Pressing (Non)Human Rights Issue Du Jour

But would getting your blood sucked just once turn you into a vampire? This seems ecologically absurd -- how could the exponentially growing vampire population keep itself fed? More plausibly (heh) the feeding and the 'recruitment' activities would be distinct (but see below).

I expect, if vampires existed and were not inherently evil (in which case, vampirism would be viewed as a kind of communicable mental illness and be subject to public health control), there would be a market in human blood, research into producing viable blood substitutes (perhaps funded by major food corporations; Coca Cola, maybe?), and exploitation of vampire capabilities for national defense purposes.

A big issue might be that people would prefer vampirization to natural death, so there would be an ever-increasing vampire population even if the natural human population were stabilized.

Well, first of all, Jonah is wrong in his first paragraph. If both vampires and God exist, the former were certainly created by the latter, no less than bloodsucking insects, jackals and Democratic Presidential candidates. To think otherwise -- to imagine that God created only some of what exists, and the Devil the rest, including all the really bad stuff -- is to express a common Manichaean heresy that the Church has struggled to stamp out for millenia (sometimes killing scores of people to do so). That doesn't make you irreligious, but there's no doubt whatsoever that it puts you in violent conflict with Christian dogma, and that the Pope would have you shot for it.

Secondly, he confuses creatures and their rights, as if rights are some kind of odd invisible appendage, a spiritual appendix, with which you're born (or not). Even if God did not create vampires, there's no reason he shouldn't set the rules by which vampires must exist, e.g. whether or not they have rights. To think otherwise is, again, to deny God as the ultimate definer of what is good and moral. This is the kind of heresy for which even a low-level, local Inquisitor could send you to the stake, without worrying about being reproved by his immediate supervisor for politically damaging excess zeal.

(To put all this in a context that modern young folks can understand, it's as if someone said that the worth to society of certain products or services had nothing at all to do with whether they were good or bad for the environment; that you should ask whether X is good or bad for the environment only if X is a battery or car, but not if it's a Starbuck's latte cup or plastic shopping bag. You see the heresy now, don't you?)

Now as to the substantive issue: the Church reached an uneasy accomodation with pagan animism -- whence spring the tradition of vampires, of course -- through the concept of demonic possession, and a separation of concern for the body (which might be possessed by evil) and the soul (which could not be). Since "you" are a soul who has (temporarily) a body, your rights inhere in your soul, and no more in your body than in your shoes and socks and other temporary accoutrement. If your body is subverted by evil -- e.g. you become a vampire -- then "you" (the soul) still have rights, but they are now purely theoretical, since "you" are no longer in control of the only mechanism (your body) through which their benign influence can reach "you." To be concrete, you still have (for example) the right to free speech, but since "you" can no longer speak -- your mouth is no longer under your control -- it becomes a purely theoretical right. In the same sense "you" have the right to life (to not be dispossessed of your body), but it's obviated by the fact that you already have been dispossessed of your body (by the possessing demon).

Since your body's possession essentially deprives you of enjoying in practise any of the rights you theoretically have, the kindest thing to do for "you" (the soul) is to free you from being trapped in a body gone bad. We do this by causing the body to die, thus snapping the link between "you" (the soul) and your body. We imagine this is like pulling a leech or a tick off of you, and that you'd thank us for it.

Again, to put this in modern context, it's as if you suffered some weird stroke that left you in animal vegetative state, so to speak, like what's-her-name in Florida, unable to think and talk and "be human," but able to thrash around and do things that are dangerous to yourself and others (like suck blood and pass on contagious conditions, i.e. being a vampire). We decide that the kindest thing to do is remove the feeding tube, turn off the ventilator, and, or, in this case, remove the lid to your sleeping coffin during full daylight. We don't think this violates "your" rights because we don't think the resistance to destruction expressed by the shell left behind (your twisted body) is really "you" expressing a wish not to die. They're just meaningless nerve impulses and reflexes. Being modern, we don't believe that "you" exist in the sense of being a soul floating somewhere; rather we believe "you" exist in the sense that you existed before the accident, back in time, and somehow if we do what the "you" that lives in the past wanted, we make "you" happy. It's not all that different from saying you have a soul, but it saves us from having to use the same language as our dumfuk superstitious ancestors and failing to seem as modern and hip and cool as we undoubtably are.

