http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/04/28/ladies-first Comments On: Ladies First by Charles Mudede en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:30:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by aronboy]]> Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:51:11 -0700 The Stranger
I know what you all are getting at, but the "tall" thing isn't a trump card by itself.
Posted by heartsfortheemeraldcity]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:47:12 -0700 The Stranger
So either I agree with you or I'm "diabolical." Gee, that makes it tough.

For the record, I don't think it's necessary to experiment on human eggs and embryos or with human DNA when investigating new techniques. You can prove them possible without doing so.

For example, no one has cloned a human being, to my knowledge. That said, we know it's possible. We know that if we had a good reason to do so we could.

And no, I don't think that anyone experimenting with stem cells or cloning should go to jail or be brought up on war crimes. I think that's rather immature, actually.
Posted by Arsenic7]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:48:04 -0700 The Stranger
Also, it tends to make excuses for sexism, which makes me even more skeptical. It's based on the assumptions of researchers, not empiric data, and since those researchers are part of a generally sexist society, it's not surprising that the assumptions they make are also sexist. Ironically, their essentialist theories prove cultural construction. The findings of evolutionary psychology are being less and less accepted in mainstream psychology, and I won't be surprised (or sad) to see the field die out.
Posted by xzarakizraiia]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:00:04 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Loveschild]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:30:03 -0700 The Stranger
If you could mix the DNA of two cells and get them to divide, you might be able to get around that part.

Lots of animals can reproduce asexually, mind you, and don't start from an egg.
Posted by Arsenic7]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:19:30 -0700 The Stranger Posted by idaho]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:23:44 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Irena]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:48:33 -0700 The Stranger Posted by sigh]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:07:15 -0700 The Stranger
Posted by Tall]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:41:46 -0700 The Stranger
People still tend to be this way.

We agree. All is good.

Posted by Tall]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:40:43 -0700 The Stranger
i'm not sure who would want to argue that, though, as a non-literal story likely holds meaning other than to provide evidence to be proved or disproved by science. and for those who believe it is literal, well, that person must believe god created the world and people apart from science.
Posted by infrequent]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:40:38 -0700 The Stranger
Probably too late for this, but I was busy yesterday. Yet now that I see what was said, I gotta admit that in my first comment I was jumping to conclusions about the point you were trying to make. My mistake, because I don't really take issue with what you actually said at 23. So I looked at that, and I'm all ready to apologize, and then you say this:

"When you and your womb are looking for some seed, you naturally thing a big guy is better than a guy who is small."

Well, damn, there you go, confirming my suspicions by jumping to conclusions yourself. This is the flaw in most pop ev psyche thinking -- you take some data and from it, draw some general conclusion about what is "natural" and universal behaviour for men and women. Women do not "naturally" think a big guy is better. It's a tendency, not a truism. When I walk into a bar, I don't instinctively find myself flirting with the tallest guy -- in fact, the guy I'm currently crushing on is 5'3. There are so many other factors that come into play. But your sloppy thinking cuts away all the complexity, making things nice and simple -- and frequently wrong. So, as I said, Tall: enjoy your delusions.
Posted by Irena]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 07:40:36 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Life Finds Away]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:44:04 -0700 The Stranger

Posted by sgiffy]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:32:30 -0700 The Stranger
"don't fuck with nature" true! How ironic! LOL
Posted by sigh]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:19:43 -0700 The Stranger
the operative words are "disease" and "healthy."
Who exactly gets to define those? And who decides what to "fix?"

Homosexuality used to be in the DSM. . . gender identity is still unfortunately considered a disorder. . . etc. You wanna be the one that decides these people have a defect that needs fixin' so they lead a culturally "normal" healthy life?

I am as liberal as they come, but who gets to decide what is natural variation and "birth defect?"
Posted by sigh]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:17:13 -0700 The Stranger
I did not. :p

Though @80 could fairly be considered bait, I'll give you that.
Posted by violet_dagrinder]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:06:42 -0700 The Stranger
IT DOESN'T COUNT IF YOU ASK FOR IT. Throws the probabilities off!

You have to let these things bloom of their own accord. Don't fuck with teh nature.
Posted by violet_dagrinder]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:04:38 -0700 The Stranger Posted by sigh]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:02:41 -0700 The Stranger
come on bring it!
Posted by sigh]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:01:34 -0700 The Stranger Posted by violet_dagrinder]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:57:23 -0700 The Stranger
If you can calm the fuck down for a second, I'm still curious why this is so evil.

Let's assume we manage to get past the technological hurdles and consistently combine chromosomes from people regardless of gender, resulting in healthy people. What's so awful about that?

Let's further assume that, if we can select chromosomes in this way, we'll eventually have the capacity to eliminate a lot of disease-causing genes, resulting in people who live longer, healthier lives. Still evil?

Help a repulsive, diabolical, worse-than-Dan (fuck! LOL), non-shit-talker understand the issue. Even the biblical issue, which I assume is your actual issue. Where is it? What is it?

Posted by violet_dagrinder]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:55:35 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Loveschild]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:41:05 -0700 The Stranger
Embryos die all the time. That is a natural process.

The process will be perfected on animals (which isn't something I wholeheartedly support, btw) before it's attempted in humans, and there will probably be bad outcomes sometimes. Annndd, Challenger exploded, but we still go to space.

Are skyscrapers against what nature intended? How about antibiotics? The internal combustion engine? Brain surgery? Rollercoasters?

We aren't outside of nature. We're part of it. Our intelligence, and the products of it, are the result of natural processes. And science will continue, and these technologies will be developed. They just will.

Unless some magical sky daddy strikes us all down, of course. Cross your fingers!
Posted by violet_dagrinder]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:25:07 -0700 The Stranger