• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
mlooney

Comic for Monday, Jan 10, 2022

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

It may be possible to surgically insert a 3D printed uterus someday, if desired.

 

There are some pretty serious organ rejection problems with that.  If made from your on cells maybe, but generic tissue would probably be rejected.  Organ rejecting is why matching organs to their recipient is so hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding previous jobs of the Dunkels, I'd like to point out that Mrs. Dunkel had to "drop out" of something (college according to Dan in 2014) due unplanned pregnancy.

18 hours ago, mlooney said:

It's possible. I often wonder about the fact that Edward told Tedd that Elliot's phone might be tapped.  Why?  Unless the parents are agents of some sort being watched for what ever reason.  While it's possible that Edward did a background check on Elliot and his parents, I don't think that their phone would still be tapped that long afterwards, if they ever were, which leads me to think that the adult Dunkels are under some sort of observation.  Being an agent in cover might be one of those.

I always figured that was a reference to the US Government's habit of snooping on everybody (including phone and electronic communications of its own citizens). Of course Mr. Verres works for said government, but it's not unreasonable to think one intelligence agency would be keeping secrets from other intelligence agencies (particularly when it comes to secrets like magic and aliens)

10 hours ago, ijuin said:

I disagree with treating everything created by a bigot as tainted—doing so implies that the person, and everything that they do, is forever irredeemable.

The problem is, creative works reflect the views of the person who created it, and bigotry often makes its way into said works.

The Harry Potter series actually has a lot of problematic content, such as how most House Elves love being slaves and Hermione is ridiculed for wanting to free them. I know I didn't dwell too much on such things the first time through because I assumed (incorrectly) that our heroes would be making the Wizarding World a better place over the course of the series; however in the end they mainly just prevented it from getting a whole lot worse, and seem to have come to mostly accept the status quo.

(Here is where I'd like to recommend some reviews talking about such things, but my exposure to them is only secondhand. I will say I've heard a lot of good things about the Shrieking Shack podcast.)

There is a saying I agree with, "It's okay to like problematic things". In the case of Harry Potter, I will always have fond memories of my first time through, and I expect to continue to enjoy the original movies and select fanfiction. However, looking at the series more critically has decreased my enjoyment of it, and unless J.K. Rowling sincerely changes her views (and not just on Trans issues) I don't plan on sending a single dollar more her way.

Edited by ChronosCat
Minor clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ChronosCat said:
18 hours ago, mlooney said:

Why?  Unless the parents are agents of some sort being watched for what ever reason.  While it's possible that Edward did a background check on Elliot and his parents, I don't think that their phone would still be tapped that long afterwards, if they ever were, which leads me to think that the adult Dunkels are under some sort of observation.  Being an agent in cover might be one of those.

I always figured that was a reference to the US Government's habit of snooping on everybody (including phone and electronic communications of its own citizens). Of course Mr. Verres works for said government, but it's not unreasonable to think one intelligence agency would be keeping secrets from other intelligence agencies (particularly when it comes to secrets like magic and aliens)

I'm still not sure why the Dunkel's phone would be tapped unless it was something to do with Mr (or maybe Mrs.) Dunkel's work or prior work.  DGB shouldn't be tapping all the people that Tedd came in contact with, or even just his friends. For starters, they really don't have the manpower to do that, never mind the legality of it.  Of course it's possible that there is a "magic court" like the "national security court" that issues warrants for classified cases.  Right now I'm thinking it's early installment weirdness by The Dan and he hadn't really though it through 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mlooney said:

There are some pretty serious organ rejection problems with that.  If made from your on cells maybe, but generic tissue would probably be rejected.  Organ rejecting is why matching organs to their recipient is so hard.

It is not entirely hypothetical, some tentative work is already being done printing replacement organs, and I believe your concern is mitigated exactly as you state, you would have to donate t cells. I do not know how successful the effort is, not too, or we'd know more about it, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, mlooney said:

They just did a heart transplant with a heart grown in a pig.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59944889

I applaud this. (The pig did not.) It is not without issues. (That link was in your article).

I haven't read it yet, but I can guess two of them:

1. Animal rights

2. Religious issues with pigs (primarily Jews and Moslems)

I wasn't wrong, but not spot on. Both issues were addressed. Peta did condemn the transplant. 

The religious issue was surprisingly mild. The gist is, 'it is OK to save a human life', they already do pig heart valve transplants. Not universally accepted, but not entirely rejected.

The third was the medical risk. I did not consider this to be an ethical issue, because if it is, medical research should grind to a halt; procedures with unknown results are inherently risky. Also, the recipient was going to die without it. Much lest risk to try.

Not really the same as printing an organ, but nice article, thanks for posting.

One further concern, the pig has to be raise in a controlled, sanitary environment. If the pig contracts the trichina parasite, the doctors won't be able to remove it from the organ.

