- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
You are from the USA and naturally take the self-determinist view I see. Ultimately we can take any action regardless of social conditions. For example, I know that people will ridicule me if I walk out of my house naked. I can still choose to do it but yet the social attitude to nudism is a factor that dissuades me from doing this (as well as the cold..).
Yes, all true. But despite this, there are areas in the world where nudism is more accepted and less ridiculed. This is solely due to exposure (pun intended). If nudism can get localized support simply by having others recognize their number, surely women can get support in the STEM fields similarly by weight of numbers, if only they're willing to step up.
Right. If something is a barrier to doing something, but it is important to us, then we should push on through in order to achieve what we want. This is not to say that there isn't a barrier that makes it more difficult and that should be questioned on a societal level.
I never suggested that we shouldn't question things on the societal level- rather, I pointed out that changes on this scale take the course of several generations to take effect. We can (and are, really) making change that should improve the gender ratio in subsequent generations- but the only thing that can reasonably improve the gender ratio for the current generation is more female participation. It's very simple math, really.
I remember when I was 16 I enrolled in a childcare course but dropped out because I was so embarrassed to be the only guy there and felt the course was very female orientated. I also felt I was treated differently from everyone else. I see that as a problem and it went beyond the mere fact of me being surrounded by girls - in other situations this is not so unpleasant. Ultimately I guess I didn't want to do the course enough to continue with the discomfort. However, if the course is very easy and comfortable for one gender, but difficult and uncomfortable for the other, then it is surely worth looking at why that is beyond merely saying "the individual has to try harder".
Of course it is worth looking at why that is- but how is the next generation to accept child care as being gender-blind when they have numerous examples of females in child care and only a few examples of males? The process of social change in that direction necessitates men entering that field, in the exact same manner that social change in the stem fields necessitates women entering that field. The social change will not happen without the examples, and the examples have to be willing to step out of their comfort zone for the sake of themselves and the future.
Your method 2 is saying men could back out but really there is more options. In context of the social environment method 2 should be "men could foster better working environments for all" rather than men not participating at all. Why wouldn't men want to change their detrimental social behaviors?
It falls flat right here. Again- "Men" aren't the problem here. Specific men are. An egalitarian man doesn't have a detrimental social behavior to change- all he can do is put pressure on other men in the hope that they will change. This requires a number of outspoken individuals and a significant amount of support. Even then, if the men at these functions clean up their acts, I sincerely doubt women will suddenly come flooding in- especially because they are absent to begin with, and therefore unable to observe the change in question- and given their proclivity at current to avoid a skewed gender ratio because of the attitudes of a subset thereof, I sincerely doubt they're going to take the men at their word here. I could be wrong.
Shouldn't men also serve as examples to the subsequent generation?
I didn't say that they shouldn't- just in this specific case they can't. Men are fundamentally unable to provide an example of a successful female engineer in order to encourage young women to pursue a career in engineering. We can attempt to influence our peers and our children towards a more egalitarian perspective- and should do so- but this alone doesn't solve the problem. Numerous strong female role models are needed in these fields, and significant female participation is necessary to establish these.
I'll concur that both sides need to work to improve the underlying issue- but in terms of the overt issue, that of gender ratio in STEM functions, the burden lies solely on women to improve their attendance, not men to refrain from attending. No matter what is done with the underlying issue, balancing the ratio necessitates either increasing the number of women, decreasing the number of men, or both.
Have you considered that the men willing to forgo a function to improve the gender ratio are most likely NOT the men making women uncomfortable in the first place? As such, I would expect the proportion of 'bad' men to increase, even if the raw number of men decreases, making things even worse for the women.
Your underlying statement says wait it out, sludge through the shit and things will get better later on. Only if women get more involved even. Again this absolves men of any hand in fixing inequalities today. If someone steps on your toe and then the response is "things will get better later", it certainly isn't taking action to work towards a better more common goal...like stop people from stepping on toes.
Your flawed interpretation of my underlying statement says that. My statement says nothing to this effect whatsoever.
Or you could attend and if you see a situation that is detrimental towards equality you can call it out. This is part of serving as an example to the subsequent generation. If you see racism, sexism or homophobia why not call it out?
And how does calling it out at a function with an already skewed gender ratio supposed to improve that gender ratio? Unless you're banking on lots of men just walking out after that. It's not going to summon female attendees into existence by any stretch. And some already do this anyway.
