Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Talk about blogs, messageboards, and other social media like Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and LiveJournal.
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by scottydog »

RJDiogenes wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:01 pm
How do you think vegetarians and vegans would feel about cows that had bulbs of meat growing on their sides like fruit, and that would grow back when picked?
That's such a fascinating scenario. Imagine having the ability to grow back limbs that have been severed in accidents. I like that.

And eating cow meat that is replenishable and never hurts the cow? That sounds almost too good to be true. If a vegan objects to it. that's their problem :lol:

What if we discover that humans could grow bulbs of meat growing on their sides like fruit, and that humans actually prefer the taste of human meat? Any ethical issues there?
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by RJDiogenes »

scottydog wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:02 pm
And eating cow meat that is replenishable and never hurts the cow? That sounds almost too good to be true. If a vegan objects to it. that's their problem :lol:
I wrote that in a story one time. I think I even added the detail that the cows liked getting plucked. :lol:
What if we discover that humans could grow bulbs of meat growing on their sides like fruit, and that humans actually prefer the taste of human meat? Any ethical issues there?
There are no ethical issues with eating human meat, only with obtaining it, so human meat bulbs would be fine as far as that goes. Of course, other issues would inevitably arise, like people getting plucked against their will. Also, many would probably consider it aesthetically ruinous.

How about bulbs of meat that just reproduce themselves by splitting half like cells? Would that freak people out?
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by scottydog »

One would think that would be just fine. Just plain old natural mitosis. If food were that plentiful, might we have a very problematic population explosion on our hands?

Also, I'm trying to remember the movie Soylent Green. Were humans deliberately killed as a food source? Or did they die of natural causes?
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by RJDiogenes »

scottydog wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:38 am
One would think that would be just fine. Just plain old natural mitosis. If food were that plentiful, might we have a very problematic population explosion on our hands?
Probably, since we already do. :lol:
Also, I'm trying to remember the movie Soylent Green. Were humans deliberately killed as a food source? Or did they die of natural causes?
I think people were euthanized at a certain age or by lottery or something. But I think you ended up part of the dip no matter how you died.

Do you think we can turn huggle's larvae and pupa into intelligent aliens?
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by scottydog »

RJDiogenes wrote:
Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:35 pm
Do you think we can turn huggle's larvae and pupa into intelligent aliens?
Sure, but I'd think when it comes to intelligence and brain-power, size matters. So let's magnify those lavae and pupa 1000 times.

Did you enjoy watching Jeff Goldbum and Gina Davis in that classic 1986 film, 'The Fly'?
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by RJDiogenes »

scottydog wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:00 am
Sure, but I'd think when it comes to intelligence and brain-power, size matters. So let's magnify those lavae and pupa 1000 times.
Oh, yeah, definitely people sized or so. The things that intrigue me are the cilia on the head that resemble tentacles and the slipper that they incubate in. Kind of like a marsupial with a detached pouch. It reminded me that I used to wonder about intelligent aliens that resemble ammonites.
Did you enjoy watching Jeff Goldbum and Gina Davis in that classic 1986 film, 'The Fly'?
Yes, one of the few remakes that I've enjoyed, mainly because of the cast.

Do you think remakes should be banned and their perpetrators executed?
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by scottydog »

Well, every once in a while, a remake can outshine the original and any other predecessors. For example, I never liked any of The Star is Born movies. The Judy Garland original was bad, and so was the Barbara Streisand remake. But the most recent one, with Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga, is really terrific.

And even when a remake sucks, which it usually does, it kind of reinforces the greatness of the original.

Do you have the same unfavorable attitude about covers of classic songs?
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by RJDiogenes »

Song covers can be better or worse or just unnecessary. Different art forms have different standards. For example, if I covered an Isaac Asimov story by copying it on my own word processor, it would be called "Copyright infringement." :lol:

What do you think about term limits for Copyrights?
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by scottydog »

I'm not sure. I do know that when I publish someone else's photographs, I can do it without permission, without paying anyone, once the photo is over 100 years old. I definitely like that! But is it right? I dunno.

Your thoughts?
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by RJDiogenes »

There's nothing to be done about the past, of course-- you can't go on a genetic hunt for Shakespeare's living relatives and assign them royalties-- but I believe in perpetual Copyright. There's no reason why intellectual property should be of less importance than physical property.

How do you think intellectual property should be handled?
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by scottydog »

RJDiogenes wrote:
Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:18 pm
How do you think intellectual property should be handled?
Well, there is a nice discussion of the pros and cons of perpetual copyright on Wikipedia.. I gotta say, if I have to take a side, I'd side with Mark Twain who was in favor of perpetual copyright.

What about you?
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by RJDiogenes »

That Wiki is a good summary, and I didn't know Twain wrote on the subject. I'm definitely strongly in favor of intellectual rights, including perpetual Copyright-- in fact, it's a pivotal plot point in my Spacious Skies script.

Do you think we should advocate for a Constitutional Amendment?
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by scottydog »

You mean a Constitutional Amendment declaring chocolate to be our official national food? Absolutely.

