Political Crossfire Forums

[John Wilkes Booth]

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.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: 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? .

I sure wouldn't. I also wouldn't like to be born that way naturally, which will keep happening if we don't take the initiative to prevent it.


But hey, some people in this thread have accused me of trying to eliminate human imperfection. Maybe they should be arguing against you and your anti-deformity bigotry. Somehow human imperfection is sacred if it's accidental.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote:

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.

I don't see any pending arguments that don't violate my initial stipulations against peripheral issues.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: My arguments are intended for the 1% of the people on this forum who aren't functional retards.

You should probably switch sides to even things out a little better.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: I don't see any pending arguments that don't violate my initial stipulations against peripheral issues.

You don't? You should probably work on your reading comprehension.

"I did however suggest that cloning would have consequences on the gene pool, which is the truth. Unless you are sterilizing your clones, they are going to introduce the past into the gene pool. These outdated genes may not have a big difference at first, but generations later they will have made more of an impact as they are introduced into more and more lineages. The whole point of evolution is to be dynamic, BUILDING OFF OF PREVIOUS MUTATIONS. When you have arbitrarilly bypassed at least one oppurtunity for an additional mutation, you have set this effort back and impeded it. That is the bottom line. Yes people can still get it on sexually, and so can clones. But even if we had only 5% of everybody being a clone, they will still have made a more than significant impact on the gene pool. That is not the same as to suggest that that cloning will destroy sexual reproduction. But it does inhibit evolution whether you like it or not."

All you did was mislabeled this as "eugenics" (which it's not) however you did not shoot it down. You instead tried to get me to leave. Thus this is still pending.

It's a shame you didn't see this. This is the second time you said there were no arguments that weren't on your lame exclusion list, and this is the second time I am pointing it out to you.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: ...I and others like me know that cloning is only an "issue" for Middle American red state mongrel people to fuss over.

What was that word you keep calling me again? Bigot?

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: Maybe they should be arguing against you and your anti-deformity bigotry. Somehow human imperfection is sacred if it's accidental.

You can take your straw man argument here and shove it up your bum.

[straw man]

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.

"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)."

Knowingly creating a new consciousness which will go through extreme torment and suffering would be an ETHICAL issue. Looks like it belongs here.

I know you would like to use divide and conquer tactics and selective cherry picking to deceive the readers into thinking there is nothing bad about cloning. But I think they should have the full story so they can make up their own minds. You don't want them to do that, because then they would realize that cloning is wrong given the full multitude of consequences and negative concerns regarding it.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: I don't see any pending arguments that don't violate my initial stipulations against peripheral issues.

You don't? You should probably work on your reading comprehension.

"I did however suggest that cloning would have consequences on the gene pool, which is the truth. Unless you are sterilizing your clones, they are going to introduce the past into the gene pool. These outdated genes may not have a big difference at first, but generations later they will have made more of an impact as they are introduced into more and more lineages. The whole point of evolution is to be dynamic, BUILDING OFF OF PREVIOUS MUTATIONS. When you have arbitrarilly bypassed at least one oppurtunity for an additional mutation, you have set this effort back and impeded it. That is the bottom line. Yes people can still get it on sexually, and so can clones. But even if we had only 5% of everybody being a clone, they will still have made a more than significant impact on the gene pool. That is not the same as to suggest that that cloning will destroy sexual reproduction. But it does inhibit evolution whether you like it or not."

All you did was mislabeled this as "eugenics" (which it's not) however you did not shoot it down. You instead tried to get me to leave. Thus this is still pending.

It's a shame you didn't see this. This is the second time you said there were no arguments that weren't on your lame exclusion list, and this is the second time I am pointing it out to you.
It's not pending because I addressed it. Only you and Joseph Mengele have the balls to try to pass evolution off as an ethics issue. But because you consider human evolution so important, I'll explain to you that the rest of humanity has moved on from this barbaric concept and now recognize that the gods of evolution don't necessarily have humanity's best interests in mind. Evolution might not even want us much longer. Technology may allow us a sporting chance to overstay our welcome.

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.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Maybe they should be arguing against you and your anti-deformity bigotry. Somehow human imperfection is sacred if it's accidental.

You can take your straw man argument here and shove it up your bum.

That was a knock against them, not you. Anti-deformity is actually a good position.

[John Wilkes Booth]

straw man wrote: 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.

"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)."

Knowingly creating a new consciousness which will go through extreme torment and suffering would be an ETHICAL issue. Looks like it belongs here.
I already covered this and it was a favor to you when I did, since it didn't belong in this thread in the first place. The operative word isn't "ethics," it's "cloning." If you approve of cloning as long as no one gets hurt, then you approve of cloning. What you're against is medical impropriety. Quote:
I know you would like to use divide and conquer tactics and selective cherry picking to deceive the readers into thinking there is nothing bad about cloning. But I think they should have the full story so they can make up their own minds. You don't want them to do that, because then they would realize that cloning is wrong given the full multitude of consequences and negative concerns regarding it.

