Carobit YouTube Discussions Conversation: Pointless Quiz of Doom

Your Connection

guest
Log out
Log in or Sign Up

Site Navigation

Home
Forum Home
Closed Conversations

For Members

Support
Feedback
Member Search
Carobit Mail

Helpful Links

Smilies
Formatting
Preview

Originator:	Pino Carafa	Printable Version
Title:	Pointless Quiz of Doom

Back to YouTube Discussions

Attachments Add Attachment

History

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2007/05/10 03:21:35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blG0jGvtBB0 I'm not in a position right now to make a video response, and it would be too long anyway. The YouTube Commenting section is too retarded for what I want to say. So I hope you'll find your way here. Questions: 1) Is Eugenics inherently wrong? "Inherently"? That conjures up ideas of some sort of Absolute Morality handed down by God or something. In that sense of course the answer should be "No". But from the human perspective, human society? It's easy to look at extreme situations and find "obvious" answers. Is it OK to ensure lethal mutations aren't carried to term? Most certainly, I would say. Is it OK to select on eye colour? I would be inclined to say "No". It's a bit too trivial to my liking. And between that is that lovely grey area where life just ain't as easy as one would like it to be. I would say, the more severe a disability, the more I would be inclined to feel it is justified to allow a genetic pre-selection to be done, eliminating those from being carried to term. A very common objection to Eugenics is based on finding someone you love who has a handicap, pointing at them and going <shrill voice> "So you think it would have been OK to Abort Billy Over There!!!?!?", basing the argument on the premise that an abortion boils down to denying a person the right to live. This is not true. Abortion is denying human tissue the opportunity to become a human being. Of course you wouldn't "abort Billy". But if an abortion had been carried out, Billy would never have existed. By aborting a fetus, you're not denying any rights to anybody who might have ultimately have resulted from the pregnancy.

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2007/05/10 03:33:45
2. Should people need to get a license to be parents? A simple fact of life is that it only takes one shag to become pregnant. What would we then do with someone who became pregnant without a licence? Abort forcefully? I understand the sentiment behind the suggestion, but I think that in reality it cannot be enforced without causing all sorts of problems that are even worse than the one it was trying to solve. So reluctantly I would suggest keeping the status quo, but maybe ensuring that things like child abuse do not go unnoticed and unaddressed. It's the best out of a bad lot of suggestions I would say.

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2007/05/10 03:44:26
3. Should the Age of consent be raised, kept the same, lowered or abolished? I think the Age of Consent should reflect the realities in society, so from that alone I would suggest that it should be subject to a regular revision, regardless of what other considerations should apply. It is also important to realise what the purpose of an introduction of such an "age of consent" is supposed to be. I would imagine that "age of consent" would be put in place to protect immature and sexually inexperienced young people from much more mature predatory adults. Given that, I think having a single "age of consent" is too facile a "solution" to the problem. I would suggest that instead the age of consent should be based on a comparison, with a fairly high ceiling. So a person could legally engage in consensual sex with another person who is - only an example - at least 18 years of age OR at least 90% of that person's age. That way, a 17-year-old and a 16-year-old could legally have a sexual relationship, but a 30-year-old perv can't have one with a 16-year-old minor. It's just an idea....

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2007/05/10 03:57:27
4. Should all drugs be legal? Should the currently legal drugs be illegal? Or should it all stay the same? I think we should allow for a regulated system of drug distribution, so that if somebody can show that they are addicted to a substance then they can legally and without hassle and without being subjected to humiliation or extortionate pricing and the criminal circuit, obtain the drugs they are addicted to. We can try to avoid addiction by giving clear, honest education on the subject, and non-judgemental support to those who voluntarily indicate they want to kick their habits. Prohibition simply doesn't work. The war on drugs only produces victims, not solutions. Read a book titled "the pursuit of oblivion".

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2007/05/10 03:58:22
5. Why are zombie movies so popular and why are all the classical monsters (ghosts, vampires and werewolves) in decline? 6. Do you think Ayn Rand had the right to claim objectivity even though she believed that homosexuality is disgusting and immoral? I don't know about the monsters. I've heard of Ayn Rand alright, but to be perfectly honest, that is about it. I believe she's made it quite big in the USA but outside, trust me, she's a non-entity. So frankly....

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2007/05/10 04:06:47
7. Would you prefer a system of government where the unexceptional are given a level-playing field at the expense of the talented or one where the talented can thrive at the cost of the unexceptional? I would prefer one where the talented can thrive, but some checks are in place so that "obscene" gains from talent are curtailed. E.g. really high earners are taxed more heavily - but not so heavily that all incentive to perform is taken away. Yes, the talented should thrive at the cost of the unexceptional, but not to an obscene extent.

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2007/05/10 04:09:44
8. What literary or cinematic character do you most strongly identify with? Stan Laurel.

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2007/05/10 04:14:13
9. Do animals deserve equal rights with humans? If not, why do mentally retarded adults with the same capacity as some great apes have more rights than said apes? "Rights" are a concept that was invented in society. Society is what humans do. So from that perspective I would guess that, no, they don't. They don't take part in our society. But as always the answer is not as easy and clear cut as that. Retarded adults, certainly, might need to be protected from themselves, depending on how bad the problem is. So, for example, someone might need to be kept in a care home, necessarily curtailing their freedom of movement. On the other hand, not all animals are equal. Great apes can have cognitive capabilities that greatly exceed those of other animals, and in some respects approach ours. That needs to be recognised in how we deal with animals. We can't treat them all the same. How we would go about making this "better" I won't hazard a guess about at this juncture. It would be a difficult issue to resolve, I have no doubt of that.

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2007/05/10 04:15:36
10. What's your favorite word? Least favorite? Er..... Can't answer that. I've never thought of words that way.

Enter your comments here

As a guest you will only be able to see what a comment posted by you would look like by clicking the Preview button. You can't actually participate by posting comments to this conversation.

Number of viewers: 9