1. Yes, participating in the behavior of a sexual preference (whether it be zoophobia, pedophilia, or homosexuality) is in fact a behavior that is not "good" for society. Further, it may not be as "BAD" for society as the above norms, but in the same category? Yes.
2. Correct, but it reminds me of an old joke... The Chicken and the pig wanted to get the farmer that really treated them well a very nice gift. The Chicken said "the farmers absolute favorite is bacon and eggs, we SHOULD get him that!"
3. Tolerance has nothing do do with it... I love the people behind the misguided behavior (as I would love a son who happens to be a clepto). Nobody is perfect.
My last paragraph was a botched attempt to reframe your argument. It appears I was just waiting for my turn to talk (like I accused you of; sorry).
For the record, I'm not a homophobe, afraid of my sexuality, or homosexual. I am merely a guy behind a keyboard whom dislikes Lefty Liberal European "values" and would like to frame the debate back to where it should be and not where it currently resides ("hate mongering extremists" vs. "innocent who are discriminated against")
I said the participatory behavior of homosexuality is a choice (just like the behavior of lying is a choice). That much is common sense and frankly there is no research needed. You seem intent on polarizing the argument (another black/white proposition perhaps?) and if you wish to debate properly, please listen to the counter argument rather than waiting for your turn to talk.
Society is naming the behavior wrong as they do with other behaviors that do not promote the "good" of society (Lying, cheating, stealing (think robin hood)). Those that make the logical leap of calling the "sinner" evil and not their behavior are the same that would label those that seek truth (via any avenue), extremists.
My friend the Truth IS a black or white proposition... claiming that people name a behavior wrong, then subjugate that to the person, then the impaitient using force upon that person is your version of "truth" is bunk... I call it a sweeping generalization.
You say you don't hate homosexuals. Okay, I respect that, BUT: you still cannot fully accept them *and* you cannot fully condemn hate-mongerers. That, in my view, is the problem with the relatively much larger group of moderates: they still give implicit support to extremists.
I find this line of reasoning pretty faulty.
1. extremism exists in order to establish the black or white version of "truth". The idea is to position the argument so that it is an either/or proposition. With your line of reasoning, the only way for someone to come to a conclusion (within their moderate stance), they must stand with an extremist (and thereby be complicite with the REST of their beliefs?) If this were true then there would only be two sides to every "evolving" debate which of course is NOT true.
2. You don't have to "hate" someone to dislike (and hope to change) their BEHAVIOR. Can a parent dislike their child's constant lying but still not love the child?
3. When homosexuality is correctly framed as a behavioral choice (the participatory behavior of homosexuality not the inclination) then one can bridge the current chasm of your argument.
Actually what I meant to say is "Cloning via SCNT in human eggs generates human life"
I assumed cloning along the lines of the discussion and not some extricated outside definition of cell reproduction (cloning can have a great many definitions no?). This is exactly the line of thinking that allowed "cloning via SCNT" to pass in Missouri. The cloners just redefined cloning to fit their own narrow definition of cloning and anyone who is a non embryologist (99.99% of the voters I would suspect) were none the wiser.
Again if you follow the lines of the discussion, no one is saying we should not be doing stem cell research... they are saying we should not be federally funding stem cell research that advocates the destruction of human life.
Any scientist that advocates research while destroying human life has a serious ethical dilemma which is the basis for this whole argument. Fact is they would rather write the argument off as "what some religious ignorant kook believes" instead of dealing with the RATIONAL facts surrounding it.
Our folks just passed an initiative that does in fact "create life to destroy it". The measure allows us to use SCNT in an egg and then stimulate the egg to generate stem cells.
Back to your original comment... the embryo's are not discarded unless Little Johnny lab tech decides to leave the dish out on the counter, or the freezer goes kaput. Most of the folks arguing that In vitro "destroys" embryo's are claiming that when you implant an embryo into a uterus and it dies naturally (or fails to fully implant not unlike 3/4ths of pregnancies)that that is destruction...
Well of course I don't know what you are talking about... YOU don't know what you are talking about!
an embryo != an egg
I don't argue that an egg is a life (or that a seed is a tree). I am talking about LIFE my friend... [when the 23 matched chromosones which constitute the identity of a new and distinct human being are present either through the fertilization of the female egg with the male sperm, or through cloning.]
Embryonic stem cell research creates life to destroy it...
It has absolutely nothing to do with belief...
The scientific truth is that cloning generates human life.
The moral truth is that human life is to be safeguarded and fostered from the moment of its generation.
"So non-viable life froms like an embryo deserve advocacy, but people with diseases don't?! Ridiculous."
