Author Topic: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!  (Read 5840 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2010, 05:56:25 pm »
Kobuk, I think that's because the Torah is also the Old Testament. Same thing, just different names. (Someone correct me if I got them mixed up with something else)
[Not trying to bring religion into the thread, but rather to clarify what he meant since you seemed confused]
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1182
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2010, 09:41:28 pm »
Quote
*reads the Big Book of American Law for Crazy Right-Wingers, by which I mean the Torah*

@Foxpup:  I don't know what you meant by that and I probably don't want to know. And I fail to see why the Torah was mentioned. Therefore.......since this is my thread, I'm going to have to ask everyone to please leave religion out of this thread since that's not what this thread is about. Thanks.
Sorry. It just seems to me that conservative American politics (this law included) are influenced way too much by Judeo-Christrian fundamentalism. No offense intended.

Kobuk, I think that's because the Torah is also the Old Testament. Same thing, just different names. (Someone correct me if I got them mixed up with something else)
[Not trying to bring religion into the thread, but rather to clarify what he meant since you seemed confused]
The Torah is the first section of the Tanak and comprises the first five books of the Old Testament. It's the section with all the laws and commandments, and which several conservative politicians have pointed to as the basis for contemporary American law. That was the reference I was making.
“Hmm... They have the Internet on computers now.” - Homer Simpson

“Art doesn't work without pain. Art exists for compensating pain.” - Till Lindemann

“There's a fine line between sayings that make sense.” - Too Much Coffee Man

Offline Yip

  • Species: vulpes vulpes
  • *
  • Female
  • Posts: 4005
    • Furaffinity
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2010, 10:30:09 pm »
....and which several conservative politicians have pointed to as the basis for contemporary American law.
I apologize for being off topic, but I wanted to point out for everyone that America was -not- based on biblical law. Perhaps I'm being hypersensitive, but I felt I had to mention it because this "Christian Nation" myth threatens the separation of church and state.  In order to not derail this topic, if anyone has anything else on say on this please do so in a different thread or over PM. Thank you.

Offline Rift

  • Full Member
  • color will be added soon :)
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 130
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2010, 09:13:26 pm »
Put it this way, this means that hybrids aren't as far fetched as many think if people are already trying to ban it...
Got a PS3, do u play games like Red Dead Redemption or Call of Duty: Black Ops? add me (ID- Jaymeric) =D

Offline Rjgano

  • Full Member
  • I don't know what to put here. I thought I'd share
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 138
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #29 on: August 02, 2010, 10:28:57 pm »
      This will likely become a country wide ban. I would have to disagree in most cases, but I can see how this could be banned very easily. Who is to say that someone will not take hybrids to a volent form? Many people out there are corrupt, which is why these are placed, which is honestly too bad. There aare also other reasons among the bill, but I thought this one would be a sensible one.
In these 400 characters, I will waste precious space with my uniquely typed letter Es EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Offline J. March OHare

  • I think, therefore I'm mad.
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 180
    • The Robert A. Cook Gallery
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #30 on: August 02, 2010, 11:35:14 pm »
Meerkat: "...I can see how this could be banned very easily."

How? They can't even effectively ban meth labs, and they make a big stink. A properly-equipped genetics lab would be difficult to find. If it's outside the U.S., make that impossible. If we don't exploit the technology for profit, you can bet some other nation will.

Anyway, like I said on the previous page, the clowns are too late. It's already being done, and if it comes to a showdown between Big Government Nanny and Big Corporate Money, we all know who the winner will be. It'll be the one who signs the checks for all those astronomical bri... er, campaign contributions.

The Supreme Court has said, corporations are persons and money is speech. So what if human/animal hybrids make some people squeamish? What Monsanto wants, Monsanto gets.

Offline Palaeofox

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Male
  • Posts: 15
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2010, 08:22:16 am »
:P Just linking this in in case some people are doubting the immediate benefits of hybridisation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL0_gcP15Ts

Thats just an interesting one really.. but there are others that are far more important i.e. the insertion of human DNA that codes for the production of insulin into bacteria to allow vast quantities to be easily and cheaply produced. Stuff like this saves millions of lives.

