Author Topic: Stem celly goodness.  (Read 1419 times)

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
Thank you Dowding...
« Reply #45 on: November 19, 2002, 05:05:01 AM »
Will those two black eyes satisfy you or do I need to kick your teeth in as well Hortlund?
 < proverbial speaking>

Or...do you have anymore trite liberal cliches you want to embarass yourself with?

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Thank you Dowding...
« Reply #46 on: November 19, 2002, 05:33:22 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by weazel
Will those two black eyes satisfy you or do I need to kick your teeth in as well Hortlund?
 < proverbial speaking>

Or...do you have anymore trite liberal cliches you want to embarass yourself with?


Actually you could start with the ones I wrote. Dowding didnt really say anything other than "yeah, those are the liberal "morals" and I like them". (see post to dowding to follow).

Frankly you could not (proverbially speaking) kick in the teeth of a small child with your lame attempts at rethorics.

1) Ignore the question
2) Evade the question
3) Try to change focus (or talk about something else)

You are just following the same pattern as always.  I think I called you on it wayy back in some Ann Coulter thread months ago.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Stem celly goodness.
« Reply #47 on: November 19, 2002, 05:41:45 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Safe consensual sex between two adults is nothing to be ashamed about, Hortlund. It happens everyday, to some of us at least. :p
[/b]
As I said, those are liberal morals. To me, there are higher values than personal pleasure/satisfaction. Some things are wrong no matter how good they feel Dowding. I guess we just see things differently.  

[EDIT] FOR EXAMPLE. If I would have had sex with another woman while my wife was giving birth to our first son, it would be wrong no matter how much we were consenting..me and that woman.
Quote

The abolition of slavery was a 'liberal' policy.

The extension of voting rights to men of any class was a 'liberal' policy.

The extension of voting rights to women was a 'liberal' policy.

The abolition of racial segregation was a 'liberal' policy.
[/b]
See this would be a good opportunity for you to ponder the fact that there are other nations on this earth than the USA.

As an example, the abolition of slavery took place in 1326 in Sweden. On orders from a very conservative king.

The desicion to extend voting rights to all men in Sweden was taken by a conservative government. With the Acceptance of the conservative King. Same when it comes to womens right to vote.

And, oops, we never had any racial segregation laws here in Sweden. Imagine that huh?
Quote

I disagree. As long as you realise that extremism is baggage of all the major religions and you also label abortion doctor murderers as terrorists then you will get no argument from me regarding 'moslem terrorists'. Let's also remember the Catholic Priests that actually led IRA cells which carried out atrocities in NI.
[/b]
1) Name those Catholic priests who led IRA cells. Or at least give me a source to read.
2) Why would you want to lable abortion doctor murdererd as "terrorists"? I can tell you why actually, to promote your own political agenda. If you want to lable abortion doctor murderers as "terrorists" then why not cop killers? Or serial rapists? Or those morons protesting at all the international bank meetings?
« Last Edit: November 19, 2002, 05:44:17 AM by Hortlund »

Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Stem celly goodness.
« Reply #48 on: November 19, 2002, 05:51:35 AM »
Funked wrote:

You forgot about murdering innocent unborn children while allowing proven murderers to live.

See my post above about the difference between a child (which has personhood), an embryo (which does not) and a fetus (hasn't got either).

Like it or not, humans come to be in stages. The potential is not the actual. In other words, an egg and a sperm is not an unborn child. An embryo is not an unborn child. A fetus is not either. one can rightfully question the rather arbitrary line we've drawn regarding when a fetus becomes a child, but there are at least strong indicators for when it is NOT a child.

The rest is not directed at FunkedUp, but rather general comments-

Now, since everyone really draws up the lines and take a thing to its extremes, so will I.

Parasite is defined as:

n 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another
animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host [ant: host]

An unwanted pregnancy then will result in a parasite inside a womans body. Sure, it can be avoided. Just like getting infected by a host of other parasites can be avoided. Yet it happens, and individuals are entitled to get treatment to get rid of parasites.

People do not have the right to dispose of people as they see fit - but again, this is not an issue legally, since a fetus, no matter in whst stage of development, isn't a person.

