Prejudice in science fiction
- This topic has 62 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 23 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In hopes of breathing new life into this forum (lately General Sci-Fi seems to have been forgotten) and starting a new and possibly in-depth discussion (note that I say discussion, I don’t want another two-way argument) I am introducting a new topic based on both morality and sci-fi. This is something that has bugged me for a long time.
Today in science fiction, all types of characters are put into the roles of protagonist and hero(ine). We have black Jedi, woman starship captains, robots humans are willing to die for, and aliens that seem more human than us. Yet there is one variety of sentient life-form that is continually cast in an antagonistic, almost demonized form. And that is clones.
Honestly, how many heroes, or even supporting benevolent characters in science fiction television, film, or literature have been clones. I bet you can’t even name five. Sure, you can probably come up with near twenty who were enemies, evil twins, or pathetic freaks of nature, but how many are the good guys?
Now, before you ask “what about specimen 8?” I will remind you that 8 is not entirely a clone or a heroine. First of all, she has memories of Ellen Ripley, which she shouldn’t have. That makes her more a resurrection than a clone (the same goes for “Xev” on [i]Lexx[/i], she’s not a clone, she’s a convenient vehicle for the continuation of the Zev character, complete with memories and personality of the original). She also has genetic material from [i]Insecto Diablo[/i] (that really vicious species of parasite-breeding aliens), so she’s not a true clone, she’s a chimera, the product of (unintentional) gene-splicing. And she’s not all good, either. She has alien characteristics such as a predatory disposition and a lack of altruism.
There’s the mindset that clones aren’t real people, and are okay to kill. Starfleet is supposed to respect all forms of life. Yet in the [i]Star Trek: The Next Generation[/i] episode [i]Up the Long Ladder[/i] Riker and Polaski both destroy helpless clones just because they were created without authorization.
And forget whole populations of clones. [i]Star Trek[/i], [i]Doctor Who[/i], and [i]Lexx[/i] have all shown populations of clones to be evil, or at least dangerous or unethical. In [i]Nook[/i], Kai goes so far as to tell Brother Randor that his peoples’ way of life (i.e. maintaining their population by cloning the cells of long-dead individuals into living humans) is “unnatural.” Kai is supposed to be a logical individual not susceptable to emotional bias, but that is nothing short of prejudice.
Thus far, in no form of sci-fi that I am aware of (besides my own fiction) is cloning, clones, and clone-based civilization portrayed in a positive light. Quite the opposite, clones are portrayed as a sub-human race. This is a persistent and unreasonable trend, and I fear that [i]Star Wars: Attack of the Clones[/i] will merely continue this cacodoxy.
Those are my thoughts.
CALL THE ACLU!!!
Seriously, I think there’s somthing about exact copy’s of a person (even if personality isn’t the same) that creeps people out. Look how the American public reacted to Dolly, and how people obsess with identical twins (nature’s clones).
A clone threatens our sense of individuality, yet offers a feeling of certain immortality, a kind that religion can’t provide. So there’s a bit of a love/hate relationship going on here.
(Of course a clone of you is unlikely to have your personality, but I’m talking about Americans, the world’s leader in public grasp of science [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img])
But I don’t think the monks on Nook were evil or dangerous, Xev certainly didn’t think so!
Kai certainly has a well developed sense of the ‘unnatural’, he’s described himself as ‘a mockery of life’.
Good Lord, aren’t we deep and meaningful?
Well, what is it about clones that makes humans run around yelling about morality? I would say that it is because they are a copy of us. A COPY of US. It makes us feel weird thinking that we have a person identical in every way out there. And it raises lots of questions. Will they die when we die? Will they look like us? Will they carry the same diseases? Will they like the same things? When we die, will they be able to take our place without anyone knowing? Would they kill us in our sleep because everyone sees the clone as being inferior to the real thing? Who’s to say that we are the clones and they are the originals? Who’s to say we haven’t already been cloned by a superior race, or failing that the French? And who’s to say that there’s not a clone of me sitting at some computer somewhere, writing by the name of DalekTek790, having a cyber-conversation with a clone of herself???? [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]Of course clones have been looked down upon in the history of sci-fi film and tv, mainly because of the morality of cloning human beings for the sake of commerce. After all, look what happened to Mr. Tyrell in Blade Runner, “More human than human, that’s our motto, Mr. Deckerd, commerce…etc..”
BTW, RACHEL was a ‘good’ clone in that movie.The problem is not with the cloning process so much as it is with the people or organizations doing the cloning, and for what reasons. Selfish ones? Perhaps to breed armies of identical super-beings for the purpose of warfare? Or breed subhuman slaves meant to do our dirty work? The chances of that happening are not as far off as you’d think, given the history of the human race’s penchant for violence, depravity, and greed.
Perhaps the idea of an identical person just like you scares you, I myself, would feel much sorrier for the clone of me than I would of myself, for I know what I had to endure to get to where I am now, and wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemies..to think that a genetically identical copy would be out there, would cause me to help them avoid all the hardships I’ve endured, much like a parent might with their own child.
There’s also the expected religious reaction to cloning, as if the person would have “no soul” or whatever, which is patently ridiculous, any life that manages to make it to conciousness certainly would have a soul, per se…and NO, clones wouldn’t die when we do, etc, since environment plays a huge part in how the quality of life is determined. Two identical people (e.g. twins) could grow up in two different environments, and have totally different outcomes, health issues or even preferences in food.
Hey, it’s all just a big cosmic crap-shoot, anyway… [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Yeah, the idea of a physically identical being is a little disquieting. Many people don’t realize that clones would not have the same memories as the original, or personality beyond the few aspects of the psyche that are governed genetically. Clones are effectively identical twins. And the idea of a same-age copy of a “real” human is absurd since clones would gestate and age at the same rate as a sexually-produced human.
Technophobia relating to human manipulation goes back a long way. A sci-fi short film was made around the turn of the century (19th-20th, now we can’t really say “the turn of the century” and have people be sure which time period we’re talking about) expressed the opinion that incubating premature human infants was playing God. There was a novel written about a woman created by artificial insemination that is a soulless shadow of humanity and goes on a killing spree. Plus there are still people out there who think vaccinations are wrong. Clonging is really just the latest in a long line of human technologies to be popularly opposed.
Clones, in the realm of speculative fiction, have long been viewed as an “evil” because of numerous factors.
(1) A society that relies on cloning as a means of reproduction is a society in an evolutionary dead end. One could say that science fiction, in speculative, utopian or dystopian modes, is a call for mankind to rise above what we are now. Cloning is redundantly operating out of the same gene pool, and represents stagnation rather than advancement. It also begs the question “who gets to be cloned?” It not only reeks of stagnation, but a stagnant pool of the privileged elite.
