harvest stem cells only in the case of abortions. Whether from the fetus or the amniotic fluid, it's just going to be biowaste anyway.
Hell and considering how rare viable stem cells are I can see a great business opportunity hear... start baby farming. Get pregnant, abort the little bastard, and get paid for the stem cells. Hells yes... where's my ho.
So, what if we made them unsentient first. You know drug them up or make them brain dead?
Why are you placing a higher value on beings with lower capabilities and prospects then other beings? It seems like you have some sort of personal norm that is keeping you from accepting the fact that we should use the weak to make the strong stronger? Right? I mean... fetuses can't feel anything and it doesn't really matter that they're life and will soon be sentient, if we take that away from them then it's ok... and is there really anything wrong with determining a point when someone should be dead, but keep their body alive for tests and stuff? Even so, even if something is sentient, isn't the potential good of many people worth more than the individual value of a single thing?
Also... we test on pigs, they have lower brain functions then humans and can't really ever hope to be humans... maybe we should consider testing on SOME, just SOME, humans with lower brain functions. We'd give them sedatives of course... try to limit the pain and all... but is it right that healthy human beings who can go on to create a cure for cancer or write the next great novel don't have a chance because someone with lower brain functions holds the key to the life of thousands of people?
I would expect that the rational individuals who are arguing against stem cell research would also argue against abortion based on the value of human life. National abortion laws are established through court cases based on the limitations on the reach of government, not because everyone thinks it's acceptable and voted for it.
Would you allow your daughter, who suffers from a debilitating, ultimately fatal disease, to undergo curative treatment derived from stem cell research?
Treatment derived from stem cells isn't the issue... that's why the debate has been about using different types of stem cells and whether or not they could be used as successfully in research.
Here's a question...
Would you allow your daughter, who suffers from a debilitating, and hideously painful, ultimately fatal disease, to undergo curative treatment derived from the extraction of organs from a living person in a permanently vegetative state?
What if your daughter was in a permanently vegetative state?
any form of the bible as a moral compass, it advocates hate and intolerance.
So all religious books of any kind advocate hate and intolerance? READ the Bible sometime. It does not advocate hate or intolerance. People are evil and make mistakes, people will co-opt religion to push their own agendas forward, but claims that "any form of bible" advocates "hate and intolerance" is obviously ignorant.
No. Religion has no bearing on ethics. It would be relevant to questions of religious morals, but ethical questions shouldn't have anything to do with religion.
You are wrong. Ethical systems are individualized first and shared second. One's world view, whether it incorporates a religious viewpoint or not, determines one's ethics. Religion has a huge bearing on individual ethics. The challenge is to communicate and discuss those ethical values across groups of people that may have different world views.
From what I can gather, the basic issue that most religious folk have to do with stem cell research is that we're mucking around with human lives.
You're wrong on two counts. 1) The primary concern was that extracting the stem cells would destroy the embryo, not "Playing God". 2) You're also wrong to use the "religious folk" label. People who are non-religious also found that destroying human embryo's for research purposes was a concern. People who were religious argued for the research. Using statements like "religious folk" is indicates you're relying on a stereotype and in this case in particular oversimplifies the entire debate to the point of error.
I agree. Forget the whole mess about global warming and all of the debate a pseudo-science and marketing bullshit. Focus on your local city and the damage done by local pollutants. I don't by into global warming but I do know that my city's emissions laws have made the air healthier.
I also know that most of the world is dependent on a limited natural resource that is coming primarily from an incredibly unstable region. Let's invest resources in developing fuels and systems that can use renewable or local energy sources and invest in the technology and processes to get those technologies into real products.
I agree that UCS is heavily biased and is just a political front group that has abandoned scientific reporting and married itself to marketing. Read their FAQ about global warming. They certainty about topics that are still heavily debated by legit scientists.
That said... Exxon has every right to honestly defend itself, but if they have indeed created front groups or are knowingly spreading misinformation they should be properly scorned.
is that people will call you up during your dinner to tell you that you're long lost uncle's oil wealth is available to you in Madagascar or about the wonders of this new herbal male health pill.
I agree that this isn't a good comparison of grid computing against modern mainframes... but I think that's more the fault of the post, not the article. I thought the article was still interesting though. It was interesting to learn a bit more about grid computing in a specific implementation and to see that companies are choosing alternatives to mainframes for massive processing tasks.
I understand that. My point was that psuedoscience is by no means limited to "relgious people" and that science itself in general is full of a vast amount of uncertainity. Not acknowledging that uncertainity, not recognizing that we may not actually have it right, being willing to call theories theories is a sign of ignorance and arrogance. I'm sick of it. Take science for what it is. Cite real facts where the exist, openly acnowledge where you're guessing or speculating or making what you think is an educated, and if someone else present contradictory evidence accept it for what it is.
Ah yes... so HYPOTHETICALLY if we really don't have a fucking clue what happened and evidence indicates that our current theory is bullshit then let's just ignore that evidence and keep on believing our bullshit theory. Why are you so insistant on ignoring the evidence that contradicts your theory and ridiculing those who present that evidence. The tables have turned... you've accepted the Church at Rome's position and persecute Galileo.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that the macro/micro evolution distinction is not valid or that evolution in general is invalid?
