Bourgeois pigs kill suicidal 16 year old boy.

[shoju]

Right, but this just proves my point: you cannot reform racism or other identity politics out of a class system - they merely change in context, not in actual existence. There will never be an equal playing field for whites and minorities in a capitalist system, EVER. The economic and social laws and structural forces of the system prevent this. Gains are, at best, cosmetic, and those themselves are never guaranteed to stay intact. The ultimate interests of private capital are what determine policy, action, behavior, and such. The State acts in the ultimate interests of the ruling class based on current circumstances, whether it is discriminatory policy or some form of concession to those who are subjugated. Furthermore, you know very well, this extends well beyond the political arena into the daily lives of everyday people.

I think what you mean is that you will never reform racism or other identity politics out of humanity. It isn't strictly a capitalist problem. Tribes in the heart of Africa, and in the Amazon experience the same idiotic problems, purely because they are two warring tribes. That's not Capitalism.

This is where we differ. You look at the data and draw conclusions that gains are only cosmetic, and that Real Change, isn't happening. I look at the data and the conclusion that every day, change is happening. It's slow, and it takes time, but it is happening. We can either dismiss the change, or we can move forward, embracing the small steps, and continuing to move forward.

So, you think the Democrats are any less subservient to corporate interests than Republicans are?
Well, let me tell you, they aren't. Obama has done a wonderful job for keeping it business as usual. Minorities will almost always vote for the party that seems to have their best interests in mind. One party losing badly means nothing, when both of them are almost the same thing. For the 1%, it doesn't matter - they win either way. And so does capitalism. The GOP losing is because they pander to their most extreme faction, the Tea Party, not to mention the chauvinistic war on women. Racial and gender inequality are good for capitalism, but being explicitly and open about it, is not so good for one personally - especially in the political arena. Right now, the Latino community is growing rapidly and plays a very important role in the labor force - Romney wanted them to self deport, and this isn't in the interests of the current conditions of American capitalism, therefore this (among other things) cost him the election.

The Republicans inability to even acknowledge that African American's, Latinos, young voters, and Women are a larger part of the voting constituency doomed them. Look at the exit poll numbers, and compare it with what you are hearing from Conservatives.

They didn't think that Voter turnout in the African American Population would be as high as it was in 2008. It was higher.
They didn't put enough effort into the Latino Population. And lost by 45+ points in that demographic.
They didn't think their war on women would effect them. They lost by 15+ points in that demographic.

I'm not saying that the dems are better. I'm saying that the dems are embracing sociological change (even if only a little), while the GOP did not.

They do this type of stuff all the time man - whether it is profiling, planting or withholding evidence, using excessive force when making an arrest, lying in testimony to protect their fellow officers even when they are wrong, and just acting like jerks whenever the opportunity presents itself. I'm not making generalizations, this stuff happens a lot more than you think. Cops in general have a shaky reputation at best even among non-radicals, and it is well deserved.

And here we are. Back to this. Mr. FireIceTalon, the CHAMPIONof evidence and measurables, and you are reduced to statements and no information, to try and prove your point. Why? Because you want to believe that the awful shit that you hear and read about in the news runs rampant, because IT MUST BE TRUE! You are making generalizations. You can say "I'm not making generalizations" all you want. That doesn't make it not true. I can say that the Sky is Green right now. That doesn't change that it is really blue, and there is not a cloud in the sky.

I'm not interested in individual personalties though, I'm interested in objective systematic conditions and processes. Besides, cops have a tendency to be very reactionary. If a revolution took place tomorrow, whose side do you think the cops would take, the side of the revolutionaries, or the State's? Think we all know the answer to that question. We saw what happened when just a few "left-leaning" Occupy protestors, who were far from being radical revolutionaries, expressed their opinions. They were met with batons, pepper spray, and police brutality.

You keep using words and phrases like "Tendency" and "They" and "All" and you are lumping them together, in an argument that you simply cannot prove using your "Science" of "Communist" beliefs. And then you go on to make hyperbolic statements about the clashes between Occupy Protesters and Police. You have officially left the land of "observable facts" and jumped straight to the land of "I can't prove this, but I'm going to talk like I can, and hope no one notices."

Again, considering about 2/3rds of the prison population are minorities, I'd say that is pretty empirical and observable.

