Cloning : The Cloning Trap, Loss of Psyche, and False Desires To Live Lies

Originally posted by whatukno
I think you are missing out on the start of a great business venture there SKL.

A wuk in every home!

And, instead of sending our kids to die in some god forsaken battlefield, you send the wuk clone army to tackle any baddies.

We will do a first production run of say 100,000 just to start, if the idea takes off, then we can ramp up production for the military.

Sure, they might turn on everyone at a pre determined date and take over the planet, but we will put an asterisk on the shipping box!

*[size=-3]Warning, clone is pre programmed to take over population on December 21 2012.

I mean if you are worried about lawsuits.

No, Wuk, I'm not missing a thing, I have no issue with you coming to visit me.

However, I would not want you in my home permanently, might soil the carpets.

Why would I support becoming a ruthless dictator for hire with 100,000 Wukkie's?

Sorry, I hate dictators, I had enough with Bush, and I was over Obama the moment he stepped into office, he's nothing special, just another bastard in power.

And, I would never give him the power of cloning, you or anyone else.

Is 2012 The Next Y2K Con-Job Sponsored Via Continuity of Government?

2012 is just another date, a Y2K, just a scare tactic, clones or otherwise.

It is meant to manipulate people into buying more and thinking less, that's it.

A simple intimidation tactic used by bullies in power through Hollywood and science.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


But see, if ego-driven people with lots of money purchase clones of themselves, I think it would have a beneficial, eugenic-style effect.

Reasons being (all this does assume that cloning does not result in genetic damage to the DNA the clone ends up running)...Rich people are statistically smarter than poor people, overall (me I'm poor and smart but statistic ain't the plural of anecdote)...and...the phenomenon they call "regression to the mean" i.e. a particularly intelligent person does tend to have children who are somewhat less intelligent (absent luck or directed breeding, again, it's an overall effect...do it this way, a particularly tall person usually has offspring that wind up shorter than him, same deal)...

Currently, the rich ego-driven people, "Hollywood types" and others, seem like they hook up +reproduce with trophy wives/bimbos of both sexes, goodlooking ownable sex-worker types who, I do suspect, are or tend to be less intelligent than the ego-driven rich types who acquire them...thus the kids will tend to be goodlooking but dumber than the rich parent (even without a bimbo-selection-effect, regression to the mean would dumb down the kids, absent a deliberate IQ-oriented breeding program or some other particular social/cultural factor that does result in mate selection for high IQ (like what?- we can name or imagine some))...

Whereas if the rich people egotists (who again tend to be smarter) clone themselves, they will pass on their smart genetics undiluted to the clones...thus resulting in an increase in smart people...And ain't the main problem, most places, usually, that there are not enough smart people?

(This effect of course would fail if the price of cloning becomes as cheap as a sixpack, or if cloning becomes a "civil right"/free commonplace under publicly-paid-for healthcare...But I don't see that happening right away...I think it'll be expensive for a while first, yep.)

But I can easily see, o SKL, that this argument would naturally rub wrong against underlying attitudes you are likely to possess as a Christian...Christianity has a sweet, powerful, useful-for-many-things underlying presumption of fundamental equality, because we are all children of God (made by Him with different external qualities but yet equivalent in that the existence of each is in service of His will), and, we all have souls...whereas I'm saying, some people are better than others, let's work on that approach for a while...But one could still believe that all existing currently alive humans are sacred and allowed, and yet shop-around/exercise-some-discretion about which potential/future/not-yet-extant humans we want to exert ourselves to bring into existence...I do think those two points-of-view could be combined if one were so inclined...(kinda like good stewardship, wouldn't God intend for us figure out how to do things better as we go along, with less waste and ruin...if we were always expected to persist with the same methods, God wouldn't have told Adam he was going to have to work hard at agriculture after getting kicked out of Eden, He would have said "You're going to have walk real far before you run into some more tasty fruit, buddy.")



[edit on 10-3-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]

deathwalker wikipedia

Sinclair, Garibaldi and representatives of the various worlds gather on the observation deck, including, to everyone's surprise, Ambassador Kosh, to watch as Jha'dur's ship leaves B5. However, before it can reach the jump gate, a Vorlon ship comes through and destroys Jha'dur's ship. Kosh informs the assembled representatives that they are not ready for immortality yet.