You're correct that my choice of using protiens as an example for randomness in evolution is incorrect since evolution presuposes life. But thanks to you I checked the wikipedia and it's pretty clear that there is plenty of randomness in evolutionary theory, so I made a mistake in my defensive argument, but I guess I was right in my use of the term "random".
Ok, so I know the wikipedia is not the most accurate source for all information, but it's a general on point topice and give the intensity that this topic is covered I would expect the article to be fairly accurate. The wikipedia says,
Mutations that are not affected by natural selection under the prevailing environment are called neutral mutations. The frequency of a neutral mutation in a population is governed by the size of the population, the mutation rate, genetic drift and selective pressures on the alleles to which it is linked. It is understood that most of a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations. If the environment later changes, a mutation that was originally neutral may become either deleterious or beneficial.
So it seems that mutation plays an important role in evolution.
The term random is tossed around in respect to genetic drift and mutation.
I guess there are three possible conclusions to this semantic argument... 1) I misunderstood what I read. Possible... I skimmed it. If so... please correct me. 2) The wikipedia is wrong. If so... why don't you update the wikipedia with the truth. 3) You're semantic nitpicking was just that... semantic nitpicking.
It has been shown that mutation has nearly nothing to do with the evolutionary process. (Before you ask for a "source", please read *any* non-fictional work on evolution written in the last 15 years.)
I'll go do a bit of reading... but why don't you provide a source anyway since they're so readily available.
Evolution has nothing at all to do with the formation of life, it only deals with the changes of species over time.
So exactly when does "evolution" start and the processes the form various types of life start? My understanding is the general evolutionary theory basically says the ultimately all life has one source, or basic source and from the, the evolutionary processes, we have all the differnet species we have today. It sounds like you're saying we somehow got all of these species and then from there their they evolved into all types of variants.
Apart from this side-issue we've gotten into my point stands up that scienctific findings should stand up entirely on their. The source of the findings is 100% completely irrelevant to whether or not the scientific findings are accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
harvest stem cells only in the case of abortions. Whether from the fetus or the amniotic fluid, it's just going to be biowaste anyway.
Hell and considering how rare viable stem cells are I can see a great business opportunity hear... start baby farming. Get pregnant, abort the little bastard, and get paid for the stem cells. Hells yes... where's my ho.
So, what if we made them unsentient first. You know drug them up or make them brain dead?
Why are you placing a higher value on beings with lower capabilities and prospects then other beings? It seems like you have some sort of personal norm that is keeping you from accepting the fact that we should use the weak to make the strong stronger? Right? I mean... fetuses can't feel anything and it doesn't really matter that they're life and will soon be sentient, if we take that away from them then it's ok... and is there really anything wrong with determining a point when someone should be dead, but keep their body alive for tests and stuff? Even so, even if something is sentient, isn't the potential good of many people worth more than the individual value of a single thing?
Also... we test on pigs, they have lower brain functions then humans and can't really ever hope to be humans... maybe we should consider testing on SOME, just SOME, humans with lower brain functions. We'd give them sedatives of course... try to limit the pain and all... but is it right that healthy human beings who can go on to create a cure for cancer or write the next great novel don't have a chance because someone with lower brain functions holds the key to the life of thousands of people?
I would expect that the rational individuals who are arguing against stem cell research would also argue against abortion based on the value of human life. National abortion laws are established through court cases based on the limitations on the reach of government, not because everyone thinks it's acceptable and voted for it.
Yeah... and why don't we harvest organs and perform tests from bodies in persistent vegetative states? They're not really people anymore.
Progress has always been hindered by the masses if they feel it is unethical or sacreligious - regardless of the religion or ethics involved.
And so you would advocate giving power to a limited few to make decisions for us all?
Would you allow your daughter, who suffers from a debilitating, ultimately fatal disease, to undergo curative treatment derived from stem cell research?
Treatment derived from stem cells isn't the issue... that's why the debate has been about using different types of stem cells and whether or not they could be used as successfully in research.
Here's a question...
Would you allow your daughter, who suffers from a debilitating, and hideously painful, ultimately fatal disease, to undergo curative treatment derived from the extraction of organs from a living person in a permanently vegetative state?
What if your daughter was in a permanently vegetative state?
To quote you... "i... primative bliefs... smash... fucking... balls."
Yeah, you're the model of a modern sensible individual who understands how to respect others.
any form of the bible as a moral compass, it advocates hate and intolerance.
So all religious books of any kind advocate hate and intolerance? READ the Bible sometime. It does not advocate hate or intolerance. People are evil and make mistakes, people will co-opt religion to push their own agendas forward, but claims that "any form of bible" advocates "hate and intolerance" is obviously ignorant.
No. Religion has no bearing on ethics. It would be relevant to questions of religious morals, but ethical questions shouldn't have anything to do with religion.
You are wrong. Ethical systems are individualized first and shared second. One's world view, whether it incorporates a religious viewpoint or not, determines one's ethics. Religion has a huge bearing on individual ethics. The challenge is to communicate and discuss those ethical values across groups of people that may have different world views.
