Hypothetical situation

[Luc Solar]

You quoted.......Dumbledore????

 

I'm not sure that is allowed in here.... C'jais?

 

 

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Luc Solar

You quoted.......Dumbledore????

 

To illustrate, not to prove, mind... If you say that 'you should not kill, because verse this-and-that of the Bible tells you not to', then it would be out of order, but if you said: 'Random killing destabilizes society and is therefore bad,' and then quoted the verse to illustrate what you meant, it wouldn't be lame, only a little over-zealous.

 

BTW: I'm glad to see that someone read at least half of the post.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

There are problems with being gay. Factual problems. And I'm not only talking about the fact that you can't reproduce (which happens to be perhaps only the most important thing in life), I'm talking about the way it affects your life because of how the world treats you.

 

Saying "well...the world is wrong" doesn't help. The world is what it is period

 

I've been there. I've even been bullied for it. I know how it feels, simple as that. But the world can be changed. People can be made more mature. And at the high school I go to, the majority is fine with it and except from some people, religious fundamentals, mostly, there isn't a problem with teasing for it or anything.

 

Hmmmm... maybe life would be easier. But I don't feel it's right to change people like that. Let's say we DO change DNA like that. Then, say, what about kids who can't afford this threatment and end up liking people of their own gender? Then not only will they be different, but also.. how also "sick" in a way, because they would be looked at as "those who something went wrong with during birth".

 

Let's say that 50 years ago, we started being able to isolate the gene that makes you lame. So all the kids you see in wheelchairs today really are kids who couldn't afford or for some other reason couldn't get that treatment.

 

Wouldn't you look even more down at them for that?

 

Oh, and we should isolate the gene that caused you to become lame too:). Just giving an example of something that everyone would consider "a bad thing", just to give you an idea of how anti-homosexuals think about homosexuals.

 

You're not taking into consideration the world we're living in (once again). It does not matter what *you* think. It's completely irrelevant. Homosexuality DOES make you different. How else can you explain the ****ty treatment gays get?

Hmmm.. so it's different. But again, the world can change.

 

OMG! Are you serious? "Letting my baby hear will make ME feel like there's something wrong with ME, so I won't help my child."

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Silver:).

 

LOL, when I wrote that, I thought, "people will think that's so stupid, I should have elaborated". So let's rephrase, 'cause I agree, that sounded silly .

 

All I'm saying is I see their point. To them, hearing is a sense they cannot understand and thus can live without, kind of like flying to us. If 95% of the population could fly, and you couldn't, you'd feel slightly "low" when you heard people were altering DNA (although you'd know it was right), wouldn't you? Along with those feelings of "yay, good for them", and "look at how our health technology has advanced", you'd have this feeling of "boy, now people are gonna feel even more sorry for me."

 

I'm not AT ALL saying it's wrong to alter DNA to prevent deafness. All I'm saying is that they don't have a problem with being deaf, but at the world feeling sorry for them for being it. To them, that is deregatory, for obvious reasons. If they weren't BORN deaf and knew what hearing was like, it'd be different, but for them, it's not something they need because they can't know what it is in the first place, so it's hard to explain to them how much it can improve your life. Like vikings not missing computers, because they couldn't know what computers were.

 

It's hard to explain, but I hope you got it:)?

 

Lol. Good point, but it's probably not significant to global population...

I've actually thought about that too. What if it's the same as that Chinese law that taxates your second child? Sounds bad, but it prevents overpopulation? Oh, I know, it's not likely:).

 

But what if the human mind simply doesn't work like other animal minds? What if human love evolved not with this whole reproduction thing in mind, but more like "lets' be together with someone"?

 

Humans are the only animal that cry too (I think), so I don't think you should generalize that way.

[munik]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Let's say that 50 years ago, we started being able to isolate the gene that makes you lame.

That's funny. Horses go lame, or other livestock. People, well, people get crippled or something like that. It's just different words, but it makes me laugh, as I've never heard anyone use 'lame' in this sense for a person, just livestock.

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

I'm not AT ALL saying it's wrong to alter DNA to prevent deafness. All I'm saying is that they don't have a problem with being deaf, but at the world feeling sorry for them for being it. To them, that is deregatory, for obvious reasons. If they weren't BORN deaf and knew what hearing was like, it'd be different, but for them, it's not something they need because they can't know what it is in the first place, so it's hard to explain to them how much it can improve your life. Like vikings not missing computers, because they couldn't know what computers were.

There's this guy, a customer where I work, and he's deaf. I'm guessing deaf from birth by his inability to talk, he just makes some funny noises when he gets excited. Anyhow, I deal cards out and it doesn't take much communication, as the cards read for themselves, but every now and then this gentleman misses something, or I go too fast for him. So, he tries to communicate with me, and as I do not know any sign language, and he can't speak except for funny noises, there is some difficulty. Also, this difficulty is greatly multiplied by the fact that I usually go too fast for him on purpose, or do something quick when he isn't paying attention. So, when he bangs the table to get my attention, or points to this or that, or just starts tooting or whatever noise it is he makes, I either a)Give him a blank stare, b)Not make eye contact, or c)Look at him, but shrug my shoulders and act as if I have no idea what he wants. This is all because I'm an assh*le, and there isn't much excitement in an eight hour shift so you gotta amuse yourself somehow. Now, the point here is, while this gentleman may have been born deaf, and he has no idea what it is like to hear, or doesn't know what he's missing, or even if he doesn't have a problem with being deaf, I'm willing to bet a years salary that at those moments he'd trade his left nut just to be able to hear.

[ZBomber]

Originally posted by BigTeddyPaul

A little worried there for a minute Z? Welcome to the sexual awareness group.

 

 

 

 

This whole thread and mainly this post by Z sounds an awfully much like a certain episode with a certain actress named Paula Marshall. (EDIT: Forgot the most important part - a certain episode of Seinfeld)

 

BigTeddyPaul

 

Yeh, I got that quote on my computer:

"I'm not gay.... Not that theres anything wrong with it..."

 

And no, I'm not worried. I like girls.