Do you have an ink dependence? I can help...

A blog run by a bigot.

6/26/08
No, not this one. THIS one. This is the guy that I was debating with at 2nd Hand Smoke a month ago. He has his own blog (apparently they'll let anyone have a blog here...) and he seems to be some sort of super-naturalist. His pet issue is the creation of children from the sex-cells of same-sex couples. It's just a DNA switch-a-roo, but he seems to think that natural=ethical and that any question which ignores this "natural fact" is just missing the point. It's also not possible at this point.

I post to his blog a lot because I find his psychosis interesting. I'd love to meet the guy. Preferably in a public place where he can't pull any "funny stuff." If you want to see what happens when you let a loon have access to science-y sounding words, go visit his blog.

[EDIT: I changed the title of the entry because I realize that one doesn't have to be mad to have these beliefs. One only has to be a bigot.]
Post Comment
Chris M said...

holy crap. i don't know if you should be encouraging that guy. he's like a stubbed-toe away from assassinating abortion doctors and that sort of nut-casery.

John Howard said...

so, opposing genetic engineering makes me a "super-naturalist"? Wanting to preserve the right and rightness of using one's own genes to procreate makes me a "mad man"?

It's not "just a DNA switch-a-roo" it involves altering the imprinting of the DNA, which is different and complementary for each sex, so that when the gametes combine, only one copy of certain genes is active. Some genes come from the male, some from the female. This is across the whole genome, not just on the X and Y "sex chromosomes." I'd love to keep the science-y sounding words out of it, and just keep it at the "switch-a-roo" level of discourse, but when I do that, you guys start saying that I am not using science-y sounding words and don't know what I am talking about. I hope I have struck a balance between keeping the discussion general, and yet supported by science enough to stand up to the scrutiny of stupid college students.

Matteson said...

John, I hope you're not inferring that I'm a stupid college student. That's really not the case at all, and it's uncalled for.

You aren't calling for the right that you think you are at all. You're calling for a requirement that we use more than one's own genes to procreate. I can't use only my own genes, according to you. Your refusal to address arguments in a reasonable way is what leads me to think that you may be a little "altered."

I referred to it as a "DNA switch-a-roo" because it involves a genetic change that I regard as unimportant. The fact that you perceive some sort of morally relevant difference between genes that come from one place and genes that come from another does not make it the case that there is a morally relevant difference.

John Howard said...

You aren't calling for the right that you think you are at all. You're calling for a requirement that we use more than one's own genes to procreate. I can't use only my own genes, according to you.

How so? I'm saying we need a law such that you can only use your unmodified gametes, which means you'd have to join with a female to reproduce, as would all males. And, I'm saying that everyone should have the right to use their own genes.

Please try again if I still haven't addressed your argument, I certainly am not trying to be obtuse or evasive.

If the genetic change was unimportant, they would have been able to do it by now. I think it is morally relevant that male-female reproduction does not require any experimental modifications involving thousands of animals and then human embryos and then human children. It's not relevant which genes come from which, only that male and female imprinted gametes are complementary and both are required for successful fertilization and embryo development.

John Howard said...

Oh, and "stupid college students" was a general reference to the people I've encountered who insinuate that I can't have an opinion on this because I'm not an expert, and proceed to recite their lab notes about something totally unrelated to this. But I was also fine with tossing an insult your way to counter the "mad man" type insults I found here. I'll take it back if you do. Again, opposing genetic engineering doesn't make someone a "super-naturalist", that's ridiculous.

Matteson said...

A few things to point out before I end this conversation:

1) unimportant =/= easy.

2) You are obtuse, though I don't know that you're trying to be so.

3) You toss in that "safety" issue whenever you like, but you ignore the fact that no one wants to do these things if they are unsafe for the child. If they want to practice unsafe things on children then I agree that they shouldn't be done. The fact that they can't be safely or easily done now does not make the concept of doing them safely immoral. If it did then you would be saying that there is a moral similarity between firing a pistol at a paper target in a pistol range and firing a pistol into a crowd of people. That would be ridiculous.

I submit that you are both obtuse and a bigot. Neither of these things are conducive to a productive conversation. As I said in your blog, I'm done with you. Good Day.