Offline Rjgano

  • Full Member
  • I don't know what to put here. I thought I'd share
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 138
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2010, 08:38:23 am »

How? They can't even effectively ban meth labs, and they make a big stink. A properly-equipped genetics lab would be difficult to find. If it's outside the U.S., make that impossible. If we don't exploit the technology for profit, you can bet some other nation will.

To ban is to make illegal, not to gauruntee inforcement. And I believe that a lab of this variety would be much harder to move and maintain, requiring much money and space, compared to a meth lab. You do bring up a good point, though.
In these 400 characters, I will waste precious space with my uniquely typed letter Es EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Offline J. March OHare

  • I think, therefore I'm mad.
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 180
    • The Robert A. Cook Gallery
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #33 on: August 04, 2010, 01:45:07 am »
Meerkat: "I believe that a lab of this variety would be much harder to move and maintain, requiring much money and space, compared to a meth lab."

I'm not sure about the space. Remember, what they're working with is very small. I've been in genetics labs, and there are pictures online. The equipment is innocuous. Ever see the lab where Dolly the Sheep was cloned? It didn't look like much. Honestly, it looked like a back room at a vet clinic: Microscopes. Petri dishes. Hoods.

Meth labs really need hoods too (and those who are serious have them).

Regarding expense, I'm sure of it, but I'm talking about people with all the money in the world.

Regarding bans, what's the point of laws that are impossible to enforce? Granted, I'll agree that there should be laws against assaults of actual victims, things like murder, mutilation, rape, theft, etc. But we can't even enforce those (if you've ever been robbed you know we can't), so if you're going to have laws at all, doesn't it make sense to concentrate them where they benefit humanity the most?

Critics would argue that the hybrid or chimera is a victim, but that's not automatically so. The question really is, should it be exploitable? Bacteria with human genes are already amongst the patented intellectual property of corporate giants, so where do you draw the line? If a walkin', talkin' sentient hybrid pops up, do you kill it?

We need to be thinking in terms of defining sentience, and recognizing the rights of all sentient creatures. It's a hairy question, because I have known parrots who passed every test I devised. They not only talked, they passed the Turing test (if it responds so you can't tell you're talking to a parrot {except for the squawky voice, which it cannot help}, it's thinking). They laughed. They cried (not quite like we do it, although the overall body language is the same). They displayed love and affection. They reasoned. They got ticked off. They could be jerks.

We don't need to be banning stuff like the ignorant villagers in Frankenstein. We need to be humbly acknowledging our responsibility for the monsters we create, because God knows we've already created a bunch of 'em.

I'm no PETA member. I'm a carnivore, and proud of it. There's nothing wrong with eating meat. It is how the world was made. But I do think we need to be drawing an ethical line. I've worked around animals for most of my life, and as far as I'm concerned, great apes, psittacines and cetaceans are people. If you molest one of them, it's not qualitatively different from harming a person. You're hurting a thinking, feeling, self-aware creature.

Legislatures should be working on ensuring the rights of artificial creatures, including human clones, because sooner or later the subject is going to come up. Actually, it already has: in 2004, the Raëlians said they had produced a human clone. The Pope went ballistic. The State of Florida said, "If this turns out to be true we're taking the baby." The Raëlians kinda went, "Uh, never mind."

The State of Florida should have no right to take the baby.

Offline Acton

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Republican Black Bear
  • Unrepentant Furry, Otaku and Anglican.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 2367
    • Acton Hermitage
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2010, 07:00:11 pm »


*reads the Big Book of American Law for Crazy Right-Wingers, by which I mean the Torah* Well, that's not it says here. In any case, they were careful to define "animal" as "non-human", which also rules out human-fungus hybrids (what a shame, such a hybrid would be far more intelligent than most of the American government).
[/quote]

I wonder how long before somebody mention religious right wingers. Typical college student . I dare to say opposition is more adamant form the left, particularly from environmentalist and animal rights types.

http://animals.change.org/blog/view/human-animal_hybrids_and_other_crimes_against_nature


Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1182
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2010, 07:39:07 pm »
I wonder how long before somebody mention religious right wingers. Typical college student . I dare to say opposition is more adamant form the left, particularly from environmentalist and animal rights types.

http://animals.change.org/blog/view/human-animal_hybrids_and_other_crimes_against_nature

Yes, crazy left-wingers and environmentalists are also a problem (although not all left-wingers and environmentalists are crazy (and neither are all right-wingers, if it comes to that)). That's why I'm a libertarian and reject left-right politics entirely. But I still stand by what I said.
“Hmm... They have the Internet on computers now.” - Homer Simpson

