. Is a bird an improvement on a dinosaur? Is an oceanic whale an improvement on its ancient land-dwelling ancestor? Is an elephant an improvement on a mammoth (or whatever elephants are descended from, I think those are just related). Is a small dragonfly an improvement on a big dragonfly? Quote:

Even so you said "might".. Not a good basis to start being reckless. It's the same as people who insist that Iran might build nuclear weapons and then might use those nuclear weapons to nuke Israel, and so we have to start a big war because of what they might do.
Yeah, or a guy who pulls out a knife and says "I might kill you."* Quote:
John Wilkes Booth wrote: As for the mutation part of the argument, positive mutations occur so rarely that you're talking on a millenial time scale. We'll be more than over the human genome hump in 1000 years.

I thought you weren't talking about genetic engineering.

Doesn't mean I'm going to pretend it will never happen.




*I'm not referring to the Iran situation, but to its silly use as an analogy.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: John is part of the 99% himself so it doesn't much matter. In fact he went on to specify the minimal intellegence of people who try do deal with the anti cloning people:

John Wilkes Booth wrote: To minimally intelligent people, there is no cloning controversy. There's only the problem of anti-cloning Luddites, and how best to marginalize them more than they marginalize themselves.

I wouldn't have expected John to diss the cloning enthusiasts like that.

People use that phrase to refer to the minimal intelligence necessary to not be an idiot.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Cato wrote:
Answer the rest of my post, and I'll respond. By the way, strawman made a very apt comment after your response. Anyway, the whole thing is so very ridiculous... Just respond to the rest of my post.

Gladly.
Cato wrote:

So, these humans you create have no choice but to be subjects in your science experiments? Wrong. Quote: You're argument implies that you have control over a cloned child because you are responsible for its engenderment; Actually it doesn't. That's an assumption on your part. Quote: you claim ownership of the child because you've created it. That has no legal precedent and frankly it's a little creepy that you suggest it. Quote: Natural parents, in this day and age, do not have the right to do whatever they wish with their children. Couldn't have put it better myself. Quote: They may not abuse it, exterminate it, subject it to experimentation, make it labour for them, et cetera. You seem to believe that creating a child for science grants you these rights.
You certainly seem to think I believe that. Quote:
Besides, what makes your clone child any different from a natural child? Absolutely positively nothing. So what's all the fuss? Quote: There can be only one difference. Natural children are born into families for the end of propagating the species and bringing parents great psychological pleasure. Children are born for all sorts of reasons. Often no reason at all. Quote: Your clone child, conversely, is created to be a test-subject, and that alone. You're half right. It is creaed for science and whatever other reasons the parents had. Quote: You are thus creating a human who will grow up psychologically damaged perforce. If the subject doesn't want to be in the experiment, it doesn't have to be. Quote: Simply put, if you create a human being with the end of placing it in a black-room and subjecting it to stimuli, you're a madman. Period. You have created a slave.
I agree 100%. As does the entire scientific community and anyone who will one day clone a human. Quote:
Besides, science's use for cloned humans seems.. limited and.. moronic... Is that your scientific opinion? Quote: Social science doesn't need to create humans to pursue its studies; simply, their experiments can be done without creating clones. Also, their experiments are not that pressing! Isolating nature from nurture isn't pressing? Why don't you read up on what's at stake before you say something like that. Quote:

Please! If you can think of a viable and sensible reason for propagating this potentially dangerous technology, make it known! Otherwise, perhaps human-cloning should remain something for cheesy sci-fies, hrm? Or we'll just have to wait for people like you to die out like an obsolete species.

[straw man]

Not bad, John. Let me process this and I can get back to you. You might just have a case. But 24 is on tonight so it might not be till later but stand by.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: straw man wrote: John is part of the 99% himself so it doesn't much matter. In fact he went on to specify the minimal intellegence of people who try do deal with the anti cloning people:

John Wilkes Booth wrote: To minimally intelligent people, there is no cloning controversy. There's only the problem of anti-cloning Luddites, and how best to marginalize them more than they marginalize themselves.

I wouldn't have expected John to diss the cloning enthusiasts like that.

People use that phrase to refer to the minimal intelligence necessary to not be an idiot.

Oh I see, it's ambiguous. My bad.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: Not bad, John. Let me process this and I can get back to you. You might just have a case. But 24 is on tonight so it might not be till later but stand by.

You're being pretty decent, so I'd feel like a dick if I didn't admit that your arguments got more sophisticated as you were pressed.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: straw man wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Accountability solves the problem for us. Make experimenters responsible for their mistakes. If this is an insurmountable hurdle and cloning cannot progress because of it, oh well. That's the price of accountability. If you're wrong and such dangerous experimentation is unnecessary or negligible, all the better.

Accountability doesn't solve my problem. My point was that mistakes MUST be made by SOMEONE at some point in order to one day yield flawless human cloning. What we do with those who made the mistakes is moot; whether we tell them, "keep up the good work" or immediatily strap them into the electric chair, that hasn't changed the fact that a conscious mistake child was brought into the world.

How can you get to perfect cloning without screwing it up first? Punishing those who screw it up does not answer this question. You are implying that accountability is the magic wand that allows humans to make a perfect clone on the very first try?

Unless you are talking about such a strong deterrent that no one is gutsy enough to even try it due to the terrible risk of punishment. In which case bravo and that is just as good; for all intents and purposes you have banned human cloning just as well as an actual human cloning ban and this is exactly what I want.


Your arguments also apply to surgery. Were the first surgeons, by definition, immoral?

The difference is that clones do not have a choice if they are screwed up or not. They are born screwed up and have to live with the mistake that others made without their consent.