I know this part to be true.

Like with everything else it will be developed and used. Those in power will use it for there own ends.

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

But see, if ego-driven people with lots of money purchase clones of themselves, I think it would have a beneficial, eugenic-style effect.

Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree, eugenics is not something I support.

There is no benefit, Hollywood, or otherwise, it undermines humanity.

I support things which actually keep humanity in balance.

This quite obviously does not, it unhinges that balance, and gives Government power.

World Government is already far too corrupt without more power.

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
Reasons being (all this does assume that cloning does not result in genetic damage to the DNA the clone ends up running)...Rich people are statistically smarter than poor people, overall (me I'm poor and smart but statistic ain't the plural of anecdote)...and...the phenomenon they call "regression to the mean" i.e. a particularly intelligent person does tend to have children who are somewhat less intelligent (absent luck or directed breeding, again, it's an overall effect...do it this way, a particularly tall person usually has offspring that wind up shorter than him, same deal)...

That's complete horse puckey and you know it, rich people are not more intelligent.

Rich people have less ethics, less morals, and less ability to comprehend reality.

They easily forget they had to actually work to gain those dollars.

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
Currently, the rich ego-driven people, "Hollywood types" and others, seem like they hook up +reproduce with trophy wives/bimbos of both sexes, goodlooking ownable sex-worker types who, I do suspect, are or tend to be less intelligent than the ego-driven rich types who acquire them...thus the kids will tend to be goodlooking but dumber than the rich parent (even without a bimbo-selection-effect, regression to the mean would dumb down the kids, absent a deliberate IQ-oriented breeding program or some other particular social/cultural factor that does result in mate selection for high IQ (like what?- we can name or imagine some))...

Sorry, a trophy-wife is about as worthless as a set of nipples on a man.

And good looks do not matter one iota over intelligence, period.

IQ has nothing to do with breeding, although genetically a predisposition is inherent in brainpower, people without selective breeding can be highly intelligent, and book-learning and street smarts can be gained.

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
Whereas if the rich people egotists (who again tend to be smarter) clone themselves, they will pass on their smart genetics undiluted to the clones...thus resulting in an increase in smart people...And ain't the main problem, most places, usually, that there are not enough smart people?

And not all people with an ego are intelligent, some are, and some are quite ignorant.

Sorry, I see little in this argument, other than semantics, and you pushing egotist's.

That is not to say your ego is the one I am questioning, I could care less, and the arguement is moot, because I do not value the same things as you.

Obviously.

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
(This effect of course would fail if the price of cloning becomes as cheap as a sixpack, or if cloning becomes a "civil right"/free commonplace under publicly-paid-for healthcare...But I don't see that happening right away...I think it'll be expensive for a while first, yep.)

The cost of cloning is not just about the physical price, as in a dollar sign, but the over all cost of humanity itself, reducing the natural elements of genetics, over a sterilized test tube, it means that the check of natural selection are overstepped and the survival of humanity is controlled.

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
But I can easily see, o SKL, that this argument would naturally rub wrong against underlying attitudes you are likely to possess as a Christian...Christianity has a sweet, powerful, useful-for-many-things underlying presumption of fundamental equality, because we are all children of God (made by Him with different external qualities but yet equivalent in that the existence of each is in service of His will), and, we all have souls...whereas I'm saying, some people are better than others, let's work on that approach for a while...But one could still believe that all existing currently alive humans are sacred and allowed, and yet shop-around/exercise-some-discretion about which potential/future/not-yet-extant humans we want to exert ourselves to bring into existence...I do think those two points-of-view could be combined if one were so inclined...(kinda like good stewardship, wouldn't God intend for us figure out how to do things better as we go along, with less waste and ruin...if we were always expected to persist with the same methods, God wouldn't have told Adam he was going to have to work hard at agriculture after getting kicked out of Eden, He would have said "You're going to have walk real far before you run into some more tasty fruit, buddy.")

[edit on 10-3-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]

Sorry, this has what to do with Christianity, or lack thereof, because I never brought up that aspect of it, other than mentioning test tube and petri dishes as "playing God", meaning from a moral centered meaning.