“Art doesn't work without pain. Art exists for compensating pain.” - Till Lindemann

“There's a fine line between sayings that make sense.” - Too Much Coffee Man

Offline J. March OHare

  • I think, therefore I'm mad.
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 180
    • The Robert A. Cook Gallery
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #36 on: August 05, 2010, 09:08:24 pm »
When I made Reply #33 above, I did not yet know that some scientists are already lobbying for exactly the kind of laws I was talking about. From Wikipedia's article on Cetacean intelligence:

Quote
In 2009 a group of researchers concluded that dolphins are second in intelligence to humans, and suggested that their status be elevated to that of "non-human persons".

Good for them! That's the kind of thing that is needed, so if the dilemma ever does come up, there will be no question of an artificial person's legal status.

Offline furtopia02

  • *****
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #37 on: August 05, 2010, 10:46:36 pm »


*reads the Big Book of American Law for Crazy Right-Wingers, by which I mean the Torah* Well, that's not it says here. In any case, they were careful to define "animal" as "non-human", which also rules out human-fungus hybrids (what a shame, such a hybrid would be far more intelligent than most of the American government).

I wonder how long before somebody mention religious right wingers. Typical college student . I dare to say opposition is more adamant form the left, particularly from environmentalist and animal rights types.

http://animals.change.org/blog/view/human-animal_hybrids_and_other_crimes_against_nature


[/quote]

While I don't disagree about your point I can't help but point out you both did the same thing to each other there. :P Oh.. and I'm a college student too, and military Veteran.

This topic is interesting. I'm not sure where I stand on the main issue here. I can see the benefits of it and I can also see how it could get out of control as well and possibly have adverse affects on the environment if a group of "things" escaped and changed the food chain somehow. I hope that we can use all technology in the future for the good of science and medicine and control misuse and/or dangerous practices the best we can.

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #38 on: August 05, 2010, 11:14:03 pm »
To the sentiments expressed in this particular quote, though this is not the only quote in this whole thread expressing this problem;

Quote
I can also see how it could get out of control as well and possibly have adverse affects on the environment if a group of "things" escaped and changed the food chain somehow.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WrongGenreSavvy

To answer the question posed in the "Real Life" section (bottom of the page):
"Who among us has not made this mistake at some point?"

Furtopia sure hasn't escaped this one. Proverbial hook, line & sinker.

Seriously guys, don't believe everything you see in a sci-fi TV show/film/book...
/facepalm/

I mean, if they can't even get the facts right, do you think they can get their 'things that could possibly go wrong that we want to avoid' speculation right? I don't think so.
See also for related & vaguely related subjects to distract you while I go and do something that isn't contrary to this ban:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrokenAesop
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MillionToOneChance
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FailsafeFailure
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoneHorriblyWrong
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoneHorriblyRight
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScienceIsBad
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WrongGenreSavvy
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DanBrowned
Contrast:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreSavvy
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisFurtopian
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1182
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #39 on: August 07, 2010, 01:28:58 am »
While I don't disagree about your point I can't help but point out you both did the same thing to each other there. :P Oh.. and I'm a college student too, and military Veteran.
But of course. Groundless stereotyping is a long-accepted tactic of political debate. :D Okay, putting all that aside, my point is that this law was overly influenced by religious belief, while Acton is blaming environmentalist pseudoscience. How about we just all agree that there's a lack of real science involved?

This topic is interesting. I'm not sure where I stand on the main issue here. I can see the benefits of it and I can also see how it could get out of control as well and possibly have adverse affects on the environment if a group of "things" escaped and changed the food chain somehow. I hope that we can use all technology in the future for the good of science and medicine and control misuse and/or dangerous practices the best we can.
"Things"? Escaping? This isn't a 1950s science-fiction movie, you know. They're just ordinary animals with a few human genes. What, are you afraid they'll grow thumbs and start making tools?
“Hmm... They have the Internet on computers now.” - Homer Simpson

“Art doesn't work without pain. Art exists for compensating pain.” - Till Lindemann

“There's a fine line between sayings that make sense.” - Too Much Coffee Man

Offline furtopia02

  • *****
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #40 on: August 07, 2010, 01:43:50 am »
While I don't disagree about your point I can't help but point out you both did the same thing to each other there. :P Oh.. and I'm a college student too, and military Veteran.
But of course. Groundless stereotyping is a long-accepted tactic of political debate. :D Okay, putting all that aside, my point is that this law was overly influenced by religious belief, while Acton is blaming environmentalist pseudoscience. How about we just all agree that there's a lack of real science involved?

