I hear us men aren't needed anymore?

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 5:09 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Allen M.:

You may even see livers and kidney and eyeballs growing in clusters like ornaments on Christmas trees.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I realize that was somewhat tounge in cheek, but...
That sounds excellent to me. I'm all in favor of growing replacement organs in whatever kind of structure works best.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Already there are labs in the US, which are secretly doing research into cloning humans.
...
I take all the above with a grain of salt, but more labs will be discovered, and someday soon, someone will make a breakthrough.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt about it. There are plenty of in-the-open efforts worldwide, and it doesn't surprise me at all that there would be labs in the US doing it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Valk, don’t be afraid of “Men, this will be the end of life as we know it.” Because when that happens you will be to old to care. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not afraid, I'm already too old to care.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Woemen simply do not have that kind of power to do away with men although many would like to [watch out when they do get into power, though].

Well I think it's unlikely that women as a whole would like to get rid of men anymore than men as a whole would like to get rid of women, for many reasons.
More importantly though, I really don't think it matters even if there were no men. I don't think it would matter if we invented a third gender. Guarunteed there would be lots of short term societal effects, some bad, and some good. But long term (~200 years) it won't matter worth a damn.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
When we finally kill most all of each other off... , cloning may look reasonable. But not right now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh, I think cloning is reasonable enough now. People (not neccesarily you, Allen) seem to think of cloning as this magical process by which it's easy to create exact copoies of people by the thousands. But the important fact is that all clones require an individual woman to go through a pregnancy, and deliver a baby. Then that baby has to be raised. Even so, that baby will not come out exactly like the person whose DNA it shares. Identical twins are natural clones, and they don't end up as carbon copies of eachother. Any cloned baby is going to be almost entirely different in personality in temperment from it's genetic parent due to the completely different environment in which it's raised.

LeeDarrow · Post by **LeeDarrow** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 5:46 am

Clone on Deranged (tune: Home on the Range)

Oh, give me a clone
from some genes of my own,
with the Y chromasome
changed to X

And when she is grown,
cuz that clone is my own,
She'll be thinking of nothing but se -- nevermind.

student - any odea who wrote that one?

Tongue in cheek,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Sat Aug 18, 2001 3:31 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The facts just don't back up these assertions. The incidence of "spur of the moment" shootings is rare and statistically insignificant as a percentage of lawful gun owners. (In fact, many of those very rare cases have been committed by law enforcement personnel! ) Most "spur of the moment" killings occur with knives, blunt objects, fists and "shod" feet

Perhaps this lack of "spur of the moment" crimes has something to do with the very fact that gun restrictions do exist.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I once set up a scenerio with a family...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you say that the number of incidents wherein someone breaks into a house and immediately hacks someone to death is more statistically significant than the number of spur of the moment crimes? My understanding is that cases where someone just wants to kill someone else are pretty rare. Furthermore, if the family had a gun situated in such a way that the kids couldn't get at it, would she have had time to bring the gun to bear on you?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
The people gather for mutual defense. If the people are disarmed sheep, they can't very well assist in the defense of their fellow citizens.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to you, it's not possible to assist in the defense of ones fellow citizens... that is, unless the police are somehow at a disadvantage in this regard.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Read the studies. The answer is yes. In fact, just read More Guns, Less Crime by Professor John Lott. You'll find the most comprehensive data and analysis ever done<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I intend to read this book, and have looked up which libraries presently have copies (cambridge and my school library are the ones I will probably get it from). However, what do you say to the arguments to Lott's work citing errors in statistical analysis, methods, and interpretation?
The following three websites give a more thorough description of why Lott is in error. http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/onepage.html
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/hgclott.htm
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/

Thank you for the clarification about what you meant re: women rights then and now.