You are going to point to the population of our prisons, and use that as your defense of you idea that Police are Pig Scum rife with corruption? How is that a cause and effect? Where is the proof? Where is the proof that the prisons are loaded up with minorities based on corruption? It's possibly, an interesting point to consider, but it is no where near proof.

They aren't a minority. Most cops are indeed extremely reactionary, no matter how nice the ones you know may be. Yes, even the "nice" ones are, at the end of the day, reactionary in some way, because they protect bourgeois laws that legitimize the ruling class hegemony and ideology. Comparing my analysis to Ashock's lumping of Muslims as terrorists can't even begin to compare - Islam is a religion, some of them are radical and some aren't. ALL cops, however, have an objective duty to protect and uphold the laws that legitimize the interest of capital.

You are back to statements you can't prove. You don't have the numbers to prove, but you are talking like you can prove them. I think I've realized what the solution is here. I'll get to that in a minute. You are now going to try and paint a picture that 353,444 (1 more than half) are awful terrible bourgeois protecting facist pig scum. You are delusional.

No, there won't be, because in a classless society everyone's economic interests are essentially the same - since the means of production are no longer privately owned by some parasitic class. Personal interests may and probably will differ because we all have different personal circumstances, but that is a completely different thing entirely from objective class interests. Besides, in a classless society, the laws, if any, are made in such a context that they are democratically put into place by ALL of that society (likely through Workers Councils), and apply equally and fairly to that society, since there isn't a ruling class or State anymore. This is far from the case in the current order. In socialism, yes there are still elements of the old order within society (there are still classes, some markets perhaps, bourgeois law, and the exchange of currency and goods, the State still exists even though we control it now, etc), and it will be during this stage when the proletarian will have to be careful - those who wish to re-establish the previous order of things will be present still.

No cops. No people breaking laws. No people who decide that because their wife/husband screwed the neighbor that they are going to kill the neighbor. No person who is going to make a mistake while driving, only to have another fly into a road rage and run them off the road. Or, do you believe that after they do these acts, that they will just walk into the "Workers Councils" and say "I DID IT! I'M SORRY! I'M THE ONE WHO KILLED THEM!"

Or... Are you just planning to hand out Soma in your grand society? Crime isn't always focused on Capitalism FIT. Even if Capitalism is "Evil" like you think, it is far from the only thing that leads to crime. Economics isn't the only reason people commit crime. Rape isn't a crime of economics. It's a crime of power and control. That power and control isn't solely fueled by economics. Murder isn't solely based on economics.

Racial profiling is definitely an extension of and correlated to white privilege. Who is more likely to get stopped while they are walking down the street, a white man in a business suit, or a black man in jeans, a t-shirt, and sneakers?

Who is more likely to get stopped walking down the street? A Black Man in a business suit? Or a White kid with his pants buckled below his ass, a hoodie, and his ball cap turned to side?

The fact it is even profitable at all renders this pointless.
Besides racism is good for business, it is open racism that isn't good for business. As I said before, the State will act in preserving the ultimate interests of the ruling class, even if that means altering a lesser interest. In the 1950's, Jim Crowe laws were profitable for the ruling class, today they are not - now it is symbolic racism and mass incarceration that is necessary to retain divisions of labor and white privilege among the working class. Blacks WITHOUT a criminal record still have to work harder than whites WITH a criminal record in the job market - statistics show that whites with a criminal record have about an 17% chance of getting a call back for employment (35% w/o a record). Blacks without a record have about a 15% chance of getting a call back. What that translates to is this: Being black in America is the same as being a criminal. Employers view whites with a criminal record as being no more dangerous than blacks without one. And compared with whites who have no criminal record, blacks have to apply to more than twice as many jobs to have the same equality of opportunity. This is institutionalized and symbolic racism man. And if you are black with a criminal record, forget it, your chances of getting a call back for employment are less than 6%. Even before the application process has begun, studies show that blacks are more likely to be asked up front if they have a record, than whites are. Again, institutionalized racism. Plus, blacks with similar qualifications and education are still paid less than whites are, and less likely to be promoted and more likely to be fired or laid off. Just because the blatantly racist and extreme GOP of today lost an election doesn't mean racism isn't profitable - it still very much is.

And 50 years ago, those call back numbers were even more skewed. You keep looking at the data, and you refuse to see the progress, because progress would hurt your stance.

