To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 10652
10651  |  10653
Subject: 
Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 1 Jun 2001 21:26:27 GMT
Viewed: 
1645 times
  
Dave Schuler wrote:

> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > I mention this because others might read your 90% figure and react with the
> > > same knee-jerk outrage that I felt
> > 
> > Can you explain the outrage?  We were really just bandying possible solutions.
> > I suggested that sterilizing 90% of women would accomplish the same ends while
> > doing less harm to the world economy.
> 
>   Like I said, it was knee-jerk, rather than rationally considered, and
> stemmed most likely from the usual perception of the male deciding what's
> best by seizing control of the female's reproductive process.  Upon
> reflection I realized what you were actually suggesting, and the outrage
> faded to "Hmm..."
> 
> > It's just infertility. It would suck and all, don't get me wrong, but it's not
> > like gouging their eyes out.
> 
>   But from an evolutionary standpoint, the denial of genetic lineage is a
> far greater crime than the gouging out of eyes.

In your mind maybe.  To me and my wife, we'd MUCH rather have our sight than kids
;-)  I spent $4K for laser surgery just to correct my badly nearsight vision, and I
haven't regretted it for a second.


--
| Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support
|   Netscape Communications Corp
|     A division of AOL Time Warner
|   iPlanet Support - http://www.iplanet.com/support/
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
 
(...) not (...) I suppose. But so what? The individuals are the ones who'll feel the pain in either case, and I think most people would rather have their eyes than their eggs. (...) kids (...) and I (...) So far, I think I'm winning. I've spent more (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
 
(...) In my mind, and in the "mind" of 3.5+ billion years of evolution so far. Which do you think provides objectively a greater chance that your genetics will live on--your ability to see, or your ability to reproduce? Dave! (25 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
 
(...) Like I said, it was knee-jerk, rather than rationally considered, and stemmed most likely from the usual perception of the male deciding what's best by seizing control of the female's reproductive process. Upon reflection I realized what you (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

29 Messages in This Thread:










Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR