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.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lino... who wrote (2970)	10/18/2000 12:28:40 AM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 10042

You asked the question: Hmmmmmm, I wonder if there is a "gay gene"? I am merely following up on your question. Why did you ask the question if you didn't want to discuss it?

To: Lino... who wrote (2970)	10/18/2000 12:46:26 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10042

Okay, you seem to be a "troller", but I'll answer your question anyway. Will you answer any of mine if I do? You asked "Hmmmm, I wonder if there is a gay gene?" I said, okay, let's suppose there is (I think there might be a set of genes that predispose one to this). So, I gave you a tentative, yes. What then? What are the moral consequences of such a condition? You then started talking about murder and pedophilia. Not sure why, because we were talking about gays. But that's okay, we'll expand the line of questioning. I then moved to a tabular form with some hypothetical likelihoods of things that you brought up: Murder, Pedophilia, and Gayness. In a country overpopulated and considering that only females give birth, I'd say that is a rational question to ask if they should limit the number of females. Fish and Game does that all the time. The long term consequences is that the case being female will eventually respond to the law of supply and demand. I think birth control by abortion is a pretty poor way to handle birth rates. In a monogamous society, creating a mismatch between the number of girls and boys is likely to cause other problems. So, again, what if there were a gay gene, but it wasn't guaranteed to make you gay, just make you more likely to "choose gay" (using your terminology). The rate was 75% of the people who had this "chose gay". What were your feelings about it?

To: Lino... who wrote (2970)	10/18/2000 1:28:10 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

I think we should all seek to minimize harm at all times. If I see a bullet coming toward someone, I should TRY to get them to dodge it, even if it means there is some other lesser harm that comes about as a result of the "dodge". Many births are of this category. You know the people having the kid are having it for all the wrong reasons, there is no familial support, the child is likely to become part of a bigger problem when it grows up, there is no chance for adoption, and the prospects generally are bleak. A recent study showed parents who had adopted kids, when adjusted for all other factors, tended to not have as much proactive intervention as natural parents. There is a huge overlap so this isn't saying there can't be good parents who adopt, but there are statistically significant differences in quantitative things like the reaction time in taking the kid to the doctor, intervention with school problems, and a large cluster of other parental responsibilities. So adoption isn't without it's risks either (and that is assuming the child is adoptable).