Thank you for mentioning the DNA of an embryo, because it ties to the Christian belief of human dignity. The book of Genesis says we are created in God's image and likeness; thus, our bodies are good from the moment they start to exist.
As regards research, there is no way to avoid all suffering and still maintain our human dignity (religiously defined or not). Even if we are physically comfortable, our minds will be restless without adversity or adventure -- even adventure that could put us in medical harm and bring suffering.
Non-religious human dignity speaks from the truth of our reason over other beasts; we need not devour the runt wolf cub because he's bringing down the pack; we can honor the embryo and acknowledge that which we have in common, that we were embryos once, and that someone had the respect to let us grow.
The reason exciting stories like these don't make news -- and don't garner tons of comments on/. -- is because there's no money in them. The child has the necessary cells in his bone marrow, and embryonic lines with the right genetic recipe don't have to be manufactured and sold at astronomical premiums. Baby human embryos are spared the garbage disposal, and the liberal media dare not admit that funding embryonic stem cell research is (1) an empty investment, (2) completely unnecessary, and (3) beneath everyone's dignity.
Isn't it odd, that despite the billions invested, there have been no cures from embryonic stem cell research, but only from adult stem cell research? The only reason embryonic research is still pursued is because there's no money in adult stem cell research. Adults already have the cells necessary for successful cures, and don't need to buy, clone, or farm embryos -- which kills defenseless humans. Like the rest of the abortion industry and the contraception and pornography industries which feed it, the goal is to make money; embryonic research has borne no fruit, is morally problematic, and disappoints the investor; why pursue it?
I appreciated your article. What's important to remember is that most "taboo" research topics are "taboo" because they are grossly immoral. Furthermore, they don't always work. Take stem cell research: there have been ZERO cures or benefits from embryonic stem cell research, which kills developed human beings; there are dozens of powerful cures from adult stem cells. The former research is immoral, the latter is not.
On the other hand, we all have to die someday, so our primary focus should be on what happens to us after death. The Catholic Church is helpful in dealing with this concern.
I agree, Lucab. I'd prefer to carry the battle on private email. For the interest of anyone following this string, however, I'll throw some short answers. May I say first of all, however, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paperback book) explains all Church teachings. In my experience, understanding requires faith, and praying for an increase of faith is an advantageous exercise. If we understood it, it wouldn't be God.
(1) Abortion: None of our constitutional rights mean anything unless we are alive. Abortion is dead wrong. Tune in Monday to watch the marchers in DC.
(2) Celibacy is not natural: it's supernatural. In Revelation, Christ marries the Church, as does a priest, in a sense, at his ordination.
(3) Homosexual relations: please see the Catechism. Sex between homosexuals is morally wrong as is sex for unmarried heterosexuals.
(4) Ritual: I liked your description: amazing. Any catholic bookstore will have something under 100 pages that explains the parts of the Mass. Seasoned catholics may well fall short of understanding as they should; anyone can become distracted if they're not careful, to which I can personally attest. The basics are not terribly complicated, however -- remember, it's intended for every person on Earth to participate, so it can't be that difficult.
Thanks for sharing, lucabrasi. I'm a cradle Catholic, but experienced a serious resurgence in 2003. Prior to then I had not been fully "living" Catholicism even though I agreed with it.
How, may I ask, do you define "more liberal", and what are some of the predominant issues for you? I struggled to make sense of certain teachings, and am eager to share my learning on them now. Fire away, if interested! -gopher
Former Catholic? I appreciate your account, and I like newadvent. What made you leave?
Our Catholic Pastor gave us this (paraphrased) quote: "The Church is always interested in finding out more about human origins, but make no mistake about it: humans are no accident."
Some folks didn't want MLK Jr. and his fellow Montgomerians boycotting the bus company, either, yet I'd bet 98% of initial boycotters were from once source -- black followers of MLK Jr.
Complaints aren't made to fuel a flamebait argument, they're made because immorality objectively exists. Subjective responses to immorality do not disprove immorality's objective existence.
We desire a society that fosters human love, and so we will fight, to a prudent extent, the objective hinderances in plain view.
