What worries me is that even if this doesn't really pan out, the anti-stem-cell research lobby will still point to it as though scientists are 'deliberately' murdering embryos in the face of a viable alternative.
I won't. Note my other post today where I summarize reasons peoplle are giving that this might not work. I will however maintain that I believe the embryo is a person and should be protected from having its rights violated no matter what.
I know what you're saying, and you have a valid point. My question is, do those who don't consider an embryo a person concede they might be mistaken? If so, then we ought not to kill them until absolutely sure.
Your points are good, and need to be expressed. I thought you were pretty clear, esp. considering what a complex issue this is.
You wouldn't be in favor of forcing your beliefs on a defensely human embryo, would you?;)
From a "certain point of view," those who oppose embryonic stem cell research are simply trying to prevent people from forcing their beliefs onto those others. The real disagreement is we believe embryos are people and worthy of protection, whereas many people do not.
As someone else pointed out, I apparently completely misunderstood what you were calling "creepy." Sorry about that, sometimes my brain catches up with what I type quickly, sometimes it takes too long.:)
As I said, I sure hope this becomes an acceptable source of stem cells, but I realize sometimes these things don't pan out.
From what I'm reading here, it seems there is indeed a problem. Embryonic stem cells are "pluripotent" stem cells, which is a step above the "multipotent" stem cells available from this procedure. Apparently the multipotent stem cells cannot produce as many types of tissues as the pluripotent type. So unfortunately, this may not be an adequate solution.
But the results still remain to be seen; I earnestly hope we will find ways to fill this need without having to take more embryoes.
Why is it so creepy to say I don't believe in killing embryoes? I realize many people are not going to agree with me, but why is that opinion "creepy"? It's like some people think there's absolutely no basis in the world for the belief.
There's a lot of opinions I don't hold, but I still respect them because they are backed up by legitimate points. Isn't it legitimate to say, "Hey, I think killing an embryo is wrong?"
I'm so grateful there are alternatives to embryonic stem cells appearing on the horizon, and I hope these efforts produce spectacular results that will really benefit humanity. Hopefully some day work like this will lead to a solution that will satisfy everyone.
Yes. See my posts on this thread so far. I'm not insisting I'm right, but I would like people to understand and consider the reasons for my beliefs before dismissing them and calling me names.
I always say I don't deserve to object to someone's opinions until I'm capable of explaining the reasons behind those opinions as well as he is. Some issues just are not clear-cut, and it's the people who try to insist things are simple that usually cause most of the fighting.
Is this why everyone was so mad at the right? Because of a misunderstanding?
We don't oppose stem cell research. We oppose the destruction of embryos. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that embryos are people and deserve protection. The other side should admit that that claim at least has merit, even if they don't agree. (Meaning it's a respectable, legitimate opinion; not just being hard to get along with or obstructionist.)
I don't think you'll find anyone on the right (at least, anyone who fully understands the issues) who will oppose stem cell research that does not involve killing embryoes. Hopefully the distinction is very clear to everyone.
Yes. I don't believe in killing embryos and I'm thankful that we are still looking for alternatives. I only hope that these initial results pan out. (Those who are biased against the religious sometimes seem to take a particular glee when something like this doesn't pan out.)
The religious accuse the embryonic stem cell people of murder. On the other hand, those who could help people with embryonic stem cell research lay a similar charge back at the religious. The real problem is the people who try to pretend this is a clear cut issue and call you stupid if you don't take their side.
Imagine if Ford said that by displaying the Ford trademarked logo in public, including on your car, you agree to a "Ford logo license", which says you can only drive 35mph or slower. For $1 per mph over 35, you can earn the privilege of driving over 35mph.
Considering what people usually say to drivers in front of them on the freeway going less than 50 mph, I hardly think that would be a good way of building positive brand recognition.
Reminds me of a sig I've seen out here, one of my favorites: "I'm not merely a 'consumer' or a 'taxpayer.' I'm a citizen of the United States of America."
Furthermore, a link doesn't "grant a user access to a part of [your] website." You grant access to your website. If you don't want people to access it, take it down.
When I was in Jr. High there were one or two friends who could never let it go that I preferred Macintosh. I wanted them to not care about what computer I used; I certainly didn't care about what computer they used. So there are people like that on both sides.
I think the problem is that the Wintel community outnumbers the Macintosh community so much that it's possible for a Wintel user to never notice someone who feels that passionately about it, but most Mac users have encountered someone like my Jr. High friends. And many of us react by responding in Jr. High ways.
