Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BluntmanDC wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'd disagree with that strongly. Genetics creates dispositions, but behavior or exterior conditions have a substantial impact.

what part are you disagreeing to? cos i said that genetics do not make your personality set. and that cloning would not give you an exact copy of a persons mind.

could you point out what part you disagreed with

I think he's disagreeing with the claim that genetics cause cancer.

I think most of the evidence points that cancer requires both a genetic predisposition and an environmental trigger. For example, one might be predisposed to melanoma, but one still needs to either spend a lot of time in the sun or the tanning booth to develop skin cancers.

Pael wrote:Why are we debating rights of clones? When there are several instances of HUMAN rights being subjugated currently. Rights are acheived by physical action not by posting on a forum. I can see a few of you getting heated and upset over NOTHING THAT MATTERS. Hambajalockedthreadfumngh.

Welcome to the INTERNET

@Frazzled and Gailbraithe:

yer that is true, the one problem is that as soon as you find out the person has cancer alot of deffective DNA will be present so the genetic copy would already have the cancer making DNA

BluntmanDC wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'd disagree with that strongly. Genetics creates dispositions, but behavior or exterior conditions have a substantial impact.

what part are you disagreeing to? cos i said that genetics do not make your personality set. and that cloning would not give you an exact copy of a persons mind.

could you point out what part you disagreed with

Sorry I was referring to the notation where cancer was brought up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'd disagree with that strongly. Genetics creates dispositions, but behavior or exterior conditions have a substantial impact.

what part are you disagreeing to? cos i said that genetics do not make your personality set. and that cloning would not give you an exact copy of a persons mind.

could you point out what part you disagreed with

I think he's disagreeing with the claim that genetics cause cancer.

I think most of the evidence points that cancer requires both a genetic predisposition and an environmental trigger. For example, one might be predisposed to melanoma, but one still needs to either spend a lot of time in the sun or the tanning booth to develop skin cancers.

Exactly. Not opining on any other aspect other than my disappointment at the lack of discussion concerning the profit making aspects of this question. How can I get stinking rich off cloning? What is the marginal utility curve of a clone? If I pay the original will the original allow me to clone him/her? If so, is that ownership or rental?
If I make a clone of myself, can I make the clone do stuff, like get the groceries? If the clone says no and shoots me in the face, is that murder or just removing an unwanted organ? If my clone commits a crime can I be charged with it, or more importantly sued?

When the clone is a minor can others sue the "clonee" on the basis of parental obligation? Will the clone have rights to contract? Will the clone be permitted to drive? What if I sell the clone and it runs away and back to me, and then claims that whole "I'm a sentient being nonsense?" Will I be liable for defective merchandise?

BluntmanDC wrote:

Pael wrote:Why are we debating rights of clones? When there are several instances of HUMAN rights being subjugated currently. Rights are acheived by physical action not by posting on a forum. I can see a few of you getting heated and upset over NOTHING THAT MATTERS. Hambajalockedthreadfumngh.

Welcome to the INTERNET

Ponit conceded

What is the clone is schizo and commits a schio influenced crime. Can the authorities put me away too?

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
And what Singer means is that it makes no sense to ascribe a right to free speech to an animal incapable of speech, or a right to religious freedom to a species with no religion, hence different animals will have different manifest rights. But you already know that.

Yeah, its an argument from speciation.

Except that it's not an argument about the origin of rights, which is what is implied by the claim that "Singer acknowledge that rights are dependent on species." It's an argument about the manifestation of specific rights, but not an argument about the general claim to rights.

Gailbraithe wrote:What you claimed is that Singer "acknowledged" that rights are dependent on species, in the context of Spider claiming that humans have rights because they are human. You were attempting to present Singer's position as disagreeing with mine and agreeing with Spider's position. But that is disingenuous, because Singer never claims that rights-bearing is dependent on species, only the differences in species will result in different manifestations of rights. Singer's arguments are quite clear on this point: Rights-bearing is (or more commonly, "rights are") dependent on the capacity to suffer, not species.

That's an argument from dependency. I don't know if you really don't know what 'dependency' is, or if you're simply trying to recover from an argumentative death-blow, but you really need to do better if your intent is the latter. Singer clearly differentiates according to special categories, and his argument from specieism is predicated on the idea that OL reasoning is not sufficient to compel moral action. He is, essentially, a compatabilist in that he only accepts physical causation as motile with respect to moral force.

Retreating into meaningless pseudo-intellectual babble is hardly a defense of your position, dogma. You have not made anything resembling a "death-blow." You simply misrepresented a Singer quote in a disingenuous way, and have now retreated into word vomit to hide the fact that you do not have, and have never had, any actual argument.

Gailbraithe wrote:Except that it's not an argument about the origin of rights, which is what is implied by the claim that "Singer acknowledge that rights are dependent on species." It's an argument about the manifestation of specific rights, but not an argument about the general claim to rights.

Well, its not an argument about rights at all. Singer is a Utilitarian, and his notion of 'rights' trade in landscape theory. We've both been using the term 'rights' euphemistically. The same sense in which Singer rfers to 'rights.'

Either way, you're not refuting my point. Even in your argument rights would be dependent upon species.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Retreating into meaningless pseudo-intellectual babble is hardly a defense of your position, dogma. You have not made anything resembling a "death-blow." You simply misrepresented a Singer quote in a disingenuous way, and have now retreated into word vomit to hide the fact that you do not have, and have never had, any actual argument.

Again, that criticism from 'liar' worked quite well in grade school, why bother effecting a change?