In addition to using grey backgrounds with black text, I wear a pair of $10 clear-tint Panama Jack sunglasses (block 100% ultraviolet) that I bought in Florida. Not only do they provide instant comfort without darkening anything, but they are humongously stylish, and help start conversations.
I assure you: abortion, definition of marriage, euthenasia, embryonic stem-cell research, and cloning are the most important issues this year. Moral relativism could sink this nation. All empires fall; how will the U.S. meet its demise? War, health care, and unemployment are less important than the five aforementioned issues.
Easier to install? Only if you're carefully doing it yourself. At the UAW assembly plants, when you have 10 seconds to perform your assembly task, folks like to yank wire from big hanging reels, and don't care too much for being delicate with it. This has been a problem for automakers who've used fiber-optics in the past; the fibers frequently break. I wonder how Nissan will regulate their assembly process.
I did read Zubrin's Book, and even he is open to suggestions for one critical problem: getting the humans to Mars without full-body 3rd degree sunburn (from radiation). Lead-plated space capsules will be too heavy for an affordable approach, as they will affect payload, fuel, and Hoffman transfers.
Human transport needs to be solved before teraforming becomes worthwhile. (Unless we just want to grow crops out there and let robots pick them.)
but what about the formations of geese, who draft each other like NASCAR drivers, such that the ones in back (and everyone rotates) get a breather at the same velocity?
What I didn't understand about the book is how you can program a swarm to "hide" during the hunt, in that "I can see the prey but they can't see me." Programmers, can anyone enlighten me on how to make a computer know it's hidden from enemy view, yet able to see the enemy?
It's not always "just my problem" if I decide to read the entire contract. I had to read and sign a tiny-font two-pager yesterday before receiving my eye exam at the mall (maybe this was part of the exam, ha ha, I know). I showed up on time for my appointment, but to really read and understand the contract would have put me and the entire office a good 15 minutes behind schedule. Where time is money, we need some good 10-line contracts that fit on a business card.
They also do this at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. My roomate was a Ph.D. candidate in experimental psychology, and his job was to "startle" rats with blasts of noise to map their anxiety reactions when the specimens were under the influence of drugs designed to curb addictive cravings.
Of course, this meant you had to get the animals addicted to something first. He transfered to rats when they asked him to administer heroin to an ape.
Congrats on your first post in 5 months, bro. Looks like some real Trolls responding to your claim. Also, congrats on your highest mod-up ever! (Three: Interesting Score)
I had so many fives (5's) I had to stop and get out of the Limelight cause I can't pretend the stranger is a long-awaited frie-e-end.
I think the plain and simple answer is that we've been trained since age 4 to have good phone manners, to be polite to the person on the other line.
We all know how aggravating and rude it is when the person on the other line is "distracted" by TV or something, giving us "uh-huh" waaaayyyy too late to have been paying attention.
We want to avoid this in the car, to be polite, to follow our ingrained phone ediquite, and so we drive like apes on morphine.
I see hidden importance in the exact placement of the spheres, the angles and distances at which they are separated, which are not explained in the article. What I see happening is the spheres being positioned in such a way that the Coulomb forces act primarily (entirely?) in a tangential fasion on the two free-floating spheres, resulting in net rotation instead of net axial displacement. Could be merely a trigonometric stunt rather than new electrostatic observations.
There are some explinations to be made when we get to Snell's law. One of the links said Snell's law would be "reversed" but I'm seeing it more as being "obliterated".
So where is Snell's law "reversed" here? You get three equalities of different nature (positive,negative,complex). This calculation is for oblique incidence, and theta1 is taken to be the refraction angle from normal, theta2 is the incident angle from normal, n1,2 are the indices of refraction (one negative for metamaterial, one positive for free space) and the z -- intrinsic impedance of the medium -- will always be positive, since z = sqrt(u/e) with u and e (permeability and permitivity) both negative.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for mentioning the DNA of an embryo, because it ties to the Christian belief of human dignity. The book of Genesis says we are created in God's image and likeness; thus, our bodies are good from the moment they start to exist.
As regards research, there is no way to avoid all suffering and still maintain our human dignity (religiously defined or not). Even if we are physically comfortable, our minds will be restless without adversity or adventure -- even adventure that could put us in medical harm and bring suffering.