(2) Cloning goes against the basic Puritan/Catholic repressive mindset (which has been unconciously been imprinted on Western society) that states that the primal sexual instinct is for reproduction only, and that any sex outside of that is sinful. By removing reproduction from the equation, without invasive brain surgery, nothing is done to remove the instinct itself. Seeing as how the ready access and use of birth control has done nothing to curb sexual activity, and has instead created a society of “depraved sinners” (whereas before one could always claim that they were just “trying to get pregnant”), cloning would, instead, lead to hedonism on a larger scale, as sex would be even more of a “pleasure for pleasure’s sake” thing. This violates the repressive nature of Puritanical Western thought, and as that culture dominates the Science Fiction scene, either conciously or unconciously, this factor comes into play.
While some would argue that the removal of reproduction from the human equation would lessen the inborn genetic urge to procreate, unless genetic tampering (or, as said before, intrusive surgery) takes place (and genetic manipulation would create something other than a clone, as a clone is a direct copy of the DNA of the host), the urge would remain the same as long as we are operating out of the same gene pool.
Also, unless mass sterilization took place, which would be against the will of many, and therefore be a hallmark of a totalitarian regime (and, therefore, a villainous depiction of said society would be warranted in fiction), sexual reproduction would still take place, as probably only the most privileged could afford cloning. Therefore, the primary sexual urge would not, or could not, be weeded out.(3) Cloning is, at its root, an anti-individualist act. As most science fiction either glorifies individuality and versatility or villainizes conformity (or both simultaneously), cloning and the result, clones, would be seen as a threat of homogeny or, at worst, totalitarianism with only the elite and powerful allowed to survive and (literally) multiply.
Possibly more to come as I think of them.
–Aleck
And of course, another use for cloning that has not been raised here, and that of medical research. Perhaps the wealthy would have a clone ‘spare parts’ human for the event of disease or dismemberment, a being whose job it is to donate eyes,liver, etc for the original from which it came. Research is already under way to clone individual organs for transplant, livers, kidneys, etc, for the wealthy recipients. What of the rights of the cloned human as a organ donor, do they not have the same rights as the human from which they sprung? Another morality issue raised in religious factions as well.
As for sex for procreational purposes only, within the confines of marriage, the Pope even went so far (a few years ago) to say that even married people should not partake of sex unless they are trying to have children, and in the Catholic Church, birth control is considered a sin, and so is abortion, so it would seem to me that the issue with religions isn’t so much the act of the cloning, it’s the control of sex. They don’t want anyone to have it, they want to control the natural urges given to us as humans, and that’s their agenda. [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
(2) Cloning goes against the basic Puritan/Catholic repressive mindset (which has been unconciously been imprinted on Western society) that states that the primal sexual instinct is for reproduction only, and that any sex outside of that is sinful.
I’d like to clone myself as the opposite sex so I could go f*** myself! HA!
[img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]If it could be done, I’d have no problem cloning myself for organ transplants or hors d’oeuvres. [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
Living human beings would not be used for organ banks. by removing a single gene we can cause an embryo to form with no brain or brain stem. They would grow into tissue without consciousness.
Under ideal conditions, a cloned population would not be necessary. It would however be a useful too in the case of a catastrophe or the colonization of another planet, where the the population is too small to maintain a viable gene pool or survivors/colonists are all one sex. The small original group would swell into an ideal population, and with reproduction done entirely by cloning sex would become obsolete.
Suppose there’s a terrible nuclear war, and all of humanity is wiped out with the exception of a single survivor. Now, there’s sophisticated technology just laying around intact after its owners have died, and he uses it to clone himself. The group produced could then clone themselves, and eventually the Earth would be repopulated. The new humanity would all look the same, but would have personalities almost as variable as the old humanity.
This is similar to the scenerio presented in [i]Earth[/i], a science fiction novel I am in the process of writing. It takes place in the distant future, after earth has been nuked back to the stone age and started to build itself back up over the millennia. In it, there are a number of trans-humans (homo sapiens, but not of our subspecies) that were produced by divergent evolution and eugenic breeding by nonhuman slavelords. The only group that did not suffer cultural regression during the nuclear holocaust is the Order of the Yün Siph. They are all cloned from a single man who lived long, long ago and are the epitome of spiritual enlightenment. The main character in the short story that is thus far my only published work of science fiction is a Yün Siph, a clone. The Yün Siph are the protectors of peace and order in a merciless and chaotic world, but suffer from hatred and prejudice because of their way of reproduction and the fact that they belong to the race responsible for the nuclear war.
I think after a few generations on entirely cloned reproduction, sex would be essentially forgotten. I do not believe that sexual appetite is something common to all humans as I have never felt it and I’ve always been taught that having such feelings would be bad.
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
I think after a few generations on entirely cloned reproduction, sex would be essentially forgotten. I do not believe that sexual appetite is something common to all humans as I have never felt it and I’ve always been taught that having such feelings would be bad.
(shaking head) Man, you know, I try and I try to stay within the boundaries of civil conversation, and stick to the topic at hand, and you continue to turn these topics around to support some stance that has no support in the scientific world. There is *NO* support to your theory that sex drive is not a shared human trait (just as there is no support to your theory that morality is genetically hard-wired). Just because you say you’ve never felt it and that you were always taught that feelings such as these are bad (I’ll take for granted that you’ve never explored the relation between teaching someone from an early age that a feeling is bad, and a psychological need to repress and deny that same feeling at a later age, and how that relation is at root an unhealthy one), that doesn’t say anything about the world at large. It speaks volumes about you and your own personal hang-ups, but nothing about the human condition in general.
To get this back on topic, your cloning idea just doesn’t work simply because there is no scientific basis to it. Sure, if you’re just speaking in a fictional sense, you’ve got the artistic license to claim that cloning would render sex a thing of the past (it’s about as accurate as the artistic license that, say, Richard Matheson had when he wrote that a mist of a-bomb fallout could shrink a man down to sub-atomic size, but it’s your license). But if you’re attempting to be scientifically accurate, you’re way off base. (A) The human sex drive is part of our biological makeup. It can be repressed, but it will only find its way out via other avenues, and most unsatisfying avenues at that (either on the part of the repressed individual or on the part of the person forced to put up with the result of said repression). (B) As it is part of the biological makeup of humans, a clone of said human will also contain a sex drive. (C) Nature abhors a vacuum, and where a lack of diversity is found, diversity can find itself enforced in the most unexpected places. And, unless you have devised a decent way of dealing with mutations in the system (and final solutions are often ugly, ugly things to contemplate), your system is imperfect. Where there are differences, there is fascination with those differences. Where there is fascination, there is attraction (I’m not even going into the whole homosexual subtext here, where attraction among the same-sex populace of this society would definitely arise out of the diversity in personality *alone*).
Like I said, though, you have artistic license to make these guys do whatever you want. If they’re spiritually enlightened asexual beings, then hey, that’s swell. Just don’t expect to win any awards for scientific accuracy or believability.
–Aleck
[ 14-11-2001: Message edited by: Aleck ]
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
Honestly, how many heroes, or even supporting benevolent characters in science fiction television, film, or literature have been clones. I bet you can’t even name five.