Allen M. · Post by **Allen M.** » Wed Aug 22, 2001 5:57 am

Maybe not toungue-in-cheek, at least not yet, Valk, but the organ-tree is not too far off. I wonder if this mouse is catheter supplied; get aload of this baggage:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nm/20010821/sc/china_tissue_dc_1.html

------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Wed Aug 22, 2001 7:25 pm

First, I apologize to the women's forum for this getting tossed in where it probably isn't wanted or appreciated. This discussion can be taken over to the "tough issues" forum if further dialog is needed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Valkenar:

Perhaps this lack of "spur of the moment" crimes has something to do with the very fact that gun restrictions do exist.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I admit right off the bat that this is a touchy subject for me, but please re-read what I wrote. I never wrote "spur of the moment" crime. I specifically referred to "spur of the moment" shootings and also pointed out the rarity and referred to lawful gun owners as opposed to criminals. You've changed the comment in your response to suit your needs. It doesn't work... The fact is that the gun grabber agenda hasn't done anything to reduce crime by lawful gun owners because that crime is statistically insignificant. If you or anyone else can't control your own actions/reactions, then I whole heartedly agree that you should not have firearms. Then again, you shouldn't have knives, baseball bats, be allowed to learn a martial art, or be allowed to own and operate the far more deadly automobile. Just because you (or anyone else) can't exercise control over your own actions/reactions does not show a need for legislation over those who can.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Would you say that the number of incidents wherein someone breaks into a house and immediately hacks someone to death is more statistically significant than the number of spur of the moment crimes? My understanding is that cases where someone just wants to kill someone else are pretty rare. Furthermore, if the family had a gun situated in such a way that the kids couldn't get at it, would she have had time to bring the gun to bear on you?

Suggesting that the crime must include "hacking someone to death" or "where someone just wants to kill someone else" is typical of the HCI misinformation and intellectually dishonest statistical manipulation and lies. My scenerio was to prove a point. The crime could have been a rape instead. The crime could have been a break-in and robbery where the perp didn't realize the house was hot until it was too late and he was identifiable. Then it turns into a murder as well. There was just a story of such a "petty" crime gone bad this past weekend. Now the POS on death row thinks he should be given a second chance. He didn't really want to hurt his next door neighbor, but she caught him in her house stealing her stuff, so he and a fellow teen bound, blindfolded and gagged her with duct-tape in a hog-tied fashion, took her to a local bridge and tossed her in the water below... where she died a slow, painful, miserable death. Now he says he shouldn't be put to death! There should be no safe storage requirements legislated. If I don't have children in my house, I should be able to leave what I want, where I want. If I have children in my house, it is far better to educate them on safety than it is to put my trust in some mechanical device. I bet the same problem that happened after "child-proof" medication caps were legislated will happen this time as well... After that legislation, child poisonings went up because people put their trust in those caps. It is also obvious that you don't know anything about the various safe storage options available as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

According to you, it's not possible to assist in the defense of ones fellow citizens... that is, unless the police are somehow at a disadvantage in this regard.

How very nice of you to only quote the beginning of my point when responding in that fashion. I said that in order for the police to be capable of protecting each of us that there would by necessity have to be an officer assigned to each of us full-time... and that by definition is a Police State, a place that I don't want to live. But, you cut all that off. But my other part still stands. If we, the people are disarmed, we can NOT defend ourselves or our communities... a Statist's wet dream!

As far as the supposed "rebuttals" of Lott's work. First, there's the one from the Aussie gun grabber. You know, the place where they banned guns from private ownership and crime rates have soared. Now that's a place that we want to copy... NOT! Second, there's the one from HCI. You know the folks that have lied, skewed statistics by ommission and misrepresentation and have stated in private memoranda that they A) are willing to intentionally mislead the public in order to further their agenda and B) have the ultimate goal of completely disarming the entire American private citizenry!

I don't need to respond further, here is a response that was just in the Washington Times:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010820-528396.htm

Or try this one from FOXNews...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,7217,00.html

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited August 22, 2001).]

LeeDarrow · Post by **LeeDarrow** » Wed Aug 22, 2001 10:13 pm

Hey, Panther!

Check out Oak Park's law on gun ownership! Their law specifically prohibits "projectile" weapons!

I asked a LEO there what this meant and his comment was that "We could nail someone for a violation of this one for hitting someone with a snowball if we chose to."

