Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (52257)	8/20/1999 12:59:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I think the set-up for the question is whether one of them, the male, presumably, would be justified in forcing the female to reproduce so the species would not die out. My thought is that if the human race has come to that point, why shouldn't one person be allowed to decided to opt out? I am assuming that the earth has been terribly damaged, and that the future looks grim, so she does not think that it's a good place or time to have human children. Let the rest of the species on earth have a chance. I know a lot of men and women who haven't reproduced, no one tells them that they are selfish now. No one seems to care whether they reproduce. What difference does it make if the human race dies out, with only two people human culture is doomed, anyway.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (52257)	8/20/1999 9:39:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

<<<Another evasion. I guess I don't have strong enough feelings on the original question to form an opinion.>>> I don't believe that for a minute, Steven. I suspect that neither you nor anyone else will express an opinion without changing the subject to another one because of the fear Political Correctness has instilled in hearts and minds. Really, it is not interesting, is it, to contemplate whether a man, for example, would choose a supermodel to be his sole partner on an earth now devoid of other human beings, or instead a plain but healthy survivalist whose hobby had been memorizing the works of Shakespeare, because to put the question is to know the answer. My other opinion is that if the woman understood that the survival of humanity depended on her mating with this male, and had herself been pleased at her so-far allotted existence among us, and she refused to mate with the man because she found him unattractive, or for any other 'personal' reason, then she is a sociopath and the most selfish creature who ever lived, and no treatment is harsh enough to offend my sense of equity including being raped a million times by wild beasts who happen to be on fire, much less by a man who wants to recreate the species she has heretofore enjoyed belonging to. "Oh, but why would you want a vile creature like her to be the Mother of Humankind?" is the obvious next change of subject. This is a hypothetical question, so one stipulates certain things to isolate the issue of principle being examined. (Any of the adjacent questions, like that one, or the one about the supermodel, can be discussed, too, of course; just not, I hope, presented as responsive to Michael's intentionally provocative question.) I'm stipulating, for purposes of rising to Michael's distasteful bait, that, selfish beyond measure though she is, she will be visited, on the arrival of the fruit of the rape, with an amount of maternal instinct toward her own progeny considered within normal limits. Now I'll give a circumstance in which IMO the woman might decline to mate with the man and not be a psychopath, or selfish. What if her experience has taught her that life is ugly, cruel and joyless, and not a gift, but a curse? What if, to her, cessation of this species is a blessing? Maybe even, in her mind, it appears to be a blessing sent from God? Maybe she would like very much to have sex with the stud whose the only man on earth, but feels that it would be a terrible thing to do, a sin, to begin a new cycle of millions of years of almost unmitigated suffering? Then would the man, equally convinced in his mind of the opposite view, be "justified" in raping her? That is an interesting question, I think.