AzurePhoenix

A little longer than that, yeah, i got bored i do that on occasion... and for veering us off topic, i'm afraid your next incarnation will have to be that of the least human of all things, the lovechild of Rosie ODonnel and Richard Simmons

I would certainly be all for screening for diseases, making sure they got good healthy traits. I'd be sorely tempted to choose for a girl though, and even ensure good-lookingness, and despite my own interest, that's where i get uneasy about it, but i can't figure WHY that makes me uneasy... probably an ingrained cultural stigma. But them there's the sci-fi part of me, that, if we were far enough ahead in our genetic prowess, would be all for breeding supertraits from various species into my kids. Course, how could i be a good mom if i were insanely jealous of my baby's nifty gifts?

a killer whale \o/ like a dolphin, but better cuz it kills inferior dolphins. I'd wanna be named Oreo in orkish

I just realized Doctor Who isn't on this list.. or has that been addressed? sigh... im lazy

eh, it also goes into whether or not you consider a species evolving itself out if existence and into something else counts as extinction for the former species or not. what's the official stance on that?

For the record, i plead that anyone reading seriously into this thread does not use blondy's example of fine grammatical prowess to represent us as a whole

sarcastic, as if there was any mystery

one; self-awareness and sentience is an identifiable phenomenon, not an ideological construct of morality two; the most widely accepted (and thereby valid) definition of a being is that of an entiity that possesses self-awareness three; a blastocyst is not self-aware four; a blastocyst cannot be a being because it is not self-aware five; though the same traits used to define do give rise to moral concepts, morality has nothing to do with the definition itself. six; point five is not difficult to comprehend yet you continue to fail to do so, or you simply choose to ignore it. the above quote shows that you, inexplicably, refuse to acknowledge the stated points on grounds that you have failed to give any reasoning for, making claims that are completely irrational and simply nonsensical. We are telling you what the definition is. What it means. That is the definition. Under that definition, a blastocyst isn't a being. It is not your prerogative to change that definition to fit your ludicrous whims. Something tells me that you will maintain this cycle until either the thread is locked, or those of us with the patience to keep at it are all dead. And thus, we will continue to have covered no ground at all.

Yearly flooding is an important ecological part of riverside ecosystems. Take it away, and alot of environments are adversely affected. On top of that, now you have more farms spreading out and developing the environment that's left. To do what? Feed more humans and help support an even larger population of people? Which is exactly what cause the whole mess in the first place. The ONLY good that comes out of this is the reduced emissions, but I would in no way say that that makes up for killing off a possibly sentient species (if the dams are indeed the primary factor in the dolphin's ultimate extinction, which may or may not be the case, we very well likely would have killed them off eventually anyway), each individual dolphin a conscious and aware being as deserving of life as any human (and before you contend that and say that they're certainly less intelligent than a human, which they are, think about whether or not a retarded child is worth less than any highly intelligent human). If it were the case of a fish or sea snail it might be more... "acceptable," to stretch the term, but not a potentially aware species to which the same moral considerations applied to humans should be given. Then again, it's futile to pretend that there might have been a better way. In the practical, capitalistic quest for human progress and success it was unavoidable, if only to keep up with the growth of the population. It was gonna happen, no ifs ands or buts about it. But that doesn't make it right by any means.

This just seems unreasonably paranoid to me, like when creationists say the theory of evolution was the direct cause of nazism. The idea of "perfection" and such is a very theological issue, a matter for zealots, not scientists. Would there be people who desire what you claim? Sure. But only individual, ideologically zealotous people. And personally, I would have loved to have been born into an age even beyond cloning, where I was spliced with all sorts of neato traits and abilities from a variety of other species. I don't see how medical advances with the potential to end certain dissabilities are insulting. It's not saying "there's something wrong with these people" or "these people are worth less," simply that "these dissabilities don't necessarily have to continue to plague people quite as they do today." But that is nothing like some world conspiracy to use cloning to wipe out the disabled themselves.

Meh, go stuff a mug you mommy-banger

Simple awareness and free thought beyond the base-level hardwired instincts and reactions of genetic programming. it has none of the anatomical tissues or structures necessary for such things. It seems to me that to guess otherwise would require a supernatural cog in the gears. does an infant have a brain that supports and functionally carries out consciousness, no matter how insignificant? Does a Blastocyst? Okay, one more time, this is NOT a matter of understanding the nature of something, this is an abstract matter of classification and organization through definition. There is no equation, there is only the most widely accepted understanding of what is. Just like the separation between species. Just like the definition of what constitutes a planet. The definitions aren't real, they're only there to help us organize our understanding. We all know a blastocyst is an undeveloped cell with the potential to develop into a functional human organism. What that is called doesn't change that. You are placing an illogical amount of weight on what these definitions are representing.

No, it doesn't fit. A blastocyst is not a member of the human species. It is a cellular step on the way to becoming one. Human in nature, but not A human. And not a being because it doesn't have the criteria of being-hood. This case and point is made in definition two, as you have posted it. "a person." A blastocyst is not a person. And what is a person? An entity that represents the characteristics we have been using to define being. Although one could debate that a person is simply and specifically the human variety of the more generic self-aware being. Not fully devloped, but is the ten year old self-aware? Does s/he have consciousness, thoughts? It doesn't matter how well developed those thing sare, nor how complex, only that they're there. And with this quote above, you still sound as if you're arguing for a blastoct's beinghood based on a definition of being we all share when this is clearly not the case. As it stands, we cannot accurately argue whether or not a blastocyst is a being until we come to terms on what a being is. And I'm afraid your views on that simply seem very muddled and nonsensical. It's a matter of classification on the heirarchy of cognitive ability in nature. You continue to be the one who feels that empathy and familiarity is a major issue in the definition itself. It's not, it's simply a trait, a notably defining one. Just as non-consciousness is a notably defining trait in non-beings. Stop falsely forcing non-objectivity where you wish to find it. Yes, under developement, ripe with potentiality! Almost there! But not quite yet. No one here ever said that any being is more of a being than another being. Only that there's a clear difference between a being and a non-being. But then again, like everything else in science, there might actually be a middle-ground between being and non-being, but of course, something like consciousness is still rather hard to measure and completley "map" at this point. Oh, I don't know, I've never encountered nor heard of an insignificant bonobo, chimp, gorilla, orangutan, dolphin, parrot or octopus, but I've certainly met countless insignificant humans