Scientifically, it cannot be said to be a person, able to survive outside the womb, until at a quite late stage - and the majority of abortions happen much earlier.

Philosophically, we'd be discussing the actual vs. the potential - with all the ramifications that come with it. 'Every sperm is sacred' is oft quoted, and for good reasons.

Where we to overcome the last two arguments (and the first can simply be redefined in law), we'd still face a situation where we have a persons right of self determination. And that is a wholly other argument, one that also would have to be settled legally (i.e do you have the right to oust a person from your body, even if doing so would mean the death of said person). In this case, again, the law can be rewritten according to whatever the majority of the population wants.

It's not a simple issue. But pro-lifers do themselves a disservice when they call an embryo or fetus an unborn child. There are so many better arguments than using one that is medically and scientifically wrong in most cases.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Stem celly goodness.
« Reply #49 on: November 19, 2002, 05:51:42 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nash

Nope. Just showing two worlds colliding. It aint no weird secret that Republicans court big business. And it also isn't a secret that Republicans court... erhm... religeous values (don't know how to put that). Now when one is at odds with the other, as in this case, there is a bit of a dillema.... which I was just trying to point out.
[/b]
So exactly what does this have to do with "conservative values"?

So a republican politician is trying to court big money and religious fundamentalists at the same time. Does that really tell you anything about conservative values?
Quote

Is it somehow wrong of me to say that the medical establishment and the lobbying groups that go hand in hand with it don't want a say in the stem cell debate? Would it be wrong to say the the Christians/Catholics/etc. also don't also want a say? Can we safely surmise that those two groups aren't exactly going to be seeing eye to eye on it?

No, no, and yes. So take whatever argument you were trying to make elsewhere, or if you're dead set on confronting me with it at least try to fashion one that makes sense.
[/b]
It seems you are talking about the realities of American politics while I was talking about conservative values. Those are not neccesarily the same thing you know...

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Stem celly goodness.
« Reply #50 on: November 19, 2002, 05:55:00 AM »
conservative in Sweden mean ultra liberal in USA :D

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Stem celly goodness.
« Reply #51 on: November 19, 2002, 06:03:04 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by StSanta
See my post above about the difference between a child (which has personhood), an embryo (which does not) and a fetus (hasn't got either).
[/b]
Actually you did not really explain the differences in that post. Could you please explain what the difference is between a fetus and an embryo? When does the fetus/embryo become "a baby"?

One of the reasons why I'm asking this is because it is possible  today to take a baby from the womb when it is 22 weeks old and save its life.

So when its 22 weeks old it is what? A fetus? An Embryo?

...a baby?

Offline Dowding (Work)

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 627
Stem celly goodness.
« Reply #52 on: November 19, 2002, 06:26:51 AM »
Quote
As I said, those are liberal morals. To me, there are higher values than personal pleasure/satisfaction. Some things are wrong no matter how good they feel Dowding. I guess we just see things differently.


Of course. But I wouldn't obstruct anyone's right to do it.

Quote
See this would be a good opportunity for you to ponder the fact that there are other nations on this earth than the USA.


And this would be a good opportunity for you to ponder the fact that I'm actually British, living in Britain and not American at all! You're actually wrong, Hortlund - fancy that!

Quote
As an example, the abolition of slavery took place in 1326 in Sweden. On orders from a very conservative king.

The desicion to extend voting rights to all men in Sweden was taken by a conservative government. With the Acceptance of the conservative King. Same when it comes to womens right to vote.

And, oops, we never had any racial segregation laws here in Sweden. Imagine that huh?


Err... as a continuation on the theme 'Hortlund was extraordinarily off the mark about what Dowding was thinking':

a) I was talking about the abolition of Slavery instigated by Wilberforce in Britain, half a century before the US

b) Regarding voting rights - I was talking about Britain specifically and the reforms of parliament over the centuries.

c) Your rebuttal, essentially based on the premise that 'Other countries did it first' is an irrelevance beside the fact that all those developments were liberal concepts at that moment in time. What could be more liberal than emancipation of a whole race?

You say your Swedish king was a very conservative man. I say he was a conservative by today's standards, but his actions were liberal by definition. Also, which king was it - point me to some sources - I'd like to know more about how democratic 14th century Sweden was.

