Off TopicAre you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(
rob, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | Popular
Davros mentioned the Newcastle University three-parents thing...My kneejerk and off-the-cuff response, copied from here, is in the replies.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 12:49,
275 replies,
latest was 16 years ago)
Does my speed impress you?*waggles eyebrows*
(
TGB checking Off Topic is still shit at, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 12:53,
Reply)
Are you having an episode again?(
TGB checking Off Topic is still shit at, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:33,
Reply)
...News emerged last night of a new technique for avoiding mitochondrial disease. From what I can tell, the technique looks like a version of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, and it involves removing the nucleus from a fertilised egg and placing it into an enucleated donor egg. Doing this means that any problems with the mitochondria in the original egg can be sidestepped.
It also means that, in essence, the resultant baby would have three biological parents, inasmuch as it would be the product of three distinct gametes.
The HFE Act 2008 would seem to allow room for the use of the technique without a substantial change in the law; although it forbids the implantation of an egg or embryo the genetic material of which has been altered, there is leeway granted in respect of mitochondrial disease:
Regulations may provide that—
(a) an egg can be a permitted egg, or
(b) an embryo can be a permitted embryo,
even though the egg or embryo has had applied to it in prescribed circumstances a prescribed process designed to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease.
(I'm willing to be corrected in my understanding by any lawyers who happen to be reading this; but from what I can make out, the law as it stands requires alterations to the regulations rather than new legislation.)
The procedure, it seems to me, ought to be welcomed - and welcomed pretty unequivocally, and for obvious reasons. However, the media have felt the need to dig out at least some dissenting voices. The BBC's dissenter of choice is Donald Bruce, whose background is in chemistry and theology, but who still apparently counts as an "ethics expert", having been "former director of the Society, Religion and Technology Project of the Church of Scotland".
He says that "the research raise[s] important ethical issues as well as potential risks".
"If the Newcastle results are taken forward to medical application, they need to be applied under very strict controls, and only where serious disease is otherwise likely to result."
The work raised several ethical problems, he explained, including safety risks, children with DNA from two mothers, and making genetic changes to unborn children.
This looks to me like his standard response to just about anything, and there's a range of canards there, all of which are very easily dealt with.
First, the safety risks. It is, of course, possible that there are big risks with the technique. There are risks with all medical interventions, and arguably more known unknowns and unknown unknowns with new interventions. That, of course, is not a reason to hinder them, and it's not a reason to hinder this, either. At most, it's a reason to take care - which is exactly what we'd want anyway.
Besides, we wouldn't use the technique simply for the hell of it anyway. It's only an option when there's a serious chance of a catastrophic illness. So even if there are dangers with the technique, these have to be balanced against the dangers of natural conception that risks the illness. That is: even if (for the nonce) the technique is dangerous, it doesn't follow that it's the most dangerous option.
(On this point, Sky quotes Alison Murdoch, who seems to be right on the money: "They have to decide whether to have no children or go on getting pregnant and having babies that die because they are abnormal, or they could take a risk on a new treatment that we know can virtually eliminate mitochondrial disease." That is to say, the real ethical problem has to do with not exploiting the opportunities presented by the technique.)
I don't understand why "children with DNA from two mothers" is a worry - I have DNA from countless millions of mothers, right back to my last common ancestor with a jar of Marmite. Moreover, mitochondrial DNA mutates very slowly anyway, so my mitochondria are likely to be pretty much the same as those from a lrge tranche of humanity - and Indo-European humanity espcecially. And, anyway: who cares? I mean, seriously: why on Earth is anyone bothered by the provenance of a person's genes? My relationship with my parents has to do with them having played a major part in my formation; and though I can trace certain of my traits to one or the other of them - height from my mother, the "Whimster gap" between my front teeth to my father, hair from Satan himself - to suggest that genetics does or ought to make the blindest difference to that relationship is pretty much incomprehensible: it misses just about everything that's important in human interaction.
Finally, Bruce is simply wrong about making genetic changes to unborn children. First, it's not obvious why we shouldn't make such changes, and so, until he says more, I think we're entitled to find his claim a bit paltry. Second, though, it's stretching things a bit to equate a newly-fertilised egg with a child. Though the cell contains DNA that will produce a child, that's not the same by a long shot. For one thing, it'll also produce the placenta, so unless you think that the placenta has the same status as a child, it's hard to see how the fertilised egg does simply by virtue of genetic identity. Third - which follows from this - a single blood cell from an adult contains all the DNA to recreate them. Yet a blood cell doesn't have the same moral status as a person. Ditto the undifferentiated cell being referred to here. Finally, persons count; but I'm not so sure about humans qua humans, or human cells qua human. Bruce seems to ignore that important metaphysical distinction.