Ive only heard the Obama excuse a million times now, and its played out. So because we elected a black president finally after 230+ years, suddenly all racism has just disappeared and that we are finally becoming a non-racist society. It isn't just the bourgeois who are racist, white workers are just as racist as well, because they have been influenced by ruling class ideology that helps spread false consciousness. My bourgeois? Ha! And besides, the election of Obama has actually strengthened racism in some ways, even though Obama himself represents and is part of the bourgeois:

Did I say all racism has disappeared? I asked, if the Bourgeois is so racist, and they are so out to "save the white man" and "keep him in power" how did they let a black man get elected? So that it could strengthen racism? Oh please. That's such a lame copout excuse. The people who "are now racist because Obama is president" were racist before, they just didn't open their mouth about it. Racist is Racist whether you speak your mind, or hold it inside.

Interestingly, a lot of conservative whites see his election as a threat to their privileged status somehow; the ideology and wishes of the Tea Party not withstanding, it hardly is.

Not every cop is racist, but capitalism is a very racist system, and their duty is to uphold the laws that legitimize it, even if they aren't personally racist. But one doesn't have to be racist to be a reactionary either. Their job is to serve and protect - in particular serve and protect private property.

Anyway, if my comments about cops being scum offended you that much, I apologize. I still stand by my analysis on their role in protecting private property and ruling class laws, however. Don't know what else to say bro. It is what it is.

And I think at this point, I will get back to what the solution here is. I'm just going to put you on ignore. You have made wild claims, and you can't back them up. You have said that my anectdotes don't change the facts, but you have taken a sampling and made a caricature, because it fits your beliefs. You haven't proved that all cops are PIG SCUM. You've proved that you can make a great claim, but that you can't back it up with real evidence.

"They do this type of stuff all the time man"

What a compelling argument, with riveting statistics.

Thanks for quoting 1984 from Orwell. I'll leave you with a quote.
"One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them." - Aldous Huxley

I have been conditioned to think that we have the ability to move forward, and improve upon what we have, that progress and change, have, and are continuing to happen.

You have been conditioned to think that Capitalism is the root of all evil, Police are horrible terrible PIG SCUM that deserve your ire, and that there has been no real progress, no real change.

So, if you end up finding your classless state where no one breaks laws, and power, control, lust, hatred, and betrayal don't lead to crimes, make sure to take your Soma. I'll be waiting near the Centrifugal Bumble-Puppy games.

[FireIceTalon]

Some socialists seem to support polygamous relationships. What are some your guys views on this? Growing up in bourgeois society, I personally can't get down with this just yet (though I do of course, have no problem with gay marriage or people not marrying at all, marriage is just a piece of paper in my opinion). If someone else wanted to participate in polygamy though, who am I to say they cant? Though I would hope they are open and up front about it. I still prefer a monogamous relationship though, but I speak for myself here.

[Jester]

With abortion, the nuance is deciding at what point a fetus is a citizen.

Birth. If not, why don't we arrest expectant mothers for unlawful imprisonment?

-Jester

---

Some socialists seem to support polygamous relationships. What are some your guys views on this? Growing up in bourgeois society, I personally can't get down with this just yet (though I do of course, have no problem with gay marriage or people not marrying at all, marriage is just a piece of paper in my opinion). If someone else wanted to participate in polygamy though, who am I to say they cant? Though I would hope they are open and up front about it. I still prefer a monogamous relationship though, but I speak for myself here.

I am as in favour of polyamorous marriages as I am gay marriages - that is to say, I want the state to get its nose out of the whole business, but if it refuses to, I have no qualms with extending mono/hetero rights to poly/homo relationships.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

And I think at this point, I will get back to what the solution here is. I'm just going to put you on ignore.

Heh, no problem. Be sure to take your teleological, bourgeois philosophy with you. For a guy who majored in sociology, you demonstrate little knowledge of it in this discussion. Good day.

[Jester]

Heh, no problem. Be sure to take your teleological, bourgeois philosophy with you. For a guy who majored in sociology, you demonstrate little knowledge of it in this discussion. Good day.

And for a guy engaged in discussions, you demonstrate very little knowledge of how to have one without alienating everyone around you. Have you considered ending *any* of your discussions without a declaration of how brilliant you are, and how stupid your opponent is?

