Or creating mule hybrids of chimpanzes and humans?

Or kicking people off a blog for disagreeing with you, and calling that person names?

And by the way, letting brain dead people who can no longer support themselves, and have virtually no hope of recovering isn’t necessarily “killing” them. The injury or illness that caused the brain death, killed them. We’re the ones who keep them artificially alive.

I intended to say how great it was that there are so many Athiest blogs, but this discussion is where a good blog can go…as long as it stays away from adhomenum attacks, or if it does, it deals with the Athiest problem of the basis of morality, including ad homenum attacks. The morality of it, not just the poor logic of such attacks.

“Uhm, how is your private beef with PZ relevant to this post?”

It’s not private. It’s quite public. He called me an asshole, and a moron, on a popular forum, and lied in the process. Then he didn’t allow me to reply.

It’s relevant because he’s at the top of the blog list. Part of the way he got to the top was by being controversial in this manner. The fact that Hemant got to the top without such tactics is impressive.

I’m just documenting my side of the issue in a place where others will actually see it.

“Go whine at PZ’s blog or write your own.”

P Z banned me so I can’t respond there.

He’s running an echo chamber. He badmouths people and entire groups in a bigoted and offensive manner, and that is why he is popular with certain people. His comment section is full of obnoxious anonymous commenters.

I’m wondering what makes you think you have the right to tell me what to do. Sounds like you think you have the authority to tell me not to post anywhere on the internet except my own blog or where I’ve been banned.

I could say the same to you. On your own blog you can “whine” about thread hijacking and you can even ban me.

I think your analogy is wrong. The purpose of the LHC is not to create a viable growing black hole. If it were then it too would be a dangerous and offensive experiment.

“… saying that Myers advocates Dr. Moreau-type experimentation ”

Not what I said. Myers doesn’t now advocate such experiments. He now repudiates them. That wasn’t the point. I said “never advocated”. Just one instance of advocating falsifies that claim.

The point was that at that time, in that one thread, he had advocated an experiment specifically designed to produce a viable human-chimpanzee hybrid. That was the whole point of the mental exercise. The experiment had a built in goal of creating a victim.

He obviously did advocate a Dr. Moreau experiment, even if he thought it likely to fail.

You argue that if something is likely to fail that it becomes ethical? So if someone now advocates assassinating the president with a claw hammer it becomes acceptable because he’s not likely to get past the secret service? If someone said, “I’d love to slam a hammer into the back of Bush’s skull, but I don’t think I can get past the SS”, then that’s just fine?

The one fellow, Colugo, was clear in identifying this as a Dr. Moreau experiment when he said: “I am going to assume that everyone commenting on these threads is opposed to, and would support a legal ban on, the creation of a human-chimpanzee hybrid. A viable creature (the kind that David Barash has mused about), not an experimental culture or embryo.“

Myers responded: “Bad assumption.
I would love to see the experiment done, but have two reservations.” Myers claims here not to be opposed to it, and says he would love to see it done.

Whether or not such an experiment would be successful doesn’t effect the truth or falsity of the statement, “Is it true that he never advocated Dr. Moreau type experiments?”

Nor do his reservations, which only involved a) Technical feasibility and b) Finding a caring home for his victim.

The definition of “advocate” is to argue for something. He clearly did that. The something he advocated for was clearly a Dr. Moreau type experiment. It doesn’t matter if it’s likely to be successful or not.

Nor was he merely speculating on whether it was ethical. That was what I and several others were doing.

It’s clear that the exact experiment we were discussing would have horrible results if successful and Myers said he would love to do it. He confirmed the fact that he thought the results would be horrible by stating “No institutionalizing it and in essence discarding it.”

To show you why I don’t think your rationalizations work let me switch it to an equally repulsive experiment.

“I am going to assume that everyone commenting on these threads is opposed to, and would support a legal ban on, the creation of a race specific virus that renders blacks sterile morons. A contagious virus tested on an individual (the kind that David Price has mused about), not tested on an experimental culture or embryo.” – Columbo

“Bad assumption.
I would love to see the experiment done, but have two reservations.

It has to be done right. I expect that the virus would not infect only blacks, which is boring, unless there is a thorough analysis to determine the genetic difficulties that led to the non-specificity.

In case it does work only on blacks, they need has to be recognized as individuals with all rights, and they must have the government committed to supporting them as a full citizens. No institutionalizing them and in essence discarding them.

Those are hard criteria to meet. We don’t currently have the technology to create viruses that specifically attack individual races, and it would take a lot of courage and commitment from the government.” – Mr. Monster

The experiment is obviously evil, just like one designed to create a viable human-chimp hybrid. It has a pre-built in victim, or victims. Mr. Monster isn’t in any way arguing that sterilizing blacks is wrong, or making them have subhuman intelligence is wrong. Mr. Monster is only discussing the how to depose of them after the experiment is completed. There is nothing about the disposal itself that is impossible to accomplish.

Adding these qualifications doesn’t indicate that Mr. Monster is against the experiment. He’s obviously for it since he’d love to do it.

In Mr. Monster’s case he just needs to get over the technical difficulties of making his bio weapon, and the problem of disposing of all his victims, but otherwise he’d love to try it.

In Myers case it’s merely a matter of overcoming some technical obstacles and finding some devoted parents and off we go.

So I think you are wrong.

Furthermore, the point of my bringing that issue into play was specifically because Myers had claimed speculated that Silvio Berlusconi was going to rape a brain dead woman to get her pregnant. Berlusconi had clearly never suggested any such thing.

Berlusconi’s main concern was euthanasia. Which was clear from his statement, “This is murder. I would be failing to rescue her. I’m not a Pontius Pilate.”

Myers, ignored that, committed a lie of omission and made it about forcibly impregnating the brain dead.

I’m in fact for euthanasia when it’s the persons desires but it is not clear to me as Myers states that “Here’s a good rule: never consult the priesthood of a death cult before making a life-and-death decision. They always give stupid and evil advice.”

Meanwhile Myers himself had made this prior statement that was worse than anything in the article about Berlusconi.

Heck, perhaps the culture and language of Italy is such that he was only remarking on the health of the woman. Perhaps they value the continence of life so much that the idea of killing her means not only ending her as an individual but also all her potential children.

There is a saying about when Cain killed Able (or vice versa I’m an atheist), “It’s as if he killed all man kind”. That’s because when you kill someone you kill all their potential descendants at the same time.

Myers is straightforward uncharitable in his interpretations of what others have to say. Like assuming my mistake about his deleting a article was a charge of dishonesty. Yet he expects others to interpret a comment where he clearly advocates an experiment designed to produce a victim as something it never was?

Ridiculous. You cannot ethically expect others behavior which you yourself are not willing to give. It is even worse to become angry at others when they are clearly behaving more ethically than you.

I have no ethical qualms with my statement. Myers has clearly advocated a Dr. Moreau type experiment. Myers should have ethical qualms about his statements.