Well there ws Col. McQueen and another main character from Space: Above and Beyond who were clones, or at least “grown” humans. And I may be wrong but didn’t they make clones of the SG1 crew in case of death of a member(s). Wasn’t Col. O’Neil killed and they replaced him with Col. O’Neill? It was so long ago I can’t remember. Dr. Bashir from ST-DS9 was gentically altered when he was very young. I’m not sure if you’d count that as cloning though. I believe that they also cloned a hero somewhere in Sliders. Then theres also a handful of people in “Brave New World”
My opinion as to why clones are always portrayed as evil is that they aren’t natural. And many people view the unnatural as wrong.
[b]I think after a few generations on entirely cloned reproduction, sex would be essentially forgotten.[/b]
SEX WILL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN! Every animal has sex. Everything from insects to fish to primates. Heres another shocker for you, homosexuallity does occur in nature. It occurs amongst the alpha-male and other males with Congo chimp tribes. In addition a spiecies of sea worm has both sex organs. Conception occurs when one stabs another with his “weapon”. Oh yeah humans didn’t forget sex in “Brave New World”[b]I do not believe that sexual appetite is something common to all humans[/b]
Humans think about sex every 6 seconds. mating is a natural urge and practice. See above. It’s need is so strong its at the base of Maslow Heirchy of needs. y’know right next to food and water.[b] as I have never felt it[/b]
BULLS**T! Unless you’ve been a enuch since birth, have you?[b]and I’ve always been taught that having such feelings would be bad.[/b]
Sex is natural. And unless your a clone, test tube baby, or artifical insemination; YOUR PARENTS HAD SEX! Obviously at least 1 of them exhibited some of those feelings for a brief moment!Nothing personal, but dude, use some common sense!
[ 14-11-2001: Message edited by: Headgehog ]
[ 14-11-2001: Message edited by: Headgehog ]
quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
(shaking head) Man, you know, I try and I try to stay within the boundaries of civil conversation, and stick to the topic at hand, and you continue to turn these topics around to support some stance that has no support in the scientific world.
You were the one who brought sex and Puritan values into this thread, not I. I don’t know if you’re trying to make me feel ashamed for saying cloning is okay or if you’re just trying to start an argument but it’s getting on my nerves.
quote:
Originally posted by Headgehog:
Well there ws Col. McQueen and another main character from Space: Above and Beyond who were clones, or at least “grown” humans. And I may be wrong but didn’t they make clones of the SG1 crew in case of death of a member(s). Wasn’t Col. O’Neil killed and they replaced him with Col. O’Neill? It was so long ago I can’t remember. Dr. Bashir from ST-DS9 was gentically altered when he was very young. I’m not sure if you’d count that as cloning though. I believe that they also cloned a hero somewhere in Sliders. Then theres also a handful of people in “Brave New World”
You’re right, there are a number of good clone characters in sci-fi. But Dr. Bashir shouldn’t count, since genetic engineering isn’t really the same as cloning. He was born the usual way, his D.N.A. was just tinkered with afterward.
quote:
SEX WILL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN! Every animal has sex. Everything from insects to fish to primates.
But in a cloned civilization sex would not be required to procreate, so the logical course of action would be to discontinue the practice.
quote:
Humans think about sex every 6 seconds.
That’s an unfair generalization.
quote:
mating is a natural urge and practice. See above. It’s need is so strong its at the base of Maslow Heirchy of needs. y’know right next to food and water.
Yes it is instinctive because of procreation, but with cloning doing that job it would no longer be necessary.
quote:
BULLS**T! Unless you’ve been a enuch since birth, have you?
I don’t have bad thoughts. I am a good person.
[ 14-11-2001: Message edited by: DalekTek790 ]
Mission Genesis!! Ever heard of it? All clones, all good, all the time. I have also read countless short stories and quite a few books about “good” clones. ex. Friday. A few cartoons I’ve seen also portray clones in a good light ex. Men In Black, Jackie Chan, and a few others. oops gtg will continue argument later.
p.s. Dalek, u have major problems please see doctor for your issues.
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
You were the one who brought sex and Puritan values into this thread, not I. I don’t know if you’re trying to make me feel ashamed for saying cloning is okay or if you’re just trying to start an argument but it’s getting on my nerves.
You asked for thoughts as to why cloning is always depicted as being wrong or evil in science fiction. Western society is, for good or ill, heavily influenced by (IMHO, completely unnecessary) guilt instilled in it by religious leaders as a means of control. I used that as one reason that, in many cases, a society that utilizes cloning is depicted as decadent and villainous.
You, on the other hand, brought up your own personal hangups. I was speaking in terms of the realm of speculative fiction, and you turned it into a personal comment about your own sexual hangups. My comments were on-topic and relevant to the discussion. Your comments weren’t.And, you know, while we’re on the subject, I find it a little hard to believe that on one hand you can use a small handful of extremely biased (and in some cases, completely discredited) sources to back up one argument, while widely accepted and established truths about human psychology and biology are dismissed by you as “unfair generalizations.” It is widely acknowledged (I hesitate to use the word universally only because you, and perhaps a handful of extremists, refuse to acknowledge it) that human sexuality is an inborn part of behavior. Centuries of attempts by clergy have not stifled it, and the widespread use and acceptance of birth control has not limited it (using your argument, if procreation is limited, the urge to procreate should diminish, and this is not the case as is evident in society…if your hypothesis is valid, sex without procreation is something that would disappear, and birth control would give rise to cycles of estrus in which people would only desire sex when it was neccessary to produce offspring — this isn’t happening). Every study and report on human sexuality states in no uncertain terms that sexuality is an ingrained part of mankind and its biological and psychological makeup. It is not an unfair generalization. Anyone, you included, who states that they have no sexual desire is either malfunctioning biologically or psychologically.
–Aleck
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
You were the one who brought sex and Puritan values into this thread, not I. I don’t know if you’re trying to make me feel ashamed for saying cloning is okay or if you’re just trying to start an argument but it’s getting on my nerves.
No, DT. [b]YOU[/b] are the one who brought up this issue. Cloning is directly associated with sexuality.
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
But in a cloned civilization sex would not be required to procreate, so the logical course of action would be to discontinue the practice.
A cloned civilization with the sexual instinct removed by genitic manipulation would not be considered human. It would be some other species, but not human.
quote:
Originally posted by Headgehog:
Humans think about sex every 6 seconds.
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
That’s an unfair generalization.
Unfair? It’s a fact, not speculation or generalization. Only the time increment varies.
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
But in a cloned civilization sex would not be required to procreate, so the logical course of action would be to discontinue the practice.
In order to remove the sexual instinct, genetic manipulation would be necessary. Such a new creature could not be classified as human but as a new species.
Discrimination and racism (how humans would treat this new species) is a separate issue. It would seem likely that the clones would attempt to change humans to their way of life. Eventually this would result in war and hopefully the clone race would be exterminated.
In my book, preaching against the sexual drive is anti-life and therefore twisted and evil. [img]images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img]
As the old argument says…”Why should you be hungry when I just ate?”…
Those who don’t or can’t have something, often try to destroy it for others out of jealousy. [img]images/smiles/icon_sad.gif[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
I don’t have bad thoughts. I am a good person.
