PDA

View Full Version : Stem Cell Research - Yea or Nay?


a1na2
06-20-2007, 09:07 PM
Poll coming.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 11:46 PM
I'm in favor of privately funded stem cell research. I'm against banning embryonic stem cell research. I voted "I'll comment below."

Tribal Warfare
06-20-2007, 11:47 PM
Yes, Why in the hell would one want to impede helping society

Mr Luzcious
06-20-2007, 11:49 PM
Yes, Why in the hell would one want to impede helping society

Because it's fun? :shrug:

patteeu
06-20-2007, 11:52 PM
Yes, Why in the hell would one want to impede helping society

Because your definition of "helping society" might be different from theirs. :shrug:

The eugenics movement of the early 20th century was about helping society, at least from the pov of the proponents.

Direckshun
06-21-2007, 12:03 AM
I'm in favor of privately funded stem cell research. I'm against banning embryonic stem cell research. I voted "I'll comment below."
Exactly. There's a parsing of this issue that is scientifically small, but morally large.

I believe a slight majority of Americans do support embryonic stem cell research, but just about all Americans except the most extreme religious folks support research of adult stem cells.

Tribal Warfare
06-21-2007, 03:02 AM
Because your definition of "helping society" might be different from theirs. :shrug:

The eugenics movement of the early 20th century was about helping society, at least from the pov of the proponents.



I have had a stroke at birth so essentially your saying you want to hinder my chance to live a better life

Silock
06-21-2007, 04:41 AM
Depends on the types of stem cells used. I'm pro-choice in certain situations, but there are only a few circumstances that I support embryonic stem cells.

Saulbadguy
06-21-2007, 05:42 AM
Might as well do something with those things.

Braincase
06-21-2007, 06:08 AM
Stem cells come from a lot of different sources, so I'm pro, so long as they aren't harvested from embryos.

patteeu
06-21-2007, 06:21 AM
I have had a stroke at birth so essentially your saying you want to hinder my chance to live a better life

What lengths are you willing to go to to get a chance at a better life? You realize, don't you, that some people consider embryonic stem cell research to be the equivalent of murder?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2007, 07:35 AM
What lengths are you willing to go to to get a chance at a better life? You realize, don't you, that some people consider embryonic stem cell research to be the equivalent of murder?

Rather than cloaking it in obscure language, why don't you properly air out who believes that, and why (or does the fact that we already know who detract from your broader argument)? :p

patteeu
06-21-2007, 02:51 PM
Rather than cloaking it in obscure language, why don't you properly air out who believes that, and why (or does the fact that we already know who detract from your broader argument)? :p

I don't think it detracts from the argument, but I guess we can see. :)

A rather large group of religious people believe this. I'm mainly familiar with Christians (both Catholic and protestant) who believe it but I wouldn't be surprised if members of other religions believe the same things. I know that the Catholic Church was far more active politically during the last major election, working against the stem cell referendum in Missouri, than I've ever noticed before.

irishjayhawk
06-21-2007, 02:52 PM
Yes, Why in the hell would one want to impede helping society

My sentiment exactly.

Baby Lee
06-21-2007, 02:59 PM
There are two sources of uncertainty riding on sliding scales here;
Whether destroying an embroyo is killing a life
Whether performing the research will bring about benefits

So, if we were somehow sure it was killing a life, but also certain it would bring benefits, what would one's response be?

Conversely, if we were sure it wasn't killing a life, but equally certain it wouldn't yield benefits, what response?

Then one can move to sliding the uncertainties along the scale to find a comfort point, or, I guess, placing the variables on the sliding scale where you KNOW them to be.

Just [re]offering up a framework for analysis.

Cochise
06-21-2007, 03:57 PM
Stem cells come from a lot of different sources, so I'm pro, so long as they aren't harvested from embryos.

Same here.

luv
06-21-2007, 05:22 PM
Pro.

WoodDraw
06-21-2007, 05:56 PM
A news report the other day said that 60% of infertility patients support donating their frozen embryos to research. Given the donors support and the alternative of being frozen, I don't have a moral or ethical problem with it.

Government funding becomes a harder question, but if no one challenges the legality to private research, then that precludes a lot of the arguments against public research. The opposition based on libertarian grounds is different, but few make the argument and even fewer have the credibility to.

Tribal Warfare
06-21-2007, 06:19 PM
What lengths are you willing to go to to get a chance at a better life? You realize, don't you, that some people consider embryonic stem cell research to be the equivalent of murder?





Lengths??????? :shake:


Embyros aren't even a fertilzed egg, or a zygote and isn't in the process of forming a human being

Logical
06-21-2007, 06:41 PM
What lengths are you willing to go to to get a chance at a better life? You realize, don't you, that some people consider embryonic stem cell research to be the equivalent of murder? Yes I realize some people are moronic.

Silock
06-21-2007, 10:17 PM
So, if we were somehow sure it was killing a life, but also certain it would bring benefits, what would one's response be?