I think you answered our own question... They both deserve advocacy. And neither deserve this "science at all costs" that seems to pervade thought on this message board.
viable
A adjective
1 viable
capable of life or normal growth and development;
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/viable
Mayhap you would like to revisit your definition of the 6 week old sitting in a chair all by himself being "viable"... If you are OK with the definition of life being that which technology can support... just say so.
VALID reason #1: It IS Human life... if an embryo is not human life, then what is it?
I miss your point... if an embryo is terminated... it is killed (because it is life)
They only die if you FORCE them to die.
Your cynicism wins no points though... if you do not believe that the current debate does not revolve around some "well thought out moral value" you are just flat out wrong.
"It makes perfect sense that that the believers are against stem cell research, since they consider blastocysts a human life"
Then perhaps you can inform me what a blastocyst IS if not a human life?
"First of all, the idea is to generate stem-cell based therapies by cloning and killing life that anyone can afford, not just the wealthy."
There... fixed.
"Thirdly, embryos are not "promising youth". It's an embryo, not a viable life form."
I'm sure if you pull that 6 week old baby out of a crib and sit him/her on a chair they will be perfectly viable... no?
"Making the observation that vision followed the same path of differentiation and specialization as other organs isn't that much of a stretch."
Agreed... I think our real difference of opinion lies in the "stretch" of photosensitive cells >> a fully developed eye. You don't see it as that much of a stretch, just like I don't see the obvious holes in the fossil record being filled by an intelligent designer as a stretch.
The "non "evangelical- bible thumping" I.D. crowd onlyreally differs with your viewpoint in that you believe something can only be proven by reproducable demonstration... I believe things can be proven by pointing out what things ARE NOT (negation)
Nice arguing with you though:)
I read the same article as you did that showed that pompous ass from harvard or yale or wherever... but oh wait, was not he making the same "logical jump" as the IDers by saying "there must be cells that are photosensitive to light that eventually evolved into an eye"
I do look forward to the evolution of winged squirrels though!
Heres the rub... while it will admittedly be difficult to document the development of the wing, there is no evolutionary cause to develop "part of the wing"
comparing the "law of physics" to evolution is indeed why we have this problem in the first place.
"People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly," Altshuler said.
They have? I always thought ID folks were more concerned with the development of the wing (which evolution really cannot explain) then with "how something flies"
But you tech heads run amuck and bash the "rational thinking is not possibly capable of a 100% explanation in this Sensory driven and corruptable world" folks like me
Slashdot Mirror
1. Yes, participating in the behavior of a sexual preference (whether it be zoophobia, pedophilia, or homosexuality) is in fact a behavior that is not "good" for society. Further, it may not be as "BAD" for society as the above norms, but in the same category? Yes.
2. Correct, but it reminds me of an old joke... The Chicken and the pig wanted to get the farmer that really treated them well a very nice gift. The Chicken said "the farmers absolute favorite is bacon and eggs, we SHOULD get him that!"
3. Tolerance has nothing do do with it... I love the people behind the misguided behavior (as I would love a son who happens to be a clepto). Nobody is perfect.
My last paragraph was a botched attempt to reframe your argument. It appears I was just waiting for my turn to talk (like I accused you of; sorry).
For the record, I'm not a homophobe, afraid of my sexuality, or homosexual. I am merely a guy behind a keyboard whom dislikes Lefty Liberal European "values" and would like to frame the debate back to where it should be and not where it currently resides ("hate mongering extremists" vs. "innocent who are discriminated against")
put words in my mouth more?
I said the participatory behavior of homosexuality is a choice (just like the behavior of lying is a choice). That much is common sense and frankly there is no research needed. You seem intent on polarizing the argument (another black/white proposition perhaps?) and if you wish to debate properly, please listen to the counter argument rather than waiting for your turn to talk.
Society is naming the behavior wrong as they do with other behaviors that do not promote the "good" of society (Lying, cheating, stealing (think robin hood)). Those that make the logical leap of calling the "sinner" evil and not their behavior are the same that would label those that seek truth (via any avenue), extremists.
My friend the Truth IS a black or white proposition... claiming that people name a behavior wrong, then subjugate that to the person, then the impaitient using force upon that person is your version of "truth" is bunk... I call it a sweeping generalization.
I find this line of reasoning pretty faulty.
1. extremism exists in order to establish the black or white version of "truth". The idea is to position the argument so that it is an either/or proposition. With your line of reasoning, the only way for someone to come to a conclusion (within their moderate stance), they must stand with an extremist (and thereby be complicite with the REST of their beliefs?) If this were true then there would only be two sides to every "evolving" debate which of course is NOT true.