As stated already you don't need to not attend.
And you're not comprehending basic mathematics.
2000 people at an event. 1800 Men, 200 women. If one man calls out others for sexist behavior, there are still 1800 Men and 200 women. If 1600 more women attend, the ratio evens out. If 1600 fewer men attend, the ratio evens out. If 800 fewer men attend and 800 more women attend, the ratio evens out. No change in attitudes is going to change that ratio- only attendance. And without the attendance of individuals who will back the person calling others out, it's only going to backfire.
Please advise as to how one can change a skewed gender ratio without some combination of adding more of one gender and removing some of another?
As stated already you don't need to not attend. But why wouldn't you act as I noted, serve as a example to subsequent generations? When you kick the can further down the road you are serving as an example aren't you? The message is different though when you do this action. When people call it out then someone gives the bootstrap argument followed by kicking the can further down the road is an argument for keeping the status quo.
Why would we not want to remove hurdles that deter a populace from education, a populace that would greatly benefit from such education and in turn benefit everyone else?
Did you miss my statements about attitudes already improving, but generally taking multiple generations to do so? You're missing the trees for the forest here, I think. This is all already happening- but women enduring some potential discomfort and paving the way for their descendants is the most significant thing we can do to influence this. You point out 10 male engineers and 1 female engineer to your kid and then tell him that men and women are equals in the field, and it's not going to add up in his head. You point out 10 of each, and it sends a different message. We need more female participation now to affect the changes that will facilitate more female participation in the future. Don't you get that?
What I'm suggesting here is not mutually exclusive to what you are suggesting in the slightest. Some men certainly need to clean up their act, and maybe more men could stand to call them out on it more often- but changing the attitudes of generations takes a joint effort, and female participation is the single largest factor in doing so here. Men leaving the field, while it may balance the genders in the short term, does not accomplish this. Women entering the field serve to accomplish both.
That is gatekeeping. It is keeping the power to permit the standards you deem worthy or fair in spite of not earning such a privilege.
It is not gatekeeping- it is abstinence by choice. Nothing you have said changes that; all you've done here is explain the rationale behind said abstinence. I never claimed the abstinence was irrational, only that as a mechanic it significantly delays the progression of women in this field, which additionally delays the acceptance of women in this field.
Look at every oppressed group throughout history- are you aware of any cases where the majority just up and decided to change their ways to accomodate a minority? Or, rather, has every case necessitated members of the minority stepping out of their comfort zone, taking a stand, sending a message, and engendering support amongst the majority? We already have the stage set for accepting women in this field. We now need women in the field to accept. Only once a critical mass of women is achieved can we demonstrate- at a scale that nobody can deny- that the gender of the engineer is irrelevant. We still won't change the chauvinist engineer into an egalitarian, but we can sure as hell provide a real-life example for his son that conflicts with the chauvinist's rhetoric. Only with more women, though.
Proof that an omnipotent being can't exist: can he create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either way he can't be omnipotent.
You keep bringing this up. It is not, in fact, a paradox. I agree with you overall and don't believe in a god of any kind myself, but the idea that one has proof of the non-existence of any gods is ridiculous, even more so when that 'proof' is flawed logic based on wordplay rather than actual evidence of any kind. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard than that.
The issue preventing women from attending these functions has been stated to be the gender ratio.
There are exactly three ways that the gender ratio can be evened out.
1) More women attend the functions to balance out the greater number of men.
2) Less men attend the functions to balance out the smaller number of women.
3) A combination of 1 and 2.
Method 1 is a positive action taken by women that can directly improve the circumstances. They benefit directly from this, and to nobody's detriment.
Method 2 is a negative action taken by men that can result in a similar improvement of the circumstances for women. Women benefit from this, to the detriment of the men who must give up the ability to attend said functions for the sake of the women.
Your take seems to absolve men of any hand in the issue.
Not at all. I'm aware that certain men are directly responsible for making circumstances uncomfortable for certain women. Changes in social attitudes, however, typically occur over generations. The issue you would address benefits women down the road, but essentially leaves every woman who would pursue these fields today in the lurch.
The framing is more like "current social conditions are unfavorable environments for women, this deters women". Your take on this is kind of blame the victim.
It is no secret that things are historically skewed towards the benefit if males over females. To ask for "...stepping out of ones element..." to be the prerequisite addressing inequality is really asking to be met on the uneven playing field. Privilege likes to be met on its own terms. It is gatekeeping.
