The next great civil rights issue is not about a minority, but a class of right, such as health care, social welfare, education.
Probably health care.
Well that’s where they are drawing the line. You choose to draw it further along I suppose. But they are opposing the abandonment of those values.
I have friends who are Evangelicals and they can understand discussions of complex evolutionary concepts quite well. Not all Evangelicals are uneducated dunces. There was a discussion of evolution and optimal control theory that went right over my head, but people to whom I explained transgender biological issues a month earlier kept up better than I did.
The idea is that just because we can go there doesn’t mean we should. They view breeding as a sacred act, and think that any form of sexual hedonism is transgressive. It’s not that they are singling out homosexuals for contempt, all of you sluts are in the same camp, but the point is a homosexual relationship CANNOT be procreative. They don’t want to get to the point where life has no intrinsic value to anyone, and that’s what they see in the notion of transhumanism. Too much tolerance and eventually we’re going to create abominations and have people calling them human.
And so can a lot of non-homosexual relationships. Do they demand that infertile couples or post-menopausal women be forbidden marriage, their marriages annulled ? Or is it - let me guess - that somehow the inability to procreate is only that big a deal when the couple in question is homosexual.
:rolleyes: Tolerance means life has MORE value. It’s the people who call others “abominations” and deny their humanity that have little value for the lives of others.
Your friends are bigots.
These arguments (which, when you get down to it, are a form of anti-intellectual nature worship) lead to too many absurdities for me to take them seriously. For example, it is seriously asserted by anti-transhumanists that a cure for aging would be a bad thing (inherently bad in and of itself, not simply potentially bad because of unfortunate societal side effects) because it would profoundly change the human condition.
I find this line of “thought” to be both mentally and morally contemptible. One need only do a bit of arithmetic to conclude that if its adherents wield enough influence to delay the breakthrough by so much as a decade, they’d have enough blood on their hands to make Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin look like a couple of naughty little boys who should be sent to bed without dessert.
I seriously doubt that. It will be pretty hard to argue that you have a birthright to things you cannot afford to pay for, and wouldn’t have if you were born onto a desert island. Not saying these things won’t happen, but they are not “civil rights” issues.
How will you feel about it during the period of advancement where the price is prohibitively expensive to most people on the planet? You want your immortal children to be ruled by Donald Trump for thousands of years? How about Rosie O’Donnell, Oprah Winfrey? Will those companies that made a profit off of this therapy also hold your ire because they sold it at a premium to recoup their initial investment, and therefore a billion died while it was still over $ 10,000 per person?
Believe me if there is an immortality pill invented, it’s not going to even be realized by the luddites until it is too late.
I’m just explaining the basic premise. You can feel about it however you want about how people other than me choose to apply it.
Eh, that’s a bit presumptuous on your part. They believe homosexuality is a sinful behavior, not necessarily that homosexuals are abominations.
So are you, what’s your point?
Yeah, right. :rolleyes: So according to you religion is a special case among belief systems, where disapproval = bigotry. Amazing how much privilege the believers demand for their pet delusion.
YOU were the one using the term “abomination”.
No, our next president should be a gay Arab trans MtF atheist.
You seem to think that a Christian disapproving of atheism is a form of bigotry.
Talking about transhumans. What would you call the child born that was someone’s failed attempt at creating a half-man half-bird but they only go some things right so his bones are just really brittle and at odd angles that don’t suit the frame of either creature?
It’s not the same thing. I disapprove of them because they are wrong ( and yes, I know they’d say the same about me, but believers are delusional ), and dangerous to themselves and others; they disapprove of atheism because they disapprove of everything and everyone that doesn’t toe their line. If they’d just leave other people alone I wouldn’t be half as disgusted with them - but they won’t.
Calling someone factually wrong, when all the evidence backs you up isn’t the same as simply asserting that an invisible man has declared other people evil. And calling someone wrong on a message board isn’t the same as trying to pass laws forcing your beliefs on others.
“Disabled”
:dubious: In the USA, at least, much of the populace is sick of one deviant group after another claiming grievances. The obvious response is to say, “I’m fine with all ethnic groups, no racism here,” but then lump the deviant-behavior subcultures together as “weirdos,” with great distaste & indifference if not outright hostility. This is nothing new. OTOH, a civil right that everyone shares in is a “something for everybody,” & can breathe new life into the party that supports it, whereas just being a collection of distinct minorities peddling grievances alienates the broader culture.
If the Democrats don’t jump on socialized medicine, they’ll damned fools. If the Republicans do, they could realign the present realignment.
As to your argument: I want to see you pay for a vote equal to your fellow man in the state of nature, or coming from a desert island. :dubious:
Yet somehow the idea of the franchise as birthright is embedded in our society; & that’s because a succession of political types from Andrew Jackson through Martin Luther King fought for it.
My vote is for men’s rights. We are losing our rights left and right. Mysandry is a real epidemic in America.
Nope, still not seeing it. You’re saying that for the entire history of civilization, man’s inalienable right to socialized medicine has been denied to him? I don’t think so. It’s a partisan issue, not a civil rights one. Every female and black and gay wanted to (/wants to) to be equal; not everyone even wants socialized medicine.
Exactly. The OP is asking about the next movement. Currently AI is make-believe in that we haven’t got a clue how to create one. I believe that we’ll eventually figure it out, but when that will be is anyone’s guess (the timing predictions throughout the history of computer science are comical).
This is key for any repressed groups. The internet is interesting because even a proportionally small group can find a large gathering of members when they can join in from the global pool. The transparency has to do with anonymity; people are semi-anonymous on the internet, so they feel free to be honest about their condition. Others will inevitably observe this condition and become used to those people (at least in internet land) leading to eventual tolerance.
You are arguing that not having a rope long enough to reach a drowning man is morally equivalent to throwing an anchor at a drowning man. That is preposterous on its face.
Same thing I’d call a Down’s Syndrome child born to a forty-year-old who had been warned of that risk – an unfortunate victim of circumstances.
I think there is a tendency to view one class gaining rights as rights removed from another class. The only area I am aware of that discriminates against men is is early child development (and then only below the doctorate level).
Jonathan
Child custody laws comes to mind, and the enforcement of domestic violence laws as well. Age of consent for sex is another example; the pattern being that an underage girl gets counseling, a boy gets labeled a sex offender for life. And in general men are more likely than women to be arrested and convicted than women, and tend to be punished more for the same crimes.
Child custody varies and has shifted more to the mother when it used to be at the fathers discretion, and domestic violence is an issue that is confounded by social expectations and the problem of difference of averages, but I think the underage sex thing is more a reflection that in mismatched age situations the male is usually older. Since most state laws are written that the older of two underage lovers is the offender, that skews the stats towards the males.
Not trying to argue that there is no place where men are at a disadvantage, but I think the fact that men are used to being in the dominate position and that can some times cause parity, or even a lessening of dominance to be perceived as a loss of rights.
Jonathan