 

Edited by Darth Fluffy
One further concern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

One further concern, the pig has to be raise in a controlled, sanitary environment.

This sort of thing is already done for certain steers selected for luxury beef

They have a great life, right up until the point where they are slaughtered for food

Is slaughtering animals for medical transplant all that different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

This sort of thing is already done for certain steers selected for luxury beef

They have a great life, right up until the point where they are slaughtered for food

Is slaughtering animals for medical transplant all that different?

Nope. Not to ,me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite. How is raising and killing them in order to transplant their organs any worse ethically than raising snd killing them in order to eat their organs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

This sort of thing is already done for certain steers selected for luxury beef

They have a great life, right up until the point where they are slaughtered for food

Is slaughtering animals for medical transplant all that different?

Yes, it is a waste of good meat, hopefully, they do both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that due to the genetic changes made in the pig the FDA/Dept of Agriculture would not allow it in the human food chain.  And might not in the animal food chain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mlooney said:

I suspect that due to the genetic changes made in the pig the FDA/Dept of Agriculture would not allow it in the human food chain.  And might not in the animal food chain.

Insignificantly longer pig?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mlooney said:

I'm still not sure why the Dunkel's phone would be tapped unless it was something to do with Mr (or maybe Mrs.) Dunkel's work or prior work.  DGB shouldn't be tapping all the people that Tedd came in contact with, or even just his friends. For starters, they really don't have the manpower to do that, never mind the legality of it.  Of course it's possible that there is a "magic court" like the "national security court" that issues warrants for classified cases.  Right now I'm thinking it's early installment weirdness by The Dan and he hadn't really though it through 

I don't think it's so much a matter of the Dunkels being more likely than any other person to have tapped phones, as it's a matter of Mr. Verres not being 100% sure the lines aren't tapped and any risk of certain secrets being overheard being too big a risk. (Tedd/Mr.Verres saying the "odds are good" of the phone being tapped is presumably hyperbole, or the result of professional paranoia.) And I'm sure Mr. Verres wasn't worried abut his own branch of the FBI tapping those lines without his knowledge - the fear was someone who wasn't in on the Uryuom masquerade, or who might be on Damien's side, listening in (this was when Tedd was about to tell Elliot about Grace for the first time, after all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, the article she was responding to came first, and I can see how women in general - cisgender, transwomen, or genderfluid - would be offended by that article. And maybe men too. Rowling apparently found it offensive, or at least mock-worthy.

And it seems that people are upset at Rowling for how, in the resulting mockery, she excluded transwomen from being women - but, reading what she actually said, she DIDN'T. She simply failed to give a definition that included them - just like she failed to give a definition that would include my 90ish-year-old mother-in-law or my 2-year-old great-granddaughter. But her point wasn't an attempt to have an all-encompassing definition, it was to mock the original article's failure to include ANYONE as "women".

On the other hand, she DID  include many transmen in a group they don't want to be included in, thereby implicitly excluding them from a group they do want to be included in - and as far as I've seen hardly anyone raises a stink about THAT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2022 at 6:31 AM, ijuin said:

I disagree with treating everything created by a bigot as tainted—doing so implies that the person, and everything that they do, is forever irredeemable.

You are entitled to think so.

I am entitled to safeguard my mental health by refusing to let a creature who considers me a dangerous predator and mentally ill based on prejudice alone have any sort of foothold in my everyday life.

On 1/11/2022 at 8:17 AM, Darth Fluffy said:

I think this is a case where the author creation has broken free of the author

Again, you are free to think so. Each person should deal with this individually and I am certainly not saying that it is now wrong to enjoy either the books or the movies. I am merely saying that that woman is repellent to me and I would rather keep my everyday life free of reminders of her.

 

On 1/11/2022 at 3:55 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

She has a point that probably didn't need to be made, there are aspects of being born female with all the features that a male to female trans person will never experience, although, medical technology could eliminate that as well. It may be possible to surgically insert a 3D printed uterus someday, if desired.

That was not her point. Her point was that if you do not have a functioning uterus, you are not a woman. I shall refrain from commenting on how much wrong there is with that save that I find it fascinating that trans exclusive radical 'feminists' hold such an essentially patriarchal attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don Edwards said:

She simply failed to give a definition that included them

Which is the same as excluding us.

Just now, Don Edwards said:

On the other hand, she DID  include many transmen in a group they don't want to be included in, thereby implicitly excluding them from a group they do want to be included in - and as far as I've seen hardly anyone raises a stink about THAT.

You have clearly not looked very hard. I found this article after ten seconds of google searching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not be spending money on J.K. Rowling's books- not because of her transphobia, but because her writing has gone down the metaphorical drain. I couldn't read the whole of the Cursed Child, and The Casual Vacancy, while I did manage to complete it, was just plain horrible.

May I suggest reading Mercedes Lackey books instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this