To take this even further off into the world of strange, consider this: Carl argued that rights derive from your soul, not your body. Your soul is essentially the program being run by your body, the hardware. Therefor rights arise from software, not hardware.

So all AIs have inborn rights... no real discussion necessary. Can you then destroy the hardware as long as you keep the software?

In regards to witch trials and C. S. Lewis once argued that the only reason we see witch trials as wrong is that we don't really believe that these people had supernatural powers. If there really were people who had demonic powers derived from Satan that they used to create plagues and curse others then it would absolutely be right to burn them at the stake (or execute them anyway).

Similarly if there really were undead creatures roaming around killing and sucking blood then it would very much be right to stake them on sight.

Things start to become complicated when you factor in gypsy curses...

I think that the Christian formulation would be hate the blood sucking, but love the vampire.

That depends on which version of the vampire mythos you're talking about.

If I recall correctly, Bram Stoker said that when people became vampires their souls were locked up (in hell?) and the only way to free those souls was to kill the vampires.

If vampires are just soulless automata programmed to do evil, there is nothing to love. They're just beserk killing machines that need to be shut down.

We decide that the kindest thing to do is remove the feeding tube, turn off the ventilator, and, or, in this case, remove the lid to your sleeping coffin during full daylight.

The coffin-lid removal thingie is a little more problematic than the heart staking. After all, it wouldn't normally be a problem to open someone's coffin in daylight. This is an issue only for vampires. You could simply claim that you didn't know there was a vampire in there. No harm, no foul.

But almost everyone would agree that a wooden stake through the heart is pretty damn actionable, vampire or no. So it's a crime regardless of the victim. The only issue is whether or not it's a hate crime, and thus subject to additional punishment, or if it was in self defense.

Hilarious. I was once bitten by a vampire... which cured him of course. Lancelot and I now hang out together. We occasionally raise people from the dead. We find this discussion of rights amusing since only a strong arm and a bit of armor... you know, might makes right.

We do hunt vampires for sport. We don't use wooden stakes, it's just for sport you know, so it's more a catch and release sort of thing. As a former vampire, Lance knows quite a bit about their habits so it does make the chase so much more fun (what fun would it be to hunt all night and never find anything?)

Vampires aren't human, so they really have no rights. Well, I suppose they have the rights they take for themselves (might makes rights, as they say.)

Gotta go. There's this Dr. Frank-something or other that asked us to come by his castle to do a bit of hunting. He says he's got this experiment he'd like some assistance with. Something to do with raising the dead. Apparently, he'd heard reports of a joust Lance had been in.

I just haven't been able to stay focussed since I was bit. Mirrors don't seem to work for me either. I used to love garlic. You don't suppose?...

I'm becoming a liberal???? The horror!!!

If I recall correctly, Bram Stoker said that when people became vampires their souls were locked up (in hell?) and the only way to free those souls was to kill the vampires.

Well, I didn't mean to drift the subject with the Christian view. The topic was really what would an atheist think? And presumably an atheist would disbelieve in souls just as much as in God.

Jonah is wrong in his first paragraph.... That doesn't make you irreligious, but there's no doubt whatsoever that it puts you in violent conflict with Christian dogma, and that the Pope would have you shot for it.

I predict the Pope will *not* have Jonah shot. :-)

Since "you" are a soul who has (temporarily) a body

Denying the resurrection of the body is also a heresy, Carl. Better watch out for the Pope and his guns. :-)

And you've forgotten completely about the spirit (which laymen often confuse with the soul).

We decide that the kindest thing to do is remove the feeding tube, turn off the ventilator, and, or, in this case, remove the lid to your sleeping coffin during full daylight.

You've been watching too many movies. According to Bram Stoker, Dracula freely moved about in daylight. It was only Hollywood that decided they would go up in smoke.