Current social conditions are more favorable towards women than they have ever been (probably slightly hyperbolic, apologies there). Those conditions are steadily improving in numerous spheres. Social conditions arise from the attitudes and viewpoints of the members of the society in question- these change over generations, and have been changing generation by generation since the womens rights movement began.
And I believe you have misunderstood me. "Stepping out of ones element" is not a prerequisite for addressing inequality- it is a prerequisite for advancing in any kind of career. Show me an even playing field, anywhere, and I'll show you where you're wrong.
This is not gatekeeping or victimization. Nobody is preventing women from attending except themselves, and their very attendance is all that is required to balance out the gender ratio that is evidently the problem.
Rather than settling the onus on women to solve this problem we need to recognize that men are part of the issue. We all have to note that we have certain privileges that we did not earn but instead born into. Obviously we all, men and women, should help bring about change. Why wait for someone else to make it when you can help someone else make it?
Neither men or women are going to solve the problem as you're framing it- the next few generations of people will solve it (hopefully). But the only solution for the immediate issue is for women to bite the bullet, step up, and balance the gender ratio. But sure, let's say I was one of the men planning on attending one of these functions. What can I do, personally, to improve the gender ratio for the benefit of women? I could opt to just not attend that function. But, why shouldn't I? What's my motivation for giving up the function for the sake of coddling women I don't even know?
Its not like we had to all wait for slaves to free themselves, we all had to get there together. Why would women have to, by themselves, bear a burden we are all complicit in?
The women in question here are not comparable to slaves, in any way. That said, nobody is suggesting that they have to bear the burden of changing the social climate themselves, but the very idea of making sweeping changes in social structure inside of a single generation without a major life-changing force (eg. war, natural disasters, etc) acting as an impetus for the change is ludicrous.
Remember- the issue stated here is the gender ratio. This is a problem that quite literally only requires warm bodies to solve. The underlying privilege and prejudice will eventually be dispelled over a couple of generations- but only if women get more involved with the field despite discomfort to serve as examples to the subsequent generation.
Every woman who refuses to attend a function she is interested in due to the gender ratio is perpetuating that ratio. Said women harm not only themselves, and not only other women who might be interested in attending said functions, but women in general, as a lack of women in the field who can influence the next generation of children (directly or indirectly) means maintenance of the same status quo that is resulting in the problematic gender ratio in the first place.
This isn't a case of social conditions limiting women- such implies that the locus of control is out of the hands of said women- this is a case of women consciously opting to limit themselves, citing social conditions as their reasoning. At this point it's analogous to a self fulfilling prophecy. The women who might attend such a function and even out the gender ratio refuse to attend the function and even out the gender ratio because they don't like the gender ratio. If all of the women who might want to attend such a function refuse to do so until the gender ratio is closer, the gender ratio will never be closer. Advancement of any kind involves stepping out of ones element...
Basically, they're all waiting for someone else to step up, and blaming the world when it doesn't happen.
Even with human beings you could say, if our eyes are covered and we wish to create an intricate work of art the first thing we would do is remove the darkness so we have light because we otherwise cannot recreate such a vision.
Fair point but if this "gay dude" believes in something (religion) that is responsible for the majority of persecution of "gay dudes" and is fundamentally against "gay dudes" then this "gay dude" is a bit of a twat. As a gay person, to me religion means oppression.
But is the religion really responsible? You don't believe the abrahamic god exists, so you acknowledge these are creations of man; the anti-gay aspects in a religion are used as a tool to justify and perpetuate an evil form of bigotry that existed long before religions were concocted to push them. A tool that's been frighteningly effective at it's job- but a created tool nonetheless.
I understand your stance on the matter more than I think you appreciate, but I really don't think you have the perspective to look down on them en masse this way. Remember that gay christians are far from the only christians. Something about that mythos is extremely compelling to a certain mindset in a way that you and I can't really grasp, but can only come to know in a diluted vicarious way through extended time spent in the company of "good examples" of the religion in question. It's historically been compelling enough for people to do all manner of things for, which is one of the very reasons it can be called evil and even frightening.
No but it still should be very important to them. If you don't care about avoiding persecution and having your rights then you are a moron.
I don't entirely disagree with you there, but 1) don't you already consider those who believe in Christianity to be morons anyway? And, 2) Isn't it possible to have a personal system of priorities that does not place 'avoiding persecution' at the number 1 spot?