So much for Donald Bruce. The coverage in the Mail is surprisingly good, all things considered; however, they wheel out Josephine Quintavalle as their token Jeremiah, and her comment is even more empty-headed than Bruce's, complaining that it's a step toward reproductive cloning (which it isn't at all, given that the nucleus is fertilised from, er, two parents - but, anyway: is reproductive cloning so bad?), and that
We know very little about the beginning of life and it is extraordinary how willing we are to break down one of the most obvious barriers, which is that it takes a sperm and an egg to create an embryo. We have got to find better ways to cure these diseases.
This just makes me think that Quintavalle has no idea at all of what she's talking about, and - like Bruce - has a very small stock of statements that she tries to stick to a wide range of situations. I'll keep an eye on the CORE website, though, to see if anything more substantial appears.
(Incidentally, I am amused by the number of comments left on the Mail's site complaining that the technique is unnatural. Comments left by people by means of a series of devices that allow near-enough real-time interaction with potentially millions of people, potentially over thousands of kilometres. Yeah. Damn that unnaturalness.)
The Independent gives reasonable coverage (albeit via a Press Association re-hash), with no brain-dribble from nay-sayers (though I'll keep my eye on the columnists over the next few days). The same applies to The Times and the Telegraph and The Guardian. (Actually, come to think of it, all their stories are pretty much identical, which is pretty damning: it suggests that all they do is change the byline of the press-release. At least the Indy had the decency to say that that's what it's doing.)
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 12:50,
Reply)
I like eggs.(
Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 12:51,
Reply)
Me too.Now I'm torn between eggs or a cheese and tomato sandwich with dijon mustard.
(
crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:02,
Reply)
cheese and tomatowith mustard. It's the way forward
Edit: though really you should be careful. You don't want your baby born addicted to mustard? DO YOU?
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:03,
Reply)
I'll grab some DNA from a paedo, it'll be fine(
crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:05,
Reply)
Then your kidwill touch up other kids. Paedo kid
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:09,
Reply)
BAN THIS SICK FILTHWill no one [or noone, as Enyme prefers to spell it] think of the children?
(
crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 12:59,
Reply)
The former lead singer of Hermans Hermits doesn't think about kidshe's not a peado.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:01, Reply)
but think of the range of baby clothes that can now say"I love my mummies and daddy"
(
Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:01,
Reply)
and a postscripton the back saying 'but not Uncle Jimmy :('
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:03,
Reply)
I think the problem is some people are thinking about the children too much.(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:02, Reply)
haha and Enzyme was expecting a mature and interesting debate(
Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:04,
Reply)
Nice responsefrom what I've read though, the kneejerk naysayers are approaching from an ethical angle of potential consequences i.e. 'designer babies.' More than anything it demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic genetics, but you can understand that the way it is reported is nowhere near enough in depth to reassure these people
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 12:57,
Reply)
Most peopledon't know enough about science to understand it fully. Therefore they are afraid of it.
(
K2k6 has a proper job these days, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:00,
Reply)
But you also have to think that there's something problematic about "designer babies".I don't think that there really is.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:26,
Reply)
Leaving aside my own beliefsand approaching it from objectors view points, their main problem is that potentially there could be no restrictions. An example I've heard is that of a deaf couple who want their baby to be born deaf. Obviously those are extremes, but people who partake in these debates don't generally want reasoned opposition and it's all part and parcel in their mind
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:34,
Reply)
Yep: the deaf couple case is frequently touted.They were lesbian, and wanted IVF using sperm from a genetically deaf father to maximise the chances of having a deaf child.
That's fine by me.
(Look at it this way: they could have had sex with him and conceived a deaf child naturally. Unless you're willing to say that genetically deaf people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce with other genetically deaf people, it's hard to see what the objection could be. The future child won't be harmed, since this arrangement of this sperm and this egg is the only chance it has of coming to exist to begin with.)
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:16,
Reply)
I thinkthat consciously trying to have a deaf child is more than a mite selfish on the part of the prospective parents. It's not a million miles away from deliberately trying to have a Downs baby - why the fuck would you WANT your child to be missing a sense?
(
Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:25,
Reply)
They had several reasons.I happen to think they weren't strong, but they weren't insane either; and since noone was harmed by being created deaf - since the alternative was not to be created at all - where's the problem?
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 16:06,
Reply)
Just to wade in with my own ad-hoc "reckon":(Very good, by the way, I enjoyed reading that)
I think the sticky point with "designer babies" is more of an emotional one than anything ethical. Amberl raises a good point about the extreme cases, but even in more moderate cases, presumably most people would go as far as tweaking the genes so that their child could be tall, intelligent and good-looking. Apart from starting to sound a bit eugenic, this also has the implication that the child grows up knowing that they were tailored to their parents' desires, when surely it's healthier for the parents to love the random* phenotype they ended up with, and for the child to know that it is loved by its parents no matter what.