Quote
1) Name those Catholic priests who led IRA cells. Or at least give me a source to read.


Here you go, for starters:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/21/nuls21.xml

BTW, the Telegraph is a Conservative paper. Fiercely so.

newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2289584.stm

Shame we'll never find out for sure - the priest in question is dead.

Quote
2) Why would you want to lable abortion doctor murdererd as "terrorists"? I can tell you why actually, to promote your own political agenda. If you want to lable abortion doctor murderers as "terrorists" then why not cop killers? Or serial rapists? Or those morons protesting at all the international bank meetings?


I'll think I'll leave the dictionary to make a simple rebuttal of anything you write:

Terrorismn. 1) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal 2) act of terrorizing

Terroristn. 1) person who employs terror or terrorist, esp. as a political weapon

I think those anti-abortionist nutjobs who gun down doctors fall into the terrorist catergory quite neatly, if you ask me. Cop killers? I wouldn't say their violence was systematic - more incidental - cop gets in way, cop gets killed. Murder, for sure.

Anti-globalisation protesters? Providing it is peaceful demonstration then they couldn't be called terrorists - same goes for anti-abortionist demonstrators. When violence comes into play, then by definition they are terrorists.

Serial rapists? Only in a very loose sense - where is the political goal?

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Stem celly goodness.
« Reply #53 on: November 19, 2002, 07:00:31 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Your rebuttal, essentially based on the premise that 'Other countries did it first' is an irrelevance beside the fact that all those developments were liberal concepts at that moment in time. What could be more liberal than emancipation of a whole race?

You say your Swedish king was a very conservative man. I say he was a conservative by today's standards, but his actions were liberal by definition. Also, which king was it - point me to some sources - I'd like to know more about how democratic 14th century Sweden was.

Well, it becomes pointless to argue with you if you want to define liberal as "anyone who has done anything good through the history of mankind, regardless of how he lables himself or how he was labled by his peers". Or something like that. The king was conservative, Sweden was a conservative nation. Regardless of what you might want to call it today.

14th century Sweden was not democratic at all. We had a king. He was the supreme ruler and did pretty much whatever he wanted. The name of the king (If I remember correctly)was "Magnus Ladulås" Or "King Magnus Eriksson"

And I disagree that equal rights is a liberal "idea" us conservatives believe in that too. Something in the Bible about all men being equal...
Quote
Shame we'll never find out for sure - the priest in question is dead.
[/b]
Well, thats not really overwhelming evidence now is it?
Quote

I think those anti-abortionist nutjobs who gun down doctors fall into the terrorist catergory quite neatly, if you ask me. Cop killers? I wouldn't say their violence was systematic - more incidental - cop gets in way, cop gets killed. Murder, for sure.

Anti-globalisation protesters? Providing it is peaceful demonstration then they couldn't be called terrorists - same goes for anti-abortionist demonstrators. When violence comes into play, then by definition they are terrorists.

Serial rapists? Only in a very loose sense - where is the political goal?

Lets just say we disagree on the terrorism issue. If you use that definition, you get a too wide target audience. As an example, I would not call WTO protesters "Terrorists" even though they fit the profile "using violence to achieve whatever political goal". Somehow it is a completely different ballgame when compared to Palestinian suicide bombers or Al Queida lunatics driving hijacked aircraft into buildings.

As for serial rape, the Serbs used serial rape to subdue the Bosnian population in that civil war.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2002, 07:04:50 AM by Hortlund »

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Stem celly goodness.
« Reply #54 on: November 19, 2002, 07:06:40 AM »
Oh...and wtf kinda lame circular definition is this??

Quote
Terrorist n.1) person who employs terror or terrorist, esp. as a political weapon

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18204
Stem celly goodness.
« Reply #55 on: November 19, 2002, 07:21:37 AM »
If it feels good  .. DO it!

if something unplanned POPS up, just go kill it and have it sucked outa there ... np

that my friends IS the abortion issue .. birth control via murder
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline Dowding (Work)

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 627
Stem celly goodness.
« Reply #56 on: November 19, 2002, 07:54:27 AM »
Quote
Well, it becomes pointless to argue with you if you want to define liberal as "anyone who has done anything good through the history of mankind, regardless of how he lables himself or how he was labled by his peers". Or something like that.  