Just to be a stickler for science, you can't technically "drop" something from orbit. If you do, the object will just orbit along with you. You would have to propel it downward in some way.:)
I never accepted Corel because they were a hybrid free/proprietary system. I love Linux, BSD, and GNU. I love RedHat and Debian, and would probably be happy with most of the other distros. I know there are flamewars, but I don't usually see them from the people I know in the community. (I usually browse slashdot at 4 or 5, though.)
The only war I'm really interested in is making sure they we are opposed to all proprietary software, not just MS. I could get along without MS but still be trapped in proprietary software from Apple or Sun. Plenty of people seem to think that attitude is petty, obstructive, or anti-business, but that's the one thing I'm passionate about.
My goal is not to get Linux accepted or to crush Microsoft. It is to get freedom and copyleft accepted. So, we're pointed in the same general direction, but at times you'll find me and people like me aren't focused in directly on the same things you are.
Also, if you have something that you could sell, you might think about that. I have the luxury of being able to sell my old car, as it isn't completely worthless yet, but most people can't afford to do that (however, if you drive a nice new car, you could sell it, swallow your pride, and downgrade - a car is for getting there, not being mr. cool).
I don't think the importance of saving money on your car can be overstated. When you buy a house and take out a loan, it is an investment. The value of your home will probably stay relatively constant (in real dollars) over the years. When you buy a new car, you know for certain that the value will go down. If you take out a loan on top of that, you're only throwing away more cash on the interest. By the time you pay off the car, if it lasts that long, it's not worth anywhere near what you paid for it.
The rental scenario isn't any better. These sharks try to convince you that since you're always making a car payment, you might as well rent so you can have a new car every year or two. But then the payments are even higher and you don't own anything when you get done! The money is just dissipated.
Want to have an extra couple of hundred bucks a month? Buy a car you can pay for immediately. Never make a car or rental payment. You can get a good car that's four to seven years old and will run well for a fraction of what a new car costs. I'm a little excessive: my car was nine years old (now fifteen), and I will drive it until it drops. I try to keep a reserve of cash sufficient to purchase another five to nine year old car when it does.
My car is in good shape, and most people don't realize how old it is. It runs well and only requires service infrequently. And I get another couple of hundred dollars out of my salary every month to spend on things that matter, like my next Linux box.:) (Or food, if for some reason I get laid off.)
The reasons you have cited are why my personal code of ethics causes me to oppose cloning with current technology. However, none of those issues is necessarily going to be an issue forever as the technology improves. I would like to convince people that there's nothing inherently immoral or evil about cloning, as long as it is done humanely. i.e., you don't clone a person and use them for spare parts or slave labor, and you don't do it if the effects you cited occur. Also, you don't create a batch of babies (embryos), select a few, and kill the rest. I support any effort to socially legitimize cloning once those obstacles are overcome. The question is, can we do research to move past those obstacles without utilizing the faulty cloning technology we have today and creating "prototypes" that will be subject to the conditions you cited?
The post you are referring to was posted by someone claiming to be CmdrTaco, but not. His username is "CmdrTaco(editor)". His userid is somewhere in the 500000's, a very recent user. Finally, his signature is a reference to a post about why we should forget about Linux on the desktop.
The real Taco has a username of "CmdrTaco". His userid is #1. He was, after all, the first. Taco's real signature is the string, "Pants are still optional, but recommended for you," or at least, it was last I checked. In fact, for me it was the signature that gave it away; I was thinking, "Hey! He finally changed his sig!"
In short, you've been had. I found it pretty believable at first, though, since Taco's made plenty of statements about how disappointing he felt TPM was.
It's a nice thought, but since the laws and regulations for licensing would be set up by an elected body of people who most likely would not qualify in our estimation for the licenses, we might not get what we want.
Licensing might require that you not use any non-DRM-including software. Or might somehow prohibit your choice of operating system. Or any number of other things.
Then what on earth is happening to those extra fees they charge me for all of my computer classes? They have signs saying these things were provided by our fees.
This is the highest rated and most informative troll I've ever seen. Some kid is giggling that this got modded up to 5. Note the grits, portman, etc. junk thrown in at random moments. As someone has noted, this is a plagiarized article. You'll also notice that it doesn't answer the question asked at all.
Slashdot Mirror
What worries me is that even if this doesn't really pan out, the anti-stem-cell research lobby will still point to it as though scientists are 'deliberately' murdering embryos in the face of a viable alternative.
I won't. Note my other post today where I summarize reasons peoplle are giving that this might not work. I will however maintain that I believe the embryo is a person and should be protected from having its rights violated no matter what.