Non-religious human dignity speaks from the truth of our reason over other beasts; we need not devour the runt wolf cub because he's bringing down the pack; we can honor the embryo and acknowledge that which we have in common, that we were embryos once, and that someone had the respect to let us grow.
The reason exciting stories like these don't make news -- and don't garner tons of comments on /. -- is because there's no money in them. The child has the necessary cells in his bone marrow, and embryonic lines with the right genetic recipe don't have to be manufactured and sold at astronomical premiums. Baby human embryos are spared the garbage disposal, and the liberal media dare not admit that funding embryonic stem cell research is (1) an empty investment, (2) completely unnecessary, and (3) beneath everyone's dignity.
Isn't it odd, that despite the billions invested, there have been no cures from embryonic stem cell research, but only from adult stem cell research? The only reason embryonic research is still pursued is because there's no money in adult stem cell research. Adults already have the cells necessary for successful cures, and don't need to buy, clone, or farm embryos -- which kills defenseless humans. Like the rest of the abortion industry and the contraception and pornography industries which feed it, the goal is to make money; embryonic research has borne no fruit, is morally problematic, and disappoints the investor; why pursue it?
I appreciated your article. What's important to remember is that most "taboo" research topics are "taboo" because they are grossly immoral. Furthermore, they don't always work. Take stem cell research: there have been ZERO cures or benefits from embryonic stem cell research, which kills developed human beings; there are dozens of powerful cures from adult stem cells. The former research is immoral, the latter is not.
On the other hand, we all have to die someday, so our primary focus should be on what happens to us after death. The Catholic Church is helpful in dealing with this concern.
Jim-Bob and John-Boy were such helpful lads, helping to water the horses, and whatnot. I find this "tight-fisted" accusation absurd.
I agree, Lucab. I'd prefer to carry the battle on private email. For the interest of anyone following this string, however, I'll throw some short answers. May I say first of all, however, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paperback book) explains all Church teachings. In my experience, understanding requires faith, and praying for an increase of faith is an advantageous exercise. If we understood it, it wouldn't be God.
(1) Abortion: None of our constitutional rights mean anything unless we are alive. Abortion is dead wrong. Tune in Monday to watch the marchers in DC.
(2) Celibacy is not natural: it's supernatural. In Revelation, Christ marries the Church, as does a priest, in a sense, at his ordination.
(3) Homosexual relations: please see the Catechism. Sex between homosexuals is morally wrong as is sex for unmarried heterosexuals.
(4) Ritual: I liked your description: amazing. Any catholic bookstore will have something under 100 pages that explains the parts of the Mass. Seasoned catholics may well fall short of understanding as they should; anyone can become distracted if they're not careful, to which I can personally attest. The basics are not terribly complicated, however -- remember, it's intended for every person on Earth to participate, so it can't be that difficult.
Thanks for sharing, lucabrasi. I'm a cradle Catholic, but experienced a serious resurgence in 2003. Prior to then I had not been fully "living" Catholicism even though I agreed with it.
How, may I ask, do you define "more liberal", and what are some of the predominant issues for you? I struggled to make sense of certain teachings, and am eager to share my learning on them now. Fire away, if interested!
-gopher
Former Catholic? I appreciate your account, and I like newadvent. What made you leave?
Our Catholic Pastor gave us this (paraphrased) quote: "The Church is always interested in finding out more about human origins, but make no mistake about it: humans are no accident."
Some folks didn't want MLK Jr. and his fellow Montgomerians boycotting the bus company, either, yet I'd bet 98% of initial boycotters were from once source -- black followers of MLK Jr.
Complaints aren't made to fuel a flamebait argument, they're made because immorality objectively exists. Subjective responses to immorality do not disprove immorality's objective existence.
We desire a society that fosters human love, and so we will fight, to a prudent extent, the objective hinderances in plain view.
In addition to using grey backgrounds with black text, I wear a pair of $10 clear-tint Panama Jack sunglasses (block 100% ultraviolet) that I bought in Florida. Not only do they provide instant comfort without darkening anything, but they are humongously stylish, and help start conversations.
take it or leave it.