As for the bit about your parents' genes and the relationship you have with them - isn't there an increasing body of evidence that some personality traits can be inherited? Obviously this is going to pale in comparison to the environmental influences on our personalities, but it suggests you can't entirely rule out genetic influence**. Not that swapping somebody's mitochondria is likely to have much effect on this either way, which I suppose is your point.
*Well, pseudo-random, I suppose...
**See also Dawkins' Selfish Gene argument, which - if I read it correctly - suggests that animals are naturally more altruistic towards individuals to whom they are closely related due to some instinct arising from the genome's drive to preserve and replicate itself.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:32, Reply)
Well, I don't see anything wrong with eugenics per se.Forced eugenics is a bad idea; forced sterilisation is a bad idea. But it's the force that carries the moral weight here.
As for choosing desired characteristics - well, I suppose that a child could equally well think it a good thing that its parents put some thought into how it'd turn out rather than as the result of a drunken accident. Better that than to discover that they could have prevented a terrible illness but didn't. More likely, I suspect most kids simply wouldn't care. Why should they?
The worries you articulate have more to do with bad parenting than reproductive technology, I'd've thought; but since you can be naturally a bad parent, the technology doesn't seem to count for much.
As for inherited personality traits: well, there's all kinds of epigenetic oddness possible. But you'd get that either way, so why worry?
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:14,
Reply)
I fail to see the problem with drunken accidents.(
crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 16:11,
Reply)
There isn't one, as far as I can see.Though I do know people who think that there's an obligation to conceive by IVF and screen to ensure the best possible child by some standard.
The point is that, if you're going to argue that a child might resent having been designed, you could equally well argue in exactly the other direction.
You don't have to endorse either view to make the argument and endorse its formal validity.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 16:29,
Reply)
^ I read the subject line and when I got to "The point is" I skipped the rest(
crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 16:53,
Reply)
I'm trying to think of any logical reason for not choosing desired characteristicsBut I think the closest I can come up with as that, when it comes to choosing superficial characteristics, people will be trying to give their child an advantage but their well-meaning choices will be subject to whatever fashions are dictating to be 'attractive.' And if we start homogenising our phenotypes further, we start to take a bite out of the wonderful natural variability of the species. Now of course I realise that there are far more important genes which would be overlooked in such a process, but one of our best defences against a sudden change in circumstances is that, due to how naturally varied we are, at least a few of us would serendipitously be kitted out to survive it. I'm really clutching at straws here, I'm just trying to somehow extend the same idea with which I would discourage mothers from sterilising their baby's environment lest it contain any bacteria - i.e., there's a perfectly good natural system in place already for dealing with it. But maybe I'm just trying to find reasons to rail against the idea of engineering your sprog to be tall, blonde and gorgeous when really I just think it would encourage us to be even more shallow than we already are.
And of course, if you're picking the genes for less shallow reasons, then I can't argue with the idea of editing out hereditary disease - it's surely better for all concerned from a human point of view. Similarly your point about people being naturally bad parents* is perfectly right - in some ways it's a shame we don't have the technology to amend that.
*"Parenting" was always a horrible but recently-accepted verb that I always disliked. Oh well, too late for this qotw now...
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 16:17, Reply)
I don't buy that people have such a homogeneous set of desires, though.Even if everyone chose blond, blue-eyed kids - and why is it always that? - there'd still be a metric fuckton of variation between them.
I do accept that being that picky might be a sign of distinctly iffy parenting skills, but - again - that shifts the emphasis to being a better or worse parent. And since the picky parents would still be better than some, and since even bad parents tend, on balance, to be (just about) good enough, it's not obvious that the danger's great.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 16:33,
Reply)
Butbutbuta fertilized egg is a person! Messing with its DNA is a sin! You're killing babies! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!!!11!
The question I always want to ask these fuckwits is, wouldn't it be better to reduce overall human suffering? Isn't preventing a lifetime of pain more important than a couple of cells that might grow up to be the next Vicki Pollard?
As a layman it sounds to me like it's nowhere near cloning, or particularly dangerous to the baby or the parents. It sounds to me like a promising treatment.
For those who object to treating diseases... well, maybe they shouldn't go to the hospital when they're sick or injured, as it's God's will that their appendix is swelling up inside them and about to spew fecal matter all through their abdomen.
(
Wanderer, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:19,
Reply)
Clear thinking as usual.There is (at least) one other dimension to the 'safety' aspect of applying new procedures. It may go awry at first - and Bruce will be quick to scorn - but the greater understanding acquired will create the desired solution.
As for mixing DNA, well I've stirred that pot myself!
What really galls is the way Theology slips in the door when Ethics enters the debate. And the instant 'God wouldn't like it' reaction.
One valid question - erradicate this disorder, eliminate that genetic mistake - but where to stop? See 'Gingers' qotw for suggestions
(
Larry Vest One day at a time, sweet Jesus, FFS., Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:31,
Reply)
Yeh, and<-- links is over there
(
crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:03,
Reply)
I make a point of being very vocal when other people post spamso, even though I like Enzyme and think his blog is interesting, it's still Spam and my totally balanced viewpoint on everything means I have to point out how much this is SPAM!