And when the hysteria dies down, they'll realize how silly they looked.

[Cato]

JWB wrote: 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.

Why is that interesting? What's your point?

Quote: As all people, cloned or not, are equal, I want you to try to imagine a scenario that treats people as such.

Why should we create clones? You haven't given a viable reason yet. I should hope they would be equal, but why would they be at all?

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

Quote me on something you've written?.. Um, well, that would be a bit dishonest... Anyway, I ask you this, are you pro-progress at any cost? Are we all to be the means to the end of (capitalist) progress? You could very easily justify breeding an army of clone labourers, it seems; such an army would be capable of a great deal of progress. In fact, why don't we just breed the ability to think out of humanity altogether, and maintain the world like a giant ant-hive. There you are, a system based entirely on 'progress'. Am I against creating a world of pure progress? Yes. And that you can quote me on!

[John Wilkes Booth]

Cato wrote: JWB wrote: 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.

Why is that interesting? What's your point?
It's interesting that the only two scenarios you can imagine involving clones are scenarios that have been fed to you by pop sci-fi: the cliche of the clone slave and the cliche of the superclone. Do you have any ideas of your own on the matter? Quote:
Quote: As all people, cloned or not, are equal, I want you to try to imagine a scenario that treats people as such.

Why should we create clones? You haven't given a viable reason yet. I should hope they would be equal, but why would they be at all?
For science. Quote:
Quote: Ah, so the anti-cloning position is actually anti-progress. Interesting. May I quote you on that.

Quote me on something you've written?.. Um, well, that would be a bit dishonest... Anyway, I ask you this, are you pro-progress at any cost? Are we all to be the means to the end of (capitalist) progress? You could very easily justify breeding an army of clone labourers, it seems; such an army would be capable of a great deal of progress. In fact, why don't we just breed the ability to think out of humanity altogether, and maintain the world like a giant ant-hive. There you are, a system based entirely on 'progress'. Am I against creating a world of pure progress? Yes. And that you can quote me on!

A population slaving for their rulers is a throwback to the days of the pharaohs. Therefore, it's not progress.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: straw man wrote: John Wilkes Booth wrote: Maybe they should be arguing against you and your anti-deformity bigotry. Somehow human imperfection is sacred if it's accidental.

You can take your straw man argument here and shove it up your bum.

That was a knock against them, not you. Anti-deformity is actually a good position.

You said "you and your anti-deformity bigotry."

That's a knock against me. I'm not saying I have anything against deformed people. I'm just saying that we shouldn't knowingly create more of them.

[straw man]

John Wilkes Booth wrote: I already covered this and it was a favor to you when I did, since it didn't belong in this thread in the first place. The operative word isn't "ethics," it's "cloning." If you approve of cloning as long as no one gets hurt, then you approve of cloning. What you're against is medical impropriety.

Well if safety were my ONLY objection, and nobody would get hurt, then yes you bet your butt that I would approve of it provided nobody gets hurt.

The problem however I would like to present to you is, how are you going to have nobody get hurt? How are you going to have the technology be perfect without first experimenting? The experimenting is the impropriety. Therefore the impropriety is indeed part of your stance, whether you deny it or not, unless you can prove your perfectly safe cloning that magically happened with no unethical experimenting to preceed it. We both know it would not be that way. If anything you should argue that the progress we would make is more important than all the times we will first goof it up, and so it would be worth it. That would be an okay stance, but don't sit here and pretend like the experimenting aspect is a moot point, because it's not. We are going to need to experiment, and use trial and error, and that is the bottom line. How else do you propose they are going to magically have perfected human cloning without this?

[John Wilkes Booth]

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.

[Cato]

JWB wrote: For science.

So, these humans you create have no choice but to be subjects in your science experiments? You're argument implies that you have control over a cloned child because you are responsible for its engenderment; you claim ownership of the child because you've created it. Natural parents, in this day and age, do not have the right to do whatever they wish with their children. 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.

Besides, what makes your clone child any different from a natural child? 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. Your clone child, conversely, is created to be a test-subject, and that alone. You are thus creating a human who will grow up psychologically damaged perforce. 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.

Besides, science's use for cloned humans seems.. limited and.. moronic... 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!

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?

[Cato]

Quote: A population slaving for their rulers is a throwback to the days of the pharaohs. Therefore, it's not progress.

That's not an argument. We've established certain societal mechanisms that protect us individually. However, if your end is a society of progress, and progress alone, then these mechanisms can be done away with. For instance, we know that a command economy is incredibly progressive. But, this form of economy puts an inordinate amount of power in the hands of a few, which we know is dangerous. 'Progress' isn't the end of all of our social innovations; some we put in place to afford ourselves comfort. The fact that the ancients used slavery does not denounce slavery as a progressive economic model.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Cato wrote: JWB wrote: For science.

So, these humans you create have no choice but to be subjects in your science experiments?

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.

[straw man]

Fortunatily the clones have a choice if they are experimented on. They can walk right out of the lab when they are four years old and ask the local foster home if they will take them in.