As the writers say, show, don't tell. If you're really that amazingly smart, and your opponents so stupid, let the arguments speak for themselves, because they surely will. If not, no amount of declaring it to be so will change that.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

I am as in favour of polyamorous marriages as I am gay marriages - that is to say, I want the state to get its nose out of the whole business, but if it refuses to, I have no qualms with extending mono/hetero rights to poly/homo relationships.

-Jester

Yea. The socialist argument against marriage is that it arose from private property, and that women were traditionally expected to remain loyal to their men for purposes of inheritance. Under socialism, it is thought that all relationships would become open, and the cultural stigmas of women being things like "sluts" or "cheaters" would disappear. I tend to agree. The argument against this of course, is that there is no real love involved in non-marriage or polyamorous relationships, but what is 'real love'? How do we define it? Another is that jealousy arises too easily, and it is here where this may still be a problem under socialism. Human emotions and consciousness change, but they don't go away. I personally would stick with just one person just because that is how I was raised, and I think love between two people in itself is a very complex thing!

[Hammerskjold]

Wrong! Communists can never be bigoted! If they are, they're not -TRUE- commie-ists. God, (by that I mean Marx, praise be his commie-ism) can't you or anyone else here follow simple logic?!111

I saved this link for just such an occasion.

/puts on the magical Che Beret that increases my Marxist power to the MAX!
Marx level is over 9000!!11

Hah! You KKKapitalizt scum, let me eviscerate your fawlty example with my razor sharp intelligence, and prove once and for all why I'm the greatest mind here in all the Lounge of Lounges!

1) I expressedly said, a CLASS-LESS society! That stupid example of yours demonstrate clearly the people involved are still going to classes, therefore the presence of classes have not been eliminated! Are you that dense?

2) They sound like first year poli-sci students, and therefore have a poor grasp of the understanding of Marx and his scientifical practicum! If you do not have a solid fundamental understanding of Marx, like moi', you are forever doomed as a bourgeois-tariat!

3) They still used capitalistic tools like money to trade and barter, and therefore it is not a true Commie-ist society. Nice try bougeouisie tool, you tainted and tampered with the experiment and claim it is wrong. But it is -your- tainting and tampering that proved beyond any doubt that YOU are the one who is wrong!

4) True Commie-ism, will work wonders when done properly, on the properly large scale. It will not work on a ridicilously small scale unless in a proto-industrial level aka 'Eden grade Early Commie-ist paradise state', or when tainted by KKKapitalistic tools like money. The people in your example clearly had access to KKKapitalzists evils, and was corrupted by it.

5) It was a pleasure destroying you, enjoy your ignore.


6)....Bourgeois!!!11111

7) I will now change the subject, for I am tired of winning all this debates.

8) As always, Bourgeois!

[ShadowHM]

Your claims above about hammers are missing an important nuance - choice.

I break it down to harms. No harm, no foul.

The difficulty with things like parental rights is that we as society need to protect citizens while they are children, against harmful parenting. With abortion, the nuance is deciding at what point a fetus is a citizen.

I really don't see how birth is a nuance. Surely you noticed what a production it was when you watched your own children be born?

With abortion, the nuance is deciding at what point a fetus is a citizen.

Birth. If not, why don't we arrest expectant mothers for unlawful imprisonment?

-Jester

Indeed.

P.S. Thanks to Hammerskjold for some amusing reading in this thread.

[kandrathe]

I really don't see how birth is a nuance. Surely you noticed what a production it was when you watched your own children be born?

Yes, but I also considered it a child before the day it was born. Is it protected by law the day before it was born? Moving from the womb into the air suddenly makes it human? I thought we might rely on science.

In my State, we do have a fetal homicide law. In the US, 38 states and the Federal government have fetal homicide laws and 12 consider it assault and battery.

Birth. If not, why don't we arrest expectant mothers for unlawful imprisonment?

Really? You might do the same to me when I send my sons to their rooms to do their homework. So, if a woman WANTS her child, but someone else kills it, you don't think it's different than a slug in the eye?

I understand the reticence of pro-abortion folks to not attempt to hold the line at the birth event, but it truly makes no sense scientifically. The process is a continuum, where it starts as cells and ends up a child. At some tipping point depending on your definition of what a child is, it gets civil rights. I don't believe it's day one, but it surely isn't the day of birth either.