That it should be illegal. If I need a kidney transplant, I can't just kill you and take your kidneys.

Conversely, if we were sure it wasn't killing a life, but equally certain it wouldn't yield benefits, what response?

If it wouldn't yield benefits, then there would be no point.

I have no problem with embryonic stem cells being used so long as they embryo wasn't killed specifically for that purpose.

But, with the advancements being made in stem cell research, I imagine this will quickly become a moot point. They've already made stem cells from skin cells of adult mice, which was something that wasn't thought to be possible for a very, very long time. I realize that it's a gigantic leap to do that for human cells, but we may be surprised at how quickly it happens. Probably before this whole issue is settled either way, I suspect.

Fishpicker
06-21-2007, 11:23 PM
Because your definition of "helping society" might be different from theirs. :shrug:

The eugenics movement of the early 20th century was about helping society, at least from the pov of the proponents.

I agree completely. it had to happen eventually. :doh!:

I dont like the idea of govt. or business tooling around with genetics. it may seem like a good idea but, the law of unintended consequences will be a factor.

consider Monsanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto)

patteeu
06-23-2007, 09:29 AM
Lengths??????? :shake:


Embyros aren't even a fertilzed egg, or a zygote and isn't in the process of forming a human being

Yeah, what lengths? Is this as far as you'd be willing to go or would you go farther in your pursuit of a better life? If your life could be made better by destructive experimentation on death row inmates, would you be in favor? What if it was dependent on killing newborn babies? The basis of your argument, the pursuit of a better life, is applicable to all kinds of heinous activities. You have to realize that making your life better isn't an adequate justification to most people who believe that ECR is the equivalent of murder.

PunkinDrublic
06-23-2007, 09:34 AM
Yes, Why in the hell would one want to impede helping society

Because certain people have an invisible freind in the sky that tells them it's morally wrong. As a result science and important medical research has to be held hostage because gasp their tax money might be used to pay for something that conflicts with their pseudo morals.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 05:21 PM
Because certain people have an invisible freind in the sky that tells them it's morally wrong. As a result science and important medical research has to be held hostage because gasp their tax money might be used to pay for something that conflicts with their pseudo morals.

I wasn't going to put it so bluntly after "offending" people, but well said.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 06:49 PM
I always enjoy the irony of the arrogant non-believer who puts his unquestioning faith in the absence of "an invisiible friend in the sky".

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 07:16 PM
I always enjoy the irony of the arrogant non-believer who puts his unquestioning faith in the absence of "an invisiible friend in the sky".

I don't want to start this again, but I must point it out.

a non-believer who puts his unquestioning faith in the absence of "an invisible friend in the sky"

This is completely wrong. The fact is, every facet of life works with an existence method. Either you have the money to pay for something or you do not. Either that tree in the park exists or it does not.

Thus, if a claim is made about the existence of something, the default stage is that of non-existence. Otherwise, anything anyone claimed would be assumed true. I have a billion dollars with no proof of the billion dollars existence will not get me my billion dollar house.

Likewise, I can claim a tree is running through the center of your house right now. Now, you would not expect, nor would I expect, you to disprove this claim. Instead, you would require me to prove that there is, in fact, a tree running through your house.

Or, in the case of the money, I would not tell the seller of the house that I have a billion dollars and expect them to disprove it and sell me the house. The transaction requires the existence of the billion dollars.

In all of these examples, the onus for proof is on the one making a claim. Thus, in this case, nothing is required of the non-believer because s/he is merely taking the default position of non-existence.

As Bertrand Russell said:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

The same theory runs through the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It runs through Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, trolls, zombies, ghosts etc etc. All of those operate on the default status of non-existence. It is up to those who believe to give credence to their claim, not the non-believe to give "dis-credence" to their claim. And it is equally invalid for them to have to give credence to their counter claim (non-existence) since one has to precede the other. And we have decided it is a state of non-existence.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 07:22 PM
I don't want to start this again, but I must point it out.



This is completely wrong. The fact is, every facet of life works with an existence method. Either you have the money to pay for something or you do not. Either that tree in the park exists or it does not.

Thus, if a claim is made about the existence of something, the default stage is that of non-existence. Otherwise, anything anyone claimed would be assumed true. I have a billion dollars with no proof of the billion dollars existence will not get me my billion dollar house.

Likewise, I can claim a tree is running through the center of your house right now. Now, you would not expect, nor would I expect, you to disprove this claim. Instead, you would require me to prove that there is, in fact, a tree running through your house.

Or, in the case of the money, I would not tell the seller of the house that I have a billion dollars and expect them to disprove it and sell me the house. The transaction requires the existence of the billion dollars.

In all of these examples, the onus for proof is on the one making a claim. Thus, in this case, nothing is required of the non-believer because s/he is merely taking the default position of non-existence.

