Genies!

PeterZ wrote:Can we take this to Politics where this sort of discussion is expected? There are more than enough people who can either support your position there or explain why you are dead wrong. This is not the forum for such debates.

Runsforcelery started it, but I agree that this debate should be taken to the politics forum. There I can make the argument that since guns are used in almost zero rapes in the US, the historically low rape rates in other countries must be the result of strict penis control. What? Rape rates are surging to an appalling level in certain Scandanavian countries, particularly Sweden? Oh My! But the rapist are almost all muslim immigrants which the Swedish governing class refuses to acknowledge because it is politically incorrect? I consider the fact that the Swedes are willing to quietly acquiesce to their women being anally sodomized to death as confirmation of my argument, but this belongs in politics.

Nameless, that is rude and could be construed as a deliberate violation of the rules. You agreed that the discussion should be taken to another forum, and immediately proceed to make several statements that you yourself say should be on the other forum.

Taking it to another forum means taking it to another forum, not making "just one more statement" before going. Hiding behind a fig leaf by preceding it with the statement that you can follow up in the politics forum is beneath you. You are usually better than that.

SWM wrote:Nameless, that is rude and could be construed as a deliberate violation of the rules. You agreed that the discussion should be taken to another forum, and immediately proceed to make several statements that you yourself say should be on the other forum.

Taking it to another forum means taking it to another forum, not making "just one more statement" before going. Hiding behind a fig leaf by preceding it with the statement that you can follow up in the politics forum is beneath you. You are usually better than that.

I was actually trying to illustrate why the discussion belonged on the politics forum by going over the top.

It is interesting that Weber and his protagonists did not hesitate to impose moral judgement on the Masadans for engaging in the same behavior at Blackbird base. It no doubt motivated Donor's deathride defense of Grayson

PeterZ wrote:Can we take this to Politics where this sort of discussion is expected? There are more than enough people who can either support your position there or explain why you are dead wrong. This is not the forum for such debates.

kzt wrote:That is due to the nature of what "compromise" amounts to in this context. When has it meant anything less then just one side surrendering something? For example, when was the last time that an anti-gun group suggested getting rid of the Hughes amendment in exchange for anything? It's explicitly always an incremental long game to them that ends with a total ban on weapons outside of the government and military. As someone one said, "I saw a movie about a place where the government had a monopoly on violence, it was called 'Schindler's List'". You simply cannot negotiate with people who negotiate in bad faith.

The way this is prevented is by making people who want to negotiate pay a very large price. Like S&W being sold at fire sale prices after the boycott, the company running SHOT getting fired after their "Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show" collapsed, Congressmen Castle having an opportunity to seek work in the private sector, or columnists like Zumo or Metcalf having an opportunity to seek other employment.
http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/01/07/the ... ur-people/

I agree any debate over gun control should be taken to politics. I used it here merely as an example of thought control being imposed and as an example of that control being imposed by a group with whose overall position I find myself in substantive agreement. In other words, as a demonstration that no group --- certainly no political group --- is in a position to portray itself as blameless while accusing its opponents of pressure tactics and attempting to silence opposition.

There! I don't think there was any overtly partisan political posturing in the above.

runsforcelery wrote:

I agree any debate over gun control should be taken to politics. I used it here merely as an example of thought control being imposed and as an example of that control being imposed by a group with whose overall position I find myself in substantive agreement. In other words, as a demonstration that no group --- certainly no political group --- is in a position to portray itself as blameless while accusing its opponents of pressure tactics and attempting to silence opposition.

There! I don't think there was any overtly partisan political posturing in the above.

I think disagreements over human rights will be central to the next few stories. What is a right and what is a privilege?

Many of us in the US view our rights as deliniated in our Constitution with enormous jelousy. Those are OURs. We own them and don't want people shorting us by changing those rights without following the Constitutional guideline in full measure. In times past people were subjects of a monarch. Those subjects were granted privileges under the monarchy.

