Political Crossfire Forums

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: You object because it will hinder human evolution? Any other eugenic sympathies you want to tell us about?

Are you really going to make me offer an anti-eugenic argument in the 21st century?

I can't make you do anything. In fact I can't get you to address any arguments against cloning. Even with you cherry picking you cop out on every last one. I guess I'll go debate with somebody else who actually has a pair.

Please do.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Jason.Spade wrote: I have a response that I think is valid.

Concise Brevity wrote:
We are growing up in a society where the lines between 'good' and 'bad' are being blurred further and further.

Cloning provides massive amounts of fallback material for the human race- extra organs, individually grown, to additional populace. Essentially, I'm saying that it becomes easier for the typical person to do something ridiculusly foolish and feel no consequence. If organs can be grown and replaced, there is less of an emphasis upon doing activities safely or smartly.

I propose that morals would further degrade and bring down the general intellects, or at least common sense, of society.


The principle is correct, and very much alive. The introductions of airbags increased car wrecks (though reduced overall fatalities).

The question: is that an argument against airbags?



I should clarify that I nor any sensible person advocate growing full human clones for the purposes of organs, nor do we consider it pertinent to the argument... especially since scientists have already begun growing organs in the lab.

[XXXBlondieXXX]

politicalmojo wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?
2. loss of identity, since twins don't cost each other their identity?
3. vanity, since vain people can just go the cheaper route and f**k?
4. genetic engineering, since that's a separate issue entirely?
5. increased abortions, since that's also a separate issue?

Cloning is tampering with life itself. It is stating that our exsistence is relative and can be easily changed and manipulated to fit human desires. It is extremely dangerous and extremely unethical.

Rankor and Pissing wrote: How about racism and cultural identity? If there were say, 5 million clones in the U.S., and they were obviously clones (somehow all of them say, looked like and spoke like... Gilbert Gottfried)



I would suspect that these clones may be pelted and shunned as being clones - maybe there'd be restaurants with "No Clones Served Here" signs... "Death to Aflac" type of thing... I'm making this a little tongue and cheek obviously, but think of the movie Blade Runner based upon Phillip K. Dick's view of the future where bio-engineered humans with very short lifespans are look on like cattle and are only made to do humans dirty work. They're expendible.

I submit that may also happen with clones.

Another issue may be that clones could be used as human drug testing subjects, or possibly since they were engineered, germs and viruses could mutate unexpectedly and cause the next world wide pandemic erasing half the population of the world.


THese are my thoughts exactly, not to mention the arguments of the first message.

[AllAmericanMan]

Human cloning will never happen, at least not that anyone will ever know about. Look it boils down to this. Cloning a human would literally kill God.

Think about it, theres 2 of you now? How is it possible that you have a soul? The realization: Religion has been a scam since the dawn of man. You have a semi advanced brain, but not advanced enough to figure this out on your own. You have no soul, there is no afterlife. No way any governing power would want that coin taken from the table of controlling their population.

[Phædrus]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Phædrus wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Phædrus wrote: for what it's worth ... I agree with Cato too ...

the only rationale for cloning is tied to the rationale of mass production ... Wrong, I gave another rationale. Quote:
there is no reason to make copies of human beings unless these are going to have a use value in an economy ... perhaps there will occur individual cases where any human cloning technology might have medical benefits, but the underlying motivation to develop such technology must depend on some desire to produce extra useful human beings that are different from the human beings who already exist and who can be used and controlled by some sort of elite ...
On the contrary, cloning can be used to subvert the elite. One of the ways the elite try to control us is by cataloguing us, and one of the ways they've done that recently is by our DNA. If more and more people have similar DNA (imagine if a million people only had a thousand varieties of DNA between them), genetic profiling will be more difficult, and what can the elite do about that?

so what you are saying is that cloning is a wonderful idea because it COULD be used by the forces of revolution to overthrow the powers that be?


No. I'm not saying it's a wonderful idea at all. You see, I don't suffer from this cultural sickness of wanting to ban everything I can't justify.

I am sorry, but I really do not follow you here at all. Who wants to ban everything that cannot be justified? What an odd construction.

So what do you think? You do not think that cloning is a wonderful idea at all, but you are saying that it can be justified and so must be permitted to take place?