This topic is interesting. I'm not sure where I stand on the main issue here. I can see the benefits of it and I can also see how it could get out of control as well and possibly have adverse affects on the environment if a group of "things" escaped and changed the food chain somehow. I hope that we can use all technology in the future for the good of science and medicine and control misuse and/or dangerous practices the best we can.
"Things"? Escaping? This isn't a 1950s science-fiction movie, you know. They're just ordinary animals with a few human genes. What, are you afraid they'll grow thumbs and start making tools?

No need to over-exaggerate someone's statement to make it sound ridiculous or something that wasn't said.  If I could take an insect that has an adverse affect on crops, lets say corn, and change its structure with human DNA that somehow makes it immune to all known pesticides used to kill it currently and then release them into a countries crops then I could ruin their crops for a season or two (however long it takes them to figure it out and come up with a new pesticide). This could cause massive damage. In fact, tactics like this are already used in warfare. Warfare is what every technology ultimately comes down to: if it exists and has the potential to be used to cause harm it WILL be used to cause harm somehow. You can't UN-invent something. Once you invent it or succeed with an idea it wont ever go away. Always be careful what you wish for in technology.

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #41 on: August 07, 2010, 01:48:20 am »
...That's not exactly how it works. >.>

You'd have to /intentionally/ make it immune to pesticides; and even then, pesticides have so many potential attack vectors blocking one is liable to mean nothing in the long run; another could easily wipe them out.

Not like human DNA would have as many potentials for successful integration providing immunity; cockroachs on the other hand have a large number of evolved immunities to all sorts of things, and thus it would be easy to find some workable genes that could adapted to such a pursuit.
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline furtopia02

  • *****
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #42 on: August 07, 2010, 01:56:31 am »
...That's not exactly how it works. >.>

You'd have to /intentionally/ make it immune to pesticides; and even then, pesticides have so many potential attack vectors blocking one is liable to mean nothing in the long run; another could easily wipe them out.

Not like human DNA would have as many potentials for successful integration providing immunity; cockroachs on the other hand have a large number of evolved immunities to all sorts of things, and thus it would be easy to find some workable genes that could adapted to such a pursuit.

It was a random example. Hence why I originally (and very obviously) said "things". It isn't my responsibility to brainstorm biological weapons for the sake of arguing with a couple furries on the internet. The possibility is there, and the fine details of how it is gone about isn't the point and is well beyond what me (as a former Cryptologist and currently Television Producer), and you (with whatever it is you do unless you are a biochemist or something directly related to this topic which by your reply says to me you almost surely are not) are able to comprehend and provide a detailed answer as to how. To say it isn't possible to genetically alter something to cause harm though is both ridiculous and uneducated as this has already been done before so is already a statement proven wrong.

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1182
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #43 on: August 07, 2010, 02:14:46 am »
No need to over-exaggerate someone's statement to make it sound ridiculous or something that wasn't said.  If I could take an insect that has an adverse affect on crops, lets say corn, and change its structure with human DNA that somehow makes it immune to all known pesticides used to kill it currently and then release them into a countries crops then I could ruin their crops for a season or two (however long it takes them to figure it out and come up with a new pesticide). This could cause massive damage. In fact, tactics like this are already used in warfare. Warfare is what every technology ultimately comes down to: if it exists and has the potential to be used to cause harm it WILL be used to cause harm somehow. You can't UN-invent something. Once you invent it or succeed with an idea it wont ever go away. Always be careful what you wish for in technology.
First of all, biological warfare is illegal, and even if it wasn't, there are far easier ways of doing it than with genetically engineered organisms - it's cheaper to just use natural organisms.
Second, this law is only concerned with the use of human genes, and human genes aren't really that useful for creating biological weapons. If you really wanted to create a genetically engineered bio-weapon, it would make more sense to take genes from, say, the Ebola virus, and create a new and deadlier version of the common cold.
There's nothing "special" about human genes that makes them more dangerous to mess with than any other genes. And we've been messing about with other genes for years without completely destroying the environment. This law is more concerned with the "sactity of human life" (whatever than means) than the preservation of the environment.
“Hmm... They have the Internet on computers now.” - Homer Simpson