I know what you're saying, and you have a valid point. My question is, do those who don't consider an embryo a person concede they might be mistaken? If so, then we ought not to kill them until absolutely sure.
Your points are good, and need to be expressed. I thought you were pretty clear, esp. considering what a complex issue this is.
You wouldn't be in favor of forcing your beliefs on a defensely human embryo, would you? ;)
From a "certain point of view," those who oppose embryonic stem cell research are simply trying to prevent people from forcing their beliefs onto those others. The real disagreement is we believe embryos are people and worthy of protection, whereas many people do not.
As someone else pointed out, I apparently completely misunderstood what you were calling "creepy." Sorry about that, sometimes my brain catches up with what I type quickly, sometimes it takes too long. :)
As I said, I sure hope this becomes an acceptable source of stem cells, but I realize sometimes these things don't pan out.
From what I'm reading here, it seems there is indeed a problem. Embryonic stem cells are "pluripotent" stem cells, which is a step above the "multipotent" stem cells available from this procedure. Apparently the multipotent stem cells cannot produce as many types of tissues as the pluripotent type. So unfortunately, this may not be an adequate solution.
But the results still remain to be seen; I earnestly hope we will find ways to fill this need without having to take more embryoes.
You're right, I went into auto-defensive mode. I reread it and realized it didn't mean what I thought.
Just so used to people jumping on me and dismissing me as a nut, it's hard to notice when they aren't. :)
Please let us try to keep that in mind!
Definitely. I am by no means claiming to speak for the whole group in any way. In some ways, the "right" embraces more diversity than the left.
Why is it so creepy to say I don't believe in killing embryoes? I realize many people are not going to agree with me, but why is that opinion "creepy"? It's like some people think there's absolutely no basis in the world for the belief.
There's a lot of opinions I don't hold, but I still respect them because they are backed up by legitimate points. Isn't it legitimate to say, "Hey, I think killing an embryo is wrong?"
I'm so grateful there are alternatives to embryonic stem cells appearing on the horizon, and I hope these efforts produce spectacular results that will really benefit humanity. Hopefully some day work like this will lead to a solution that will satisfy everyone.
Yes. See my posts on this thread so far. I'm not insisting I'm right, but I would like people to understand and consider the reasons for my beliefs before dismissing them and calling me names.
I always say I don't deserve to object to someone's opinions until I'm capable of explaining the reasons behind those opinions as well as he is. Some issues just are not clear-cut, and it's the people who try to insist things are simple that usually cause most of the fighting.
Is this why everyone was so mad at the right? Because of a misunderstanding?
We don't oppose stem cell research. We oppose the destruction of embryos. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that embryos are people and deserve protection. The other side should admit that that claim at least has merit, even if they don't agree. (Meaning it's a respectable, legitimate opinion; not just being hard to get along with or obstructionist.)
I don't think you'll find anyone on the right (at least, anyone who fully understands the issues) who will oppose stem cell research that does not involve killing embryoes. Hopefully the distinction is very clear to everyone.
Yes. I don't believe in killing embryos and I'm thankful that we are still looking for alternatives. I only hope that these initial results pan out. (Those who are biased against the religious sometimes seem to take a particular glee when something like this doesn't pan out.)
The religious accuse the embryonic stem cell people of murder. On the other hand, those who could help people with embryonic stem cell research lay a similar charge back at the religious. The real problem is the people who try to pretend this is a clear cut issue and call you stupid if you don't take their side.
Imagine if Ford said that by displaying the Ford trademarked logo in public, including on your car, you agree to a "Ford logo license", which says you can only drive 35mph or slower. For $1 per mph over 35, you can earn the privilege of driving over 35mph.
Considering what people usually say to drivers in front of them on the freeway going less than 50 mph, I hardly think that would be a good way of building positive brand recognition.
Reminds me of a sig I've seen out here, one of my favorites: "I'm not merely a 'consumer' or a 'taxpayer.' I'm a citizen of the United States of America."
Furthermore, a link doesn't "grant a user access to a part of [your] website." You grant access to your website. If you don't want people to access it, take it down.
When I was in Jr. High there were one or two friends who could never let it go that I preferred Macintosh. I wanted them to not care about what computer I used; I certainly didn't care about what computer they used. So there are people like that on both sides.
I think the problem is that the Wintel community outnumbers the Macintosh community so much that it's possible for a Wintel user to never notice someone who feels that passionately about it, but most Mac users have encountered someone like my Jr. High friends. And many of us react by responding in Jr. High ways.