Ohhhhhh, I could get you on THIS one, lol ,but “I’m a good person” too.(Most of the time).The point here is that the concept of cloning is usualy used in a bad light in sci-fi because most people know NOTHING about it, it’s the new thing. In 10 years time, nobody will care much. Some fear that their clone will know their secrets, some fear that the clone will go insane because it’s “Unnatural”. Remember when all androids in sci/fi were “Evil”? Now look! There are good ‘droids EVERYWHERE! Because we’ve grown accustomed to them. The same will go for clones.
By the way, Think about sex a LOT. All the time,and my husband is VERY glad of it [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]oh, and Rimmer too (I’m married ,not blind LOL)
quote:
Originally posted by Urusaibob:
Dalek, u have major problems please see doctor for your issues.
[img]http://www.shillpages.com/dw/bakert04.jpg[/img]
Oh, ha ha. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
I never said anything about sex. Aleck however focused entirely on that subject and put me in a position where I had no alternative but to address that topic. An Aleck+followers vs. Lee topic is exactly what I was trying to avoid here (read my first post). And I didn’t say anything about myself except that I do not believe the theory that there is some sort of instinct that makes people have a sexual appetite.
Aleck is trying to make me out to be somehow abnormal. The fact is that I am just an average 18 year old American male college freshman.
As my hero Dr. Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I would like to hear some sort of legitimate scientific evidence that this notion of an inborn sex drive is accurate. I believe what is factually supported. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now let’s try to get this back on topic.
I never said anything about genetic manipulation, either. From a purely logical point of view sex would have no biological purpose if reproduction is done through cloning. The abandonment of the practice would be cultural, not genetic. Perhaps some members toward the beginning would require processes like therapy, instrumental conditioning, or even drugs to eliminate urges (as was done in Terrestria), but it would be done.
And the idea that a clone race would try to alter the non-clones is just part of the bias that clones are evil, which is simply not logical. A cloned race would exist because there were no other humans. Cloning would be a way to perpetuate the dwindling human population in the unfortunate event of near extinction. Clones would not only be human, but the [i]only[/i] humans.
To use my own hypothetical example, the Yün Siph are pacifists. They take action only when order is disrupted. The war on their people was started by an evil totalitarian régime who used religious and political manipulation to convince the trans-human commonfolk that the Yün Siph were the source of all their problems. This propaganda campaign was launched for the purpose of scapegoating, placing blame on a group that the organization seeking power had the ability to eliminate.
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
I never said anything about genetic manipulation, either. From a purely logical point of view sex would have no biological purpose if reproduction is done through cloning. The abandonment of the practice would be cultural, not genetic. Perhaps some members toward the beginning would require processes like therapy, instrumental conditioning, or even drugs to eliminate urges (as was done in Terrestria), but it would be done.
See the movie THX-1138. It’s all about a society like that. People will have sex anyway unless it’s bred out of them.
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
And the idea that a clone race would try to alter the non-clones is just part of the bias that clones are evil, which is simply not logical. A cloned race would exist because there were no other humans. Cloning would be a way to perpetuate the dwindling human population in the unfortunate event of near extinction. Clones would not only be human, but the [i]only[/i] humans.
If that were the horrifying case I think that the survivors would attempt to artificially create genetic variation in children in order to create hereditary variety. (e.g. White girl and black guy has oriental and middle-eastern paternal twins.)
But if all they could do is clone from one original, then they are doomed. Boring, to say the least.
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
To use my own hypothetical example, the Yün Siph are pacifists. They take action only when order is disrupted. The war on their people was started by an evil totalitarian régime who used religious and political manipulation to convince the trans-human commonfolk that the Yün Siph were the source of all their problems. This propaganda campaign was launched for the purpose of scapegoating, placing blame on a group that the organization seeking power had the ability to eliminate.
Interesting story idea. But unless the sexual drive was genetically eliminated, a good percentage of the Yün Siph would be gay, like in [i]Nook[/i].
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
never said anything about sex. Aleck however focused entirely on that subject and put me in a position where I had no alternative but to address that topic. An Aleck+followers vs. Lee topic is exactly what I was trying to avoid here (read my first post). And I didn’t say anything about myself except that I do not believe the theory that there is some sort of instinct that makes people have a sexual appetite.
Aleck is trying to make me out to be somehow abnormal. The fact is that I am just an average 18 year old American male college freshman.As my hero Dr. Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I would like to hear some sort of legitimate scientific evidence that this notion of an inborn sex drive is accurate. I believe what is factually supported. Nothing more, nothing less.
After careful review of a number of videotapes of a popular British television show and in light of the preponderance of evidence found in the SadGeezer bulletin board message-posts about your sexual hang-ups, I have no choice but to conclude that you are indeed a smeghead.
“As my hero Dr. Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I would like to hear some sort of legitimate scientific evidence that this notion of an inborn sex drive is accurate. I believe what is factually supported. Nothing more, nothing less.”
I like Sagan too. Righty-o: Most people have libidos. Look what happened to the monestarys in medieval Europe. The ‘celibate’ priests and nuns were a standing joke! They not only weren’t celibate, they were percieved as oversexed!
Take a culture, any culture past or future. Whether vicariously or openly, sex plays a major role.
“I don’t have bad thoughts. I am a good person.”
Well goodness Daleck Tek, most of the people (I’d say all of ya!) are good people and I bet they think about sex. It’s nothing ‘bad’, even if that’s what you’ve been told. Homo or hetero, the libido is perfectly natural.
I point to the preponderence of sex in culture, in nature (yes, most animals do have sex only to reproduce, but Bonobos and Dolphins have sex for pleasure (bonobos will have homosexual sex, dolphins mate even when the female isn’t ovulating).
There is utterly nothing to be ashamed of.
don’t really want to get into all the metaphysics and what not…but, eunuchs do have a libido (unfortunately, thousands of men were castrated under that mistaken assumption so that they could be safekeepers for harems…and let’s not even go into the famous castrati sopranos of the catholic church [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] ), also, dt, genes are on chromosomes, each complement of chromosomes distinguishing one species from another, so we don’t usually clone from one gene [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img], finally, there is a little scifi book written about 30 years ago called [i]friends come in boxes[/i]…the premise of this novel was that people would be immortal by virtue of the capability to transplant their brains into new bodies every 100 years or so…what no one took into account was that by the time you had lived 600 years or so, sex just wasn’t that interesting anymore…so they no longer had enough new bodies to transplant into…and the clones rights people were tying things up in legal battles…so while you were waiting for a new body, your brain would sit in a box with nutrients and speech and hearing synthesizers… your idea of sex drive dying down is not entirely unfeasible…given that the population is old and jaded enough [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
by the way, lack of libido is frequently a sign of depression, at least in this reality… [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Mayaxiong:
Those who don’t or can’t have something, often try to destroy it for others out of jealousy. [img]images/smiles/icon_sad.gif[/img]
I’m not jealous at all. I have never pursued a sexual relationship because I’ve always known that it would be wrong. I have never been sexually attracted to anyone. I have no interest in sex.