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:04, Reply)
(
crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:05,
Reply)
Victory for B3TA!PAEDO SPAM REMOVED FROM SHOP SHELVES.
"Thank gawd r kiddies r safe nd sound from kiddiefiddling re4md pig" say concerned parents.
(
Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:21,
Reply)
I'm looking forward to the religious viewpointbecause obviously a belief in a ancient mythical being gives someone the abilty to make a reasoned argument regarding a scienticic practice.
(
Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:15,
Reply)
Opinions like that are counter productive.Religious people don't deserve to be mocked for their beliefs, and they have a right to comment on social issues.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:19, Reply)
Yes they bloody do deserve to be mocked.In the same way people are mocked for believing in fairies.
(
girlinthehole, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:21,
Reply)
"You have a different view to me, and so I shall mock you."(
Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:22,
Reply)
I hope that on the Leader's debate tonight, Nick Clegg says to Gordon Brown:I MOCK YOU FOR WE HAVE DIFFERENT FISCAL POLICIES!
(
Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:24,
Reply)
that would be super-awesome(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:28,
Reply)
I would love it if he turned to Brownand said, Got a problem you'd like to take outside?
And then to demonstrate, he karate chopped Cameron in the windpipe before walking back to his podium and saying "yeah, thought not, you cunt"
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:30, Reply)
I'd love to see thatas it would really help make up my mind who to vote for.
(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:31,
Reply)
The way they all have to shake hands at the end is quite funny.I want to know who will go first, or will there be an embaressing moment when Brown reaches for Clegg only to be intercepted by Cameron, who then worrys if he looks a bit gay by touching another man.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:36, Reply)
Hahathink it was in the House of Commons the other month, Cameron suggested Brown and Darling were gay. It was such a childish insult
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:45,
Reply)
Fiscal policies are at least based on reasoned mathematics and polictcal agenda designed to do what the party believes is best for the population*not a fictional character.
*and their own party
(
Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:29,
Reply)
But can't you see that people don't deserve to be mocked because of what they believe?I am an atheist, but I would never mock someone because they choose to believe in God. It's idiotic.
(
Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:27,
Reply)
Of course they deserve to be mockedChristians, Muslims, environmentalists, socilaist, facists, fatties, /talkers, cats etc everyone deserves to be mocked.
(
Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:30,
Reply)
Saying "it's a fact"when it isn't is just as bad as saying "It's God's word"
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:30, Reply)
So you are saying that you think there may be a God?(
girlinthehole, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:37,
Reply)
No, I don't believe in God,I have no need for God or Religion in my life. I just think the trend of dismissive retaliation against the religious right is stupid and pointless. Let them say what they want about evolution/genetics/politics and society. It doesn't mean that we should mock the religious or dismiss their opinions and concerns because they believe in God.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:41, Reply)
But using their religionas a basis for any objection is the same as basing an objection on the fact that aliens don't like it, and I know, one came to me in a dream and I wrote it in a book and other people agree with me. It's no basis for an argument.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:44, Reply)
But they don't just say it do they.They try to get us to see things the way they do. They try to get us to live the way they do. They fight wars about it and people suffer because of it.
(
girlinthehole, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:51,
Reply)
What the fuck? I've never forced my view on anyone.I've got a better argument for saying you try to force your view on me (and do so), because you elected a goverment that has laws of which I am forced to abide.
(
G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩€, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:02,
Reply)
yeah, law is the lawso we have to obey or face the consequences. Not the case with religion. Not here at least.
(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:05,
Reply)
Fuck off, you dirty forrin coming over here stealing our jobsand now you want rid of our queen. Well it's not on you here, it's not on at all.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:15, Reply)
I don't like the Spanish King, if that helpsI don't think someone should rule my life only because one of his/her ancestors killed more people than anyone else.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:18, Reply)
Yeah, well...That would be ilegal. I'm trying to find out how to change the fact that someone I didn't chose governs my life without doing anything ilegal. Can you help?
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:25, Reply)
The Queen doesn't govern your lifeShe is only a ceremonial figurehead. A she draws in HUGE numbers of forrins to look at her house and stuff, so she brings a lot of cash into the economy.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:35, Reply)
She's one miserable old cunt though isn't she(
Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:37,
Reply)
also, she was elected by Godwho are we to argue?
(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:37,
Reply)
Oh, yesI forgot she's the head of your Church, as well. Good way of creating a new religion, killing a wife.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:41, Reply)
She can decide to dissolve the goverment when she fanciesand she can rule out laws.
The fact that she doesn't use her power doesn't mean she doesn't have it.
She gets quite a lot of money as a salary, and the only reason she got the job is because someone on her family killed someone else.
