Loss of Rights or Toleration for the Intolerant.

Which way should we allow it to backfire?

Taking away some rights of others to do whatever they’d like to do – the backfire being that this might (further down stream) provide precedent for reasons as to why some of our rights should be taken away.

-or-

Being tolerant of a worldview that is intolerant to our way of life (culture, religious identity) – the backfire being that their worldview (when their numbers increase enough) forced upon us causes us to lose our way of life; our ability to freely practice the things that gave our culture its identity.

In the former, we’re still the ones from which our governmental leaders come from. They are here to serve the mass of people; we are not here to serve them. So, the principle would still exist that the majority, who give the government the power it has, can take power away from its leaders.

In the latter, we’re second class citizens (dhimmi). We no longer have that principle to enforce. Vocalization of the principle falls on deaf, unconcerned ears. We sacrificed one right following the former – we lost them all following the latter.

History more consistently supports the likeliness of one scenario over the other. Tolerance for the intolerant per se never played in our favor. I just hope there’s another Charles Martel or Jan Sobieski amongst our ranks….. it looks like we’ll be needing them.

Wiki and DNA Repair

There are many posts at Intelligently Sequenced within the label "DNA Repair." Wikipedia has an article on this topic. This is from it:

In contrast to DNA damage, a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA. A mutation cannot be recognized by enzymes once the base change is present in both DNA strands, and thus a mutation cannot be repaired. At the cellular level, mutations can cause alterations in protein function and regulation. Mutations are replicated when the cell replicates. In a population of cells, mutant cells will increase or decrease in frequency according to the effects of the mutation on the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce. Although distinctly different from each other, DNA damages and mutations are related because DNA damages often cause errors of DNA synthesis during replication or repair and these errors are a major source of mutation.

Given these properties of DNA damage and mutation, it can be seen that DNA damages are a special problem in non-dividing or slowly dividing cells, where unrepaired damages will tend to accumulate over time. On the other hand, in rapidly dividing cells, unrepaired DNA damages that do not kill the cell by blocking replication will tend to cause replication errors and thus mutation. The great majority of mutations that are not neutral in their effect are deleterious to a cell’s survival. Thus, in a population of cells comprising a tissue with replicating cells, mutant cells will tend to be lost. However infrequent mutations that provide a survival advantage will tend to clonally expand at the expense of neighboring cells in the tissue. This advantage to the cell is disadvantageous to the whole organism, because such mutant cells can give rise to cancer. Thus DNA damages in frequently dividing cells, because they give rise to mutations, are a prominent cause of cancer. In contrast, DNA damages in infrequently dividing cells are likely a prominent cause of aging.