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: 
244 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 (...) (23 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! (23 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 (...) (23 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
    

Custom Search

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