I have been in love with someone, but my feelings for her were entirely emotional and intellectual, not at all sexual.
quote:
Originally posted by FX:
by the way, lack of libido is frequently a sign of depression, at least in this reality…
I don’t suffer from chronic depression or anything. Occasionally, when really bad things happen in my life, I just get mildly depressed, nothing serious. Loss of will to live, self-loathing, the feeling that my existence is directionless futility. Y’know, the usual.
quote:
Originally posted by Flamegrape:
After careful review of a number of videotapes of a popular British television show and in light of the preponderance of evidence found in the SadGeezer bulletin board message-posts about your sexual hang-ups, I have no choice but to conclude that you are indeed a smeghead.
I happen to be incredibly intelligent.
quote:
Originally posted by FX:
your idea of sex drive dying down is not entirely unfeasible…
Of course it’s feasible. I strive to create science fiction that is completely scientifically accurate (no faster than light travel, no humanoid aliens, no made-up particles, etc.).
Now, today my psychology lecturer stated [i]specifically[/i] that there is no evidence that a feeling manifests itself in another way after being eliminated (what Aleck said). That is just part of the Freudian dogma and has been discredited by serious studies. And it is certainly not the case with me. I have no personality glitches that could possibly attributed to such a thing.
Aleck is trying to convince me and others that I’m a bad person and that I have these sick urges and am lying when I say I don’t. I find this quite offensive.
Most of the negative views toward cloning stem from ignorance. There are a lot of serious misconceptions about cloning. People think it’s creating a duplicate or minds, or that clones would be lacking something from the donor. Somebody in my rhetoric class said something like “Every time you clone a cell it cuts off 10% of the D.N.A., and then when it is cloned it cuts off 10% of that, so the more clones we make the less human they’ll be” which is pseudoscientific nonsense. And my speech coach last year didn’t recognize that genetic engineering was anything other than trying to clone animals. And people fail to realize the way cloning experiments would progress. Competent scientists would [i]not[/i] attempt to clone humans until the process was fine-tuned. Once they would work all the bugs out of it and can clone, say, chimpanzees with a near total success rate [i]then[/i] human clones would be attempted. Plus cloning would not be a means of immortality. Even if the brain (or the part of the brain containing memories and/or personality) of a dying individual were placed in a healthy young clone, the brain tissue would eventually die. Neurons don’t divide and a healthy cellular environment won’t rejuvenate them. And there’s the mindless drone myth, and the slave race myth, and…the ignorance just goes on and on. Our populus is largely scientifically illiterate, and we don’t exactly have Einstein running our country, either. Plus, in addition to the simply misinformed there are religious fanatics (the kind of people that are trying to ban the teaching of evolution in schools) who will say [i]any[/i] new biotechnology is bad. Ignorance and dogma, that’s why those bans were placed on stem cell research and cloning.
Science fiction isn’t helping the problem, my main point in this thread. Clones are usually evil or at least embodying significant negative traits, and the organization that produced them is almost invariably evil. Plus we have perpetuation of the myth of duplicated memory and personality (at least [i]Alien: Resurrection[/i] said the clone [i]shouldn’t[/i] have memories, even though she did; most movies don’t even acknowledge that much). On [i]Exposure[/i] (yes, I actually watch that show) the maker of a short film in which clones are used to explore space said (to the best of my memory): “What cloning is is, essentially, taking a snapshot of someone’s mind at a certain point in their life.” This is quite untrue. It is copying someone’s [i]genes[/i], which are the same throughout all of their life (unless the donor were to receive some sort of gene therapy, or are subjected to some process that does not exist at this time). The personality would not be the same, besides the traits that are genetic, like whether or not they have schizophrenia, or [i]possibly[/i] their range of intelligence (we’re still only beginning to know what about us is nature and what is nurture, and cloning could actually help us learn more in this area). Science fiction has placed an unnecessary taint on an already inevitably controversial subject.
[ 15-11-2001: Message edited by: DalekTek790 ]
Duncan, from the Dune series was cloned again and again. They found a way to awaken his “cellular” memories in adulthood of his past lives though, but he was always a good guy…..and always liked the ladies.
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
Aleck is trying to make me out to be somehow abnormal. The fact is that I am just an average 18 year old American male college freshman.Now let’s try to get this back on topic.
I never said anything about genetic manipulation, either. From a purely logical point of view sex would have no biological purpose if reproduction is done through cloning. The abandonment of the practice would be cultural, not genetic. Perhaps some members toward the beginning would require processes like therapy, instrumental conditioning, or even drugs to eliminate urges (as was done in Terrestria), but it would be done.
18 year old college freshman, I’ll buy that. Average 18 year old college freshman, I doubt it. Speaking as a 19 year old college sophmore, thinking about sex at this age is not only natural, its abnormal to find someone who doesn’t think about often. Lets face it college is famous for sex, drugs, music, inhumane test(BTW finals are coming up good luck [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] ), staying up all night, impossible homework, drinking, partying and sex.
If you have certain noble beliefs, than thats you. It’s good that some people still have high values today, and it is commendable that you stand by your beliefs. But please don’t assume that everyone else shares your philosophy. Especially on the sadboard. Lets face it, Lexx and Red Dwarf will neve exactly be clean family shows. Sadgeezer even has a message on his site saying
quote:
Posted by Sadgeezer at [url=http://www.sadgeezer.com/sadintro.htm]http://www.sadgeezer.com/sadintro.htm[/url]
By the way, this site is for grown-ups so if yer a kiddie – SOD OFF! These pages are far too complex and you wouldn’t appreciate the innuendo (sexual or otherwise). However, for those of you who are new, fairly new, or just interested in cult TV Sci Fi and would like no-nonsense information, comment or news displayed with lots of pictures and not too highbrow, then this is the site for you!
So feel free to post stuff about scifi, but leave the morals be. As much as I [b]love[/b] reading Aleck’s “responses” to your posts, I believe it may sometimes be better to keep things on topic.
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
I never said anything about sex. Aleck however focused entirely on that subject and put me in a position where I had no alternative but to address that topic.
Not true. I brought up 3 different and distinct reasons why cloning is, for the most part, vilified in science fiction. I spoke of evolutionary stagnation, the Puritanical anti-sex bias of Western culture, and homogeny/totalitarianism. Any of the two other topics would have been suitable for discussion. You, however, decided to focus on this subject.
quote[quote]An Aleck+followers vs. Lee topic is exactly what I was trying to avoid here (read my first post).[/quote]
Again with the insistence that I have followers. As Dr. Carl Sagan once said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” (more on this quote below) If I have this band of followers, tell me, how am I leading them? How am I organizing them to oppose you? Jesus, I don’t have the *time* to organize bands of people to work against you. But, if you’re able to provide evidence that I am, in fact, organizing some strategic attack, I’ll buy into it. As long as you provide instructions on how I can go about reaping the financial benefits that I know I’m due.
quote[quote]And I didn’t say anything about myself except that I do not believe the theory that there is some sort of instinct that makes people have a sexual appetite.[/quote]
Again, not really accurate. You said, in your reply to my 3-point post, and I quote:
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
I do not believe that sexual appetite is something common to all humans as I have never felt it and I’ve always been taught that having such feelings would be bad.