I do not see this as a religious discussion but as a philosophical one.

And the meaning of "playing God" is a figure of speech, because I see this as a moral choice, ethical, and beliefs, and I am not arguing this from the "Christian" perspective, but from a human perspective.

I am human first, Earthling second, American third, Christian non-denominational last.

I pick humanity, the imperfect one, first, Earth as a home, second, America as a residence, third, and my religion and or practice of it, last.

There is a balance, in all things, and humans need to live it, without corrupting it.

In my humble opinion, cloning is a corruption of humanity, striving for a non-existent Utopia, something impossible to reach and nothing worthwhile, at all.

Utopia is nothing I seek out, a balance of nature however, is worthwhile.

Those people seeking out cloning, the people who control the process, funding, laws, those are the people who want to use that to manipulate leveraged power over humanity, through the use of monetary gain over psychological blackmail over the masses that hope resides in cloning.

Originally posted by ripcontrol
deathwalker wikipedia

Sinclair, Garibaldi and representatives of the various worlds gather on the observation deck, including, to everyone's surprise, Ambassador Kosh, to watch as Jha'dur's ship leaves B5. However, before it can reach the jump gate, a Vorlon ship comes through and destroys Jha'dur's ship. Kosh informs the assembled representatives that they are not ready for immortality yet.

I know this part to be true.

Like with everything else it will be developed and used. Those in power will use it for there own ends.

I have nothing but respect for your opinion, ripcontrol, but what does science fiction have to do with the discussion, and are you using it as a metaphor?

[edit on 10-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

I do apologize.

Yes. I tried to fin the scene where kosh said we are not ready.

I don't think humanity is completely ready for it. Maybe with the right people doing it we could go somewhere with it, but I do agree with you on the fact that it will be preceded by abuses.

I have been mean to ask this.

"Let us assume for a moment the choice on the use is yours. Your in charge and your decision is final how would you make it and what would you set up."

I would call in all the scientist and geniuses who wanted to participate. Next I would make them all go through the most extensive public scrutiny and psychological profiling. Weeding out political ideologist, sociopaths, and what every other forms of instability I can think of. Once done I should have only a handful left. I would then offer each a lifetime appointment to an oversight committee. Hopefully in two or generations hence they will have grown up Americans in america.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

I'm going to make some bald, bland assertions (adducing not a shred of a study to back them up - that's a little work I'd rather avoid, I'll just sod off) in the hope that if I speak carefully on these limited points you may find that we are in agreement.

Being smart is like "general ability". It pretty much helps you to do every activity. (We can find smart, incapable, ineffectual people...we can find albino horses...those are individual data-points...but en masse to be smarter is to be more able, more competent, to survive better.)

Making money/hanging on to money is a relatively necessary, reinforced, survival-oriented area of activity. Mostly everybody pays some attention to the subject (those who don't tend to starve, die younger, fail to reproduce). Smart people, all other things being equal (and smart people selected purely for IQ, all other characteristics disregarded, as well) are going to do better making money as a group than the corresponding remainder groups of stupid people, statistically, overall. Why would they not? Slow learning, short attention span, less memory are not usually practically helpful, for most of my tasks...if I figured stuff out faster and remembered more, I know I would be better off, with my to-do list.

There is always a distribution of individual results...a bad golfer on a good day beats a good golfer on a bad day...this does not cancel out their lifetime averages. There are smart people who are poor (hey, that's me), there are stupid people who are rich, but the smart people are found in a higher percentage in the rich group, they are more densely packed into the rich group versus the percentage of smart people in the population as a whole.

It is in this sense that rich people are smarter than poor people...proportionately, not invariably, as a tendency, not a certainty.

Does any of this seem weird or incorrect to you?
If you can see where I'm at with these points, I'll shut up, I don't mean to hound you.
Actually, if you disagree, I'll shut up and leave you alone too...I'm just wondering how basic our disagreement is...

reply to post by ripcontrol


While I will applaud your thoughts we both know that scientists and geniuses will never condone that, because society has no ability to make that happen.

I commend your desire to force a sense of nobility to this endeavor.

Not all nobility is nobility, however, if it forces one party, and leaves another to it's own devices.

