Octopus Overlords

animal breeders are already attempting to make their perfect master-race lineage... mainly through excessive inbreeding? this is probably the low-end example. however,i think it's safe to say that humanity just is not good with little things like "ethical grasp exceeded by technological reach" and "unintended consequences"

hitbyambulance wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 11:46 pm humanity just is not good with little things like "ethics"

FTFY.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 4:38 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 4:16 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:36 pm Eugenics has always worked so well in the past.

It's something we are absolutely going to have to deal with going into the future... and to some extent are already.

There's a pretty big difference between CRISPR and abortion, though.

That's not addressing the root issue though. If we have the ability to create ideal humans, what is the ethics around choosing to create a human that is not ideal?

Not having an abortion is a choice just like having an abortion is. Choosing not to do something is a choice... like not getting a vaccine, or in the future not designing a human.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 1:05 pmNot having an abortion is a choice just like having an abortion is. Choosing not to do something is a choice... like not getting a vaccine, or in the future not designing a human.

I'm not sure about where I stand on that but I do know that in Buck Rodgers there was an episode with a "genetically perfect" woman who was no where near as hot as Erin Grey.

Remus West wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 12:28 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 1:05 pmNot having an abortion is a choice just like having an abortion is. Choosing not to do something is a choice... like not getting a vaccine, or in the future not designing a human.

I'm not sure about where I stand on that but I do know that in Buck Rodgers there was an episode with a "genetically perfect" woman who was no where near as hot as Erin Grey.

Come on, man. You can't whip out some Twiki like that without any kind of warning. Bad form!

Hey, look at me mixing topics:

Nearly all Catholics, including those who are unvaccinated, are supposed to return to in-person Masses this weekend as New Jersey’s bishops lift their orders that gave parishioners permission to skip weekly services during the pandemic.

...

Though only 4.3 million people, or about half the state’s population, were fully vaccinated as of Thursday, the Catholic bishops are not giving unvaccinated people a free pass to stay home. They are also not making exceptions for children under 12, who are not eligible for vaccinations yet.

Sofa King gross, but they are really hurting for cash, I'm sure.

Permission? Permission‽

...

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Amid dangerous drought conditions, we’re inviting all Utahns — regardless of religious affiliation — to join us this weekend in collective and humble prayer for rain.

I actually kinda like Cox (cue "that's what she said!"), but this is just stupid.

Remus West wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:33 pm

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:23 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:43 pm

Grifman wrote: Of course, I'm not sure how someone in his position can call anything "moral" or "immoral", but there you have it.

Your first question is begging the question. Mortality does not need a god, and therefore atheists can make mortality arguments.

How am I begging the question? I'm no more begging the question than you are by stating that "mortality" does not need a god.

You begged that question when you posted "someone in his position" regarding a well known atheist making a statement about morality.

Ouch. In there seems to be the assumption that atheists cant make statements about what they feel would be moral? Or am I misreading?
Also I tend to believe myself that bringing someone into the world with downs is immoral. The parents who care for them may die before they do, and then either their siblings would have to take on that enormous burden, or the state would. And the state isn't the best for taking care of people like that right now. Misery all around imo.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:39 pm Also I tend to believe myself that bringing someone into the world with downs is immoral. The parents who care for them may die before they do, and then either their siblings would have to take on that enormous burden, or the state would. And the state isn't the best for taking care of people like that right now. Misery all around imo.

Using that same justification, you could say just having children is immoral as parents can, and do, sometimes die before they’re grown, or give up children for adoption, thus leaving the state to raise them in many cases.

Your scenario isn’t an example of immorality, it’s an example of tragedy.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:48 am

Drazzil wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:39 pm Also I tend to believe myself that bringing someone into the world with downs is immoral. The parents who care for them may die before they do, and then either their siblings would have to take on that enormous burden, or the state would. And the state isn't the best for taking care of people like that right now. Misery all around imo.

Using that same justification, you could say just having children is immoral as parents can, and do, sometimes die before they’re grown, or give up children for adoption, thus leaving the state to raise them in many cases.

Your scenario isn’t an example of immortality, it’s an example of tragedy.

Normal kids can at least be expected to be able to care for themselves. Down's kids? Not so much. They WILL require care, their whole lives.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:16 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:48 am

Drazzil wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:39 pm Also I tend to believe myself that bringing someone into the world with downs is immoral. The parents who care for them may die before they do, and then either their siblings would have to take on that enormous burden, or the state would. And the state isn't the best for taking care of people like that right now. Misery all around imo.

Using that same justification, you could say just having children is immoral as parents can, and do, sometimes die before they’re grown, or give up children for adoption, thus leaving the state to raise them in many cases.