And she gets a lot of money from people visiting the palace and all that. She keeps that money, too. It doesn't go to you. And the same people would go to see the palace even if it wasn't a queen there anymore.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:39, Reply)
No, she can't dissolve the governmentthat is ridiculous scaremongering. If she attempted to dissolved the government the first thing that would happen would be that the monarchy would be deposed quicker than you can blink.
It may be written in an old lawbook that she can technically use those powers, but the reality of the situation is that she can't.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:42, Reply)
No, the reality of the situation is that she wouldn'tBecause she'd be deposed. But she can.
You don't know how things will be in a few years, and someone who you didn't choose at all has a lot of power in her hands.
My point is that you seem not to be too bother about it all. You don't think you're daft for having a goverment like that.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:46, Reply)
actually legallyit is understood that the Queen cannot choose not to sign a law into existence
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:42,
Reply)
I don't know everything about English lawsSo, what would happen if she didn't want to sign a new law?
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:57, Reply)
She doesn't have a choice.She is just a ceremonial figurehead for the government. The "powers" that she has are just a leftover way of letting the monarchy remain and save a bit of face while being effectively made useless as heads of state.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:01, Reply)
So, in the case thatthings in the country are getting messy, people is very unhappy, there is a big crisis (not like this one, a proper one) and she decides not to sign a law or dissolve the goverment, do you think nobody would follow her? Do you think it wouldn't start a civil war, as it's happened in so many places? Who is she and why her?
Besides, I think it's unfair that she gets paid for being the daughter of her father.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:05, Reply)
Well you can think it's as unfair as you likebut you're deliberately coming up with doomsday scenarios like a tinfoil hat wearing weirdo. If you really hate it, can I suggest moving to a country where she isn't the head of state. It's a bit odd getting worked up about a ceremonial figurehead when we have quite blatent problems with corruption in the actual government which need to be addressed long before you get into the Monarchy/Republic debate.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:08, Reply)
^ thisif you don't like it, you don't have to live here. I'm not even a monarchist and I still think it's important to keep them. She has no actual power, and I'd be much more worried about the corrupt MPs who actually govern us
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:12,
Reply)
So my point is provenYou have to live in another country if you don't want to serve the Queen. Fair enough. In that case, you are not choosing your goverment, you see?
(I don't mind the Queen, I was trying to prove BGB and Al wrong)
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:15, Reply)
But the queen is not the governementyou are wrong in that assertion.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:18, Reply)
She's the head of your govermentand the head of your church.
Legally, she has those powers.
Anyway, it's not important. We could be discussing about this all day. We both think we're right, so at least we agree there.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:20, Reply)
We might both think we are rightbut the difference is that you are in fact wrong.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:23, Reply)
We might both think we are rightbut the difference is that you are in fact wrong.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:31, Reply)
Don't take it so badlyIt all comes from BGB saying that at least we can choose our goverment, and I don't think it's true.
Personally I have no problems with her, and if most people is happy with the system, that's perfect. The problem is that there is no way to prove that people is happy with the system, because you're never asked about it.
I could say that having such a devotion for just a person, who is well known and rich thanks to centuries of blood, is more than a bit daft, but ey, I'm not here to judge anyone.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:13, Reply)
I don't have a particular devotion to the queenthis started off as a joke comment about you coming form Spain and criticising our head of state, but you then started saying she was in some way the most powerful figure in the government, and that is simply not true in the real world.
And finally, at least the queen actually exists and evidence of her existence can be presented.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:17, Reply)
YepI could still think it's daft to serve her, couldn't I?
And you don't get to choose your goverment.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:18, Reply)
we don't serve herand we have a democratic system where a government is elected
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:20,
Reply)
AgainShe's the head of the goverment and the church. She represents you in front of the rest of the world.
Otherwise, why are you paying her? What are her duties?
As I just said to Al, we'll never agree.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:22, Reply)
We won't agree because you won't accept the factthat your argument is incorrect. We can choose our government, you may have noticed a lot of coverage of an upcoming election. That's how we choose our government. That's the reality. The queen may be the head of state, but it is a purely ceremonial role.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:25, Reply)
You want to keep talking?OK, what (or which, I'm not sure) are the Queen duties?
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:32, Reply)
Hahaha!Very good! I was drinking water and almost went to the keyboard!
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:37, Reply)
*waves slowly*There's a few more thousand right there ^
(
Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:42,
Reply)
You'd be an excellent QueenPity nobody in your family killed enough people.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:46, Reply)
I'm too cheerfulShe looks like she's sat in some mash
(
Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:47,
Reply)
That'd be an improvent, thenAnd I could visit you and we could have tea for hours.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:48, Reply)
You're saying that the religious are trying to get you to live the way they do, you're acting like the religion is forcing you into war.I would say it's the people in power who are forcing the people to go to wars and suffer, and sometimes they do it in the name of religion. Not a single religion advocates the atrocities done it's name, it's the corruption of the religion that leads to such things. If I killed a family and told the world I did it in your name, would you just accept that, and accept responsibility for that? Exactly, so why should religion do the same?