In this post, the one you referred to above, you claim that there are two reasons why you don’t believe that sexual drives are common to all humans: (A) You’ve never felt them. Which, of course, has abso-LUTE-ly nothing to do with (B) the fact that you’ve always been taught that these feelings were bad.
quote[quote]Aleck is trying to make me out to be somehow abnormal. The fact is that I am just an average 18 year old American male college freshman.[/quote]
No, you’re doing a fine job of that yourself. I didn’t know anyone that fit your description when I was in college, so I think your self-description is a pretty “extraordinary claim” in and of itself. Give me a scientific mean of the libidos of 18-year-old males, and let’s see where you fall. Unless, of course, you’re just talking about *your* college, and it’s populated with some really screwed-up 18-year-old males.
quote[quote]As my hero Dr. Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I would like to hear some sort of legitimate scientific evidence that this notion of an inborn sex drive is accurate. I believe what is factually supported. Nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]
Ahhh, now here’s the quote. Now, let me just contradict myself by using this quote twice now by saying that you’re using this quote out of context. He was speaking of “paranormal” or “occult” events, *not* widely-accepted facts regarding human sexuality. Unless we’re talking about the sex lives of ghosts, this quote doesn’t apply. But, let’s see, inborn and non-trained sexual instincts…let’s talk about Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins University (where he served as professor emeritus), and formerly of Harvard University. Dr. Money is, perhaps, the world’s leading scientist and researcher into the subject of sexuality. Among many other firsts, he designed the first curriculum in sexual medicine for medical students. He introduced the theory that androgen is the libido-fueling hormone for both sexes (which, of course operates on the pretext that libido is controlled by physiological traits), which has been widely accepted and confirmed. He was a pioneer in hormone therapy to increase self-control among sex offenders (again, supporting the libido/physiological construct). He was the first to explore the psychological concomitants of disorders in sex chromosomes (again…oh, you get the idea). He has also done research into the onanistic activities of pre-adolescents, and supported the fact that children come into this world equating pleasure and genital contact, even without external stimuli or “teachers” in this (some go farther in speaking about late-stage feti appearing to fondle their own genitalia while observed via ultrasound while in the womb, but that’s still debated).
quote[quote]Perhaps some members toward the beginning would require processes like therapy, instrumental conditioning, or even drugs to eliminate urges (as was done in Terrestria), but it would be done.[/quote]
Oooh, that just *reeks* of totalitarianism. That’s a *lovely* thought. No wonder cloning gets such a bad rap.
quote[quote]Now, today my psychology lecturer stated specifically that there is no evidence that a feeling manifests itself in another way after being eliminated (what Aleck said). That is just part of the Freudian dogma and has been discredited by serious studies. And it is certainly not the case with me. I have no personality glitches that could possibly attributed to such a thing.[/quote]
Not true in the least. Freud’s theories regarding defense mechanisms (what you’re talking about are repression and sublimation) are widely regarded as among the most, if not the very most, lasting contributions he made to the field of psychology. They have not only been confirmed by more recent study, but have been expanded on. You know, one of my junior high school teachers once said that race-mixing was wrong. I didn’t believe him. Just because a professor says it, that doesn’t mean that it’s the case. You could just have a lousy professor (and again, I ask, as I did in a lost post, what college do you *go* to, anyway??? Where do they *teach* this crap???).
Oh, and just for larfs, here’s DT’s Arrogant Point #352:
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
I happen to be incredibly intelligent.
Hoo boy.
–Aleck
Oh yeah something I forgot to mention in my earlier post. Playing games are fun. Whether it be board games, sports, or other forms of entertainment. Other primates play games with each other. Lion cubs play “roughhouse” together. Bears splash around in the water. Okay maybe the playing serves a purpose and it is to get in better physical shape. But for the most part I think we and other speices play games for fun. Would you agree that we and other enjoy having fun? If we eliminate joy would that make us emotionless beings or computers?
Come to think of, sex is fun. Sex is lots of fun. So couldn’t it be considered a game of sorts. I’ve already established we like games. So unless we lose our emotions and certain neuro-chemicals, we’ll always enjoy having sex.
***
As Aleck mentioned earlier if in your book people don’t have sex, then thats your artistic right. But its also very science fiction. I’m also reminded of something you posted in respones to a statement I made “After a nuclear holocaust only roaches and Cher will survive”, you said that I shouldn’t steal your novel ideas. Is this book your writing now, related to that?quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
Again with the insistence that I have followers. As Dr. Carl Sagan once said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” (more on this quote below) If I have this band of followers, tell me, how am I leading them? How am I organizing them to oppose you? Jesus, I don’t have the *time* to organize bands of people to work against you. But, if you’re able to provide evidence that I am, in fact, organizing some strategic attack, I’ll buy into it. As long as you provide instructions on how I can go about reaping the financial benefits that I know I’m due.
Aleck, I’m afriad that I won’t be online for the next anti-DT meeting. My flight takes off Wednesday morning and I won’t be home until late that night so I’ll be unable to get online in time. Also how much is the membership dues for the first quarter of 2002? Just let me know and I’ll paypal it.
[img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
Seriously DalekTeck790 we aren’t against you. My quote is just a joke!quote[quote]No, you’re doing a fine job of that yourself. I didn’t know anyone that fit your description when I was in college, so I think your self-description is a pretty “extraordinary claim” in and of itself. Give me a scientific mean of the libidos of 18-year-old males, and let’s see where you fall. Unless, of course, you’re just talking about *your* college, and it’s populated with some really screwed-up 18-year-old males.[/quote]
He could be at Brigam Young U. It the #1 dry college nation wide and possibly internationally. We have a few extra low libido’d poepel down here though, they’re the pimply face EE and CS majors.
Okay, all of Dalek’s sexual tendencies aside, I for one, think he has some great ideas. But, I can’t imagine a world without sex, and I’m not sorry .
Furthermore, is sex EVER okay in your eyes? What if you meet a girl, fall in love ,get msrried. THEN is sexuality okay?
Also ,if this is true, and you really DON’T feel any urges, someone should give you an award for being able to watch Lexx without desiring to screw Xev (god, that girl makes ME feel funny, and I’m a pure hetero.)ooooh, that was bad, anyone feel like spanking me? LOLquote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
I happen to be incredibly intelligent.
[b][i]”The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.”[/i][/b]
(Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn)[img]http://www.flamegrape.com/pic/jarjar4.jpg[/img]
Oh, goooood one, JarJarTek790!