“Art doesn't work without pain. Art exists for compensating pain.” - Till Lindemann

“There's a fine line between sayings that make sense.” - Too Much Coffee Man

Offline furtopia02

  • *****
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #44 on: August 07, 2010, 02:49:30 am »
No need to over-exaggerate someone's statement to make it sound ridiculous or something that wasn't said.  If I could take an insect that has an adverse affect on crops, lets say corn, and change its structure with human DNA that somehow makes it immune to all known pesticides used to kill it currently and then release them into a countries crops then I could ruin their crops for a season or two (however long it takes them to figure it out and come up with a new pesticide). This could cause massive damage. In fact, tactics like this are already used in warfare. Warfare is what every technology ultimately comes down to: if it exists and has the potential to be used to cause harm it WILL be used to cause harm somehow. You can't UN-invent something. Once you invent it or succeed with an idea it wont ever go away. Always be careful what you wish for in technology.

First of all, biological warfare is illegal, and even if it wasn't, there are far easier ways of doing it than with genetically engineered organisms - it's cheaper to just use natural organisms.
Second, this law is only concerned with the use of human genes, and human genes aren't really that useful for creating biological weapons. If you really wanted to create a genetically engineered bio-weapon, it would make more sense to take genes from, say, the Ebola virus, and create a new and deadlier version of the common cold.
There's nothing "special" about human genes that makes them more dangerous to mess with than any other genes. And we've been messing about with other genes for years without completely destroying the environment. This law is more concerned with the "sactity of human life" (whatever than means) than the preservation of the environment.

Wow. I wasn't even gonna reply again but this is so flawed I can't resist one final one.

1) Legality has nothing to do with whether or not something is possible or will be done. Laws are in place to discourage actions but they don't stop all actions. I can't believe you think biological warfare doesn't happen because it's illegal (according to codes.. but in reality anything goes in all out war for those willing to break conventions). I should also note that warfare is not just reserved to being conducted by leaders of official nations. Warfare can be conducted by any group that comes up with the means to try to wage it. Laws aren't going to stop all biological warfare from happening. Biological attack (in fact, even the example I used is a common topic among those that deal with this issue) is a real threat to us currently in the western world, and has been a hot topic even on the news over the past several years. Know that this very moment there is a group of scientists working to make something to cause harm via biological attack, and there are people with already developed plans waiting to execute it given the right circumstances. That's just how it is. The world isn't a pretty little place where everyone follows the law.

2) Easier ways? Easier isn't always best for the scenario. Of course. Shooting someone is pretty simple if you want to kill them. I can walk up to them, shoot them. Though it is likely I'd be caught fairly easily even if someone didn't see it happen. Now if I researched the person I wanted to kill, found out they had a severe food allergy to nuts, and then took an extract of oil from some nuts and discretely put it in something they were going to eat that might normally contain nuts but they were always careful to get a version without nuts. Then they eat it and possibly die (especially if I caught them at home and unplugged (not cut) their phone line at the main box so they wouldn't be able to dial 911, then plug it back in after they are dead (making sure not to leave evidence as fingerprints, footprints, etc of course, booties are good for that as are latex gloves). Now it looks more like an accident or bad luck and there is less chance of me being caught and I'm free to continue doing whatever else I want to do without fear of being in jail and wasting my time.

Really, it's not "easy" to attack a city in the middle of a country you aren't occupying either. Discrete methods of causing harm and releasing poisons, etc into an area is sometimes the better, more effective, or easier option than trying to get an army in place and lose a lot of lives in the process.

3) What is your trade again? I don't think you are able to make such a bold statement as there is nothing of use with human genes in a technology that is very young with much left to discover (most in fact). You simply don't know that.

4) I actually have a neutral opinion on this subject. I don't know if you are arguing with me in an attempt to sway me because you thought it would be easy since I was on middle ground or something entirely different. Of all the people to try and argue with you choose the person with the neutral, unbiased stance on the subject that stated he wanted to wait and see before taking a definitive stance on the matter. I am only defending my statement that technology can be used for harm. I would never have thought anyone would attempt to argue against that (or see how since its so naive, much like saying that something wont happen because its illegal). Having any further debate with you is clearly a waste of time and I think you are more concerned with getting a reaction out of people and the sake of arguing than the actual issues. With that, I am going to bed. I'm sorry this didn't work out. I would have liked to have had a better discussion.