A black person would not support something that is prejudice against them, even if racial equality wasn't their number one priority.
Many black police officers would disagree with you, amongst numerous other professional examples alone. There are even a small minority of black people who genuinely believe themselves to be of an inferior race, who strive to be more "white." I could go on.
That's totally different. Feminism and being a lesbian do not conflict at all. If anything they complement each other. Gay and Christian doesn't go well together at all. A gay Christian is like a Jew being a Nazi.
Just because they are supposedly gay friendly doesn't mean they actually believe in equal rights for gays, for example gay marriage. It simply means they accept and tolerate gays. There's a bit of a difference.
Oh, not all of them, but some of them do. In many cases decisions like these aren't really in the hands of the local church itself, but are controlled by an organized denomination. Making these changes in many cases would require splitting from the denomination, which often means a loss of an important source of funding, as well as a loss of membership such that many churches could not sustain themselves.
That said, it has happened. The same site also has a section for christian gay-affirming denominations; some are new, having split off from an older denomination with sufficient members and capital to survive, some are older ones that have officially adopted the stance. Gay marriages are conducted by most of these (where legal, anyway), and membership in the clergy (professional in those where such exists) is available to gay members, etc etc.
The religious are especially though.
No arguments there.
I am judging them differently but in a positive way. As they are gay I consider them to be above religion and I expect more from them than I do from your average Christian ratbag.
Therein lies the problem; you're labeling them as unacceptable because of your stereotypical assumptions regarding your own sexual orientation. This statement means that you have a positive bias towards gays, considering them better in some ways than those with differing sexual orientations. Further, you have a negative bias towards these gays because they fail to meet your standards. It's wrong for exactly the same reason that guys using degrading female slurs to denigrate another guy that is perceived as feminine or insufficiently masculine is wrong.
So? That was then and now is now. It's hardly uncommon for people at this age to feel like they are one thing and then realize they are actually something else.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, I was just confused. If you had mentioned that you used to feel that way but no longer do I would understand. I wasn't objecting to the concept, I simply thought that I was mistaken, that's all.
Basically, your sense of aesthetics is at least in part shaped by the world around you, and the opinions of those close to you. If the normal color of the sky was green, we'd consider a clear green sky to be beautiful in the same way we consider a clear blue sky to be beautiful.
In other words, any arrangement of characteristics on a planet that intelligent life with a sense of aesthetics arose on would yield a high proportion of individuals who see beauty in said arrangement. As such, this doesn't really constitute an argument for theism in favor of atheism.
Well even if they do have enough on their plate already it's not as if I'm harassing any of them for it or giving them a harder time.
Your posting here seems to be rather loaded otherwise- though I'll concede you aren't likely to be (indirectly) harassing a very large number of gay christians given the membership of this site. So why should they prioritize the LGBT community above all else? Why do they 'owe' loyalty to said community. A gay dude isn't just a gay dude- he might also be a liberal or conservative, a theist or atheist, etc etc. I object to it for the same reason that I object to the term 'alternative lifestyle' used to describe gay individuals. Sexual orientation does not define a persons lifestyle- it is simply an aspect of it. Simply because an individual is gay, does not necessarily mean gay rights should be their number one priority. A feminist lesbian, for example, may well put women's issues ahead of gay issue's. She isn't betraying anyone by doing so.
They are wasting their time trying to reform Christian view on us because Christians will always be biggots.
Really? Here's a [list of gay-friendly christian churches in England]. Doesn't seem like a waste of time giving the impact it's having, in practice.
I'll agree that Christians will always be bigots- but only as an extension of the fact that everybody is bigoted in some way.
I'm not discriminating on them for their sexuality I am discriminating against them for being disloyal to our cause. I could never discriminate against someone for their sexuality as I know how it hurts.
The reasoning behind it is immaterial. You are judging these gays differently than other gays due to their religion. Reasoning aside, that is religious discrimination. You are judging these christians differently than other christians due to their sexual orientation. Reasoning aside, that is discrimination based on sexual orientation. It's no more valid than discriminating against black people, not because they are black, but because they are statistically convicted of more crimes. The effect is the same.
Also I am not at all bisexual, I am completely gay and would be a solid 6 on that scale.
I could have sworn you said at one point that you were bisexual- my apologies there, I may have been thinking of someone else.
Even if having men on the inside does help I don't want my future hubby to be one of them. I do not want to be associating myself with such evil.
