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: E who wrote (52394)	8/21/1999 2:55:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Alright, I was not focusing on the question, having other irons in the fire, but I will stipulate that I am on E's side on this....I think that the idea that it would somehow be better if mankind were to retire from the field is nihilistic. As a practical matter, I might understand the torpor produced by a great catastrophe, although E stipulated that it was due to lack of attraction, rather than depression, that the woman would not reproduce. There is also a question about whether or not a meaningful attempt at re-population could be launched without full commitment on both sides, and therefore it may be that it is not worth rape. But unless the woman has a pathetic excuse, she is, indeed, very much a sociopath, to put it nicely....

To: E who wrote (52394)	8/21/1999 4:18:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

Message 11018498

To: E who wrote (52394)	8/21/1999 4:23:00 AM
From: jpmac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I answered your question. I don't think she would a sociopath. Then I asked a question in relation to the conversation.

To: E who wrote (52394)	8/21/1999 12:27:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

E, I understand your point, but I think it's irrelevant whether the woman is a sociopath or not. The question was, under the circumstances, would we, the posters on Feelies, think the man was justified in forcing her to procreate against her will? My position, that he would not be, is largely a practical one, as to reproduce the woman would have to be forced to procreate numerous times, so as to give birth to both boys and girls, who would in turn procreate. Leaving out of the calculation the advisability of such concentration in the genetic material, if the woman was unwilling to do it once, one can only assume she'd be even more unwilling to do it more than once, so she would have to be enslaved. That's really the question, isn't it? Not whether she's a sociopath or not. Left out of your calculation are some possibilities. Perhaps prior to the great catastrophe, she had been diagnosed with an illness or condition so grave that she had been advised never to procreate, so that she would be risking her life if she did. You might think it was nobler of her to give it a try, and selfish to want to preserve her own life, but that doesn't make her a sociopath. Or, possibly, the man who survived was the one who was responsible for the great catastrophe, maybe a mad scientist who invented a disease which wiped out the entire human race but himself, who had an antidote, and this woman, whom he chose to begin the human race again with himself as Adam and this woman as Eve. Under the circumstances, who wouldn't refuse? Regardless of whether the woman's choice is rational, or irrational, the question is, as I understand it, would the man be justified in enslaving the woman to ensure the continuation of the species? I say no.