This is a notion that I always thought nonsensical--no one can be "recruited" to be gay unless they're already at least bisexual. I have never been unsure about my sexuality

I see some problems with this hypothesis. How do you explain societies like Ancient Greece, where homosexuality was the norm? If homosexuality is simply the result of genetics and not culture, why was the homosexual gene so common in that area during that period, compared to periods before or after?

Interesting discussion, this. With one exception (vampirism is contagious) this corresponds with the ticking timebomb - albeit with a slow clock - at the heart of all religions, especially Christianity.

Here it is; what about non-human, self-aware intelligences? Do they have human rights? Do they have a soul? Can they be saved as we have the option to be, by Jesus?

There are two categories of these. One of these is biological ETs, and for them one can add the questions of whether they will inevitably have Fallen as we have (and hence whether they have to be mortal) and whether they can be saved by a Saviour sent in their own image or whether they have to wait until the news of ours reaches them.

The other is non-biological self-aware intelligences, and we may have to struggle with this one within the lifetimes of people reading this. The trouble is; we will have made these things, at least the hardware, and therefore from one point of view we will have the right to do as we wish with them. But do we? I can quite easily see laws requiring multiply redundant backups for the power supply to these entities. Another difficulty is that there is no obvious reason why such an entity has to be mortal. Does that mean that AIs are in a permanent state of grace? And do they have a soul?

It may be possible to upload all the essential information (the memories, the interconnections, etc.) that constitute a human mind into such a device - and again, there is no obvious reason why such an entity has to be mortal, either. At least it could be "immortal until killed" - to die only by unlikely accident after millions of years. If the upload is destructive, does this constitute killing the original - and as such, does the copy have rights?

Having cheated death for countless millennia, does such cheating eventually consign such a soul to Hell? (Bearing in mind that suicide does the same, and a sufficiently well-designed human upload may only be able to die by deliberate decision.)

The theological debates of the 2050s might be quite interesting. I hope I'm around to listen to them!

How do you explain societies like Ancient Greece, where homosexuality was the norm?

I don't believe that homosexuality was the norm. I think that there was a lot of homosexual behavior driven by culture, because a significant portion of the population has the potential to be bi-sexual. If homosexuality (i.e., only attracted to same sex) were the norm, the ancient Greeks probably would have died off.

But you can't "convert" a bi-sexual to homosexual (let alone "converting" a heterosexual). Even if they like doing it with guys, it doesn't mean that women become a turn off.

If homosexuality is simply the result of genetics and not culture, why was the homosexual gene so common in that area during that period, compared to periods before or after?

I should add that sexual orientation is probably not driven only by genetics, though there is almost certainly a genetic component. It seems to be a function both of genetics and womb environment (a distinction that separated twin studies don't resolve). But the reasonably strong (or at least non-zero) correlation between sexual orientation and finger length would indicate that homosexuals are born, not made.

If homosexuality (i.e., only attracted to same sex) were the norm, the ancient Greeks probably would have died off.

From what I've read, ancient Greek males preferred "sex between equals" (i.e., other males). Sex with women was considered more of a "duty to the state."

Reproduction only requires having sex with a woman. It doesn't require being attracted to her.

There were also certain medieval kings widely reputed to be homosexual who married for political purposes and to produce heirs.

But you can't "convert" a bi-sexual to homosexual (let alone "converting" a heterosexual). Even if they like doing it with guys, it doesn't mean that women become a turn off.

Well, *something* converted the ancient Greeks (unless all the historians I've read are wrong). If it wasn't culture, it must have been genetics but I haven't seen any credible explanation of a genetic mechanism to account for that.

From what I've read, ancient Greek males preferred "sex between equals" (i.e., other males). Sex with women was considered more of a "duty to the state."

Yes, that was the culture. It doesn't mean that it was the nature.

Reproduction only requires having sex with a woman. It doesn't require being attracted to her.

I don't know about you, Ed, but in order for me to have sex with a woman, there has to be sufficient attraction to become...tumescent...and to actually achieve climax. That's hard to do if there's no attraction.

