i didn't say that it was at all practical. i was just giving an example of an ethical conundrum that might be introduced, to demonstrate that it does introduce non-trivial questions.
The question does not even pose itself to me. It is like saying that you should not build private spaceships because someone might use them to make a colony on mars from which he will one day try to take over the world. It is ludecrous.
Plus a clone is little different from a child of yours, with the difference that instead of half your genetic information it has all your genetic information.
You still have to raise that clone like a child with all that is necessary for that. If the person really goes through all of that to have one(!) additional vote at an election, then please give it to him! Though I quite honestly can not see how anyone that rich could be that stupid.
i didn't say that it was at all practical. i was just giving an example of an ethical conundrum that might be introduced, to demonstrate that it does introduce non-trivial questions.
The question does not even pose itself to me. It is like saying that you should not build private spaceships because someone might use them to make a colony on mars from which he will one day try to take over the world. It is ludecrous.
Plus a clone is little different from a child of yours, with the difference that instead of half your genetic information it has all your genetic information.
You still have to raise that clone like a child with all that is necessary for that. If the person really goes through all of that to have one(!) additional vote at an election, then please give it to him! Though I quite honestly can not see how anyone that rich could be that stupid.
you can't understand how filthy rich people can be total morons?
you can't understand how filthy rich people can be total morons?
Ok, let me put it differently, someone who throws out his money for idiotic ideas like that, wont be rich for very long.
the old saying: "a fool and his money are soon parted."
oh, but the counterexamples abound! you're forgetting source of _income_.
i really do agree with you though, what i'm describing as an example here is pretty ridiculous. but that' not to say it wouldn't happen once or twice. we really aren't that smart, and a lot of us are pretty crazy.
but that' not to say it wouldn't happen once or twice.
I quite honestly could live with that. For every fool of that kind there would be millions of lives saved prolongated or vastly improved. So I really could live with a couple of foold having a clone in order to have a single vote more at an election. As I said, there are plenty of rich people affecting politics much more directly in much more vicious ways.
CaptainBeowulf wrote:Like most children, the clone would probably go through a rebellious teenage phase and end up deliberately voting the opposite of the parent.
lol.
seriously, however, the social statistics (and my own anecdotal evidence from talking w/people) suggest that, for republicans, at least, the empirical evidence suggests coherence rather than anti-coherence.
GIThruster wrote:Kite, you obviously came to your position before you found your reasons, but FYI, Socialism, Communism and Atheism are hands down the biggest ideological killers on the planet. Stalin murdered 22 million of his own people in the absence of war. Mao Tse-Tung murdered 84 million. There is nothing that comes close to these slaughters. Russia is littered with mass graves where 200,000 people were thrown into the same hole in the ground at one time, all in the name of your atheism.
I am not sure that these examples contradict my original thesis, mono-theism is the greatest source of destruction in the world. Stalin and Mao were mono-theist but their theism was the communist state.
That's playing pretty fast and loose with your definitions. I'm not above making the statement that atheism is the reason Stalin and Mao murdered as they did. I was just noting the previous statement that theism is the chief cause of murder and war, is obviously wrong. Religion of any kind actually results in very few wars. Even the famed conflicts between the Irish are not really religious in nature. Islam however, is the exception, because Islam teaches to spread subjugation to God by conquering the world with the sword.
KitemanSA wrote:The point is that folks that get it into their head that THEIR way is the ONLY way tend to be destructive to any who disagree.
You'd imagine that's so but not really. All classical theistic religion in all of its various sects, all teach a very specific path to follow. The only instance this causes trouble is in the case of fundamentalist Islam. Your belief that exclusivity in doctrine causes conflict is a product of secularism, and has no basis in reality. For 2,000 years, all Christians have been taught that their "way" is the only way, and for 2,000 years this has never caused a single war nor significant conflict past some heated words over a dinner table.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote: For 2,000 years, all Christians have been taught that their "way" is the only way, and for 2,000 years this has never caused a single war nor significant conflict past some heated words over a dinner table.
WOW! Can I have some of that happyweed you must be smoking???
Okay Kite, lets have some examples of the exclusivist doctrine found in the Christian church causing serious conflicts like war. You're saying this is normal, so I'm sure you can give a dozen examples.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
happyjack27 wrote:i didn't say that it was at all practical. i was just giving an example of an ethical conundrum that might be introduced, to demonstrate that it does introduce non-trivial questions.
I appreciate that the possibility of human cloning raises numerous ethical questions. What I fail to appreciate is why these ethical questions should cause the law to treat clones as anything other than natural persons...unless the law is an ass.
The Schmalkaldic war, the 30 Years War, the Hussite wars, Albigensian Crusade, the battles against the Waldensians (e.g. Merindol where hundreds of thousands were massacred), Huguenot wars, etc, etc, etc...
Skipjack wrote:The Schmalkaldic war, the 30 Years War, the Hussite wars, Albigensian Crusade, the battles against the Waldensians (e.g. Merindol where hundreds of thousands were massacred), Huguenot wars, etc, etc, etc...
The Schmalkaldic war was fought over the decline of central imperial authority, not religion. By contrast, the Hussite wars were fought over religious reform. People started it by throwing stones at the Hussites. The Albigensian Crusade was likewise religious, but in both these cases, the conflict did not turn violent until the dissenting group caused a serious cultural stir. Had they not, Like the Pilgrims; there probably would not have been any violence..
That's two tiny wars in 2,000 years. Can't do any better than that? The statement was that exclusivist doctrine promotes these kids of wars. We have many wars raging around the world at any point in time for these last two thousand years and you found 2 with a real religious cause?
Two?
Seems pretty obvious the statement is wrong.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