[Taem]

With abortion, the nuance is deciding at what point a fetus is a citizen.

Birth. If not, why don't we arrest expectant mothers for unlawful imprisonment?

-Jester

Is it safe to assume then that human testing could be done if the embryo were to be grown in a test tube? If your definition of "birth" means exposed to the air/world around them, then under your own definition, it would be lawful to keep expermints grown in a testtube indefinitely so long as they remained suspended in an artificial embryonic solution. Fyi, I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with what you wrote; merely playing devil's advocate with something that struck me as an obvious flaw to your logic. With all the law changes happening in acceptance of stem cell research... it's only a matter of time. I even heard scientists can grow meat right now. I dont imagine human being too terribly far off tbh.

[ShadowHM]

I really don't see how birth is a nuance. Surely you noticed what a production it was when you watched your own children be born?

Yes, but I also considered it a child before the day it was born. Is it protected by law the day before it was born? Moving from the womb into the air suddenly makes it human? I thought we might rely on science.

As mentioned above, relying on your emotional response is an individual affair, not a legal affair. Relying on science is a moving target. We need to have a line drawn in the sand somewhere for legal purposes.

Personally, my line in the sand is when the fetus can survive outside the mother's body aka birth. Before that, it might as well be considered a parasite for legal purposes. (This is not to say that was my personal feeling about my children before birth; it is a legal line in the sand.)

In my State, we do have a fetal homicide law. In the US, 38 states and the Federal government have fetal homicide laws and 12 consider it assault and battery.

And in my State, we have no law on this issue at all.

Birth. If not, why don't we arrest expectant mothers for unlawful imprisonment?

Really? You might do the same to me when I send my sons to their rooms to do their homework. So, if a woman WANTS her child, but someone else kills it, you don't think it's different than a slug in the eye?

I understand the reticence of pro-abortion folks to not attempt to hold the line at the birth event, but it truly makes no sense scientifically. The process is a continuum, where it starts as cells and ends up a child. At some tipping point depending on your definition of what a child is, it gets civil rights. I don't believe it's day one, but it surely isn't the day of birth either.

Again, your emotional decision and the law do not need to be the same thing. But the law has to have a clear demarkation point and birth works quite well for that purpose.

[FireIceTalon]

With abortion, the nuance is deciding at what point a fetus is a citizen.

Birth. If not, why don't we arrest expectant mothers for unlawful imprisonment?

-Jester

Is it safe to assume then that human testing could be done if the embryo were to be grown in a test tube? If your definition of "birth" means exposed to the air/world around them, then under your own definition, it would be lawful to keep expermints grown in a testtube indefinitely so long as they remained suspended in an artificial embryonic solution. Fyi, I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with what you wrote; merely playing devil's advocate with something that struck me as an obvious flaw to your logic. With all the law changes happening in acceptance of stem cell research... it's only a matter of time. I even heard scientists can grow meat right now. I dont imagine human being too terribly far off tbh.

So do you advocate things like 'designer babies'?

[Taem]

With abortion, the nuance is deciding at what point a fetus is a citizen.

Birth. If not, why don't we arrest expectant mothers for unlawful imprisonment?

-Jester

Is it safe to assume then that human testing could be done if the embryo were to be grown in a test tube? If your definition of "birth" means exposed to the air/world around them, then under your own definition, it would be lawful to keep expermints grown in a testtube indefinitely so long as they remained suspended in an artificial embryonic solution. Fyi, I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with what you wrote; merely playing devil's advocate with something that struck me as an obvious flaw to your logic. With all the law changes happening in acceptance of stem cell research... it's only a matter of time. I even heard scientists can grow meat right now. I dont imagine human being too terribly far off tbh.

So do you advocate things like 'designer babies'?

I know where your going with this, and no, I'm not opposed. Whats the difference between picking the sex and eye color of your baby, and doing a pre-screening test and choosing to abort if your child shows down syndrome? With both, you're making a decision based on genetics.

---

Again, your emotional decision and the law do not need to be the same thing. But the law has to have a clear demarkation point and birth works quite well for that purpose.