Now, that's no problem for me if it's with a woman, but with a man...? Nope. Doesn't happen.

It's not entirely incosistent to believe that people have souls, but that there is no "God" (some sort of all-encompassing supernatural entity), though that pair of beliefs is probably rare.

Homosexuality has a strong cultural component to it. In modern America, we consider both the pitcher and the catcher to be homosexual. Most other cultures consider only the catcher to be homosexual. (And then there's all sorts of variations on lesbianism...) One wonders about the genetics behind the variations in homosexual behavior patterns.

This is all so unnecessarily tedious and ephemeral. Especially since its long since been observed - and quantified even - what qualities to attribute to *actual* vampires.

...for general details, just google "politician"

Or the name of any current vampire for specific information ...say ...John McCain, Barack Obama, or perhaps Nancy Pelosi.

It is pretty scary stuff though.

Yes, that was the culture. It doesn't mean that it was the nature.

I didn't say it was nature. Rand did.

I don't know about you, Ed, but in order for me to have sex with a woman, there has to be sufficient attraction to become...tumescent...and to actually achieve climax. That's hard to do if there's no attraction.

You're assuming an Ancient Greek would feel the same way you do. Besides, I didn't say they weren't attracted to women. I don't know if they were or not. All I know is that (according to what I have read), they generally chose to have recreational sex with men rather than women.

I think the most likely explanation is that they had the same genetic predispositions as those who came before and after them but that those predispositions were largely overridden by their culture and politics.

When I was in college I saw a group of bisexual college kids "convert" an otherwise normal 16yo townie, so it is possible under certain circumstances.

It's not entirely incosistent to believe that people have souls, but that there is no "God" (some sort of all-encompassing supernatural entity), though that pair of beliefs is probably rare.

Don't Buddhists believe that?

But almost everyone would agree that a wooden stake through the heart is pretty damn actionable, vampire or no.

Nowadays, yes. We've elevated the sophist's careful distinction between crimes of omission and crimes of commission to a ruling passion. Our ancestors were more honest. They saw far less moral distinction between leaving garlic and crucifixes lying around carelessly and driving a stake through its hideous black heart. (Incidentally, I believe the efficacious methods of stopping a vampire vary considerably with its country of origin. You'd best check his passport before you try the stake; it won't always work, and it's hard to get a second chance, what with the inhuman strength, ability to turn into smoke or a bat, et cetera.)

In regard to Fletch's ruminations, I think he widly overestimates the difficulty anything that can even vaguely pretend to be conscious will have in securing "rights." We are so inclined to project the ability to think, a will, consciousness. Who among us doesn't think his car or computer doesn't have moods, doesn't from time to time consciously thwart us?

Indeed, most animistic religions did, in a sense, attribute rights and obligations and all manner of human social attributes to nonhuman, even nonliving things. The volcano is conscious, a god, and it gets angry at us, and has a right to the sacrifice of some sharp-tongued virgin, et cetera.

Or, look at the way people are edging towards giving certain "human rights" to pets. In many states, you might have a hard time just taking your dog out to the backyard and bashing its head in with a shovel because you didn't want to feed it anymore.

So I think that any piece of silicon that can go on Oprah and even pretend to be a feelin' kind of thing will have our "rights" lavished on it easily enough. (Hofstadter and Dennett wrote a nice little piece, which you can find here, which ponders such an event.)

After all, the benefit "rights" give you in the face of the majority will is in practise a lot less than it seems. Just ask the black folks, the gay folks, et cetera. They're more a kind of popularity We Like You! badge than a serious shield 'n' buckler that protects you from our collective will.

You're assuming an Ancient Greek would feel the same way you do.

I'm assuming that a heterosexual Ancient Greek would feel the same as I do. That seems like a reasonable assumption. Is it your claim that there is no such thing as sexual orientation, and that who one is able to have sex with is completely a social construct, and infinitely malleable?

Just askin', because that seems to be your claim.

Besides, I didn't say they weren't attracted to women. I don't know if they were or not. All I know is that (according to what I have read), they generally chose to have recreational sex with men rather than women.