The current novels focus on that very question. Do people have rights or only privileges granted by those in power? Are genetic slaves the owners of any rights at all? Are the products of genetic experiments the owners of any rights or are they the property of those that conducted the experiment like Frankie Simoez was? These questions and how they should be addressed are central to the stories.

Genetic slavery and genetic slaves is a very interesting combination of words. For some time now the topic of owning particular genetic combinations, particularly those created by direct manipulation of living things has been in the news and in fiction. One of Crichton’ (I think) books had a medical company taking a patent on genes taken from a patients body and in the real world Monsanto (among others) holds patents on grain which it had modified (hence the whole GMO plant discussions in the news). Both of these, particularly the Monsanto actual suits and legal wrangling highlight the question of who owns something.
Monsanto claims that it owns the genetic modification that makes the seeds (the GMO ones) it sells. It has patented it. So it sells the seed to people to plant and grow crops. You can buy the seed, grow the crop, harvest it and sell it—for use as food or animal feed or other types on consumption or manufactured products (say, ethanol). What you can’t do is take that grain, stick part of it in your barn and then plant next year instead of buying new seed from Monsanto. Just because Monsanto has a legal filing on the gene(s) it has modified or introduced (and not crossbreeding or selective breeding) they “own” it and you can’t sell the resulting grain for seed.

How is this relevant? Manpower and the Alignment have been making actual (fictional) genetic modifications of the type being done by Monsanto on humans. In the books, Manpower breeds and/or clones the slave lines it creates from these modifications and either uses the products of that breeding/cloning it self or sells it. On Mesa, this creation of genetic slaves and various types of slaves is both legal from the point of doing it as something other than a medical health process but to create property which they own (and then sell) by right of having made unique differences in the organisms they are “creating” and so hold or can hold something similar to a patent on it. The Alignment is making its own laws within its own shadow world and effectively either directly owns all the genetic slaves it produces or the individuals who survive the process in the various “Star Lines” have a range of freedom within the constraints and rules laid down by the Alignment.

Beowulf, Manticore and a wide range of other systems, by policy and law, hold humans as individuals. Where changes have been or are being made for specific (usually environmental or health related) reasons, those changes belong to the people to whom they have been made in the manner of fixing a broken leg- the medical provider doesn’t then own the person as a result of fixing the leg. We will avoid the discussion of OFS and wage slaves or oppressive political systems.
Mesa and the Alignment see the products of their genetic manipulations as just that- products. Or to use a very heavily loaded term- chattel property. They were CREATED as property, they are property and they do not any rights, at best they have some minimal privileges which are totally dependent on the whim of their owners.

Hi Glyphstone,

Thanks for the complement regarding Graysons being "space Mormons", which seems surprisingly common, and I wonder how often RFC gets that question at cons (I didn't ask at HonorCon because I don't).

I like Graysons a lot and feel quite comfortable with their mentioned doctrines especially regarding tolerance and seeing this life as a test etc (I don't recall any I objected to), but there are some considerable differences I've mentioned before when this has been broached.

The cathedrals are rather ornate and far more catholic in their rituals etc, than you'll ever find at any LDS service in a chapel or meeting house, but feel free to drop by and take a look during the week or on Sunday.

If you're curious, LDS temples are not open on Sunday, mainly doing vicarious service for the dead during the rest of the week, and again please feel free to visit one during the open house after construction is finished or a remodeling.

Again, thanks for the complement.

4 more snippets!

L

TheGlyphstone wrote:

waddles for desert wrote:There is nothing Jewish about The Book of the New Way. The Masadans rejected the New Testament; they did not reject The Book of the New Way.

Given that they adhere to a "Gospel" of a new revelation, you could as well say that they are LDS as Jewish.

They are in fact a creation of DW that postulates how future beliefs may develop in new ways that reflect elements of old ways, but that are new and separate from the old.