[img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]quote:
Originally posted by Nirvanah Rimmer:
…someone should give you an award for being able to watch Lexx without desiring to screw Xev (god, that girl makes ME feel funny, and I’m a pure hetero.)ooooh, that was bad, anyone feel like spanking me? LOL
I know exactly what u mean, sugar-pie. And I’d be happy to oblige you, too! [i][smak, smak, smak][/i] You too, Lomia! [i][smak, smak, smak][/i]
[img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]
God, I love this bboard! [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]Who wished good luck on finals? Thanks. (See, I’m already obsessing. Good thing I have y’all to rot my brain)
“Also ,if this is true, and you really DON’T feel any urges, someone should give you an award for being able to watch Lexx without desiring to screw Xev (god, that girl makes ME feel funny, and I’m a pure hetero.)”
Nah, she’s not my type [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]. Too much like me. So do I get the award? (85% hetero, does that matter?)
Hedgehog: Brigham U has a good geology program (or so I heard) but the people….
Of course, BJU (Bob Jones, not Monica L’s alma mater) is another story.Oooh holy and everlasting Aleck, ommm, ommm owwm, blah blah blah.
quote:
Originally posted by Hypatia:
Oooh holy and everlasting Aleck, ommm, ommm owwm, blah blah blah.
Om A Leck Ni Pad Me Hum
Om A Leck Ni Pad Me Hum
Om A Leck Ni Pad Me Hum
Om A Leck Ni Pad Me HumOh, Aleck! I want to bear your clone children! I’m sure my biosystems can be modified and extra plates added to my exoskeleton!
[img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]you’re LYING!!! you have to be. otherwise you’re going to be stark raving bonkers by the time you’re 20. repressing sexual drives like that isn’t healthy. all that sexual energy has to go somewhere, for instance, into the creation of a serial killer. [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Hypatia:
Who wished good luck on finals? Thanks. (See, I’m already obsessing. Good thing I have y’all to rot my brain)
I agree Lexx was my salvation last semester. It helped me to maintain what little sanity I still had. FINALS SUCK, can’t they just gives us all A’s and call it a good semester?
quote:
Hedgehog: Brigham U has a good geology program (or so I heard) but the people….
Of course, BJU (Bob Jones, not Monica L’s alma mater) is another story.
Monica L Univ LOL. I’ve never heard of Bob Jones, wheres that?
quote[quote]Oooh holy and everlasting Aleck, ommm, ommm owwm, blah blah blah.[/quote]
Hail Aleck our prophet and savior. The man who will save us from all that is wrong on the sadboard and ultimatly the world!
quote:
Originally posted by Nirvanah Rimmer:
…someone should give you an award for being able to watch Lexx without desiring to screw Xev (god, that girl makes ME feel funny, and I’m a pure hetero.)
I’m really not that attracted to Xev. But Xenia is a stunning beauty in person. Personally I think Lyekka is the more attractive character.
quote:
Originally posted by Flamegrape:
Oh, Aleck! I want to bear your clone children! I’m sure my biosystems can be modified and extra plates added to my exoskeleton!
[img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Aaah, it’s a glorious feeling. I feel like that hellspawn/TV-born Richard D. James creature surrounded by adoring Richard D. James clone children in Aphex Twin’s “Come to Daddy” video. [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] So start readying the biomods, FG, because it’s time to bring the legion of offspring into the world!
Headge, I usually demand complete and constant obeisance in matters of attendance, but I will grant you this one favor, as you have served me well. Membership packages begin at $35 per year (same as last year’s), but we’re adding comprehensive medical and dental coverage included in the package for only $60/year this time around.
Hypatia, your enthusiasm in leading the group mantra is to be commended, but you should *vibrate* the vowel sounds instead of simply *saying* them. Otherwise, the spiritual energy won’t be raised properly. And isn’t BJU *always* another story? My sister lives near there, and sends reports of the fine, fine things that go on there all the time.
To all the other followers lurking about the place, remember: next Wednesday at 8:30 *sharp*! Remember to wear your special hats.
–Aleck
Hehe, just call me ‘Hypatia of Aleck’.
[img]http://www.newbanner.com/AboutPic/athena/raphael/nbi_hypa.jpg[/img]
Bob Jones, Hedgehog, is a *very* fundamentalist university, they caught some slack a few years ago for prohibiting interracial dating and automatically expelling gays.. [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Flamegrape:
[i]”The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.”[/i]
(Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn)
Ooooh, here’s a couple more relevant ones…
[b][i]”You know, your species has the most amazing capacity for self-deception, matched only by its ingenuity in trying to destroy itself.”[/b][/i]
[b][i]”Your arrogance is almost as great as your ignorance.”[/b][/i]
(The Doctor, [i]Doctor Who[/i])–Aleck
quote:
Originally posted by Hypatia:
Hehe, just call me ‘Hypatia of Aleck’.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
quote[quote]Bob Jones, Hedgehog, is a *very* fundamentalist university, they caught some slack a few years ago for prohibiting interracial dating and automatically expelling gays.. [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img][/quote]
No, they caught some *flak*. It wasn’t Bob Jones University that caught *slack*, it was “Bob” Dobbs University, located in secluded Dobbstown, Malaysia.
–Aleck
Uh, thanks for clearing that up Aleck, my subscription’s already in the mail.
Oh, and one more thing, anyone got some grape Koolaid?
[img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
No grape koolaid here, but I do have cherry, will that work?
Aleck the dental plan is $5 cheaper then last year, are we using a diffrent provider this year?
quote:
Originally posted by Headgehog:
No grape koolaid here, but I do have cherry, will that work?
Let me dispel one myth here. The People’s Temple in Guyana did *not* utilize grape Kool-Aid in their mass suicide. Rev. Jim was too cheap for that. It was grape Fla-Vor-Aid.
quote[quote]Aleck the dental plan is $5 cheaper then last year, are we using a diffrent provider this year?[/quote]
No, same provider. I just mentioned in passing to the insurance provider that I’m the leader of a group devoted to the crushing of the one known as DalekTek790, and they gave us a discount. Who knew? I’m gonna try this at Sizzler!
–Aleck
Forgive me for jumping in, DT, since I’m old and used up and couldn’t POSSIBLY care about sex any more, but let me just say: at 18, you’ve got a heckuva lot of living and learning to do, and one of these days, sex IS going to rear its ugly head. My advice is to go with the flow. It’s not nearly as bad as you’ve heard.
*sigh* why is it that youth is largely wasted on the young?
quote:
Originally posted by Headgehog:
We have a few extra low libido’d poepel down here though, they’re the pimply face EE and CS majors.
holdon there ms nukey! i was ee for three years, switched to applied math, and went out with a fair number of ee and cs geeks [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] and there wasn’t anything wrong with our libidos!
you must be confusing us with the chemists and physicists; those guys are hopeless [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
FX: UN-TRUE!
I’ll have you know that the physics majors throw the best partys. [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Ah, yes, I have fond memories of physics parties at UTA while I was there for my psych degree.
Wonderful parties, they were, and so inventive in the uses of grain alcohol for mixes, I found myself face-down in the gutter on a number of occasions, and as far as the libidos go, psych students are sex-obsessed to a degree that would make a porn star blush, after all, that’s why most folks take psych, to find out why they’re so screwed up.