What does "choose" mean in this context? There was strong societal pressure to have sex with men rather than with women (other than for procreation for the latter). So what? There is strong societal pressure the other way in today's society, yet some men refuse to have sex with women.

Some had a choice (that's called bisexuality). Others didn't and suffered whatever consequences accrued in that society. But to deny that there were some with no "choice," one way or another, is absurd.

I think the most likely explanation is that they had the same genetic predispositions as those who came before and after them but that those predispositions were largely overridden by their culture and politics.

We agree. The disposition of many is to swing both ways, and that those of that disposition are the best able to fit into whatever the culture demands. That doesn't mean that homosexuals and heterosexuals don't exist.

Insofar as the Greeks and gay sex is concerned, I would throw in two words of caution...

(1) We actually know very little about how the common Greek peasant lived. What has survived in literature is what was written by the elite, and they certainly described themselves as they wanted to be seen more than as they actually were. (We read very little, for example, of the essential role that slavery played in the Greek economy.)

(2) Keep in mind the Greeks distinguished sharply between a cerebral emotional kind of "love" (agape) and the stuff that leads to copulation (eros). When they speak of men loving men you must ask whether they mean agape -- which is presumably what Kobe Bryant means when he says he "loves" his teammates -- or eros.

Hence I think the degree to which ancient Greek practise resembled in any sense the modern San Francisco bathhouse is very difficult to know. (Personally, I think it's obvious that Rand is correct, that an ancient culture that isn't exceedingly horny for het sex is, given ancient risks to life and limb, going to die out in short order. Since Greek culture did not, it follows that Greek men stuffed Greek women full of Greek babies all the damn time, far more than any duty to the state could motivate.)

Ergh! Next time, I should read more carefully before I reply. I could have sworn "Rand" was "Anonymous." :-)

In any case --

I should add that sexual orientation is probably not driven only by genetics, though there is almost certainly a genetic component. It seems to be a function both of genetics and womb environment (a distinction that separated twin studies don't resolve).

Hm. I suppose there *could* have been something unique to the womb environment in Ancient Greece, possibly caused by diet or something, that accounts for the incidence of homosexuality. I can't imagine what that might be, however, and it's not a hypothesis I would seriously entertain without *some* evidence.

But the reasonably strong (or at least non-zero) correlation between sexual orientation and finger length would indicate that homosexuals are born, not made.

Well, that might provide some supporting evidence. If you're right, it should be possible to prove it by measurements on Ancient Greek skeletons.

We would still be left with the question of why those characteristics were suddenly so common in Greek populations during the Classical period (but not before or after).

I think cultural and political influence is still the most likely explanation.

I could have sworn "Rand" was "Anonymous." :-)

I was, temporarily. But unlike the other anonymees who forget to put in a name, I have the godlike powers of fixing it after the fact, given that it's my web site...

We would still be left with the question of why those characteristics were suddenly so common in Greek populations during the Classical period (but not before or after).

I think cultural and political influence is still the most likely explanation.

And you continue to read past me completely. There is no difference between the Ancient Greek population and the modern western population, in terms of sexual orientation. In both cases, a large number of people are AC-DC. In that situation, societal pressure (as, for example, in a men's prison) will dominate. That doesn't mean that there aren't a significant number of people who are exclusively het or homo (many more the former than the latter, though, for obvious reasons).

If there weren't a large number of people who believe gays have a "choice" (because they themselves have a choice, and thus feel morally superior to those who make the wrong "choice"), there would be much less antipathy to homosexuals. I have none, because I know that they, like I (as a heterosexual) have no "choice."

The only people who argue about choice are those who have one. Unfortunately, they irrationally assume that everyone is like them.

I'm assuming that a heterosexual Ancient Greek would feel the same as I do. That seems like a reasonable assumption.

I don't think that's a reasonable assumption at all. For example, based on everything I've read, the average Greek citizen believed the welfare of the State was more important than the welfare of the individual. I'm pretty sure you don't believe that. (If you did, a lot of trolls would spend less time attacking you. :-) That fact alone means they would likely be willing to do many things that you would not, and vice versa.