You appeared in your previous post to be arguing against my claim that the only rationale for cloning comes form the interests of mass production controlled by an elite. In order to do this you appeared to be saying that it would also be possible for clones to be used to overthrow an elite. Since this does not actually contradict my point - the clones in question, the ones working for the forces of revolution, would still be controlled by some sort of political (albeit radical) elite, it is not clear what you are trying to tell me.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Phædrus wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Phædrus wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Phædrus wrote: for what it's worth ... I agree with Cato too ...

the only rationale for cloning is tied to the rationale of mass production ... Wrong, I gave another rationale. Quote:
there is no reason to make copies of human beings unless these are going to have a use value in an economy ... perhaps there will occur individual cases where any human cloning technology might have medical benefits, but the underlying motivation to develop such technology must depend on some desire to produce extra useful human beings that are different from the human beings who already exist and who can be used and controlled by some sort of elite ...
On the contrary, cloning can be used to subvert the elite. One of the ways the elite try to control us is by cataloguing us, and one of the ways they've done that recently is by our DNA. If more and more people have similar DNA (imagine if a million people only had a thousand varieties of DNA between them), genetic profiling will be more difficult, and what can the elite do about that?

so what you are saying is that cloning is a wonderful idea because it COULD be used by the forces of revolution to overthrow the powers that be?


No. I'm not saying it's a wonderful idea at all. You see, I don't suffer from this cultural sickness of wanting to ban everything I can't justify.

I am sorry, but I really do not follow you here at all. Who wants to ban everything that cannot be justified? What an odd construction.

So what do you think? You do not think that cloning is a wonderful idea at all, but you are saying that it can be justified and so must be permitted to take place?

You appeared in your previous post to be arguing against my claim that the only rationale for cloning comes form the interests of mass production controlled by an elite. In order to do this you appeared to be saying that it would also be possible for clones to be used to overthrow an elite. Since this does not actually contradict my point - the clones in question, the ones working for the forces of revolution, would still be controlled by some sort of political (albeit radical) elite, it is not clear what you are trying to tell me.

The answer is simple: anyone can make a clone.

[John Wilkes Booth]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Human cloning will never happen, at least not that anyone will ever know about. Look it boils down to this. Cloning a human would literally kill God.
Ridiculous. People will always rationalize God back into existence. Quote:
Think about it, theres 2 of you now?
No. A clone is not you. A clone merely shares your DNA. There is nothing new about this, people share DNA all the time.
Quote: How is it possible that you have a soul? I often wonder how my identical twin nieces plan to get into heaven with half a soul each. Quote: The realization: Religion has been a scam since the dawn of man. You have a semi advanced brain, but not advanced enough to figure this out on your own. You have no soul, there is no afterlife. No way any governing power would want that coin taken from the table of controlling their population.

Too bad they don't have that level of control. Cloning is inevitable.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Look, just so we're on the same page, cloning is going to happen and is going to happen very soon. I'm just amusing myself with some writhing and squirming on the part of half-thinkers and their non-arguments against cloning.


"Cloning is, like, playing with life itself, maaaan."

Laughable. Embarrassing. How do you people tie your shoes in the morning?

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Look, just so we're on the same page, cloning is going to happen and is going to happen very soon.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?...

Just remember John, "over, under, around the tree...." or in your case you might just need to use velcro.

[George W Bush]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Cloning a human would literally kill God.


in that case.....clone away. :lol:

Seriously, though. Heres food for thought:

this matter will put America in the dark ages faster than you can say "China is Atheist and could give a rats ass about a God"

now, figure that one out.

[Gus]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Human cloning will never happen, at least not that anyone will ever know about. Look it boils down to this. Cloning a human would literally kill God.

Think about it, theres 2 of you now? How is it possible that you have a soul? The realization: Religion has been a scam since the dawn of man. You have a semi advanced brain, but not advanced enough to figure this out on your own. You have no soul, there is no afterlife. No way any governing power would want that coin taken from the table of controlling their population.
Nah, their bodies might be the same, but the person would always be different...

[Cato]

]John Wilkes Booth wrote: Cato wrote: Well, I think that conventional research techniques suffice.. It seems a little over-board to create human beings for the purpose of research

I agree; that's why I didn't propose that.

Cato wrote: ; at least that's my contention. To utilize this technology for such a reason seems absurd, simply.

We have an opportunity to collect groundbreaking empirical data on human behavior and we should pass it up? Now that's absurd.

Can you spot the contradiction?

Quote: That paragraph wasn't about cloning at all, actually. It was a reply to one of your previous statements.

You certainly seem to be suggesting that we should utalize this technology in any way that will make our lives more pleasurable. I merely ask, slaves, or over-men?

Quote: Cato wrote: Anyway, progress in no way guarantees an increase in happiness.