Not so much as you think. You failed to acknowledge my hypothetical question to Jester, which I feel answered your own question already. We have this technology now, but therr are laws against is, however those laws are slowly eroding. Will you still stick by your "birth"ing stance when we start cloning ourselves for organs, or testing non-born humans with new drugs? You may scoff at the notion as fancy, but I disagree: we will see it in our lifetimes.

[shoju]

Man Hammerskjold, you are awesome. You should totally start getting paid to be a stand in.

Though, you did leave out PIG SCUM! from your "6)....Bourgeois!!!11111"

[FireIceTalon]

Let me tell you, there is a very big difference. Choosing to abort a child because they have down syndrome could be doing that child a favor (as well as yourself, considering they are much more difficult to take care of and it is better to not have a child at all than to end up caring for it poorly), considering all the difficulties they will have to face in life compared to non-disabled children - including discrimination, and pre-screening is an entirely different thing from messing with genetics. Picking the eye color and sex of your baby is selfish, shallow and egotistical, if not downright racist and sexist bullshit eugenics, and in a society where certain phenotypes and races are preferable to others based on bourgeois ideology, cultural norms and stereotypes, this would be open for all kinds of abuse. Not to mention other unpredictable, more scientific consequences - in my view we have no business screwing around with people's genetic code. Our DNA and biology is extremely complex and to start altering it is at best, dangerous, and at worst, 21st century eugenics, and I see no good reason to be in favor of it. All it is neo-Nazi pseudo-science, and anyone who advocates this crap is borderline insane, or at least has some ethical positions they need to seriously reconsider.

[Jester]

Yea. The socialist argument against marriage is that it arose from private property, and that women were traditionally expected to remain loyal to their men for purposes of inheritance. Under socialism, it is thought that all relationships would become open, and the cultural stigmas of women being things like "sluts" or "cheaters" would disappear. I tend to agree. The argument against this of course, is that there is no real love involved in non-marriage or polyamorous relationships, but what is 'real love'? How do we define it? Another is that jealousy arises too easily, and it is here where this may still be a problem under socialism. Human emotions and consciousness change, but they don't go away. I personally would stick with just one person just because that is how I was raised, and I think love between two people in itself is a very complex thing!

I'm pretty sure you either have to throw the "human nature doesn't exist, it's all tabula rasa" argument overboard, or you have to accept the argument that values are entirely mutable to the social situation. Now, even if you accept the 2nd argument, there's no reason to necessarily accept that jealousy will disappear with a socialist arrangement of society. But you seem to have high hopes.

If you're wondering how to define "real love," then that's a pretty good sign it isn't an objective thing.

-Jester

---

At some tipping point depending on your definition of what a child is, it gets civil rights. I don't believe it's day one, but it surely isn't the day of birth either.

Surely why? Children don't have names before then. They don't show up on censuses before then. They are not treated as citizens in any other regard. By what reasoning or evidence is this "surely"? Even if it was entirely arbitrary, it's as good as any other point. It has the large, obvious advantage of that being the point of separation from the mother.

-Jester

---

Is it safe to assume then that human testing could be done if the embryo were to be grown in a test tube? If your definition of "birth" means exposed to the air/world around them, then under your own definition, it would be lawful to keep expermints grown in a testtube indefinitely so long as they remained suspended in an artificial embryonic solution. Fyi, I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with what you wrote; merely playing devil's advocate with something that struck me as an obvious flaw to your logic. With all the law changes happening in acceptance of stem cell research... it's only a matter of time. I even heard scientists can grow meat right now. I dont imagine human being too terribly far off tbh.

Just because something doesn't have citizen's rights doesn't mean it doesn't have any rights at all. Cruelty to animals, for instance, is criminal.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Again, your emotional decision and the law do not need to be the same thing. But the law has to have a clear demarcation point and birth works quite well for that purpose.

At one level I would like to see the government having clear definitions on the protection of the rights of unborn children, and on another I think there is a discussion and decision that is between a woman and her ethics bound doctor. In my view, one of the most important roles for government is in safeguarding the rights of those who are in the minority, or powerless.

We will get to the point of artificial wombs someday, and that will change the ethical equation -- not only for women who would prefer not to carry their babies, but also where either the father or temporarily the State may choose to claim the unwanted children until they are adopted.

I don't imagine human being too terribly far off tbh.

