SMBC Comics Forum

ChooChooTrain wrote:I'm really very skeptical about this eggs fertilizing eggs business. It sounds too ridiculous to be true. Plus, it would make my testicles unnecessary. That's no good.

I could be wrong but isn't that how they cloned Dolly the Sheep? They fertilized one of her eggs with another one of her cells. I know absolutely nothing about science though, so feel free to correct me.

ChooChooTrain wrote:I'm really very skeptical about this eggs fertilizing eggs business. It sounds too ridiculous to be true. Plus, it would make my testicles unnecessary. That's no good.

Thank you, CCT, for adding to my list of 'Bands Edminster wants to start'. Right now they are:
Darby and the Grundlefunks
Pyjama-Clad Shopping Spree
Spam-Bot Surprise
Unnecessary Testicles

ChooChooTrain wrote:I'm really very skeptical about this eggs fertilizing eggs business. It sounds too ridiculous to be true. Plus, it would make my testicles unnecessary. That's no good.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1431489.stm

Apparently, I seem to have gotten it not quite right (they can have female mouse eggs fertilize other female mouse eggs, but they don't think it will work at all in humans). Instead, they're using an egg and another cell from the body, which still leads to this possibility:

"Theoretically, it also could mean that lesbian couples could give birth to a baby girl without the need for a father. Women do not carry the genetic information required to make a boy," meaning that "two women who wish to have their own biological children would be able maybe to use this technology to achieve that aim."

Did I mention how awesome this possibility is?

Kinda gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Men, who needs them?" Don't it?

Though I quite like men, so when this new technology becomes available and we officially take over as the master sex could we keep a few around, maybe, as domestic servants or something like that? I promise I'll take good care of mine. I'll feed him and play with him every day!

smiley_cow wrote:Kinda gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Men, who needs them?" Don't it?

Though I quite like men, so when this new technology becomes available and we officially take over as the master sex could we keep a few around, maybe, as domestic servants or something like that? I promise I'll take good care of mine. I'll feed him and play with him every day!

Yes, but leash-laws will be strictly enforced, and it's best to kennel them at night.

cheez.wiz wrote:

Lethal Interjection wrote:I do think there are certain immoral actions that are universal. Murder would be obvious,

Are wars immoral, then? After all they're large scale murders.

Edit : unacceptable became immoral, so that we actually argue the same thing.

There are situations in most cultures that murder is considered acceptable. Self-defense is deemed reasonably appropriate. At least half of war is self-defense (less so now, with modern warfare, but that is another topic). In some cultures there is human sacrafice. From their moral code it wouldn't exactly be considered murder. There are stipulations that make murder acceptable from culture to culture. I'm talking more about what would be considered murder from our legal codes. Something like that.

I think pseudo- is the wrong prefix for my approach. It might make sense from your point of view, but I wouldn't call my brand of absolutism "fake". Semi- might be more appropriate.

I know I missed a page but:

Lethal Interjection wrote:be like saying that a Hindu who eats a hamburger is a cannibal.

This applies to any animal really, since they believe in reincarnation. Having it be a cow would just be even more sacrilegious, since they believe cows are sacred and all that.

My questions about moral absolutism are: who has the divine right to pass down these morals or "laws" (God), how are these laws enforced (Hell), and how will The Law* be preserved so that everyone may know it and follow it?

So, just one question, really, unless you believe in moral absolutism without God (which seems reasonable), then my question is: where do morals come from?

My biggest confusion over moral absolutism is that two people can take a different stance on the same issue and it would be impossible to identify which side is correct (ex. can murder be justified, through war/human sacrifice/revenge/other?). My thought was that if there were an absolute moral code, or anything close to it, then it would be marked in such a way that everyone would know and recognise it.

*I am a fan of Kafka.

Kant's stance is not religious. Kind of. He believed in the god of Human Reason. He believed that with every decision we ever make, we weigh our rights, duties, obligations etc. and make a choice based on that. If we weigh everything correctly, and then make that choice, it is right. Basically our ethics are based in the ability for our Human Reason to make that right choice.
The problem with his idea is that not everything is an ethical issue. Ultimately deciding to stop at or run a red light is not ethical. It is a symbol only. There is a self-preservation/duty/obligation to it, but that isn't ethical, really. The reason you stop is because you want other people to stop. There is nothing inherantly "bad" about running a red light, just that we've decided to provide order, and set up punishments if you disobey. Anyways, that could enter into a longer discussion...

Lethal Interjection wrote:Kant's stance is not religious. Kind of. He believed in the god of Human Reason. He believed that with every decision we ever make, we weigh our rights, duties, obligations etc. and make a choice based on that. If we weigh everything correctly, and then make that choice, it is right. Basically our ethics are based in the ability for our Human Reason to make that right choice.
The problem with his idea is that not everything is an ethical issue. Ultimately deciding to stop at or run a red light is not ethical. It is a symbol only. There is a self-preservation/duty/obligation to it, but that isn't ethical, really. The reason you stop is because you want other people to stop. There is nothing inherantly "bad" about running a red light, just that we've decided to provide order, and set up punishments if you disobey. Anyways, that could enter into a longer discussion...

Yes! That's what I've always thought. It's not "what is bad", it's "what will do me the most good?" Of course it's a little more complicated than that, because you'll sometimes do things that you will not profit from, ex. helping a stranger. I have two theories on this:
1. It's what is taught.
2. Biological theory; you DO something good, you FEEL good.
My problem with what you've mentioned of Kant is how do we know when we have weighed everything correctly? Is there a single man who is so well-versed in it that he may arbitrate freely on any situation? There are still tremendous problems, and questions to be asked, to make a suitable theory of Moral Absolutism (of course Kant probably got to a lot of it; but I haven't read any Kant).

Kant's view seems completely theoretical. He believed that every single decision made was weighed with all the questions of the impact of such a decision. Which is absurd, because if we actually conciously made that effort every time it would be utterly crippling. And if it is unconcious, is it really reason guiding us?

If you're still considering the validity of moral relativism, consider the kinds of things it leads to.

ChooChooTrain wrote:If you're still considering the validity of moral relativism, consider the kinds of things it leads to.

Ya know we still have laws and shit no matter what...

I believe in laws. Morals, not so much. If your morals match the laws regarding them, you're in the clear. Honestly, I can't think of a moral I'd be willing to go to jail for.

LordRetard wrote:

ChooChooTrain wrote:If you're still considering the validity of moral relativism, consider the kinds of things it leads to.

Ya know we still have laws and shit no matter what...

I wasn't being serious, guy. I don't actually think relativism leads to attacking children with a lance.