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #45 on: August 07, 2010, 02:57:18 am »
...That's not exactly how it works. >.>

You'd have to /intentionally/ make it immune to pesticides; and even then, pesticides have so many potential attack vectors blocking one is liable to mean nothing in the long run; another could easily wipe them out.

Not like human DNA would have as many potentials for successful integration providing immunity; cockroachs on the other hand have a large number of evolved immunities to all sorts of things, and thus it would be easy to find some workable genes that could adapted to such a pursuit.

It was a random example. Hence why I originally (and very obviously) said "things". It isn't my responsibility to brainstorm biological weapons for the sake of arguing with a couple furries on the internet. The possibility is there, and the fine details of how it is gone about isn't the point and is well beyond what me (as a former Cryptologist and currently Television Producer), and you (with whatever it is you do unless you are a biochemist or something directly related to this topic which by your reply says to me you almost surely are not) are able to comprehend and provide a detailed answer as to how. To say it isn't possible to genetically alter something to cause harm though is both ridiculous and uneducated as this has already been done before so is already a statement proven wrong.
Hence why I emphasised /intentionally/; unintentionally, the chances are negligible.  ;)
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1182
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #46 on: August 07, 2010, 04:11:42 am »
First of all, biological warfare is illegal, and even if it wasn't, there are far easier ways of doing it than with genetically engineered organisms - it's cheaper to just use natural organisms.
Second, this law is only concerned with the use of human genes, and human genes aren't really that useful for creating biological weapons. If you really wanted to create a genetically engineered bio-weapon, it would make more sense to take genes from, say, the Ebola virus, and create a new and deadlier version of the common cold.
There's nothing "special" about human genes that makes them more dangerous to mess with than any other genes. And we've been messing about with other genes for years without completely destroying the environment. This law is more concerned with the "sactity of human life" (whatever than means) than the preservation of the environment.

Wow. I wasn't even gonna reply again but this is so flawed I can't resist one final one.

1) Legality has nothing to do with whether or not something is possible or will be done. Laws are in place to discourage actions but they don't stop all actions. I can't believe you think biological warfare doesn't happen because it's illegal (according to codes.. but in reality anything goes in all out war for those willing to break conventions). I should also note that warfare is not just reserved to being conducted by leaders of official nations. Warfare can be conducted by any group that comes up with the means to try to wage it. Laws aren't going to stop all biological warfare from happening. Biological attack (in fact, even the example I used is a common topic among those that deal with this issue) is a real threat to us currently in the western world, and has been a hot topic even on the news over the past several years. Know that this very moment there is a group of scientists working to make something to cause harm via biological attack, and there are people with already developed plans waiting to execute it given the right circumstances. That's just how it is. The world isn't a pretty little place where everyone follows the law.
True. And I don't believe that biological warfare won't happen just because it's in contravention of the Biological Weapons Convention. But anyone who would violate international law surely wouldn't swayed by this law, which only even applies in the state of Ohio.

2) Easier ways? Easier isn't always best for the scenario. Of course. Shooting someone is pretty simple if you want to kill them. I can walk up to them, shoot them. Though it is likely I'd be caught fairly easily even if someone didn't see it happen. Now if I researched the person I wanted to kill, found out they had a severe food allergy to nuts, and then took an extract of oil from some nuts and discretely put it in something they were going to eat that might normally contain nuts but they were always careful to get a version without nuts. Then they eat it and possibly die (especially if I caught them at home and unplugged (not cut) their phone line at the main box so they wouldn't be able to dial 911, then plug it back in after they are dead (making sure not to leave evidence as fingerprints, footprints, etc of course, booties are good for that as are latex gloves). Now it looks more like an accident or bad luck and there is less chance of me being caught and I'm free to continue doing whatever else I want to do without fear of being in jail and wasting my time.