According to my genetic engineering friends, they can "trick" cells into regressing to an embryonic state. There is no explicit advantage in experimenting on human fetal tissue. But, yeah, there do need to be some guidelines framing ethical research on all animals, including humans. We pretty much understand the uncorked nuclear genie, but we are just beginning to understand the uncorked bioengineering genie.

[FireIceTalon]

I'm pretty sure you either have to throw the "human nature doesn't exist, it's all tabula rasa" argument overboard, or you have to accept the argument that values are entirely mutable to the social situation. Now, even if you accept the 2nd argument, there's no reason to necessarily accept that jealousy will disappear with a socialist arrangement of society. But you seem to have high hopes.

If you're wondering how to define "real love," then that's a pretty good sign it isn't an objective thing.

-Jester

The human nature ordeal is something I gave a bit of thought to some months back. I wouldn't go as far to say that human nature doesn't exist at all, so much as I would say it works much differently than most people think of it. Most people think it is some biological or fixed innate concept, that we are a certain way no matter what - but this would imply that we aren't a very adaptable species, when we in fact are. Human nature is a complex and dynamic process that changes as society changes, whether its economically, socially, technologically, or changes in natural conditions. A man who lives in the city is going to have very different behaviors, thoughts, and consciousness than one who lives on a remote island. And a feudal slave has a very different nature than a worker in capitalist society.

In our society, a lot of people think that a polyamorous relationship can't possibly have true love between the partners, but why can't it? Even though I personally prefer a monogamous relationship I see no reason why individuals in a polyamorous relationship cannot love one another as a monogamous couple can. Or that an unmarried couple loves one another any less than a married one. I don't think socialism will eliminate things like jealousy, but that is hardly our goal anyway lol - any reasonable socialist will admit that even our society can never be 100% perfect, because people aren't perfect. They are, however, very very much a product and reflection of the society and environment they are born into. You have to change society before you can get people to change.

If anything, I think marriage in our current society is pretty destructive to relationships and family units.

[Jester]

The human nature ordeal is something I gave a bit of thought to some months back. I wouldn't go as far to say that human nature doesn't exist at all, so much as I would say it works much differently than most people think of it

I don't think anyone who isn't completely off their rocker disagrees - human behaviour is some combination of nature and nurture, to use the catchphrase. The trick is, of course, figuring out which causes what.

-Jester

[Taem]

I don't imagine human being too terribly far off tbh.

According to my genetic engineering friends, they can "trick" cells into regressing to an embryonic state. There is no explicit advantage in experimenting on human fetal tissue. But, yeah, there do need to be some guidelines framing ethical research on all animals, including humans. We pretty much understand the uncorked nuclear genie, but we are just beginning to understand the uncorked bioengineering genie.

Then your understanding of my meaning is quite narrow: LINK

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote earlier about growing kids for their organs. And apparently FIT didn't comprehend it either when he commented back to me about genetic screening.

the family uses pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, to create embryos that are each screened for their suitability as a bone marrow donor. Only those that are perfect matches are transferred back into the womb.

This is a reality. Growing children in our wombs for their organs is happening now! Sperm to embryo fertilization's are done all the time outside our bodies in a laboratory: Test Tube Baby!

When will the first child be grown in a lab? Perhaps for their organs? Do you honestly believe we will be able to grow organs separately from the body in a few years time? With the laws for this type of stuff slowly fading into obscurity, I wonder when the rich will have clones nurtured for their organs. Morality stopping us you say? Not if the letter of the law says a child isn't "human" unless they are "born". There are ways around that as I just proved. So if Jester and Shadow want to keep side-stepping my objections by pretending that "birthing" is the only true meaning of being alive.... well then I think they are sadly mistaken, and not from any misguided biblical standpoint, but from a scientific one: Opinion Piece, and Scientific Fact.

Consciousness does not and cannot occur until birth, when the infant is given something different from its previous existence to compare it with. It does have the hard-wired faculty of perception, and even of epistemic logic. But until it is given the gift of the trauma of birth, when all of its senses are sent screaming into its mind--where before there was merely a satisfied watery existence from which it was protected from all senses except perhaps sound--then it never gets the chance to experience perception. Perception is the action upon the brain of sensations, the point at which sensations end and consciousness of them begins.

Ironically, this proves my point even further. The baby is alive and conscious before birth, but being in a more stimulating environment is required for learning and mental growth.