The law, evidently, specifically includes darts, blow guns, crossbows, archery equipment, handguns, shotguns and other long arms.

While this is somewhat second hand, I used to live there (it's my home town) and is a suburb of Chicago - bordering on the highest crime neighborhood in the city.

Crime statistics for violent crime have remained relatively unchanged at last report, but you might want to look into it.

Personally, I won't move back there, even though I am not a gun owner. I really dislike the idea that such a law would be even considered, let alone pass - and stand up for over 10 years!

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 2:53 pm

On the Lott "rebuttals":

Just to be complete I asked a mutual friend to contact John and have him get in touch with me. (BTW & FYI, this isn't something I generally do with someone as busy as John Lott is, but felt that this was one of those times I'd call in a favor.

)

<blockquote>
-----Original Message-----
From: JohnRLott@(deleted).com
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:35 AM
To: (real name of Panther deleted)
Subject: RE: Rebuttals of your research?

The second web site address was originally put together by Handgun Control.
Some one merely copied it and put it on this web site. My book extensively
goes through these claims in both chapters 7 and 9 (this last chapter is only
in the second edition).

The first and second web site are actually from the same source. A guy named
Tim Lambert. Chapter 9 in my second edition goes through some of the more
important points that he listed at the time. A lot of what he claims are
distortions of what I wrote. For example, he constantly made a big deal
about ccw's supposedly not affecting robbery rates. The comments that I make
about others on this point are also applicable to this.

Good Luck, (name of Panther deleted)

John
</blockquote>

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited August 23, 2001).]

Allen M. · Post by **Allen M.** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 1:00 am

HOT off the press. Hmmm....

Here come a new race; the elimination of mankind; bet they'd love that in Berkeley. Now I KNOW our daze are numbered....

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_430602.html?menu=news.latestheadlines

------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 5:27 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Allen M.:
Here come a new race; the elimination of mankind; bet they'd love that in Berkeley. Now I KNOW our daze are numbered....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, not a new race, as I understand it the women will still be the same. This article could be good news for lesbian couples in the future.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Oct 23, 2001 8:00 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Valkenar:

could be good news for lesbian couples in the future.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could also be the end of our species.

Laird

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Fri Oct 26, 2001 1:37 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by uglyelk:
Could also be the end of our species.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How so, aside from the genetic diversity argument? Even so, does anyone really think this is going to become anything like a common occurance?

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 5:52 am

The reason why this isn't going to make any difference in the long run:

Poor people.
The world is full of 'em. As a matter of fact, the majority of the world is poor. And the large segment of the world (billions, many many times the size of the population that withstood real assaults like plague in Europe and a variety of deadly infections brought to the new world) that can't afford a public toilet in town isn't going to convert to parthogenesis any time soon. I mean ever.

Further, how is this process going to hurt us? Let's assume the copies aren't perfect. How long would this take to be obvious--before the cloned kids were shown to be sicker and sicker with each pass thru the test tube??? Not too long. And before the entire world converted to test tube reproduction, there'd be hundreds and hundreds of years of generations of clones in the developed world before the technology became universal.

Further, there just isn't any risk of this ever happening, ever, ever.

People like to have sex. That's not going to change. People respect social and religious traditions (not all of them, but there are enough Roman Catholics--or even mormons--who'll be free of this influence to keep us going even if ALL the rest of us sign our souls over to the devil.

People like to have babies with people they love. They get a reward from this they'll never get from cloning themselves. It's not going to stop.

And folks, I can't stress this enough. Lesbianism ain't dangerous or contaigious. Fact. They're going to remain a small part of the population, about 1-2%, and they're going to keep on having absurdly low crime rates, std rates, broken home rates etc while continuing to adopt needy kids, form lasting loving relationships, pay taxes, work hard at their jobs, and go to PTA meetings. They're like, the most benign element in society. And even if they all switched over to parthogenesis, the human race'd be fine. Long live lesbianism!

Maygan · Post by **Maygan** » Fri Nov 09, 2001 12:12 am

Men are still needed and not just for opening jars I promise