But couldn't or shouldn't the Supreme Court rule on perpetual copyright?
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by RJDiogenes »

scottydog wrote:
Sun Jun 20, 2021 11:18 pm
You mean a Constitutional Amendment declaring chocolate to be our official national food? Absolutely.
I suspect it may lose to apple pie. You may be interested in this list, though. :lol: Or maybe not....
But couldn't or shouldn't the Supreme Court rule on perpetual copyright?
They would have to rule against it, because the Constitution is very specific that Copyright is to be for a limited time. However, there is rather a gigantic loophole that would, or could, allow for perpetual Copyright if the idea really caught on. Because the Constitution leaves the actual term up to Congress, and Congress has changed it several times. So all they'd really have to do is set the term at a billion years, and you've got perpetual Copyright for all intents and purposes. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would do with that.

What do you think is the optimum number of Justices for the Supreme Court?
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by scottydog »

RJDiogenes wrote:
Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:26 pm
You may be interested in this list, though. :lol:
How sad that Virginia doesn't have a state food. If we did, I think it would be peanuts, ham, and apples. Those three things are eaten in abundance here.
RJDiogenes wrote:
Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:26 pm
What do you think is the optimum number of Justices for the Supreme Court?
Seems to me that if our criminal trials require 12 jurors, why not our supreme court? Of course, having an odd number prevents ties. So I'd have an alternate member break the tie. And that alternate member would be me :lol:

Do you think there's an optimal number?
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by RJDiogenes »

It would definitely need to be an odd number, otherwise there would need to be a designated tie-breaker, like there is for the Senate, and I can't think of any position that would be appropriate for that.

I think it's been stable at nine for a long time because that probably is the optimal number. It allows for a variety of viewpoints (theoretically, at least when the court isn't stacked with ringers) and yet it's not too unwieldy. And it has a kind of symmetry to it, like a tribunal of tribunals.

What would your first priority be for a Constitutional Amendment to protect American values?
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by scottydog »

I'm not sure, but my first instinct would be to honor the values and the intentions of the founding fathers in protecting us against tyranny. Toward that aim, I would take steps to further curb the power of the presidency, and to further curb the power of a few states to dominate the Senate and the Electoral College.

So if I had to take two steps, it would be to limit presidential powers and eliminate the electoral college. Is this similar to what you would do? And would doing both require Constitutional amendments?
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by RJDiogenes »

Eliminating the Electoral College would require an Amendment. Limiting Presidential powers may, depending on what specifically is intended.

I would focus more on limiting, or eliminating, the power of political parties. And to do that we need a two-part Amendment: Article 1 for dismissing the Electoral College and Article 2 for instituting ranked voting. This would result in many good things, but the most important is that it would break the back of the two-party system. Independent and third-party candidates would become viable and there would be no such thing as blue states and red states.

If you want to limit the power of the Presidency, do you support a single, six-year term for the President?
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by scottydog »

I used to be against the idea of a single term limit for any office, but then I moved to Virginia and witnessed how well such a system works. Unlike other state governors, Virginia governors are not allowed to serve consecutive terms. They have been barred from re-election since the adoption of Virginia's second constitution in 1830.

The result is that our governors actually focus on doing their jobs instead of working toward re-election. It's wonderful.

Six year terms seem a bit too long to me. I agree that four is short, so let's compromise and give our Presidents a five-year single term.

What do you think?
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by RJDiogenes »

How about an eight-year term with the first half filled by the president and the second by the vice president?
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by scottydog »

Hmmm... that would be interesting!

Would you be okay with going back to the old days when the 2nd place winner of the presidential election became the VP?
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by RJDiogenes »

Only in conjunction with the above eight-year scenario. That should liven things up. :lol:

What sort of amendment, other than election reform, could prevent the Supreme Court from being weaponized?
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by scottydog »

To avoid partisanship on the Supreme Court, could there be an amendment requiring all justices to be politically independent, forbidding them to be registered in any political party?

Or could there be an amendment not allowing any one political party to hold more than 60% of the seats on the court, regardless of its size?
User avatar
RJDiogenes
Olympian
Olympian
Posts: 69170
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:24 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by RJDiogenes »

scottydog wrote:
Sat Jun 26, 2021 7:12 am
To avoid partisanship on the Supreme Court, could there be an amendment requiring all justices to be politically independent, forbidding them to be registered in any political party?
That's too much like a religious test, and Amendments can't control somebody's beliefs. That also validates political parties or ideologies by implication, the same way the original language validated slavery by implication.
Or could there be an amendment not allowing any one political party to hold more than 60% of the seats on the court, regardless of its size?
Again, that validates political parties as participants in the Constitutional process by implication. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law apolitically, and that's mostly how it has been until the two current parties began their quest to weaponize the bench. This is something that can only be repaired with by dismantling the party system, which brings us back to election reform.

What other process could seat a Justice besides appointment by the Executive and confirmation by the Legislative?
Please visit My Store and My Gallery and My YouTube Page. :)

:grape:
User avatar
scottydog
Consul
Consul
Posts: 24132
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Contact:

Re: Questions Only VI: How Much Is Too Much?

Post by scottydog »

I've never understood how the three branches of government are supposed to be independent when the President can appoint a SCOTUS member. This appointment is rarely if ever denied by the legislative branch.

Personally, I'd like to see the House of Representatives put forth a candidate. It would be The People's Choice. But who should confirm such a candidate?
Post Reply