I didn't go so far as to say marry a christian guy- simply that many gay Christians are already unduly burdened, and really don't need to be ostracized by the gay community in addition to all that. They can't help the fact that they were indoctrinated into christianity at a young age any more than they can 'help' the fact that they are gay. Some can get past the indoctrination, some can't, and some try to work to improve things from within.
Anyway my attitude is to fight the evil of Christianity, not to try and befriend it. I have no interest in enlightening these morons only showing their evil and stupidity.
This remark strikes me as being simultaneously overly optimistic and pessimistic. But again- I wasn't suggesting that you support, befriend, or enlighten christianity. Just that maybe that you not be so hard on gay christians- they have enough on their plate. By all means, be hard on christians all you want, but it seems like you're harder on gay christians than otherwise. Essentially, you're simultaneously discriminating against both their religious beliefs and sexual orientation, despite sharing the latter (sort of; I gather that you're bisexual favoring men, 4-5 or so on the Kinsey scale? I've been a 1 or 2 at various stages of my own life, never a 3 or higher, and currently a 0 in practice only due to marriage). You're basically taking the worst of both the anti-gay and anti-religion attitudes and dumping them on someone who already has a massive burden to carry.
All gays must disagree with the idea of the Abrahamic God as he condemns us. Otherwise they are letting our community down.
Of all the things that factor into one's religious beliefs, I don't believe that disagreeing with the doctrine or dogma on a specific condemnable issue is the highest. I mean, members of the Catholic priesthood have been known to engage in homosexual pedophilia. Christians have been known to have premarital sex, children out of wedlock, to have abortions and get divorced. Such individuals are already overly and unnecessarily burdened by guilt stemming from incorrect but deeply held beliefs. I think it's rather callous to dump that on them as well. Besides, some of those gay christians are helping some branches reduce or eliminate their anti-gay stance, surely you can see how having men on the inside helps?
If batman has time to prepare, batman hands down. Being a genius and a billionaire, he has both an immense knack for working out a plan to counter all manner of superiority, as well as the wherewithal to actually put a plan into practice to make said counter.
The Flash' achilles heel isn't that hard to figure out.
Despite the fact that The Flash can move, react, and think at or very close to the speed of light, he is still somewhat limited in his perception by the laws of physics. Among those is the speed of light; light itself can't be perceived prior to it entering the eye and stimulating the optic nerve. Even extremely fast processing inserts some manner of delay here.
So blind the Flash permanently with an extremely high intensity laser. Given a set of circumstances that would put Batman and the Flash against each other, Batman could certainly work out which direction the Flash should be coming from, and when. Fire it at the designated time, right in the Flash' direction. He can't see the laser coming, because in order for the light from the laser to stimulate the optic nerve, said laser will have to have already entered his eye and struck his retina, damaging everything, before the optic nerve even fires in response. However quickly his nervous system responds, however quickly he recognizes the incoming threat to evade it, the damage is already done. Given his reflexes, even the most powerful laser won't likely kill him outright as he could simply move out of its path, but his eyes are already shot permanently, beyond the capacity of medical intervention or a healing factor based on accelerated metabolism and cell division.
Once blinded, most of The Flash' abilities would be neutered; even if he somehow managed to develop a sonar sense like Daredevil, the limits of his perception would ultimately limit his speed (in practice) to that of slightly lower than that of sound, in order to actually know where he was going. Much more manageable. He could also get functional artificial eyes, but he would still have to deal with it's high latency compared to his own nervous system. It'd be superior to Daredevil's sonar sense eventually, but cripplingly disorienting in the short term; he'd have to re-learn everything, and even the best case scenario would see him permanently reduced in effectiveness. In neither case would he be able to adapt to the loss of his vision within the time of the actual engagement; he would either lose outright, or be forced to withdraw with no clue as to what is in front of him and what collateral damage he may cause.
I believe that there is almost certainly life elsewhere in the universe, though I daresay contact with said life appears rather unlikely, at least at this point.
"Aliens do not exist" is less sensible a viewpoint than "Gods do not exist."
The two claims are fundamentally different.
On the alien side of things, we lack any conclusive evidence of life elsewhere in the universe. That's more or less it; belief in aliens doesn't necessarily mean belief that there are intelligent aliens close enough to earth to establish contact with. The anti-alien claims "There is no evidence for aliens, therefore non exist." We have an absence of evidence, but not evidence of absence.
