Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Internet Links
Topic: 3-parent children
started by: Malcolm

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 28 2013,10:16

< Awesome >, if nothing else because of the questions and issues it will raise.

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 28 2013,18:45

Well, now that gay marriage is settled, we need a new issue?

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2013,19:17

(TheCatt @ Jun. 28 2013,21:45)

QUOTE

Well, now that gay marriage is settled, we need a new issue?

Of course. We haven't yet destroyed all the traditions that have gotten us through 250 years, yet.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 28 2013,19:47

Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman is not the main thing that carried us through the ages.

QUOTE

One in 6,500 babies in the United Kingdom is born with mitochondrial disorder, which can lead to serious health issues such as heart and liver disease, respiratory problems and muscular dystrophy.

Problems with mitochondria, the "powerhouse" cells of the body, are inherited from the mother, so the proposed IVF treatment would mean an affected woman could have a baby without passing on mitochondrial disease.

Goddamn those people destroying tradition, trying to help people live. Those bastards.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 28 2013,21:01

Is that what we're talking about? Medical advances? I thought we were talking about polygamy and shit.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 29 2013,09:06

Yes. They just figured out a way to eliminate a genetic predisposition to dying earlier than average. Now this, "when does life begin" thing begins to get interesting.

Also, in general, I'm for demolishing traditions unless they prove themselves to be useful. Just because something's been around awhile doesn't mean it's earned the right to keep existing.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 29 2013,10:10

Things and traditions that have stood the test of time have proven themselves useful, or at least not detrimental, by their mere continued existence. It is the new shit that can have unintended consequences.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 29 2013,15:50

Things, maybe. Traditions, it's more or less because people prop them up. It is new shit that drags you out of the pit of stagnation which blindly following tradition puts you into.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 29 2013,17:42

Ah. So "change" in a society is always good?

Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 29 2013,17:56

(GORDON @ Jun. 29 2013,13:10)

QUOTE

So you're in favor of Christianity and Islam?

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 29 2013,18:21

(TheCatt @ Jun. 29 2013,20:56)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jun. 29 2013,13:10)

QUOTE

So you're in favor of Christianity and Islam?

I actually think about that quite a bit. I wonder if there is a type of person who *needs* that kind of structure in order to function in a society.

I don't, but the world is full of people who aren't as capable as me.

I do think, however, if a group becomes violent or destructive, it shouldn't be ignored.

So to answer your question, yes, in favor, generally, until I have more info.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2013,09:43

(GORDON @ Jun. 29 2013,19:42)

QUOTE

Ah. So "change" in a society is always good?

First off, at one time, every tradition began as a change.

It also begs the question of the definition of "good." But I'll put that aside and replace it with "should be allowed." Unless I see it ramming headlong up against a Constitutional amendment (legal doctrine), a law I consider not batshit insane (valid legal consequence), or goddamn objective common sense and logic (verification of doctrine and consequence), I generally allow change.

QUOTE

So you're in favor of Christianity and Islam?

G actually brings up an interesting point.

QUOTE

I wonder if there is a type of person who *needs* that kind of structure in order to function in a society.

I'm 100% convinced that type exists. They worry me sometimes because they think there's a way to "win" at existence. Be it rewards in the afterlife, achievement of extinction of the self, reincarnation, etc., the notion of "if you do X in this life, you'll get Y in the next one" makes it seem like the gods are bribing or threatening us.

On the flip side, if these folk weren't plugging into religion for their fix, they'd find something else.

Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2013,10:50

(Malcolm @ Jun. 30 2013,12:43)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Jun. 29 2013,19:42)

QUOTE

Ah. So "change" in a society is always good?

First off, at one time, every tradition began as a change.

We're talking about success and persistence over time, not the origin of 'Tradition X" back in antiquity when it was a new idea.

I suggest that societal traditions that have been around a long time, and are part of a common foundation a civilization stands on, have merit simply because they exist and persisted. You're bringing up constitutionality and whatnot but to that I say: irrelevant to this conversation. I'm talking generalities, not specifics.

Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 30 2013,11:15

At one point in many societies, it was tradition to sell people like property. Shall we bring that back? I'm not even talking brutal plantation life. I'm talking "you got conquered/indebted, you get commodified."

For the vast majority of human history, most societies believed that their leaders were either divine or imbued with divine righteousness. Yeah, let's bring that shit back.

Just because something managed to survive for a long time doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 01 2013,09:49

(GORDON @ Jun. 29 2013,12:10)

QUOTE

Things and traditions that have stood the test of time have proven themselves useful, or at least not detrimental, by their mere continued existence.

This is not necessarily true. If something is the "way it's always been done" it could still be very bad and only because it's the only way it's always been done no one knew how awful it was, since there was nothing else to compare it to.

QUOTE

So "change" in a society is always good?

Actually, yes. Change is always good. Even when it's bad, it's still good, because it lets you know for sure that what was before was itself good thing and going back to it would be an improvement over this new thing.

Until you have changed a tradition and tried other things, you can't know if that tradition is good or bad. It just is.

QUOTE

I wonder if there is a type of person who *needs* that kind of structure in order to function in a society.

It sure seems like it. I would bet eventually medical science will figure out exactly what is wrong with that sort of person and get them the medications they need to stabilize their brain chemistry and stop being crazy. I hope.

QUOTE

I suggest that societal traditions that have been around a long time, and are part of a common foundation a civilization stands on, have merit simply because they exist and persisted.

I'm clearly with Malcolm on this one. He provides some decent examples as to why this statement is wrong. Remember, humanity has been relatively decent in terms of tradition and accepted behavior for fewer generations than you can count on your fingers. There are countless generations before that where what was "tradition" would get you jailed and/or reviled today, for good reason IMO.

Sometimes tradition can be good. But ALL traditions should be deemed suspect and considered and tested to make sure they really are good or not. Because traditionally it turns out that traditions are pretty awful.

Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 01 2013,09:59

So 150 years ago, Gordon would have been defending slavery, since it had been around a long time and was a foundation for the South.

Tradition is fine when it comes to parades and celebrations...

Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 14 2013,20:28

< Polygymy gets partial win in Utah. >

Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 15 2013,09:57

QUOTE

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

Wtf? Cohabitation was illegal unless you were in the same family or something?

Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 15 2013,09:59

Yeah, that's just a dumb law, period.