The way I see it, in matters of classification through definition, the only true meaning applied to a term applied to that which is more of an abstract concept used to sort things than anything else is ONLY determined by the majority agreement on what that term means and applies to. It's much like the debate on Pluto's planethood, or as to what constitutes a species, or the very definition of life. It's not as if there is a technical, true meaning of the word that can be formulated out (especially with an archaic, ambiguous term like "being") so the closest thing to a valid definition lies within that general concensus. And that definition is by no means static. And of course, I'm simply arguing for the best biological meaning for the word. Religion or philosophy or hell knows what else can just as easily have their own different but not invalid understandings of the term. But WITHIN those groups only one meaning should prevail. And as it stands, by the general understanding of the word being, a blastocyst simply isn't one. And while personally your perception of what a being is simply doesn't make a lick of goddamned sense to me, you could still rightfully contend that the term should be changed and that the blastocyst should be considered a being, but that's entirely different from arguing the idea that IS one. Semantically. I swear, I should be shot for some of the things I write out

On the contrary, they are pointing out that a being does inherantly call for moral consideration, based upon the more clinical traits that make a being a being in the first place. But that morality comes after something displays the traits of a being. Whether or not something IS a being in the first place has nothing to do with morals. A being inherantly earns itself moral consideration. But moral consideration does not make something a being. That's what we're saying. Regardless of the moral value placed on a being, there is still an objective clinical definition of what a being is. And a blastocyst does not qualify for beinghood under the most widely accepted understanding of that definition as we here understand it. Period. that's right. Something isn't a being because of it's moral values, something is simply more likely to deserve those moral concepts because it has the traits of a being. SImple, non-morality-defined traits that a blastocyst distinctly lacks.

I know I always horribly mocked the football team whenever they had to wear something nice on game days, a button-up-shirt, tie, slacks, not because they were different but just because they looked like general dorks. And if everyone had to wear a uniform, i know I'd have been miserable and self-conscious. Just wearing the same robes as everyone else at graduation had me moody and self-loathing the entire time. (and hells knows, generally I made fun of people for who they were, not what they wore, that would be childish, unless of course you are making fun of what someone was wearing when that person was someone you'd already make fun of anyway regardless ) My question about the whole concept largely is, why do they have to pick out something so outlandish and noteworthy for a uniform? Why is it that to quash individuality, it must be done in the dorkiest way possible? Why can't they have something less stupid-looking and just make the uniform thing something more like slightly nicer variants of the current styles (jeans, non-elderly-lady skirts, more normal and stylish shirts and tops), with fitting parameters of course, but with plenty of room of indivuality through color-choice and some variance in uniform choice?

I see an alternate-dimensional version of New York inhabited by anthropomorphic puppies being consumed by a nuclear mushroom cloud as George Bush and the cast of Loony Toons riverdance in the background. Or horizontal stripes of two alternating blue hues. Could be either, too close to tell.

I have to admit, I have the faulty outlook of a person with an itchy nuke-finger. I don't have the patience for a responsible, non-atomic war \o/

I'm just one of the sorts who thinks "rights" should be trumped by common sense and practicality. It seems clear to me that a person who has a history of spouse-beating, or who's robbed a few gas stations shouldn't have guns, and if such folks feel that their rights are being infringed on by having to have some sorta of check into their character and background to ensure they aren't downright likely to hurt people, I say screw their feelings and do the logical and responsible thing anyway.

And I'm certain every person who owns one knows how to use it properly, which is the meat of my proposal. The other bit of the psyche eval and violent criminal history check is just good common sense. Like Sissy aid, either extreme of total gun-freedom to a total-gun ban goes too far, there has to be a middle ground.

Some people think that if the government goes Sadam on us, rifles and shotguns will give us a fair chance against the United States Armed Forces Frankly I don't think the hypothetical possibility of a potential future American Revolt justifies an irresponsible spread of deadly weaponry to countless people who shouldn't even be allowed to own weed-whackers. It shrugs off and sacrifices all the people getting hurt or robbed or otherwise negatively affected NOW all for a paranoid possibility.

I agree entirely with this bit at least, Smalltown folk and other people with similar mindsets or lifestyles with reasons to actually use their guns often are almost perfectly safe and responsible. It's city folk and suburbanites you can't trust. I'm not saying they're criminal or anything, only that a good proportion of them have a tendency towards idiocy.

I won't be satisfied until he moves all the rocks a couple dozen miles. Not that I doubt him or anything, I just like to see people suffer hardship.

I wouldn't say a minimal level of intelligence, I know some hicks that you'd swear came from a long line of inbreeding who can handle their firearms quite effectvely and safely. I would suggest something more like a psyche eval, checking for agression levels, history of theft / criminal violence, paranoia, how well they react to panic-inducing situations, etc, and wrap up those who pass with something like a week's worth of mandatory training and safety classes before they can actually take their new bang-baby home.

Always extra chunky peanutbutter of course, such a beautiful substance, compatible with honey or banana slices or marshmallow cream or dill pickle slices. And as you said, always toasted.