Your scenario isn’t an example of immortality, it’s an example of tragedy.

Normal kids can at least be expected to be able to care for themselves. Down's kids? Not so much. They WILL require care, their whole lives.

Ah, yes. The well-known self-sufficiency of children.

[Edited for Godwinizing]

A parent who chooses to go ahead with the birth of a child even when they know it may have disabilities is NOT an act of immorality. In fact, I would say your obvious belief that children with disabilities should be terminated before birth actually IS immoral.

I would not force anyone to be a parent even though I love kids. It is a hard and often thankless job even in the best circumstances.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:25 pm A parent who chooses to go ahead with the birth of a child even when they know it may have disabilities is NOT an act of immorality. In fact, I would say your obvious belief that children with disabilities should be terminated before birth actually IS immoral.

Yeah the expecting parent(s) and their doctor are already having some hard conversations. They shouldn't need to worry about what I think.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:21 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:16 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:48 am

Drazzil wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:39 pm Also I tend to believe myself that bringing someone into the world with downs is immoral. The parents who care for them may die before they do, and then either their siblings would have to take on that enormous burden, or the state would. And the state isn't the best for taking care of people like that right now. Misery all around imo.

Using that same justification, you could say just having children is immoral as parents can, and do, sometimes die before they’re grown, or give up children for adoption, thus leaving the state to raise them in many cases.

Your scenario isn’t an example of immortality, it’s an example of tragedy.

Normal kids can at least be expected to be able to care for themselves. Down's kids? Not so much. They WILL require care, their whole lives.

Ah, yes. The well-known self-sufficiency of children.

[Edited for Godwinizing]

Avoiding the point by nitpicking grammar. Nice.

Calling people in that situation immoral was callous, in my opinion. While I understand that it can result in additional hardships beyond those that come with raising children, parents aren't choosing to have children in that situation because they're "immoral".

Drazzil wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:09 am

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:21 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:16 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:48 am

Drazzil wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:39 pm Also I tend to believe myself that bringing someone into the world with downs is immoral. The parents who care for them may die before they do, and then either their siblings would have to take on that enormous burden, or the state would. And the state isn't the best for taking care of people like that right now. Misery all around imo.

Using that same justification, you could say just having children is immoral as parents can, and do, sometimes die before they’re grown, or give up children for adoption, thus leaving the state to raise them in many cases.

Your scenario isn’t an example of immortality, it’s an example of tragedy.

Normal kids can at least be expected to be able to care for themselves. Down's kids? Not so much. They WILL require care, their whole lives.

Ah, yes. The well-known self-sufficiency of children.

[Edited for Godwinizing]

Avoiding the point by nitpicking grammar. Nice.

Um, no. The point is that all children need care. Down's children need more, but it's a matter of degree, not kind.

Where do you draw the line? Is it "immoral" to bring a child into the world with other special needs? Which ones?

Uh wut?

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:11 pm Uh wut?

Which part confuses you?

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:56 pm Where do you draw the line? Is it "immoral" to bring a child into the world with other special needs? Which ones?

To each his own. I wouldn't. Others will.

For example, Iceland has almost no Down Syndrome births...by choice. In the U.S., only about 2/3rds of those pregnancies are terminated (but it's unclear if the statistics count those that didn't do genetic in-vitro testing and would have terminated if found out early in the pregnancy).

I don't think morality applies for the most part, but with the exception of severe untreatable conditions, where the baby will die regardless (whether within hours, days, or months) and in lots of pain. That family isn't choosing the child to be born for the child's sake - they are choosing it for their own sake.

As a recovering Catholic (30+ years at this point), I feel comfortable saying that as an organization they should be burned to the ground.

What an absolute disgrace for them to meet and discuss this, all so they can whip devout followers into a donating frenzy at a local level, no doubt.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:14 pm As a recovering Catholic (30+ years at this point), I feel comfortable saying that as an organization they should be burned to the ground.

What an absolute disgrace for them to meet and discuss this, all so they can whip devout followers into a donating frenzy at a local level, no doubt.

The only thing they agreed to do was draft a statement on the meaning of Communion in the life of the church that would be presented at a future meeting for consideration. If whatever they write is accepted, it won't even make national policy - it will still be up to local bishops to make decisions.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:17 pm The only thing they agreed to do was draft a statement on the meaning of Communion in the life of the church that would be presented at a future meeting for consideration. If whatever they write is accepted, it won't even make national policy - it will still be up to local bishops to make decisions.

Right, but they're using Biden as a reason to come up with a new statement or policy. To rephrase, they're using the President of the United States as a reason to meet and discuss religious dogma and how sacraments are then going to be offered in the United States.