Which might possibly include sleeping with someone they did not find attractive for the good of the state.

Is it your claim that there is no such thing as sexual orientation, and that who one is able to have sex with is completely a social construct, and infinitely malleable?

It is my claim (based on what I have read) that most citizens of Ancient Greece were homosexual (recreationally). As a working hypothesis, I believe that they chose to be homosexual because their culture and government favored that choice. If they were "born that way," I have to wonder why so many were born that way in that particular time and place. So far, I have not seen even any hypothesis to explain that.

Some had a choice (that's called bisexuality). Others didn't and suffered whatever consequences accrued in that society. But to deny that there were some with no "choice," one way or another, is absurd.

The fact that a choice has unpleasant consequences does not mean it isn't a choice. It means it's a choice that has unpleasant consequences.

That fact alone means they would likely be willing to do many things that you would not, and vice versa.

Which might possibly include sleeping with someone they did not find attractive for the good of the state.

Ed, we continue to talk past each other. You continue to talk about "willing," when the issue is about "able."

I couldn't get it up for a guy, even if the King of Sparta held a spear to my head (in fact, that would probably be counterproductive).

No way. No how.

That's the difference between heterosexual and bisexual (or homosexual), which you don't seem to understand. (Obviously, it's easier for women to fake it...)

Are you saying you can?

If not, then what the hell are you saying?

(2) Keep in mind the Greeks distinguished sharply between a cerebral emotional kind of "love" (agape) and the stuff that leads to copulation (eros). When they speak of men loving men you must ask whether they mean agape

The Ancient Greeks never wrote about "love" because that is an English word that hadn't been invented yet.

No Greek scholar would every confuse "agape" with "eros" (or "philia") because they are different words. Only someone reading from an English translation could make that mistake.

And you continue to read past me completely. There is no difference between the Ancient Greek population and the modern western population, in terms of sexual orientation. In both cases, a large number of people are AC-DC.

I don't believe the evidence supports that statement. Not unless "large number" means close to 80-90% in one case and 10-20% in the other.

If there weren't a large number of people who believe gays have a "choice" (because they themselves have a choice, and thus feel morally superior to those who make the wrong "choice"), there would be much less antipathy to homosexuals.

I don't think that follows at all. It is quite possible (indeed probable) that a person will feel antipathy toward an automaton that is incapable of choice. Especially a biological automaton. Are you comfortable with scorpions because they can't rationally choose to sting or not sting? I'm not.

To me, free will is a good thing and "irresistable impulses," as the psychiatrists call them, are a bad thing (to the extent that they actually exist).

I have none, because I know that they, like I (as a heterosexual) have no "choice."

I think you mean you don't have the desire. You may not be able to choose what you find desirable but you can certainly choose whether to act on your desires. I'm sure you do have a choice because you do not engage in heterosexual relations with every woman you meet. Or even, I'll wager, every woman you find desirable. You could choose to give up your heterosexuality, become celibate, and enter a monastery tomorrow morning -- and even if you don't, that won't mean you didn't have a choice, it will simply mean you made a different choice.

It is quite possible (indeed probable) that a person will feel antipathy toward an automaton that is incapable of choice. Especially a biological automaton. Are you comfortable with scorpions because they can't rationally choose to sting or not sting? I'm not.

No, but neither do I think them immoral, and look down upon them as failed beings for being unable to refrain from stinging. Are you really comparing scorpions to human beings?

To me, free will is a good thing and "irresistable impulses," as the psychiatrists call them, are a bad thing (to the extent that they actually exist).

OK.

So who cares what good and bad are to you? Now you're just moralizing.

You are going to condemn someone to celibacy (or joyless sexual intimacy) for life because they can only enjoy sex with a gender with which you approve?

I think you mean you don't have the desire. You may not be able to choose what you find desirable but you can certainly choose whether to act on your desires. I'm sure you do have a choice because you do not engage in heterosexual relations with every woman you meet.