However, scientists are not conditoned to the whims of people who do not fund them.

In other words, money talks, and you know what walks.

That applies to any and all of us here on ATS not just you and I.

Let us not confuse those things we would like to do and the things impossible.

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

I'm going to make some bald, bland assertions (adducing not a shred of a study to back them up - that's a little work I'd rather avoid, I'll just sod off) in the hope that if I speak carefully on these limited points you may find that we are in agreement.

Being smart is like "general ability". It pretty much helps you to do every activity. (We can find smart, incapable, ineffectual people...we can find albino horses...those are individual data-points...but en masse to be smarter is to be more able, more competent, to survive better.)

Okay, I will stop you there, because I do not agree already, being smart is not general.

There is a distinct difference between being smart and being intelligent too.

Not trying to pick you apart with semantics but our definitions are different.

Smart, intelligence, and wisdom are three different things, immediately.

Smart is knowing something, intelligence is knowing you know something which is important, and wisdom is knowing when to apply it and why.

Even an orangutan can be trained to comprehend that money is as important as bananas.

Through training a monkey and or orangutan can be smart.

Does this mean a smart orangutan will know how to use it?

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
Making money/hanging on to money is a relatively necessary, reinforced, survival-oriented area of activity. Mostly everybody pays some attention to the subject (those who don't tend to starve, die younger, fail to reproduce). Smart people, all other things being equal (and smart people selected purely for IQ, all other characteristics disregarded, as well) are going to do better making money as a group than the corresponding remainder groups of stupid people, statistically, overall. Why would they not? Slow learning, short attention span, less memory are not usually practically helpful, for most of my tasks...if I figured stuff out faster and remembered more, I know I would be better off, with my to-do list.

Making money and saving it, assuming that is what you meant, is a matter of principles, a matter of discipline, and a matter of knowing it is important.

Money however does not show intelligence, it shows merely an ability to comprehend complex ideals, as well as knowing when to invest, how to invest, and or the ability to comprehend that you should seek out a financial planner.

Those to me are all basic common sense and show nothing of one's IQ.

You equal money and intelligence, however I do not, nothing equals intelligence other than the ability to know something, and know it has its up side and down side, and understanding the ramifications of both, and picking wisely.

Just because I've had a financial planner, and an E*Trade Account, this does not make me intelligent, however intelligence in having made money is applied in whether I have made more money than I have lost through the Stock Market.

And intelligence can be crushed if the Market collapses and or funds are swindled.

For example, the situation where our monetary system is being skewered through the current situation with the Federal Reserve, right now.

This applies to the topic because none of us would be able to fund anyone to stop those seeking out cloning rights and the changes of law, if we were not in the know, and they could very well change those while we are literally and financially impotent, which applies to many things.

Just because you or I are intelligent, does not mean we have necessarily been able to keep our money safe from collapse, if we did not know the right people.

So, how does money apply to intelligence, because from where I am sitting, just because there are rich people who are smart, does not mean there are not rich people who are inherently corrupt and will be willing to steal it all?

In this instance intelligence and having money mean nothing, a lack of ethics and convincing someone to depart from their money means nothing more than a criminal mentality, like the scoundrel Bernie Maddoff, he's not smart nor cunning.

He's a criminal, period.

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
There is always a distribution of individual results...a bad golfer on a good day beats a good golfer on a bad day...this does not cancel out their lifetime averages. There are smart people who are poor (hey, that's me), there are stupid people who are rich, but the smart people are found in a higher percentage in the rich group, they are more densely packed into the rich group versus the percentage of smart people in the population as a whole.

I can agree to some of this but I fail to see how statistical probability plays with intelligence.

Being smart, intelligent, or wise, is different for each and everyone too.

I can tell you're smart and even intelligent but wisdom is something not everyone has nor will have the ability to ever have, I'm not saying you're not wise, I can see some wisdom, just as I am certain you can see wisdom in myself, but wisdom is one of those things which is not fully known until someone is put to a test in a situation which is highly critical.

And then proven right without the consequences being dramatically detrimental.

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
It is in this sense that rich people are smarter than poor people...proportionately, not invariably, as a tendency, not a certainty.