(
G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩€, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:10,
Reply)
I don't know which planet you're living on.It must be nice there.
(
girlinthehole, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:15,
Reply)
The Crusadesare not my period of history. But having brushed over them I can assure you there were a myriad of different reasons for people embarking upon them
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:16,
Reply)
WellI've grown up in a Catholic country, and since before I can remember, went to Church, went to a Catholic school and had to pray to God at least 5 times a day.
However, I was never asked to go to war. And I never tried to convince anyone to join the club.
Sorry about your bad experiences. It must have been painful for you to feel so bad about it.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:21, Reply)
What atrocities have religion advocated?Personally, I agree, state over religion, any day of the week, but I don't say religion should be dismissed as a cause of war. In fact, I'd say religion is quite against that sort of thing.
Mankind will always find ways of grouping and fighting with itself. There are people who just want to fight, both for reasons of creating a bond with their fellow fighters/football team/country/whatever, and just simply for narcersectic reasons.
(
G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩€, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:22,
Reply)
Not allMost people just want to go on with their lifes and be as happy as possible.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:04, Reply)
Nice usage of the word 'they' thereMost Christians couldn't give a flying fuck what other people do with their lives. And wars? Like to give me an example of a Christian war please? And try something other than the Crusades.
Edit: what I'm trying to say is just let people live their lives. If they want to believe in something that comforts them, let them have that. If they offend your sensibilities then never talk to anyone with a different viewpoint to you. You'll miss out on a lot of life
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:05,
Reply)
I respect the right for you to believe in that nonsence if you respect my right to think you're as daft as a brush for believing in it.It doesn't offend me. It makes me laugh.
(
girlinthehole, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:19,
Reply)
refer you to my post belowI know plenty of educated and quite fiendishly intelligent people who believe in God. Most of them are generally incredibly lovely people as well. Calling them daft as a brush and choosing to not associate with them makes you the poorer.
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:29,
Reply)
ReallyIf I wanted to be closed minded I could probably find a thousand reasons to call you daft. I don't think that's the right way to act.
Personally, I don't think I'm daft at all. And if you think you are so superior as to call people like Einstein daft, then maybe you've done something to be insulted for.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:29, Reply)
For the purposes of this discussion, is 'they' people who believe in a godor is it people who follow an organised religion?
(
Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:20,
Reply)
CoolBut a lot of the latter, even they don't preach or force it at anyone else.
Anyone who gets on with it should be allowed to get on with it.
*thinks of lovely nannas who don't think bad things about anyone but know that the Pope is a cunt*
(
Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:30,
Reply)
Why only the ones following an organized religion?I thought you compared people who believe in God with people who believe in fairies. What is the difference if you aren't part of an organized religion? Could you clarify? I thought your whole point was that we're daft for having magic friends.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:33, Reply)
I'm an idiot for thinking people who believe in God are idiots.So be it.
(
girlinthehole, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:26,
Reply)
Having a single minded point of view that makes you look down on other people is idiotic.(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:26, Reply)
I'm with Pyschochompand DiT on this one. You can disagree with someone, but mocking them for believing in something different is just counterproductive and narrowminded
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:29,
Reply)
If they are demonstrably wrong in their beliefand they are, then the fact they continue to believe it means they must be very stupid, and consequently worthy of my mockery.
Plus they all love nonces and shit like that.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:31, Reply)
Trolly trolly trollBut the answer to that is, you are claiming the existence of something, it's down to you to prove it. Or provide at least the slimmest piece of evidence for your argument. Obviously I don't mean you personally, since you don't actually agree with the argument you're making, you're just trolling BGB. And I'm experiencing OUTRAGE AND DISGUST on the internet now.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:35, Reply)
It's effectively impossible to prove something doesn't exist(
Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:36,
Reply)
And equally effectively impossible to prove that something that doesn't exist exists.(
Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:38,
Reply)
Yes, but some people *like* a priest up them.(
Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:33,
Reply)
Really, you can prove God doesn't exist?Then, why aren't you on TV and all the newspapers, with those amazing news?
Go on, you could be rich now!
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:34, Reply)
I don't look down on them.I just think they're daft for believing in such a thing.
Are you saying I should hedge my bets and start going to church just in case?
(
girlinthehole, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:32,
Reply)
What a ridiculous statementyou judge every single person you have ever interacted with. It's an unavoidable thing to do.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:37, Reply)
I judged you the first time I met you.Judged you on your face.
(
Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:38,
Reply)
I think we have a problem with the translationI don't mean judge like in form an opinion about someone, but judge like in sentencing that someone is wrong.