Yes, I do have a choice to not engage in sexual relations with every woman I meet (who might want to have sex with me).

You could choose to give up your heterosexuality

No, sorry, that's not a choice. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

become celibate, and enter a monastery tomorrow morning

Yes, that is a choice. An extremely unpleasant one, to a confirmed heterosexual. Or sexual being of any kind, other than asexual.

and even if you don't, that won't mean you didn't have a choice, it will simply mean you made a different choice.

Ah. So you confirm my belief. Better to go through life without sex than sex that Ed Wright disapproves of.

Glad I don't live in Ed Wright's world.

Sounds kind of fascist to me.

Getting back to Vampire Rights - Laurell K Hamilton wrote a great series of novels where Congress (or something) declared that vampires have rights and can't be casually staked. The heroine is a liscensed vampire executioner.
(I stopped reading the books when they got too pornographic - but the early stories are very good.)

So who cares what good and bad are to you? Now you're just moralizing.

You do, it seems. You brought up the subject when you mentioned "antipathy" -- which means bad feelings -- so I'm discussing what causes people to feel antipathy.

I don't feel antipathy toward homosexuals, although you tell me I must because I believe they are free actors rather than biological automata.

I *would* feel antipathy toward someone who actually *was* a biological automaton and could *not* control his biological impulses. As most people would, because such a person would be dangerous.

Getting back to the original subject, vampires, zombies, etc. have no choice. They act as they do because it is their nature. (Can't say their biology because they aren't living.) Recognizing that they have no choice does not eliminate fear and antipathy, however. They inspire antipathy precisely *because* they lack free will.

Edward Wright says: vampires, zombies, etc. have no choice. They act as they do because it is their nature. (Can't say their biology because they aren't living.) Recognizing that they have no choice does not eliminate fear and antipathy, however. They inspire antipathy precisely *because* they lack free will.

That doesn't follow. A vampire DOES have free will, they just suck blood to feed. Put the way you wrote it, since mankind needs to eat to survive, we are lacking in free will. A vampire could choose to serve mankind, yet still need to feed....but the choice of lifestyle is still there.

Regarding ancient Greek sexuality: consider the play Lysistrata, about the women of Athens and Sparta trying to end the Peloponnesian War by witholding sex from their husbands. In the play, the men are clearly suffering badly from this sex embargo -- as are the women. Nobody shrugs it off and says "Oh, well, fortunately we have plenty of nice young men." So I think most Greeks would have fit into the Het category rather conclusively. Their society was more tolerant than pre-1980s Western Christendom, but the non-social components of sexuality are vastly more important.

To take this even further off into the world of strange, consider this: Carl argued that rights derive from your soul, not your body. Your soul is essentially the program being run by your body, the hardware. Therefor rights arise from software, not hardware.
So all AIs have inborn rights... no real discussion necessary. Can you then destroy the hardware as long as you keep the software?

"Preserve your software at any cost. The rest is meat."

-- Rudy Rucker, Software

Here's something else to think about...would Canada's Human Rights Commission classify the display of crosses and/or garlic as hate speech?

would Canada's Human Rights Commission classify the display of crosses and/or garlic as hate speech?

Now there's some good parody fodder. Zombies could work, too.

Mr. Henderson, in some places (notably some parts of the UK) display of crosses already has been described as hate speech, or incitement to religious hatred, or some such - at the behest of a religion just as evil as any vampire.

Yes, I did say "evil". And I meant it. There is no Devil but Satan, and Mohammed (hellfire and eternal damnation be upon him) is his prophet.

I was really more interested in the non-human rights bit, but since the gay/bi/hetero things getting such traffic…

Studies on sexuality have come up with interesting bits of info.

- There are a lot few homoseuals then commonly assumed. About 1-2% gay, 2-3% les in any survey in modern world (excluding parts where they kill you if you come out of the closet), but since they cluster to a large degree in similar areas of big cities – half of all homosexuals live ni neighborhoods where they form about 1/10th the pop.

