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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (7208)	3/3/2001 8:48:31 AM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

RE:having sex with his wife in the shower. I used to do that, but my wife likes the water too hot for me. BTW, what on earth is wrong with having sex in the shower with your spouse?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (7208)	3/3/2001 9:17:16 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You must have a v-chip in your brain. I didn't criticize Sagan for having sex with his wife in the shower. In fact, I criticized him for just the opposite. Message 15404485 siliconinvestor.com This was the quote I found amusing-"I can remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and invalidities of racism in terms of Gaussian distribution curves," he wrote in his essay. "I wrote the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down." Not only was he not paying attention to his wife in a nice sensual setting, the whole notion sounds banana-headed. The origins and invalidities of racism in terms of Gaussian distribution curves? The guy was out of it. The article cited Sagan's own words, I don't think he was trying to be apocryphal. gridlockmag.com

To: cosmicforce who wrote (7208)	3/3/2001 10:17:22 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I have not examined all historical claims about this matter, but I would generally accept Sagan's account. My position, though, is simple: I am uninterested in theorizing about when the embryo becomes "ensouled", or even in pressing any point about a soul, both of which depend on a theological point of view that is not relevant to the secular law. I do not care to speculate about "personhood" either, since the infant has no real personality, but is bombarded with largely unsorted sensory data, and is reflexively reactive, rather than having any self- conception, and yet we widely agree that infanticide is wrong. Once conception occurs, a unique organism exists with the complete genetic code, and it will, uninterrupted, grow into a recognizable infant. Therefore it is a human organism. It may be a potential person, or a potential infant, but it is an actual human being at a particular state of development and dependency. Additionally, I do not care about sentience as a criterion. I would not say that it was right to kill a comatose patient with any real chance of recovery, even with the most painless methods; I do consider it right to operate on people to help them, even though it causes pain; and therefore, the infliction of pain cannot be the criterion of the rightness of wrongness of an act. I do think that the matter should be left to state legislatures, and democratically debated, and I accept the likelihood of differences in regulation. I also would favor leniency in the first term, since confusion is understandable at that point. By the way, I am against the Pill and the IUD because of their abortifacient properties........