SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Ilaine who wrote (52818)8/23/1999 8:06:00 AM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
There is an environmental tie in, it goes way back. The first question was something along the lines of "if we discover an animal species that is about to go extinct, are extraordinary measures justified in order to save it". If someone answered with an unqualified "yes" (nobody on the thread did), the second hypothetical would have provided a potentially interesting comparison.



To: Ilaine who wrote (52818)8/23/1999 2:14:00 PM
From: Michael M  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
 
The "environmentalism" angle was THE issue. Remember, this started with a post or two before we got to the man and the woman. No one seemed to be responding, so I just got impatient and said to myself, "hell, and threw in the second part of the set up.

As for who's going to pay the taxes and suffer restrictions to preserve the two humans -- obviously, no one. There are many here that might argue that people can prosper without this sort of thing. The thing needed to repopulate is offspring. The connection between the non-human and human species was simply that an extreme price would be required to perpetuate the species.

And, CB, I concede the man raping the women is a natural, almost automatic assumption. But, it is far from an absolute. Guys have "feelings" too, you know -- Maybe the guy is some incarnation of Woody Allen and just can't seem to "get it together" long enough to do it.