Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

The first profitable use cases for full human cloning will be resurrecting Hitler and providing narcissists/obsessive fans with copies of themselves/celebrities (either as "perfect heirs" or more disturbing purposes).

[GlyphGryph]

Question: Would there be moral qualms with resurrecting hitler and then charging people for the opportunities to kill him?

Since it's a clone, and not really him, the answer is obviously yes, but more importantly, how much money do people think I could make by resurrecting Hitler and charging people for the opportunity to kill him?

[Dutchling]

Less money than charging people to kill clones of their step-mother or ex...

[Realmfighter]

Question: Would there be moral qualms with resurrecting hitler and then charging people for the opportunities to kill him?

Seeing as guilt isn't genetic in nature I think the answer is holy what the fuck yes there are some moral qualms here.

[JoshuaFH]

I'm a little late for the party on this one: Scelly, do you have EVERY girlfriend now? Cause your situation is just too surreal. I can't stop laughing thinking about it.

Anyway, I had a great day today. Found a gym run by an 8th degree black belt who is like the nicest guy ever, though it was odd in that I wound up shaking his hand like five times in the span of five minutes. Found an old-timey candy shop. Filled out an application to work at a Yacht Club. Got to explore alot. I'm starting to feel really confident about driving, even though I almost caused an accident today I don't feel it was too much of a mistake. NOT TOO MUCH OF A MISTAKE JUST KEEP TELLING MYSELF THAT BOYO.

And I passed out all twenty something resumes that I had, and I'll be picking up more and starting the process anew tomorrow. But the real question is: where? I'm starting to exhaust all the best places to visit for businesses.

EDIT: and I JUST realize this isn't the happy thread.

[GlyphGryph]

Question: Would there be moral qualms with resurrecting hitler and then charging people for the opportunities to kill him?

Seeing as guilt isn't genetic in nature I think the answer is holy what the fuck yes there are some moral qualms here.

Which is why I immediately answered yes and moved on to the far more important question!

[Knight of Fools]

Man, my history book has an excessively negative opinion of the States' western expansion. Things were certainly bad, but whoever wrote the book was just dripping with scorn over every little thing that the White Man did wrong while moving westward, never mind the numerous things that were done unintentionally (Over farming) and the good things that resulted from the westward expansion (Huge amounts of food from cattle and the development of huge swaths of farmland). Both points were hinted at, but not directly acknowledged in the midst of "White man kills Indians, Chinese, and buffalo in one fell swoop".

This is going to be an interesting semester. I've read through one chapter, and already encountered a butt load of bias that doesn't belong in an academic textbook.

[kaijyuu]

I'm not sure how it's possible to portray violent takeover of sovereign land too negatively. It's one of the darkest stains on American history, dude.

[Nadaka]

I'm not sure how it's possible to portray violent takeover of sovereign land too negatively. It's one of the darkest stains on American history, dude.

Not only was it the violent takeover of sovereign land and intentional genocide of a people, it was done in violation of US treaty and law. repeatedly.

[Knight of Fools]

I know all that. I'm not endorsing all the stuff that was done in the name of individualism and greed - I'm down with booing down that kind of stuff. It's a period of history that makes me not very proud of my country, but this book goes pretty far out there with the negativity. When you switch from "wantonly displacing and killing Indians" to "ruining the topsoil" without a change in tone (Even though farmers didn't really know the long-term, damaging effects of certain agricultural practices), it makes me scratch my head a little.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just an idealist who thinks that history lessons should let you draw a conclusion from what happened (Wikipedia's spoiled me), since that encourages discussion and open thought. If we allow ourselves to be too angry about the past, we'll be too frustrated about it to fix our future. Most people hold biases that they're not even aware of that can cause these sorts of events to happen - It doesn't have to be as blatant as going out and killing people of a certain ethnicity, but bias is bias. The book makers lost an opportunity to present a neutral argument and present some hard questions to students. It shouldn't be "this was a terrible, bad thing, guys", it should be "this is what happened, and here's some thought provoking questions that will challenge you morally".

And it feels rather petty when they start kicking around early settlers for poor agricultural practices when you're talking about how terrible it is that they stole the land from the natives. It's like rightfully pointing out how terrible such and such massacre was, and then crying about how some of the soldiers accidentally brushed their dirty shoes on some of the bodies afterwards. You can't act like they're both equally terrible things.

Part of my frustration may be that they use weasel words (Some sources, modern scholars, etc) and vague numbers (Many, most, some) to present their facts.


And here's another WTF: This rant turned out much longer than I thought it would.

[Lagslayer]

I know all that. I'm not endorsing all the stuff that was done in the name of individualism and greed - I'm down with booing down that kind of stuff. It's a period of history that makes me not very proud of my country, but this book goes pretty far out there with the negativity. When you switch from "wantonly displacing and killing Indians" to "ruining the topsoil" without a change in tone (Even though farmers didn't really know the long-term, damaging effects of certain agricultural practices), it makes me scratch my head a little.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just an idealist who thinks that history lessons should let you draw a conclusion from what happened (Wikipedia's spoiled me), since that encourages discussion and open thought. If we allow ourselves to be too angry about the past, we'll be too frustrated about it to fix our future. Most people hold biases that they're not even aware of that can cause these sorts of events to happen - It doesn't have to be as blatant as going out and killing people of a certain ethnicity, but bias is bias. The book makers lost an opportunity to present a neutral argument and present some hard questions to students. It shouldn't be "this was a terrible, bad thing, guys", it should be "this is what happened, and here's some thought provoking questions that will challenge you morally".

And it feels rather petty when they start kicking around early settlers for poor agricultural practices when you're talking about how terrible it is that they stole the land from the natives. It's like rightfully pointing out how terrible such and such massacre was, and then crying about how some of the soldiers accidentally brushed their dirty shoes on some of the bodies afterwards. You can't act like they're both equally terrible things.

Part of my frustration may be that they use weasel words (Some sources, modern scholars, etc) and vague numbers (Many, most, some) to present their facts.


And here's another WTF: This rant turned out much longer than I thought it would.

Thank you.

[Lord Shonus]

I'm not sure how it's possible to portray violent takeover of sovereign land too negatively. It's one of the darkest stains on American history, dude.

Modern textbooks take Indian-worship to extremes. Generally, the extremely violent behavior of the natives is never mentioned (I've seen a few go so far as to state that no human ever killed another human in the Americas before Columbus  came), and the primitive tribal social structure is exalted whenever they're not praising the natives for introducing some social development thousands of years after it was commonplace. MOst actual Indians I know are disgusted with this, as they find it demeaning.

[kaenneth]

(I've seen a few go so far as to state that no human ever killed another human in the Americas before Columbus  came)

That's easy if you class the Natives as sub-human. Solves all kinds of problems.

[Loud Whispers]

History books are fun.

One about French history (from France of course), would tend to go on and on about how France was only ever conquered once, and how they were a superb military force in so and so.
(French defeats don't count in these books. ONLY CONQUERS!)
One about British history, you'd think that is is all nice and fair and you occasionally see the constant gloomy atmosphere that surrounds it's history, but it barely covers anything about the exploiting and sacking of China...
Chinese history, boy is that one an odd ball.
American history, varies from state to state. Depending on how south they were published, they usually come off as increasingly nationalistic...

[ToonyMan]

Uh oh