I had relatives during Obama's Presidency tell me he was going to open the doors to "Sharia Law" (whatever that meant at the time), and yet the most persecuted religion in America (insert barfing rolley-eye emoji here) has to now take an official stance because of President Biden.

Its beyond gross.

Well, when your whole religion is based on persecution...

After 200+ years, a good portion of Americans has yet to figure out the concept of "separation of church and state".

Maybe they should ask Vatican for asylum...oh wait, they don't really like the Pope's views either!

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:32 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:17 pm The only thing they agreed to do was draft a statement on the meaning of Communion in the life of the church that would be presented at a future meeting for consideration. If whatever they write is accepted, it won't even make national policy - it will still be up to local bishops to make decisions.

Right, but they're using Biden as a reason to come up with a new statement or policy. To rephrase, they're using the President of the United States as a reason to meet and discuss religious dogma and how sacraments are then going to be offered in the United States.

Well, it came up during a meeting - it wasn't the sole point of the meeting. And this has been a fairly consistent stance of theirs for all politicians or leaders. I find it understandable that when the highest leader of the land claims to be a member of your organization and is not living according to the principles of the organization, that a restatement of those principles might be in order. They made a point of saying no names will be used.

I mean, I don't agree with them, but it's not out of line for them to say they don't agree with what he's doing and explain why it's against their ideals.

If an NRA member became president and then made it a point to ban guns, wouldn't it make sense for the NRA to disavow them?

gilraen wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:40 pm After 200+ years, a good portion of Americans has yet to figure out the concept of "separation of church and state".

I don't see how that applies here.

oh wait, they don't really like the Pope's views either!

Now that is truth! I'm not entirely certain he'd be welcomed if he tried to visit.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:49 pm

gilraen wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:40 pm After 200+ years, a good portion of Americans has yet to figure out the concept of "separation of church and state".

I don't see how that applies here.

Religious leaders are assuming that they are allowed to affect public policy, not in the least because too many political figures are allowing their religious views to affect public policy.

gilraen wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:56 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:49 pm

gilraen wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:40 pm After 200+ years, a good portion of Americans has yet to figure out the concept of "separation of church and state".

I don't see how that applies here.

Religious leaders are assuming that they are allowed to affect public policy, not in the least because too many political figures are allowing their religious views to affect public policy.

Of course religious leaders are allowed to affect public policy. Separation of church and state works the other way - the State is not allowed to favor one religion over another. There's nothing preventing religions from trying to get what they want out of the State.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:00 pm

gilraen wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:56 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:49 pm

gilraen wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:40 pm After 200+ years, a good portion of Americans has yet to figure out the concept of "separation of church and state".

I don't see how that applies here.

Religious leaders are assuming that they are allowed to affect public policy, not in the least because too many political figures are allowing their religious views to affect public policy.

Of course religious leaders are allowed to affect public policy. Separation of church and state works the other way - the State is not allowed to favor one religion over another. There's nothing preventing religions from trying to get what they want out of the State.

Well, okay, this is a pretty convoluted point. They can't participate in political campaigns, if they want to keep their tax-exempt status, and getting your candidates in place is the primary way for someone to push long-term political agenda. Yeah, obviously they can flap their mouths all they want, and the "flock" will listen (or quit the church in disgust...YMMV).

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:48 pm Well, it came up during a meeting - it wasn't the sole point of the meeting. And this has been a fairly consistent stance of theirs for all politicians or leaders. I find it understandable that when the highest leader of the land claims to be a member of your organization and is not living according to the principles of the organization, that a restatement of those principles might be in order. They made a point of saying no names will be used.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure. They're meeting because the Catholic church is hurting financially and they need to get members back in seats and donating money. What better way to do that than to go after the President and reaffirm their strong stance on abortion.

I mean, I don't agree with them, but it's not out of line for them to say they don't agree with what he's doing and explain why it's against their ideals.

All the stuff that happened under Trump (not a Catholic, I know) and this is the time they feel it's necessary to discuss things and come up with a policy that impacts practice and the delivery of sacraments? I mean, really.

If an NRA member became president and then made it a point to ban guns, wouldn't it make sense for the NRA to disavow them?