Does any of this seem weird or incorrect to you?
If you can see where I'm at with these points, I'll shut up, I don't mean to hound you.
Actually, if you disagree, I'll shut up and leave you alone too...I'm just wondering how basic our disagreement is...

I can see how you might apply your knowledge to see that but I disagree.

It does not seem weird, or incorrect, just different from my perspective.

I see no reason for your desire to stop, I think we're having an intelligent conversation about cloning, ethics, and morals, and everyone here is debating those things, so please, feel free to continue your stance.

Unless you capitulate, give up, and surrendering on this topic is not something I am willing to do, nor do I encourage you to do so, it is merely a disagreement.

I believe over all our final disagreement may come down to choices of words, application of them, and different morals, ethics, and beliefs, not that there is anyhting wrong with that because I knew this particular topic would bring out people of all thoughts and I encourage people to disagree.

How else are we going to encourage the ATS motto?

Deny Ignorance.

If everyone agreed with you, or even myself, this would indeed be a boring website.

Carry on, please, because I find your stance interesting, even if I disagree.

We might agree elsewhere on cloning, we might never find common ground.

It is however a highly interesting discussion on a complex issue.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

First of all I'd like to thank ripcontrol.
for the quote from Babylon 5.

The series is the most perfect presentation of mankind's biggest achievements and most beautiful virtues but also the worst and the baddest.


Now, on Topic !

Wow ! To bad I was not here from the beginning. I've just read all of my thoughts being mentioned.
Well...
I'm gonna give them anyway.

Cloning I do not think to be a problem. Nature does it and our cells what makes up our body do it.
I would promote organs ( if possible ) to be cloned but only as organ without a host.

I've read some people say it's unnatural.
Well... I believe our intelligence and science are part of nature. Virtues we humans are given through evolutionary development. Of course the definition of natural and artificial are very different, I'd like to believe the artificial is only made possible by evolution and therefore it is an extended form of it.
Cloning of animals or even humans I definitely oppose ! For a number of reasons.
1. Nature clones. There is a reason for us not to clone but to have intercourse for our offspring. The reason is mixing up the genes to fight of disease and virus like enemies. Hell... Mixing up the same genes for a while leads to all kinds of problems. Don't you think using the same over and over would be in our best interests ?
2. Then there is the fact of a clone being an individual on it's own. Even if we can download our essence in the clone body and delete the other. I say this would be murder.
3. The obvious bad intentions which would make clones lesser then us pure bloods. Slaves maybe or replacements for us. ( Always check out the people who make the payments for it to be possible
4. Some where in the bible is told the Antichrist will not have parents or something like it. It immediately made me think of cloning.
I could assume they new this science back then and for them to be able to warn us. and I think there could be cloning used to build us into them at some point in time.

So I'll start of with this.

@ the OP.thanks for your U2U I really enjoyed reading it.

In other words, our entire nation were on the fringes of being wiped out, I might support it.

You got to explain to me why you think such an event makes cloning legit.
I fail to see the difference.

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Sinter Klaas]

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas


First of all I'd like to thank ripcontrol.

for the quote from Babylon 5.

The series is the most perfect presentation of mankind's biggest achievements and most beautiful virtues but also the worst and the baddest.

I loved Babylon 5 when it was on.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Now, on Topic !

Wow ! To bad I was not here from the beginning. I've just read all of my thoughts being mentioned.
Well...
I'm gonna give them anyway.

I'm sure you're middle ground based on some of what I've seen of you.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Cloning I do not think to be a problem. Nature does it and our cells what makes up our body do it.
I would promote organs ( if possible ) to be cloned but only as organ without a host.

Nature does it, through a process which happens, without mankind's manipulation.

This will be where I see the difference between nature and a petri dish.

That petri dish is nothing more than assembly line production, which is to say, speeding up the process, when people are needlessly sent off to useless war.