2. You don't have to "hate" someone to dislike (and hope to change) their BEHAVIOR. Can a parent dislike their child's constant lying but still not love the child?
3. When homosexuality is correctly framed as a behavioral choice (the participatory behavior of homosexuality not the inclination) then one can bridge the current chasm of your argument.
Actually what I meant to say is "Cloning via SCNT in human eggs generates human life"
I assumed cloning along the lines of the discussion and not some extricated outside definition of cell reproduction (cloning can have a great many definitions no?). This is exactly the line of thinking that allowed "cloning via SCNT" to pass in Missouri. The cloners just redefined cloning to fit their own narrow definition of cloning and anyone who is a non embryologist (99.99% of the voters I would suspect) were none the wiser.
Again if you follow the lines of the discussion, no one is saying we should not be doing stem cell research... they are saying we should not be federally funding stem cell research that advocates the destruction of human life.
Any scientist that advocates research while destroying human life has a serious ethical dilemma which is the basis for this whole argument. Fact is they would rather write the argument off as "what some religious ignorant kook believes" instead of dealing with the RATIONAL facts surrounding it.
Look... I live in Missouri in the U.S.
Our folks just passed an initiative that does in fact "create life to destroy it". The measure allows us to use SCNT in an egg and then stimulate the egg to generate stem cells.
Back to your original comment... the embryo's are not discarded unless Little Johnny lab tech decides to leave the dish out on the counter, or the freezer goes kaput. Most of the folks arguing that In vitro "destroys" embryo's are claiming that when you implant an embryo into a uterus and it dies naturally (or fails to fully implant not unlike 3/4ths of pregnancies)that that is destruction...
Well of course I don't know what you are talking about... YOU don't know what you are talking about!
an embryo != an egg
I don't argue that an egg is a life (or that a seed is a tree). I am talking about LIFE my friend... [when the 23 matched chromosones which constitute the identity of a new and distinct human being are present either through the fertilization of the female egg with the male sperm, or through cloning.]
Embryonic stem cell research creates life to destroy it...
It has absolutely nothing to do with belief...
The scientific truth is that cloning generates human life.
The moral truth is that human life is to be safeguarded and fostered from the moment of its generation.
"So non-viable life froms like an embryo deserve advocacy, but people with diseases don't?! Ridiculous."
I think you answered our own question... They both deserve advocacy. And neither deserve this "science at all costs" that seems to pervade thought on this message board.
I miss your point... if an embryo is terminated... it is killed (because it is life) They only die if you FORCE them to die. Your cynicism wins no points though... if you do not believe that the current debate does not revolve around some "well thought out moral value" you are just flat out wrong.
"It makes perfect sense that that the believers are against stem cell research, since they consider blastocysts a human life"
Then perhaps you can inform me what a blastocyst IS if not a human life?
"First of all, the idea is to generate stem-cell based therapies by cloning and killing life that anyone can afford, not just the wealthy." There... fixed. "Thirdly, embryos are not "promising youth". It's an embryo, not a viable life form." I'm sure if you pull that 6 week old baby out of a crib and sit him/her on a chair they will be perfectly viable... no?
"Making the observation that vision followed the same path of differentiation and specialization as other organs isn't that much of a stretch." Agreed... I think our real difference of opinion lies in the "stretch" of photosensitive cells >> a fully developed eye. You don't see it as that much of a stretch, just like I don't see the obvious holes in the fossil record being filled by an intelligent designer as a stretch. The "non "evangelical- bible thumping" I.D. crowd onlyreally differs with your viewpoint in that you believe something can only be proven by reproducable demonstration... I believe things can be proven by pointing out what things ARE NOT (negation) Nice arguing with you though :)
Wait... Part of an eye isn't useless?
I read the same article as you did that showed that pompous ass from harvard or yale or wherever... but oh wait, was not he making the same "logical jump" as the IDers by saying "there must be cells that are photosensitive to light that eventually evolved into an eye"
I do look forward to the evolution of winged squirrels though!
Heres the rub... while it will admittedly be difficult to document the development of the wing, there is no evolutionary cause to develop "part of the wing" comparing the "law of physics" to evolution is indeed why we have this problem in the first place.
"People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly," Altshuler said. They have? I always thought ID folks were more concerned with the development of the wing (which evolution really cannot explain) then with "how something flies" But you tech heads run amuck and bash the "rational thinking is not possibly capable of a 100% explanation in this Sensory driven and corruptable world" folks like me