I assure you: abortion, definition of marriage, euthenasia, embryonic stem-cell research, and cloning are the most important issues this year. Moral relativism could sink this nation. All empires fall; how will the U.S. meet its demise? War, health care, and unemployment are less important than the five aforementioned issues.
Easier to install? Only if you're carefully doing it yourself. At the UAW assembly plants, when you have 10 seconds to perform your assembly task, folks like to yank wire from big hanging reels, and don't care too much for being delicate with it. This has been a problem for automakers who've used fiber-optics in the past; the fibers frequently break. I wonder how Nissan will regulate their assembly process.
I did read Zubrin's Book, and even he is open to suggestions for one critical problem: getting the humans to Mars without full-body 3rd degree sunburn (from radiation). Lead-plated space capsules will be too heavy for an affordable approach, as they will affect payload, fuel, and Hoffman transfers.
Human transport needs to be solved before teraforming becomes worthwhile. (Unless we just want to grow crops out there and let robots pick them.)
but what about the formations of geese, who draft each other like NASCAR drivers, such that the ones in back (and everyone rotates) get a breather at the same velocity?
What I didn't understand about the book is how you can program a swarm to "hide" during the hunt, in that "I can see the prey but they can't see me." Programmers, can anyone enlighten me on how to make a computer know it's hidden from enemy view, yet able to see the enemy?
It's not always "just my problem" if I decide to read the entire contract. I had to read and sign a tiny-font two-pager yesterday before receiving my eye exam at the mall (maybe this was part of the exam, ha ha, I know). I showed up on time for my appointment, but to really read and understand the contract would have put me and the entire office a good 15 minutes behind schedule. Where time is money, we need some good 10-line contracts that fit on a business card.
They also do this at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. My roomate was a Ph.D. candidate in experimental psychology, and his job was to "startle" rats with blasts of noise to map their anxiety reactions when the specimens were under the influence of drugs designed to curb addictive cravings.
Of course, this meant you had to get the animals addicted to something first. He transfered to rats when they asked him to administer heroin to an ape.
(from yet another Tolkein animated movie)
Where there's a whip,
There's a way!
We don't wanna go to war today
But the lord of the lash says Nay Nay Naayyyyy!
Commence severe mosh pit
Congrats on your first post in 5 months, bro.
Looks like some real Trolls responding to your claim. Also, congrats on your highest mod-up ever! (Three: Interesting Score)
I had so many fives (5's) I had to stop and get out of the Limelight cause I can't pretend the stranger is a long-awaited frie-e-end.
Preferably at a school that teaches you how to spell. Many employers are apposed to spelling mistakes.
I think the plain and simple answer is that we've been trained since age 4 to have good phone manners, to be polite to the person on the other line.
We all know how aggravating and rude it is when the person on the other line is "distracted" by TV or something, giving us "uh-huh" waaaayyyy too late to have been paying attention.
We want to avoid this in the car, to be polite, to follow our ingrained phone ediquite, and so we drive like apes on morphine.
I see hidden importance in the exact placement of the spheres, the angles and distances at which they are separated, which are not explained in the article. What I see happening is the spheres being positioned in such a way that the Coulomb forces act primarily (entirely?) in a tangential fasion on the two free-floating spheres, resulting in net rotation instead of net axial displacement. Could be merely a trigonometric stunt rather than new electrostatic observations.
There are some explinations to be made when we get to Snell's law. One of the links said Snell's law would be "reversed" but I'm seeing it more as being "obliterated".
sin(theta1)/sin(theta2)
= sqrt(e1/e2) "imaginary"
= n1/n2 "negative"
= z1/z2 "positive"
So where is Snell's law "reversed" here? You get three equalities of different nature (positive,negative,complex). This calculation is for oblique incidence, and theta1 is taken to be the refraction angle from normal, theta2 is the incident angle from normal, n1,2 are the indices of refraction (one negative for metamaterial, one positive for free space) and the z -- intrinsic impedance of the medium -- will always be positive, since z = sqrt(u/e) with u and e (permeability and permitivity) both negative.
Any physics majors able to help me out here?
"We hath scotched Bill Gates, not killed it. . ."
It's Zorro, chasing bank-robbing aliens on horseback. Anyone else old enough to remember the black-and-white episodes?