Do what you like, but I believe a liberal is someone who holds social and political views that favour progress and reform. That's near as damnit the definition of the word, so I'm afraid your 'conservative' King instituted liberal policy whichever way you care to look at it.

Quote
14th century Sweden was not democratic at all. We had a king. He was the supreme ruler and did pretty much whatever he wanted. The name of the king (If I remember correctly)was "Magnus Ladulås" Or "King Magnus Eriksson"


Not that it's even remotely relevant to subject at hand, but how does the 'democratic vote for all' situation I was describing relate to your example?

Quote
And I disagree that equal rights is a liberal "idea" us conservatives believe in that too. Something in the Bible about all men being equal...


By the sounds of it you define liberalism to be the polar opposite of conservatism, and by the definition I just mentioned above, Conservatism in your world is abjectly opposed to progress and reform. Something doesn't quite sit right with that viewpoint - do you disagree with the definition of the word 'liberal'? In which case, how many other aspects of the dictionary have you re-written?

The bible is a book of teachings, which happens to espouse equal rights - it was not followed at the time and can only truly be seen to have come to fruition in the 20th century, thousands of years after the bible was written. It is irrelevant in terms of practicality.

Quote
Well, thats not really overwhelming evidence now is it?


Did you actually read the articles? What are your opinions on the validity of the letter?

Quote
If you use that definition, you get a too wide target audience.


And you accused me of using my political agenda to define terms! It seems to me, that you are going against language definition purely to justify your own political bias.

Quote
As for serial rape, the Serbs used serial rape to subdue the Bosnian population in that civil war.


And your point is...? Those were acts of terror. They were terrorists. They may have worn a uniform but they certainly weren't soldiers.

Oh and weren't those 'soldiers' goodly Christians? And guess what faith those Bosnians followed? That evil Islam. Fancy that!

On the subject of the Balkans - check out the clerics who used radio to incite ethnic cleansing. You see, Christianity has had it's dark moments, just like any other religion, including Islam.

Quote
Oh...and wtf kinda lame circular definition is this??


I thought your great intellect might have spotted a typo of that magnitude. In case you need it pointing out to you, replace 'terrorist' with 'terrorism'. I'm sorry for my imperfection - mea culpa.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2002, 08:07:32 AM by Dowding (Work) »

Offline H. Godwineson

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 551
Stem celly goodness.
« Reply #57 on: November 19, 2002, 07:56:27 AM »
Aren't you guys glad that your mothers decided to allow you to "develop" to your "potential?"  Aren't you glad that after the moment of passion which led to your conception that she decided that you were not going to be "inconvenient?"

Aren't you glad she accepted the consequences of her own actions and decided to allow you to be born.  By doing so, she gave you the opportunity to someday sit in front of a computer screen and debate the legal and moral implications of abortion and stem-cell research.

Congratulations guys...you made it!

Shuckins

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Stem celly goodness.
« Reply #58 on: November 19, 2002, 08:28:23 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Do what you like, but I believe a liberal is someone who holds social and political views that favour progress and reform. That's near as damnit the definition of the word, so I'm afraid your 'conservative' King instituted liberal policy whichever way you care to look at it.

So how does the democratic vote for all situation I was describing relate to your example?

By the sounds of it you define liberalism to be a polar opposite of conservatism, and by the definition I just mentioned above, Conservatism in your world is abjectly opposed to progress and reform. Something doesn't quite sit right with viewpoint - do you disagree with the definition of the word liberal? In which case, how many other aspects of the dictionary have you re-written?
[/b]
I disagree with the notion that conservatism is opposed to progress and reform. Au contraire. Keep what is good, change that which is bad.

Lets look at the definitions then, since they seem to interest you so much. From the Cambridge dictionary:

liberal (POLITICS)

adjective [not gradable]
(of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society

conservative (AGAINST CHANGE)
adjective
tending not to like or trust change, esp. sudden change
It's an extremely conservative society - they're very easily shocked by anything different or daring.
I tend to be rather conservative in such matters and a bit suspicious about these supposed advances.
Compare liberal (SOCIETY).