So just stop trying?

No; stop trying through progress.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Look, just so we're on the same page, cloning is going to happen and is going to happen very soon.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?...

Just remember John, "over, under, around the tree...." or in your case you might just need to use velcro.

I'm embarrassed for you.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Cato wrote: ]John Wilkes Booth wrote: Cato wrote: Well, I think that conventional research techniques suffice.. It seems a little over-board to create human beings for the purpose of research

I agree; that's why I didn't propose that.

Cato wrote: ; at least that's my contention. To utilize this technology for such a reason seems absurd, simply.

We have an opportunity to collect groundbreaking empirical data on human behavior and we should pass it up? Now that's absurd.

Can you spot the contradiction?

Quote: That paragraph wasn't about cloning at all, actually. It was a reply to one of your previous statements.

You certainly seem to be suggesting that we should utilize this technology in any way that will make our lives more pleasurable. I merely ask, slaves, or over-men?
Interesting how one of scenarios you present caters to the pleasure of us, the other caters to the pleasures of the superclones ("them"). Neither caters to the lives of both. As all people, cloned or not, are equal, I want you to try to imagine a scenario that treats people as such. Quote:
Quote: Cato wrote: Anyway, progress in no way guarantees an increase in happiness.

So just stop trying?

No; stop trying through progress.

Ah, so the anti-cloning position is actually anti-progress. Interesting. May I quote you on that.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: straw man wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Look, just so we're on the same page, cloning is going to happen and is going to happen very soon.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?...

Just remember John, "over, under, around the tree...." or in your case you might just need to use velcro.

I'm embarrassed for you.

You should be. Pointing out your logical contradiction is so embarrassing. :roll: :roll:

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Ah, so the anti-cloning position is actually anti-progress. Interesting. May I quote you on that.

Cherry picking is fun, isn't it. You almost sound like you have a case! :lol: :lol:

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Ah, so the anti-cloning position is actually anti-progress. Interesting. May I quote you on that.

Cherry picking is fun, isn't it. You almost sound like you have a case! :lol: :lol:

Wow, I wasn't sure if your position was strong, but your smilies turned me around.

I thought you were leaving. You haven't contributed anything.


The burden of proof is on you people.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: straw man wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Look, just so we're on the same page, cloning is going to happen and is going to happen very soon.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Can anyone provide an anti-cloning argument that isn't about:

1. safety, since that's really a function of how new it is?...

Just remember John, "over, under, around the tree...." or in your case you might just need to use velcro.

I'm embarrassed for you.

You should be. Pointing out your logical contradiction is so embarrassing. :roll: :roll:

Please, fill me in: where's the logical contradiction. How does "how new it is" in terms of theoretical safety contradict my observation that non-theoretical cloning will happen very soon?

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: I thought you were leaving. You haven't contributed anything.

I never said I was leaving. I said I was going to debate somebody who has a pair. And I have gone elsewhere to do exactly that. Because you are too much of a coward, "debate" is not something I can get on THIS thread. But I never suggested I was going to leave your stupid thread alone. As long as you continue to say such retarded things I'm going to have to point them out, not to debate you (since you're too much of a wuss) but to just make sure to point them out for all to see. And the fact that you can't back up and stand behind your contradictory logic proves for everyone that it is indeed erronious thinking.

John Wilkes Booth wrote: The burden of proof is on you people.

I gave you plenty of proof. That burden is satiated, because you have nothing to say about it, and so the proof stands. You started a thread asking for your proof, and you got it. Either refute it, or accept it. Simply SAYING that nobody has given any proof isn't going to fly, because there are PLENTY of pending arguments which you have yet to address.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Please, fill me in: where's the logical contradiction. How does "how new it is" in terms of theoretical safety contradict my observation that non-theoretical cloning will happen very soon?

I've explained this. You can't have modern flawless cloning without first having experimental and unsafe cloning. Think of more than 250 mangled and flawed or non developed sheep before Dolly could happen, and now we are talking about a more genetically complex creature.

You said it will happen soon. Cloning is NEW technology. Therefore, cloning, if it will happen soon as you suggest, WILL be unsafe (because you said safety is a function of how new it is, which is true). Therefore #1 serves as a valid argument against cloning; it will be unsafe for the experimental human clones created. How would you like to be born a clone, who can't live past the age of 10 and has underdeveloped or deformed organs. Would you like that? Because those will be the types of human beings that we fabricate before we can get the technology flawlessly right (because cloning is still new technology).