Let's people believe what they want, rather than impossing what we think it's right. Otherwise, you're just acting like the Catholic Church.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:42, Reply)
Al frequently acts like the catholic church(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:44,
Reply)
Wearing dresses and bumming?(
Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:55,
Reply)
He'll soon be killing people for not believing what he believesThat reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:57, Reply)
I know you are a believer.It doesn't make me like you any less.
(
girlinthehole, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:38,
Reply)
I knowYou only think I'm daft. I don't mind much, I'm quite naive most of the time.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:43, Reply)
Of course notI'd just point out that some of the most intellectual and cleverest people I've met have believed in God. Not just little old ladies beating their chests in church, but people who know their stuff. And calling them daft seems a bit silly to me
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:38,
Reply)
I'd say you should start worshipping Gog, BGB.He appeared to me in a dream. I now need money for a new house and a Lamborghini to spread the word of Gog.
(
Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:38,
Reply)
Awww, you massive victim you !(
G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩€, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:04,
Reply)
Asuming that I should live by the same code of morals that they dowhen they are based on something I find to be laudable equates to me that their opinions are not relevant.
(
Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:26,
Reply)
We do generally live by the same code of morals,religion was intergral to the development of a moral code. Without organised religion we would have a very different view on the value of human life.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:28, Reply)
It may have been intergral in the past when we all believed the flippin earth was flat but now we are fully aware how stupid the concept of a divine being is.(
girlinthehole, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:36,
Reply)
people didn't really think the world was flat.at least not anywhere near as much as it is bandied about.
(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:37,
Reply)
Many people believed that the world was in fact a rhombus, true fact**true fact may not be true
(
Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:38,
Reply)
peopledidn't really have the time or the interest to ponder on whether the earth was flat. Your average peasant's world was bounded by his master's land, the concept of oceans and foreign countries was pretty much meaningless to them let alone whether the world was flat
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:40,
Reply)
the people who did think about it didn't think it was flat either(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:41,
Reply)
Yeahthat's true. The Greeks knew it
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:43,
Reply)
as did Arab astronomers of the same period.(
Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:29,
Reply)
psstlaudable
–adjective
1.
deserving praise; praiseworthy; commendable: Reorganizing the files was a laudable idea.
(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:29,
Reply)
And I have the right to respond scornfully.They in turn are welcome to mock me for my scornfulness. This will be met with a kind of mutant super-scorn that will have evolved from my initial scorn.
SCORN.
(
Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:28,
Reply)
I enjoyed discussing with the nuns at schoolThey would say that we can't use condoms, or play with human eggs, or abort because that would be going against Gog's plans.
I used to replay with 3 questions:
1.- Then, why do you allow ill people to go to the doctor, if God's plan is for them to be sick and die?
2.- Don't you think that God, being so powerful and all that, has already count on his plan that we were going to be doing these things?
3.- How does God's plan go with all the wars and killings approved by the Church?
They would reply as the politics and answer with non related bullshit.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:20, Reply)
Gog's plans are there for the good of you.(
Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:21,
Reply)
Mmm, that's some good Gog worship right there.(
Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:25,
Reply)
I don't believe in Gog.(
Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:26,
Reply)
I would talk to you, but you have a different view to me and I look down on you because of that.I like to close my mind to opinions that differ from my own, and think that people who are not in agreement with me are fools.
(
Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:28,
Reply)
I think I might mock you now.(
Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:29,
Reply)
you should have said"what about priests fucking little children? is that God's plan too?"
(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:27,
Reply)
that Goghe's such a character
(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:29,
Reply)
I was an athiestbut I've seen the light. The light of Gog!
(
djtrialprice, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:32,
Reply)
I sa wthe light of Gog, he shone it all over my face(
Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:37,
Reply)
yeahthe fleshlight of Gog
(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:38,
Reply)
It comes in boy anus, boy mouth and bitch tit varieties(
Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:39,
Reply)
*backs slowly away from this avenue of conversation*(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:45,
Reply)
I haven't had a croissant for ages(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:04,
Reply)
Oh you bloody pest.Fucking one pound fucking nineteen.
This had better be worth it.
(
thealternativefact, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:09,
Reply)
I'm going to complain to the postal ombusdsmanI hope the fucks them RIGHT up the arse. But more realistically they will shrug and make a non committal grunting noise. The cunts.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:14, Reply)
That's because you'll be getting bummedand having your norks jizzed on.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:23, Reply)
I'm going to have to edit itDon't you think? Before everybody makes fun of me :_(
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:32, Reply)
I think they might have noticed... ;)Besides, Gog has already seen it.
(
Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:40,
Reply)
We had those types of discussions tooThey would all be answered with "Yeah, right, but there are so many priests doing good things, why should we think about the ones who are bad?"
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:32, Reply)
that sort of attitude is awful"there have always been plenty of humans doing good things, so why should we stop Hitler and the Nazis??"