Just to be a stickler for science, you can't technically "drop" something from orbit. If you do, the object will just orbit along with you. You would have to propel it downward in some way. :)
Thanks. I was wondering what the title of this article was supposed to mean.
I was (and am) a dedicated TransFan, but couldn't stand Thundercats.
I never accepted Corel because they were a hybrid free/proprietary system. I love Linux, BSD, and GNU. I love RedHat and Debian, and would probably be happy with most of the other distros. I know there are flamewars, but I don't usually see them from the people I know in the community. (I usually browse slashdot at 4 or 5, though.)
The only war I'm really interested in is making sure they we are opposed to all proprietary software, not just MS. I could get along without MS but still be trapped in proprietary software from Apple or Sun. Plenty of people seem to think that attitude is petty, obstructive, or anti-business, but that's the one thing I'm passionate about.
My goal is not to get Linux accepted or to crush Microsoft. It is to get freedom and copyleft accepted. So, we're pointed in the same general direction, but at times you'll find me and people like me aren't focused in directly on the same things you are.
Also, if you have something that you could sell, you might think about that. I have the luxury of being able to sell my old car, as it isn't completely worthless yet, but most people can't afford to do that (however, if you drive a nice new car, you could sell it, swallow your pride, and downgrade - a car is for getting there, not being mr. cool).
I don't think the importance of saving money on your car can be overstated. When you buy a house and take out a loan, it is an investment. The value of your home will probably stay relatively constant (in real dollars) over the years. When you buy a new car, you know for certain that the value will go down. If you take out a loan on top of that, you're only throwing away more cash on the interest. By the time you pay off the car, if it lasts that long, it's not worth anywhere near what you paid for it.
The rental scenario isn't any better. These sharks try to convince you that since you're always making a car payment, you might as well rent so you can have a new car every year or two. But then the payments are even higher and you don't own anything when you get done! The money is just dissipated.
Want to have an extra couple of hundred bucks a month? Buy a car you can pay for immediately. Never make a car or rental payment. You can get a good car that's four to seven years old and will run well for a fraction of what a new car costs. I'm a little excessive: my car was nine years old (now fifteen), and I will drive it until it drops. I try to keep a reserve of cash sufficient to purchase another five to nine year old car when it does.
My car is in good shape, and most people don't realize how old it is. It runs well and only requires service infrequently. And I get another couple of hundred dollars out of my salary every month to spend on things that matter, like my next Linux box. :) (Or food, if for some reason I get laid off.)
The reasons you have cited are why my personal code of ethics causes me to oppose cloning with current technology. However, none of those issues is necessarily going to be an issue forever as the technology improves. I would like to convince people that there's nothing inherently immoral or evil about cloning, as long as it is done humanely. i.e., you don't clone a person and use them for spare parts or slave labor, and you don't do it if the effects you cited occur. Also, you don't create a batch of babies (embryos), select a few, and kill the rest. I support any effort to socially legitimize cloning once those obstacles are overcome. The question is, can we do research to move past those obstacles without utilizing the faulty cloning technology we have today and creating "prototypes" that will be subject to the conditions you cited?
The post you are referring to was posted by someone claiming to be CmdrTaco, but not. His username is "CmdrTaco(editor)". His userid is somewhere in the 500000's, a very recent user. Finally, his signature is a reference to a post about why we should forget about Linux on the desktop.
The real Taco has a username of "CmdrTaco". His userid is #1. He was, after all, the first. Taco's real signature is the string, "Pants are still optional, but recommended for you," or at least, it was last I checked. In fact, for me it was the signature that gave it away; I was thinking, "Hey! He finally changed his sig!"
In short, you've been had. I found it pretty believable at first, though, since Taco's made plenty of statements about how disappointing he felt TPM was.
It's a nice thought, but since the laws and regulations for licensing would be set up by an elected body of people who most likely would not qualify in our estimation for the licenses, we might not get what we want.
Licensing might require that you not use any non-DRM-including software. Or might somehow prohibit your choice of operating system. Or any number of other things.
Rats. I was always hoping we could some day have a "Chess at Home" distributed system computing the worth of every possible chess position.
Computer science runs on donated equipment.
Then what on earth is happening to those extra fees they charge me for all of my computer classes? They have signs saying these things were provided by our fees.
This is the highest rated and most informative troll I've ever seen. Some kid is giggling that this got modded up to 5. Note the grits, portman, etc. junk thrown in at random moments. As someone has noted, this is a plagiarized article. You'll also notice that it doesn't answer the question asked at all.