As opposed to surgury, which can have the patient's consent. The surgeon might say, "look we have an experimental new procedure that might save your life. It's risky, we could screw it up and cause you problems or death, but we might also be successful and remove that tumor so you can live a long and healthy life". At which point the patient can make his own decision.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Wrong. It's entirely up to them. If 100% of the clones decide not to help the scientists involved in the project, too bad for the scientists.

So then what were those extra clones created for? They were made in vain! That's no good. The problem is that each clone created for research is a risk. It would be immorral to make more of them than necessary. If let's say some arbitrary number say 20% of clones gave consent. This means you would have to produce approx. five times as many clones to have enough subjects to figure out the technology. If you're saying that taking such risks is worthwile in the name of science, that's fine, but then it would be unethical to make more clones than you have to, with just increased risk. The scientists should produce as few clones as they can in order to learn what they need to, that would be more ethical. Honestly I would prefer if you forced the clone into experimentation against their will, rather than just make clone after clone after clone until you find one that agrees. Of course forcing them is also unethical. So it really doesn't matter which you do or how you slice it, you are going to have to somehow be unethical about it.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: I see. So exactly how indebted are we to evolution, that future policy must pay it homage?

I didn't say to pay it homage. I said to not screw with it.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: The sun is great. Does that make sunblock a sacrilege? Or lightbulbs?

No.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Ask any evolutionary biologist: there is no pinnacle. We, like all animals, are a quirk.

Which is why we are nowhere near any kind of pinnacle.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Your problem is that you think of evolution in terms of progressing when in fact progress is the exception.

Well then I guess humans were the exception. Becuase humans have evolved progressively forward.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: More often, evolution is merely about changing to fit an environment. Evolution does not move ever forward.

Who cares. We're not talking about evolution as a whole. The topic of this discussion is human evolution, which happens to have a heck of a lot of progress behind it.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: That is a proto-religious concept based on the assumption that we're fundamentally better than other animals.

I would never assume such a silly thing.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: We're smarter. I hope that means "better" to you, because that's the only thing that makes us an improvement in any way.

Not quite. How about opposable grasping thumbs?

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Don't believe me that evolutionary improvement is merely a matter of perspective? Give me any example of a descendant being an improvement on an ancestor that doesn't involve our specific lineage.

I can't think of any. Can you help me out?

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Is a bird an improvement on a dinosaur?

Thanks, John. I knew you'd come through for me! Yes, a bird is an improvement. Birds can fly and dinosaurs can't. That's a pretty handy skill to have. Birds can build a nest way up high in the trees where the non tree climbing or non flying predators can't get to it. Some of them can dive bomb for fish in the middle of the sea, a tasty treat that a dinosaur probably couldn't have access to. I thought flying was the one improvement that us humans were jealous of.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Is a small dragonfly an improvement on a big dragonfly?

I'm sure it depends on which environment, but I'm sure it could easily be advantagous to be smaller. Maybe it would be easier to hide yourself from the more dangerous predators. And a smaller dragonfly would require less food.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: straw man wrote: Even so you said "might".. Not a good basis to start being reckless. It's the same as people who insist that Iran might build nuclear weapons and then might use those nuclear weapons to nuke Israel, and so we have to start a big war because of what they might do.
Yeah, or a guy who pulls out a knife and says "I might kill you."*

When a guy does that, he is clearly indicating a very real threat, actully displaying the knife. So what indications are there that evolution plans to kill us all? Where's the threat?

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Doesn't mean I'm going to pretend [genetic engineering] will never happen.

Then it looks like you're admitting that genetic engineering is now a valid counterargument against cloning. The two go hand in hand.

[Cato]

Quote: Children are born for all sorts of reasons. Often no reason at all.

Okay, how does that morally validate your reason?

Quote: the subject doesn't want to be in the experiment, it doesn't have to be.

Are you the moral arbiter for every scientist? You seem to believe you are: "I agree 100%. As does the entire scientific community and anyone who will one day clone a human." Now, I'm pretty sure you don't know this for a fact; I'm pretty damn sure.

Quote: Is that your scientific opinion?

Yes, there are other, less drastic means. (Though this is all very shaky! I don't even know what scientific opportunities cloning humans truly offers!) Science doesn't need to detonate a bomb that will in theory destroy the world in order to prove that it will in actuality.

Quote: Isolating nature from nurture isn't pressing?

Not remarkably. I think that science, and reason, have pretty much solved this modern riddle. (I say modern because the ancient philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, were both behaviorists (socialization decides behavior). I firmly believe that 'nurture' programs the human super-ego. It only makes sense; your behavior is based on what you experience. If you live in a world where to press a button is to receive food, you will press that button. Nature provides the tools, nurture the instruction on how to use those tools. The debate is resoundingly over. Or, at least that's my contention.

Quote: Why don't you read up on what's at stake before you say something like that.

That's vague. There's nothing 'at stake' here. 'At stake' applies to something that may be lost.

Quote: Or we'll just have to wait for people like you to die out like an obsolete species.

You are crazy! People like me? How have you styled me, you foolish person?

[straw man]

Cato wrote: That's vague. There's nothing 'at stake' here. 'At stake' applies to something that may be lost.

Well he alluded to an apocolyptic threat that evolution presents to destroy humanity. I am awaiting the details about the nature of this threat.

[Cato]

Quote: Well he alluded to an apocolyptic threat that evolution presents to destroy humanity.

Not in our correspondence! He believes evolution itself poses a threat? Is he here proposing we take evolution into our own hands?

Quote: I am awaiting the details about the nature of this threat.

This should be interesting...

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Evolution might not even want us much longer. Technology may allow us a sporting chance to overstay our welcome.

[Cato]

Strange.