Yeah, if we have to (rather pointlessly) pidgeonhole the Graysons/Masadans into a current-day religion, I always took them as Space Mormons.

lyonheart wrote:Hi Glyphstone,

Thanks for the complement regarding Graysons being "space Mormons", which seems surprisingly common, and I wonder how often RFC gets that question at cons (I didn't ask at HonorCon because I don't).

I like Graysons a lot and feel quite comfortable with their mentioned doctrines especially regarding tolerance and seeing this life as a test etc (I don't recall any I objected to), but there are some considerable differences I've mentioned before when this has been broached.

The cathedrals are rather ornate and far more catholic in their rituals etc, than you'll ever find at any LDS service in a chapel or meeting house, but feel free to drop by and take a look during the week or on Sunday.

If you're curious, LDS temples are not open on Sunday, mainly doing vicarious service for the dead during the rest of the week, and again please feel free to visit one during the open house after construction is finished or a remodeling.

Again, thanks for the complement.

4 more snippets!

L

TheGlyphstone wrote:
Yeah, if we have to (rather pointlessly) pidgeonhole the Graysons/Masadans into a current-day religion, I always took them as Space Mormons.

I know it's not an exact match - like I originally pointed out, it's silly and pointless to be pigeonholing religions from hundreds of years in the future to modern-day creeds. But they did always seem to fit the 'closest match', at least as far as origins went with the obvious parallels between Austin Grayson and Joseph Smith/Brigham Young, and their collective exodus to found a colony and follow a creed the 'mainstream' didn't accept. Certainly more appropriate than the people who insist Masadans are Muslims because terrorism/misogyny, yo , or that Graysons are Jewish because...beats me, honestly. Besides, I'm quite (though not 100%) certain that the LDS does not settle its disputes with samurai swords.


To try and drag this back on-topic, what other variations of humanity might exist out there in the universe who adapted to their environments? Graysons were intentionally modified for pollutant filtration and mutated further from there to handle the toxic metal contents of their planet...the Mfecanes were subjected to genetic experiments on top of being residents of a heavy-gravity world. But how far might have some hypothetical undiscovered human colonies drifted to keep up with their homes in conditions other than simple gravity variances, and how far would they need to drift before they're not really 'human' anymore? (a more complicated question than 'can they breed together, since donkeys+horses can produce (sterile) offspring.

SWM wrote:Nameless, that is rude and could be construed as a deliberate violation of the rules. You agreed that the discussion should be taken to another forum, and immediately proceed to make several statements that you yourself say should be on the other forum.

Taking it to another forum means taking it to another forum, not making "just one more statement" before going. Hiding behind a fig leaf by preceding it with the statement that you can follow up in the politics forum is beneath you. You are usually better than that.

Tenshini going postal in 3...2...1...

TheGlyphstone wrote:To try and drag this back on-topic, what other variations of humanity might exist out there in the universe who adapted to their environments? Graysons were intentionally modified for pollutant filtration and mutated further from there to handle the toxic metal contents of their planet...the Mfecanes were subjected to genetic experiments on top of being residents of a heavy-gravity world. But how far might have some hypothetical undiscovered human colonies drifted to keep up with their homes in conditions other than simple gravity variances, and how far would they need to drift before they're not really 'human' anymore? (a more complicated question than 'can they breed together, since donkeys+horses can produce (sterile) offspring.

A long time ago I saw a comment that it takes about 5 million years for two groups of primates to achieve reproductive isolation - that is, strong form speciation.

We know that Neanderthals and modern Homo Sapiens could interbreed, and they parted ways 500 to 800 thousand years ago. Add in the mysterious Denisovians and the even more mysterious "archaic species" lurking somewhere in darkest Africa, and I wouldn't think 2000 years is anywhere near sufficient, regardless of how harsh natural selection happened. Extinction for that branch is more likely. Unnatural selection, now, that's possible, but speculating about it is also arm-waving.