From what I can gather, the basic issue that most religious folk have to do with stem cell research is that we're mucking around with human lives.
You're wrong on two counts. 1) The primary concern was that extracting the stem cells would destroy the embryo, not "Playing God". 2) You're also wrong to use the "religious folk" label. People who are non-religious also found that destroying human embryo's for research purposes was a concern. People who were religious argued for the research. Using statements like "religious folk" is indicates you're relying on a stereotype and in this case in particular oversimplifies the entire debate to the point of error.
No... sorry the joke was the subject.
The article was written on Reuters. Apparently those anti-intellectuals over at ZDNet thought it was interesting enough to comment on it.
Here's an idea... this weekend, drink some grain alcohol and go drive yourself into a telephone pole you stupid hick.
would taunt the user and tell them to RTFM, or if they want that feature to open up the source code and write it themselves.
Great post.
I agree. Forget the whole mess about global warming and all of the debate a pseudo-science and marketing bullshit. Focus on your local city and the damage done by local pollutants. I don't by into global warming but I do know that my city's emissions laws have made the air healthier.
I also know that most of the world is dependent on a limited natural resource that is coming primarily from an incredibly unstable region. Let's invest resources in developing fuels and systems that can use renewable or local energy sources and invest in the technology and processes to get those technologies into real products.
I agree that UCS is heavily biased and is just a political front group that has abandoned scientific reporting and married itself to marketing. Read their FAQ about global warming. They certainty about topics that are still heavily debated by legit scientists.
That said... Exxon has every right to honestly defend itself, but if they have indeed created front groups or are knowingly spreading misinformation they should be properly scorned.
is that people will call you up during your dinner to tell you that you're long lost uncle's oil wealth is available to you in Madagascar or about the wonders of this new herbal male health pill.
I agree that this isn't a good comparison of grid computing against modern mainframes... but I think that's more the fault of the post, not the article. I thought the article was still interesting though. It was interesting to learn a bit more about grid computing in a specific implementation and to see that companies are choosing alternatives to mainframes for massive processing tasks.
I understand that. My point was that psuedoscience is by no means limited to "relgious people" and that science itself in general is full of a vast amount of uncertainity. Not acknowledging that uncertainity, not recognizing that we may not actually have it right, being willing to call theories theories is a sign of ignorance and arrogance. I'm sick of it. Take science for what it is. Cite real facts where the exist, openly acnowledge where you're guessing or speculating or making what you think is an educated, and if someone else present contradictory evidence accept it for what it is.
Ah yes... so HYPOTHETICALLY if we really don't have a fucking clue what happened and evidence indicates that our current theory is bullshit then let's just ignore that evidence and keep on believing our bullshit theory. Why are you so insistant on ignoring the evidence that contradicts your theory and ridiculing those who present that evidence. The tables have turned... you've accepted the Church at Rome's position and persecute Galileo.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that the macro/micro evolution distinction is not valid or that evolution in general is invalid?
You're correct that my choice of using protiens as an example for randomness in evolution is incorrect since evolution presuposes life. But thanks to you I checked the wikipedia and it's pretty clear that there is plenty of randomness in evolutionary theory, so I made a mistake in my defensive argument, but I guess I was right in my use of the term "random".
Thanks for helping to clarify the terms used.
Yes poser... and by "top scientists" he means scientists who agree with him completely.
Ok, so I know the wikipedia is not the most accurate source for all information, but it's a general on point topice and give the intensity that this topic is covered I would expect the article to be fairly accurate. The wikipedia says,
Mutations that are not affected by natural selection under the prevailing environment are called neutral mutations. The frequency of a neutral mutation in a population is governed by the size of the population, the mutation rate, genetic drift and selective pressures on the alleles to which it is linked. It is understood that most of a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations. If the environment later changes, a mutation that was originally neutral may become either deleterious or beneficial.
So it seems that mutation plays an important role in evolution.
The term random is tossed around in respect to genetic drift and mutation.
My source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
I guess there are three possible conclusions to this semantic argument...
1) I misunderstood what I read. Possible... I skimmed it. If so... please correct me.
2) The wikipedia is wrong. If so... why don't you update the wikipedia with the truth.
3) You're semantic nitpicking was just that... semantic nitpicking.
It has been shown that mutation has nearly nothing to do with the evolutionary process. (Before you ask for a "source", please read *any* non-fictional work on evolution written in the last 15 years.)
I'll go do a bit of reading... but why don't you provide a source anyway since they're so readily available.
Evolution has nothing at all to do with the formation of life, it only deals with the changes of species over time.
So exactly when does "evolution" start and the processes the form various types of life start? My understanding is the general evolutionary theory basically says the ultimately all life has one source, or basic source and from the, the evolutionary processes, we have all the differnet species we have today. It sounds like you're saying we somehow got all of these species and then from there their they evolved into all types of variants.
Apart from this side-issue we've gotten into my point stands up that scienctific findings should stand up entirely on their. The source of the findings is 100% completely irrelevant to whether or not the scientific findings are accurate.