- Studies of unconscious signs of arosal find all women (les or straight) respond (though they may not beleave so) to les or hetero porn imagry. The strength of response varies a bit – but you don’t get huge (99% say) swings). On the other hand Men NEVER respond to the other teams porn. Even guys who say they are completely bi, aren’t when they aren’t consciously working no it. [This might also explain why most all folks gay or straight, are comfortable with Bi females, but most folks – most especially gay males – are weirded out by bi guys.

- A old WW-II study fond a high correlation between high stress hormones in the mother at specific times in pregnancy and guys becoming gay, TV, or TS. They studied women who were told their husbands had just died in battle, and found a 6 week period of the pregnancy. 1 2 week period you get babys who grow up to like going in drag. Another 2 week period – gay, 3rd really sees themselves as women.

Add in scientists finding so many anatomical, neurological, etc difs between gay and straight, the idea you can just learn unlearn it if its ok with society is pretty laughable (though politically popular with some gay political subcultures).

==
Oh, one theory of the popularity and image of Vampires (as apposed to werewolves or something) is that vampirism is seen more sexual by folks then consuming folks for food. Blood relating to passion, nibbling necks being sexual, etc.

And in some (like B. Stokers) versions of vampires, being bitten doesn’t turn you into a vampire – drinking the vampires blood turns you. [So don’t do it with a chubby vampire – who demonstrates they can’t leave any food on the table.]

And there are some real folks who are into cutting each other and drinking each others blood as a sexual kink.

So is vampirism a sexual disease, lifestyle issue, cultural religious issues (the whole afraid of crosses thing seems like Islamists and pork products thing)?

>> June 6, 2008 8:05 AM
>>Rand Simberg wrote:
>> would Canada's Human Rights Commission classify the display of crosses
>> and/or garlic as hate speech?

>Now there's some good parody fodder. Zombies could work, too.

Now lets not be insensative - you know (assuming you've written up a decent Zombie plan) that zombies "movement challenged" in frezzing weather. So it would really be a question of Canadas "Aid to Disabled former living citisens" laws, and the need for employerrs to provide free thermal assistence to keep the Zombies from freezing on their way to and from work.

;)

The popular idea of the 'immortal soul' comes to most religions today from the Greeks. The biblical soul, spirit and mind are often confused with each other.

Mind seems to be an emergent property of the physical structure of the brain but nobody really knows for sure and the bible doesn't seem to discuss it other than to say, when you die your thoughts perish.

The spirit (breath of life?) animates the soul.

Biblically, you don't have a soul. You are a soul. So do animals. You can cut it with a knife and it is not immortal. We feel like we are immortal because originally we were never meant to die and that feeling remains in our hearts (this is what it says.)

It's is a, not has a, with respect to souls.

As for the undead. Ya got me there.

Rand,
Your comment on "gay recruitment" (have to be at least bisexual) points to one of the central issues.

Most pro-gay thought is that "gays are born gay". In that light homophobia is cruel bigotry against people who cannot help how God made them.

Anti-gay thought seems to be of the opinion that "gay behaviour is learned" - and that at least some pro-gay activity is aimed at teaching gay-ness.

Well, no "gay-gene" has been identified yet.

And the truly amazing social experment in tens of thousands of male-only prisons worldwide is largely unreported. Most prisoners engage in gay sex. When outside most don't.

I would suggest that is highly supportive of the "learned behaviour" theory.

Well, no "gay-gene" has been identified yet.

To the degree that it is genetic it is almost certainly not a result of a single gene. It's probably a combination of genes that, individually, have nothing to do with sexual orientation, but when in a combination express themselves as that in the phenotype.

And the truly amazing social experment in tens of thousands of male-only prisons worldwide is largely unreported. Most prisoners engage in gay sex. When outside most don't.

Perhaps it's unreported because it's untrue? I'm sure that many do, but not that "most" do. And much of it is rape, which doesn't count for the victim.

I would suggest that is highly supportive of the "learned behaviour" theory.

And I would suggest that it is highly supportive of the theory that a significant number of men are bi-sexual, and can go either way, depending on the circumstances. It doesn't mean that some people aren't born homosexual, or heterosexual.