I dont think liberal= change, nor do I think conservative=against change. My definition is more along the lines of
conservative=keep traditions, morals, values etc bla bla blah, change what is bad/must be changed, keep the rest.
Quote

The bible is a book of teachings, which happens to espouse equal rights - it was not followed at the time and can only truly be seen to have come to fruition in the 20th century, thousands of years after the bible was written. It is irrelevant in terms of practicality.
[/b]
Uh... I'm just trying to point out that some of the ideas that you might want to call "liberal" and you would like to credit to Adam Smith or whomever might actually be older than that, and you can find the core of those ideas in the Bible. The fact that man at the time did not want to live by those ideas has nothing to do with the fact that they are there.
Quote

Did you actually read the articles? What are your opinions on the validity of the letter?
[/b]
I only read the first article. In fact, I only saw one link. Am I wrong in my assumption? That there are no evidence besides that guy and what he thinks?
Quote

And your point is...? Those were acts of terror. They were terrorists. They may have worn a uniform but they certainly weren't soldiers.
[/b]
See, this is where you are getting into deep water. Apparently anyone who does something "terroristic" is a terrorist and not a soldier? Where does that leave the Nuremberg trials one might ask...were all those German soldiers "terrorists"?
Quote

On the subject of the Balkans - check out the clerics who used radio to incite ethnic cleansing. You see, Christianity has had it's dark moments, just like any other religion, including Islam.
[/b]
There is a world of difference between Christianity and Islam.

Allow me to quote an old article I have stored on my HD for a situation like this:
Quote

Islam is an imperialist religion, more so than Christianity has ever been, and in contrast to Judaism. The Koran, Sura 5, verse 85, describes the inevitable enmity between Moslems and non-Moslems: "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans." Sura 9, verse 5, adds: "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every strategem [of war]." Then nations, however mighty, the Koran insists, must be fought "until they embrace Islam."

These canonical commands cannot be explained away or softened by modern theological exegesis, because there is no such science in Islam. Unlike Christianity, which, since the Reformation and Counter Reformation, has continually updated itself and adapted to changed conditions, and unlike Judaism, which has experienced what is called the 18th-century Jewish enlightenment, Islam remains a religion of the Dark Ages.

The 7th-century Koran is still taught as the immutable word of God, any teaching of which is literally true. In other words, mainstream Islam is essentially akin to the most extreme form of Biblical fundamentalism. It is true it contains many sects and tendencies, quite apart from the broad division between Sunni Moslems, the majority, who are comparatively moderate and include most of the ruling families of the Gulf, and Shia Moslems, far more extreme, who dominate Iran. But virtually all these tendencies are more militant and uncompromising than the orthodox, which is moderate only by comparison, and by our own standards is extreme. It believes, for instance, in a theocratic state, ruled by religious law, inflicting (as in Saudi Arabia) grotesquely cruel punishments, which were becoming obsolete in Western Europe in the early Middle Ages.

Quote

I thought your great intellect might have spotted a typo of that magnitude. In case you need it pointing out to you, replace 'terrorist' with 'terrorism'. I'm sorry for my imperfection - mea culpa.

Yes...I spotted that right away. But still the definition is rather weird.  
"A terrorist is someone who uses terror or terrorism"
 
"Terrorism is 1) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal 2) act of terrorizing"

It doesnt really say much does it? Basically ANYONE could be a terrorist including the rapist (who is using violence to get what he wants [sex]) or the bank robber (who is using violence to get what he wants [money]) ...see what I mean?

Where did you get that definition anyway? Do you agree with it?

Offline SOB

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10138
Stem celly goodness.
« Reply #59 on: November 19, 2002, 08:43:41 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
If it feels good  .. DO it!

if something unplanned POPS up, just go kill it and have it sucked outa there ... np

that my friends IS the abortion issue .. birth control via murder


And here I thought it was about a woman's right to choose what is right for her and her body as opposed to some amazinhunk(s) who don't know her or her situation dictating what she should do because they don't "think it's right".  What was I thinking?!


SOB
Three Times One Minus One.  Dayum!