Sure. But the NRA also meets and disavows anyone opposing them or doing things counter to their mission. Hell, I'm sure I could craft a sentence this afternoon and get myself disavowed by the NRA if I really tried. Joe Biden is a Catholic that just happens to have been elected to the office of the President of the United States of America. He's not the Catholic President of America.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:08 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:48 pm Well, it came up during a meeting - it wasn't the sole point of the meeting. And this has been a fairly consistent stance of theirs for all politicians or leaders. I find it understandable that when the highest leader of the land claims to be a member of your organization and is not living according to the principles of the organization, that a restatement of those principles might be in order. They made a point of saying no names will be used.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure. They're meeting because the Catholic church is hurting financially and they need to get members back in seats and donating money. What better way to do that than to go after the President and reaffirm their strong stance on abortion.

You're projecting a bit. This is their Spring meeting. I'm pretty sure they meet twice a year. This was a regularly scheduled meeting.

I mean, I don't agree with them, but it's not out of line for them to say they don't agree with what he's doing and explain why it's against their ideals.

All the stuff that happened under Trump (not a Catholic, I know) and this is the time they feel it's necessary to discuss things and come up with a policy that impacts practice and the delivery of sacraments? I mean, really.

You're kidding, right? This has been going on since abortion was legalized. A quick google search from 2000-2016 for denial of eucharist to pro-abortion politicians:

2002
2004
2005
2007
2008
2013
2014

That's just the first page.

If an NRA member became president and then made it a point to ban guns, wouldn't it make sense for the NRA to disavow them?

Sure. But the NRA also meets and disavows anyone opposing them or doing things counter to their mission. Hell, I'm sure I could craft a sentence this afternoon and get myself disavowed by the NRA if I really tried. Joe Biden is a Catholic that just happens to have been elected to the office of the President of the United States of America. He's not the Catholic President of America.

He's a very high profile Catholic. How he behaves has the ability to influence how other Catholics think. Why is it unreasonable for them to come out strong and say this set of beliefs is inconsistent with their ideals?

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:08 pm Just a coincidence, I'm sure. They're meeting because the Catholic church is hurting financially and they need to get members back in seats and donating money. What better way to do that than to go after the President and reaffirm their strong stance on abortion.

I'm not sure "Pro-choice Democrats are not welcome in the Catholic church" will fill the seats the way they hope.

Anyway, I would expect the Pope to come out with a statement that mass is not to be withheld for political reasons.

And then, of course, there's the fact that capital punishment, birth control, and divorce are every bit as contrary to Catholic doctrine as abortion. Enforcing these would deny communion to pretty much every Catholic Republican.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:13 pm [Which part confuses you?

Not confused - I'm deeply in alignment with Smoove_B on this.

I always thought that fact that there was only one Catholic President prior to Biden was down to the dominance of Protestentism in the US.

But now I'm wondering if it's not the voters but the candidates. Catholic says, "No way I'm taking that job!"

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:29 pm You're projecting a bit. This is their Spring meeting. I'm pretty sure they meet twice a year. This was a regularly scheduled meeting.

Possibly. I'm definitely tweaked by family members that are still devout and vocally non-supportive of numerous Catholic elements but continue to attend weekly mass and donate money.

You're kidding, right? This has been going on since abortion was legalized. A quick google search from 2000-2016 for denial of eucharist to pro-abortion politicians

I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't speaking about abortion as the *only* topic. Instead, the idea that the Catholic church could have at any point between 2016 and 2020 come out swinging for Donald Trump over any number of things (let's pick his stance on immigrants) and they could barely muster an official stance.

Joe Biden has been President for ~5 months now and the first thing on their agenda (at the Spring meeting) is to make sure they're gunning for him over abortion. Of all the things they could be doing right now, that's a priority, apparently.

He's a very high profile Catholic. How he behaves has the ability to influence how other Catholics think. Why is it unreasonable for them to come out strong and say this set of beliefs is inconsistent with their ideals?

While my sample size is small (limited to family and extended family), there is no logic in how they think. I have family members that are pro-LGBTQ and disgusted at the various abuse scandals, and yet they attend church every week and donate money. My MIL was barred from receiving Communion because of her divorce and yet she still goes to church multiple times a week and participates because "that's my choice".

Again, I fully admit my own (personal) perspective on this is coloring my response. I still think it's gross.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:54 pm I always thought that fact that there was only one Catholic President prior to Biden was down to the dominance of Protestentism in the US.

But now I'm wondering if it's not the voters but the candidates. Catholic says, "No way I'm taking that job!"

There have been quite a few Catholics seeking the presidential nomination, but I believe John Kerry is the only one between Kennedy and Biden who actually got it.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 4:57 pm Again, I fully admit my own (personal) perspective on this is coloring my response. I still think it's gross.

Same to some extent but it was personally seeing how people were treated and driven away by the church. Also, it strikes me this is a great way to show young people that the Catholic church in the US is driven by American Conservative politics. It's just unnecessary.