On the god side of things, however, it goes a bit beyond a simple lack of evidence. One of the most basic qualities attributed to the concept of a god is interference with earth; this ranges from said interference only involving the creation of the earth (the great clockmaker) on one end of the spectrum, to regular and frequent direct interference in the live of humans by the alleged god or gods on the other. The entity can't simply exist somewhere in the universe, but must be able to interact with the earth in some way. The specifics of this claim allow us to make observations and experimentations about portions of the various claims; and therein lies the rub. Under the premise of naturalism, reasonably accurate predictions are made quite frequently- not so much for those operating under the premise of theistic creationism.
We can test some of those scenarios where people claim to have been visited by actual aliens. We can further test some of those scenarios where people claim the existence of a god or gods. None of these tests result in accurate predictions based on the premise that the alien encounter was real, or the act of god was real. The difference is that the very concept of a god or gods fundamentally entails involvement with the earth on some level, meaning that we can reasonably expect to find evidence of such here, on earth. In that respect, while hardly conclusive, an absence of evidence is effectively somewhat an evidence of absence. The very concept of alien life does not necessarily entail any involvement or evidence on earth whatsoever; we can freely disprove most claims of alien encounters, but aliens need not come anywhere near earth- unlike gods.
I gave you a scenario, where laws can deter people from committing certain actions. As I understand, you don't disagree with the argument, but you don't like the scenario.
You asserted that the law is an effective deterrent to murder. An actual, in-practice, real deterrent. When I called that into question, rather than provide a real-world example demonstrating such, you instead concoted an extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario that lent some credit to the idea that the law could potentially be an effective deterrent to murder under a given circumstance that would largely be limited to said hypothetical scenario.
This does nothing to actually back your assertion that the law is, in fact, an effective deterrent to murder. A hypothetical scenario can be constructed to any end, and the argument was never whether the law could potentially deter murders under the right circumstances, but rather whether the law does, in fact, deter murders.
Locations like those are ripe in history, especially where people were divided into classes.
No, they really aren't. If there is a law against burglary, there is a law against murder.
If an aristocrat murdered or beat a slave or some lowly peasant, nobody bat an eyelid. It was okay. And such cases were not uncommon at the time at all. In many countries, especially third world countries, it's still the case.
If that aristocrat instead robbed the slave or peasant of his or her property, nobody would bat an eyelid either. These are not example cases where burglary is illegal, but murder is not.
Can you provide a single location where the same criminal would face a legal penalty for burglarizing a victim, but would not face a legal penalty for murdering the same victim?
You seem to imply that laws in no way affect our behaviour. Are you trying to say that if there were no laws, nothing would change in human behavior?
I imply nothing of the sort. My objection is specifically to the idea that laws against murder, in practice, actually deter potential murderers, who would otherwise remain undettered by all of the other factors. You have yet to provide any actual backing to that claim.
Murder is one of the few things that is illegal pretty much everywhere. If the robber was in an area with no laws against murder, it's not likely that there are laws against robbery either, which more or less invalidates the 'chance of avoiding justice' scenario. Unless you're aware of such a location?
Because murder laws do deter people, but clearly they do not deter everyone since murderers still exist.
Do they really deter people, though? It's hard to imagine that someone who is in a place where he or she fully intends to end the life of another person would pause for a moment and think "Wait, I could go to jail and/or get the death penalty for this if I'm found out," changing his or her mind altogether based on that.
Remember that self-defense is a thing and that a significant portion of the American population is armed. If the potential for being shot and killed by the would-be victim isn't a sufficient deterrent, it's hard to imagine that the threat of the same (or less, in jurisdictions without the death penalty) by the government would be. Particularly considering that, unlike the self-defending victim, the government has to conduct an often lengthy investigation, (a significant portion of which never successfully identify the murderer!) then convict you in court, (where getting off on a technicality is a possibility, given the frequency of misconduct by the police) before finally assigning a sentence that may not even be a huge deal at all (Virginia's minimum sentence for Murder 2 is only 5 years).
-to be fair, some would consider decades to life in prison to be a worse fate than death.
Fact: The presence of genetic code is irrelevant as a point of consideration.
Fact: The skin and hair I shed, as well as clippings from my toe and fingernails share my genetic code. My urine and feces also contain cells sharing my genetic code.
Fact: An individual who is brain-dead after receiving a severe injury has the same genetic code that he or she had prior to said injury.