[img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]Since we are now hopelessly off topic, I will answer some of the questions asked of me. However, I do not really believe the continuation of this thread will benefit anyone in any way. [img]images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] Translation: I’m not going to put any more responses on this thread unless someone gives me a really good reason to.
quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
If I have this band of followers, tell me, how am I leading them? How am I organizing them to oppose you?
You make posts saying that I am arrogant and offensive. After reading these, people are more likely to interpret ambivalent statements by me as offensive or signs of arrogance. You give people a preconceived bias against me. And your privileged status and charismatic demeanor just make you all the more convincing to people. No one, not friends, enemies, people on other message boards I go to, has [b]ever[/b] said I was arrogant besides the people here. Since it is an isolated sentiment I must consider it non-valid, the product of an element unique to this setting. You are that element.
quote:
Originally posted by Headgehog:
As Aleck mentioned earlier if in your book people don’t have sex, then thats your artistic right. But its also very science fiction. I’m also reminded of something you posted in respones to a statement I made “After a nuclear holocaust only roaches and Cher will survive”, you said that I shouldn’t steal your novel ideas. Is this book your writing now, related to that?
I was kidding. The novel I’m writing does take place in a terrible post-apocalyptic world (I got bored with utopian literature), but there is no Cher and very few intelligent cockroaches. [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Brainplague:
you’re LYING!!! you have to be. otherwise you’re going to be stark raving bonkers by the time you’re 20. repressing sexual drives like that isn’t healthy. all that sexual energy has to go somewhere, for instance, into the creation of a serial killer. [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]
I’m [b]not[/b] lying. I honestly do not have, nor have I ever had, sexual urges, appetites, or drive. There’s nothing to repress. And I don’t buy into the concept that “energy” will manifest itself in some other way if it is consciously eliminated in one. I am quite balanced mentally. But I don’t suppose anybody here really cares about my life, unless the information I give can be used to insult me. [img]images/smiles/icon_sad.gif[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
Freud’s theories regarding defense mechanisms (what you’re talking about are repression and sublimation) are widely regarded as among the most, if not the very most, lasting contributions he made to the field of psychology. They have not only been confirmed by more recent study, but have been expanded on.
No they are not. Few if any people today take all of Freud’s wacky ideas as the gospel truth (he said that schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder were caused by bad childhood experiences!), and the behaviorists essentially disproved the sublimation theory in the 80. Nearly every psychological text I have read has said that much of Freud’s ideas are now disregarded, since they were not supported by empirical analysis. Therapists now days don’t worry that eliminating a fear or behavior will cause any underlying problem to be expressed in another way. “On the contrary, they find that overcoming maladaptive behaviors helps people feel better about themselves.”-David G. Myers
quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
You could just have a lousy professor (and again, I ask, as I did in a lost post, what college do you *go* to, anyway??? Where do they *teach* this crap???).
As I said before, I go to the University of Iowa. My psychology professor, Robert S. Baron, is actually moderately well-known in the psychological community for his studies on social prejudice.
quote:
Originally posted by Nirvanah Rimmer:
Furthermore, is sex EVER okay in your eyes? What if you meet a girl, fall in love ,get msrried. THEN is sexuality okay?
Yes, I think that’s okay.
quote:
Originally posted by Dgrequeen:
at 18, you’ve got a heckuva lot of living and learning to do, and one of these days, sex IS going to rear its ugly head.
I want to get married and have children someday, so eventually I will have to have sex. I have accepted that.
quote:
Originally posted by Nirvanah Rimmer:
Also ,if this is true, and you really DON’T feel any urges, someone should give you an award for being able to watch Lexx without desiring to screw Xev…
No, I have never desired to “screw” anyone, real or fictional. I don’t see anything in either Zev. I must confess that I do think Lyekka and Wist are cute, alluring, and maybe attractive on some level [img]images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img] , but [b]not[/b] sexy. I think most of us, at some point in our lives, have found ourselves a little attracted to one or more fictional characters of the opposite sex.
[ 17-11-2001: Message edited by: DalekTek790 ]
quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
No, I have never desired to “screw” anyone, real or fictional. I don’t see anything in either Zev. I must confess that I do think Lyekka and Wist are cute, alluring, and maybe attractive on some level [img]images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img] , but [b]not[/b] sexy. I think most of us, at some point in our lives, have found ourselves a little attracted to one or more fictional characters of the opposite sex…
[img]http://www.sadgeezer.com/RedDwarf/2-6-08.jpg[/img]
[i]”If you want to keep your beer cool, stick it between his legs!”[/i]
(Arlene Rimmer from the [i]Red Dwarf[/i] episode, [i]Parallel Universe[/i].)
[img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]quote:
Originally posted by DalekTek790:
You make posts saying that I am arrogant and offensive. After reading these, people are more likely to interpret ambivalent statements by me as offensive or signs of arrogance. You give people a preconceived bias against me. And your privileged status and charismatic demeanor just make you all the more convincing to people.
I don’t think that I have to *convince* people that you’re arrogant and offensive. You do a very good job of that on your own. The sad thing is that you are unable to see the arrogance and offensive nature of your own posts.
quote[quote]And I don’t buy into the concept that “energy” will manifest itself in some other way if it is consciously eliminated in one. I am quite balanced mentally…Few if any people today take all of Freud’s wacky ideas as the gospel truth (he said that schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder were caused by bad childhood experiences!), and the behaviorists essentially disproved the sublimation theory in the 80. Therapists now days don’t worry that eliminating a fear or behavior will cause any underlying problem to be expressed in another way. “On the contrary, they find that overcoming maladaptive behaviors helps people feel better about themselves.”-David G. Myers[/quote]
The behaviorists didn’t disprove anything. The behaviorists set up a differing model of how humans work. (And, for that matter, it wasn’t in the 80’s that they did the majority of their work. It was in the early part of the 20th century.) Behaviorism, as a science, fell out of favor for the simple reason that it refused to acknowledge mental states outside of reward/punishment scenarios. Many psychologists abandoned this school of thought in the latter part of the 20th century for this reason. Behaviorism cannot explain everything. *That* is why such standard principles of psychology as defense mechanisms have been utliized by many psychologists in the years since. And it’s ridiculous to throw out the baby with the bathwater. You cannot dismiss *all* of Freud’s theories simply because *some* of them have been changed or proven wrong. Time has proven that his theories on defense mechanisms are correct, and they have been expanded upon since their conception. I mean, you obviously haven’t tossed out all of B.F. Skinner’s theories even though he was the kind of guy that locked his children in boxes for extended periods of time.
Lovely man, he.
And David Meyers is a quack. I’m sorry, but anyone who uses religious faith as a basis for scientific knowledge should not be taken seriously as a scholar.And, of course, I see that any and all salient points that I made (concerning the inborn sexual instinct in humans, etc.) have been ignored, so that you could more easily address the more humorous or sarcastic remarks I made. Which goes to show that you fall into the same trap that I had said you did earlier: you ignore any evidence that contradicts your own little world-view and only accept that which supports it. You’re like the 18th century panel on science that stated categorically that rocks do *not* fall from the sky, no matter how many rocks people have seen falling from the sky.
–Aleck
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.