Really, it's not "easy" to attack a city in the middle of a country you aren't occupying either. Discrete methods of causing harm and releasing poisons, etc into an area is sometimes the better, more effective, or easier option than trying to get an army in place and lose a lot of lives in the process.
But bullets have the advantage of going where they're aimed, and causing massive collateral damage with biological weapons is generally frowned upon (especially if you intend to be re-elected). Besides, this law will have no impact on biological warfare, so it's a moot point.

3) What is your trade again? I don't think you are able to make such a bold statement as there is nothing of use with human genes in a technology that is very young with much left to discover (most in fact). You simply don't know that.

Are we even having the same conversation? The very first thing I posted to this thread said the exact opposite of what you say I said.
And a crippling blow has been dealt to yet another dozen lines of promising medical research which could save millions billions of lives, all in the name of preventing lab animals from suffering...
All I said in my last post was that infectious diseases make a better source of "dangerous" genes than humans-animal hybrids. I have no idea what you thought I said.

4) I actually have a neutral opinion on this subject. I don't know if you are arguing with me in an attempt to sway me because you thought it would be easy since I was on middle ground or something entirely different. Of all the people to try and argue with you choose the person with the neutral, unbiased stance on the subject that stated he wanted to wait and see before taking a definitive stance on the matter. I am only defending my statement that technology can be used for harm. I would never have thought anyone would attempt to argue against that (or see how since its so naive, much like saying that something wont happen because its illegal).

I am arguing with you because this is the debate club, which was created for the specific purpose of people with different opinions arguing with each other. What you appear to be arguing (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that because a particular technology can be used to cause harm, it shouldn't be developed. I am not arguing that technology can't be used for harm. I am arguing that the risk of harm is negligible compared to the potential for good, and that passing a law banning a technology will both prevent it from being used to good, while at the same time doing virtually nothing to stop it being used for evil, and so an outright ban is a bad idea.

Having any further debate with you is clearly a waste of time and I think you are more concerned with getting a reaction out of people and the sake of arguing than the actual issues. With that, I am going to bed. I'm sorry this didn't work out. I would have liked to have had a better discussion.

Am I the only one here who has no idea what just happened?
“Hmm... They have the Internet on computers now.” - Homer Simpson

“Art doesn't work without pain. Art exists for compensating pain.” - Till Lindemann

“There's a fine line between sayings that make sense.” - Too Much Coffee Man

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 27447
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #47 on: August 07, 2010, 08:39:10 am »
Quote
I am arguing with you because this is the debate club, which was created for the specific purpose of people with different opinions arguing with each other.

This.....V

Quote
The Furry Debate Club was designed at the request of members to be a place where "mature" members who enjoy ideas and arguments can exchange ideas in "civil" debate.  Base your arguments on facts while showing respect to all parties.  Say your part but in the end allow others to keep their point of view if they wish.  Do NOT start a debate if you are emotionally involved to the point you can't respect all debaters.  Do NOT start a debate if you will get upset if most/all furs/people do not agree with you.  Do NOT start a debate if you can't stay calm, civil, and respectful at all times. 

What is Civil Debate?  Everyone knows how to debate.  Not everyone knows how to debate in a good civil fashion. Civil debate is where two or more parties post/discuss their points of view without putting down or disrespecting each other while giving a point of view.

Click link below for more fursuit information. ;)
http://forums.furtopia.org/kobuk's-fursuit-guides/

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #48 on: August 07, 2010, 10:49:19 am »
Kobuk; arguing has a couple meanings; there's the debate type meaning, which derives from debating with the 'arguments' that are used, and then there is the 'I'm just going to blindly shout my opinions, regardless of how right, wrong, or just plain irrelevant they are, and provide nothing to back up any of my claims.'

He was referring to the first, from what I can tell.
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1182
Re: Ohio bans human/animal hybrids!
« Reply #49 on: August 07, 2010, 08:24:02 pm »
Kobuk; arguing has a couple meanings; there's the debate type meaning, which derives from debating with the 'arguments' that are used, and then there is the 'I'm just going to blindly shout my opinions, regardless of how right, wrong, or just plain irrelevant they are, and provide nothing to back up any of my claims.'

He was referring to the first, from what I can tell.
Yes, I was. I'm not trying to upset anyone, and I really don't know why anyone would think I was.
“Hmm... They have the Internet on computers now.” - Homer Simpson

“Art doesn't work without pain. Art exists for compensating pain.” - Till Lindemann

“There's a fine line between sayings that make sense.” - Too Much Coffee Man