War is nothing more than an extension of politics gone wrong.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
I've read some people say it's unnatural.
Well... I believe our intelligence and science are part of nature. Virtues we humans are given through evolutionary development. Of course the definition of natural and artificial are very different, I'd like to believe the artificial is only made possible by evolution and therefore it is an extended form of it.
Cloning of animals or even humans I definitely oppose ! For a number of reasons.
1. Nature clones. There is a reason for us not to clone but to have intercourse for our offspring. The reason is mixing up the genes to fight of disease and virus like enemies. Hell... Mixing up the same genes for a while leads to all kinds of problems. Don't you think using the same over and over would be in our best interests ?
2. Then there is the fact of a clone being an individual on it's own. Even if we can download our essence in the clone body and delete the other. I say this would be murder.
3. The obvious bad intentions which would make clones lesser then us pure bloods. Slaves maybe or replacements for us. ( Always check out the people who make the payments for it to be possible
4. Some where in the bible is told the Antichrist will not have parents or something like it. It immediately made me think of cloning.
I could assume they new this science back then and for them to be able to warn us. and I think there could be cloning used to build us into them at some point in time.

So I'll start of with this.

You bring up valid points and I can see what you're thinking in regards to it.

I can see selective breeding, but the over all bigger picture to me, it is about diversity, not allowing those in power to have the ability nor resources to wipe out an entire race, and then clone slaves as a replacement labor force.

I trust World Government about as far as I could shove a rattlesnake up my backside.

Those in power and with funding are not to be trusted with what essentially lends to toys and unlimited funding, because this is exactly where it will lead.

History has a way of repeating itself and one megalomiac with a final solution was enough.

When people tell me we have learned from history, I tell them, some people have, but the body of World Government, as a whole, has not, and what is worse, people and organizations like the Bilderberg Group will do what the Hell they want, irregardless of the consequences, because they can.

Not necessarily because they should and I for one refuse to let these bastards have that sort of power over society, and while yes, I do not necessarily have the funding to stop it, I may be poor, currently, this will not always be.

The Bilderberg Group is an organization that meets in secret and keeps its agenda hidden from the populaces of each respective nations those leaders represent, and organizations who keep secrets like they do, end up ending national boundaries, which leads to where America is currently.

Bilderberger : The Global Agenda, Eugenics, Global Warming, And Biochiping Sheeple

The Bilderberg Group already tried to eliminate Canada's nationality.

Their goal is to drop national boundaries between Canada, Mexico, and America.

And part of that equation was through collapasing America's economy.

The claim is that the North American Union will not happen.

This is simplistic smoke and mirrors and reverse psychology.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
@ the OP.thanks for your U2U I really enjoyed reading it.

In other words, our entire nation were on the fringes of being wiped out, I might support it.

You got to explain to me why you think such an event makes cloning legit.
I fail to see the difference.

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Sinter Klaas]

You did see where I was speaking of Nuclear Winter, correct?

My meaning is that if 75% of a country were wiped out due to idiocy of those in power.

I also spoke of myself writing the policy that kept it in check from happening.

I see the people in power willing to push a False-Flag Operation to nullify a large percentage of the populace, just so as to be allowed to breed clones.

They would declare it an emergency under the National Emergency Act.

And I was speaking of it as being something even then I was leery about being a part of under the cloak of Continuity of Government, which might suggest if one were so inclined to agree, that the research is already in the works and buried under many levels of compartmentalization.

And I did say it was something, one of the few things, I might consider viable.

My meaning is that it is about one of the only things I would see as a serious reason for myself to consider it, if and when this hypothetical Nuclear Winter were to happen, but only if it happened by happenstance.

Not because of a created disaster, because of a Nuclear False-Flag Operation.

In other words, survival of a species, as an ultimate last resort, only.

And even then I'm ultimately considering it as a matter of survival and responsibility.

Because as far as I can see any and all other means, it is simple vanity.

I am speaking of course about a species, the larger picture, not one person.

And it is something that makes me believe that will happen whether we try to stop it, support it wholly, or a mixture of the two, it will happen.

There is a difference of it happening through happenstance and Government's manipulating it to happen through a False-Flag Operation, and or through selling it through lies of benevolence, when Government has zero ability to ever keep benevolence from turning into a nightmare because of corrupt politician's who have an agenda.

I still do not support it and I was speaking to the one area I might consider it.

This however does not mean I actually support it nor do I see it as legitimate.

I was merely hypothesizing about it and giving an extenuating circumstance.

[edit on 11-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]