(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:34,
Reply)
I knowThey once compare having sex with my boyfriend before getting married with having sex with an uncle. I still don't understand the simil there.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:37, Reply)
those nuns were crazylike the Pope.
(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:38,
Reply)
There were tons more of funny thingsLike, you should your boyfriend have sex with however he wants, because as far as he doesn't do it with you, he'll marry you.
I don't know if I want to marry that bastard, you see? Not after he's fucked everybody else.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:46, Reply)
The nuns were from /talk.Knowing you'd end up on /qotw, they were getting the unclefucker accusation in early.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:41, Reply)
Why should we? They're fucking smart.(
Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:31,
Reply)
(
Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:36,
Reply)
sauce!*spanks*
(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:38,
Reply)
right thenI'm off to the previous thread to resume groping with TGB
(
djtrialprice, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:46,
Reply)
She'll lead you on a fool's errandand she has a gag reflex.
(
Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:47,
Reply)
I just pictured a kitten singing "If you wanna be my lover, you gotta get with my friends!"and it was dressed as Geri, not Emma.
(
Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:57,
Reply)
in a tiny Union Jack dress?(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:59,
Reply)
Now I have that mental imageit would definitely be a better singer
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:01,
Reply)
you stay away from that kitten!Won't somebody call the Daily Mail?
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:07,
Reply)
Needs moar fish puns.(
Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Thu 15 Apr 2010, 13:57,
Reply)
I'm just angling for attention.I sense I may have made a rod for my own back on the interNET.
*dies*
(
Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:05,
Reply)
I coelocanth help yourself any more.Best I could do with coelocanth, sorry.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:07, Reply)
Well done.Now I must go into a meeting.
(
Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:09,
Reply)
you're not worming your way out of this one(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:08,
Reply)
That shoaled him.(
Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:10,
Reply)
This is brilliant.(
Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:43,
Reply)
Back to the point in hand (fnar)*Wheels out old Stephen Hawking type argument*
What about the clever cripples?
Would you like to do without them?
Somebody with cystic fibrosis who would be dead by 30 but cured cancer at 28,
would you want for them to not have been born?
Well, would you? WOULD YOU?
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:37, Reply)
Or would you rather that they just weren't a cripple?That would appear to be the point of this.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:42, Reply)
No.The point of this eugenic approach is that such sufferers would not be born. If it was simply a case of sorting out cripples* that would be fine. I'd rather have a crippled genius than no genius. Then again maybe after we'd weeded out all the cripples we could have our geniuses created by helpful geneticists. That would be cool.
*cripple in this context used as a catch-all for genetically variant from perfect.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:47, Reply)
you are pretty much assuming that genius is genetic therewhen there isn't really any proof of that
or that the process of having lived as a cripple creates genius, which is also not really the case.
(
Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:54,
Reply)
it's linked to the abortion ideaof throwing the baby out with the bathwater in terms of removing the disability/engineering it to requirement. I love that I could use that motto
(
Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 14:58,
Reply)
Not really.Just stating (in an obtuse way) that existence and your state of existence is a lottery and obviously defined by both nature and nurture. TBH any interference is ok by me as it simply is another variable in the draw. Just trying out a different tack that no-one had mentioned per se.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:01, Reply)
WGW is right here.But you do raise an interesting concern.
OK - so you've got two eggs or two embryos in a petri dish and only one can be implanted. One carries a gene for an undesirable characteristic (CF, athsma, whatever: it doesn't matter). Choosing one will mean that the other never comes to birth.
But if your choice is between eggs, then there's noone there to suffer the harm. If it's between embryos, then one was going to be discarded anyway - so, in this case, the world is no worse off than it would be.
The point is this: if your only chance of coming to exist at all is by the chance meeting of a particular sperm and egg - and it is - it's difficult to claim that you've been harmed by not coming to exist at all.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:18,
Reply)
The claim is not of harm but of future effect.I suppose that once you accept that taking action is not going to adversely affect likely futures then everything is fine.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:26, Reply)
If you read the article,the point of this procedure is that you take a fertilised egg that would otherwise produce a cripple, and make it produce a non-cripple. Sure, it requires fiddling about in a lab so the kid isn't conceived "naturally", but there's no weeding out of cripple embryos, the cripple embryos just get fixed.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:19, Reply)
It will, however, lead to the winnowing out of "undesirable" genes.Which is a bit of a conceit. Gattaca was a crap film but it did raise a valid point. Who is anyone to decide what should and shouldn't be in our gene pool? Conversely if you can make something "better" do you not have a duty to do so. I'll leave this sort of thinking stuff to Enzyme if it's ok with you. It's too much for my brain and there is no answer really. It's all subjective.
(, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 15:24, Reply)
I'm not sure.If you can avoid unnecessary suffering, you might well have at least a prima facie duty to do so. And as for the winnowing out of undesirable genes: well, there're at least some that it'd be good to lose.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 15 Apr 2010, 16:04,
Reply)
« Go Back | Reply To This »