As Bertrand Russell said:


The same theory runs through the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It runs through Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, trolls, zombies, ghosts etc etc. All of those operate on the default status of non-existence. It is up to those who believe to give credence to their claim, not the non-believe to give "dis-credence" to their claim. And it is equally invalid for them to have to give credence to their counter claim (non-existence) since one has to precede the other. And we have decided it is a state of non-existence.

So you're trying to tell me that you and punkin were merely expressing doubt and not ridiculing believers for their supposedly ludicrous beliefs as if you know better?

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 07:25 PM
Bertrand Russel was also an atheist. Of course he'd say that.
He was also a communist.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 07:27 PM
So you're trying to tell me that you and punkin were merely expressing doubt and not ridiculing believers for their supposedly ludicrous beliefs as if you know better?

I think he was ridiculing the idea that was let those beliefs influence our decisions on stuff like this.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 07:28 PM
Bertrand Russel was also an atheist. Of course he'd say that.
He was also a communist.

Ad hominems rule.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 07:30 PM
Bertrand Russel was also an atheist. Of course he'd say that.
He was also a communist.

So you disagree with his content? Or is this just an adhominem personal attack?

You didn't say anything of substance to the content of the post or quote. It'd be like me saying "X" was a Christian. Of course he'd say that. He was also a creationist.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 07:31 PM
So you disagree with his content? Or is this just an adhominem personal attack?

You didn't say anything of substance to the content of the post or quote. It'd be like me saying "X" was a Christian. Of course he'd say that. He was also a creationist.

Russel's claim would only hold weight if he was Christian(and therefore didn't believe his whole argument).

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 07:33 PM
So you're trying to tell me that you and punkin were merely expressing doubt and not ridiculing believers for their supposedly ludicrous beliefs as if you know better?

As HolmeZz pointed out, it is the fact that those types of beliefs and the morals derived from said beliefs are influencing the decision to improve, help, etc society.

Again, I am not saying I know better but merely taking the default stance of "non-existence" which, I guess it does take the characteristics of "arrogant" but only comes with the perception from a believer. Believer's have the same - and you display it in this thread - that they "know better".

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 07:34 PM
Russel's claim would only hold weight if he was Christian(and therefore didn't believe his whole argument).

Got it. :)

patteeu
06-23-2007, 07:51 PM
I think he was ridiculing the idea that was let those beliefs influence our decisions on stuff like this.

Where does he get his beliefs? Why should that source, whatever it is, influence decisions on stuff like this?

patteeu
06-23-2007, 07:56 PM
As HolmeZz pointed out, it is the fact that those types of beliefs and the morals derived from said beliefs are influencing the decision to improve, help, etc society.

Again, I am not saying I know better but merely taking the default stance of "non-existence" which, I guess it does take the characteristics of "arrogant" but only comes with the perception from a believer. Believer's have the same - and you display it in this thread - that they "know better".

The funny thing is that I'm not a believer. I guess that kind of disproves your theory that it only comes across as arrogant from the pov of the believer. It also brings into question your perception when you suggest that I somehow display the characteristic of a believer's arrogance.

The default is not non-existance. The default should be uncertainty.

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 07:59 PM
Exactly. There's a parsing of this issue that is scientifically small, but morally large.

I believe a slight majority of Americans do support embryonic stem cell research, but just about all Americans except the most extreme religious folks support research of adult stem cells.

Bingo. I have nothing against adult SCR but am against embryonic. The proven results have been from adult SCR anyway while embryonic has been nothing but an abject failure.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 08:06 PM
Bingo. I have nothing against adult SCR but am against embryonic. The proven results have been from adult SCR anyway while embryonic has been nothing but an abject failure.
Which is why govt or govt lovers want to fund the embryonic....because govt science is less likely to get the same results. Nothing but promises. Lol!

Some scientists probably just need a job.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 08:08 PM
The proven results have been from adult SCR anyway while embryonic has been nothing but an abject failure.

I have a hard time believing that given time, research into embryonic stem cells would continue to be fruitless. The science might not be there yet, but I'm confident that at some point, science can unlock the keys to these cells. I haven't heard a convincing theory about why ESC would be less valuable sources of medical treatments than ASC in the long run.

I guess the moral to my supposition is that if you have a moral objection to the use of ESC research that's fine, but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the current, practical argument against it or you might someday find it turned around on you.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:08 PM
The funny thing is that I'm not a believer. I guess that kind of disproves your theory that it only comes across as arrogant from the pov of the believer. It also brings into question your perception when you suggest that I somehow display the characteristic of a believer's arrogance.

The default is not non-existance. The default should be uncertainty.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree without hijacking the thread. I concede that the "arrogance" is not just from the pov of the believer. However, both sides are shown to be arrogant in their own lights.

The default is not uncertainty because there are plenty of things we cannot disprove yet we don't bother with disproving them. All of the objects/pseudo gods I mentioned in my longer post are part of them. It is intellectually stifling to put the default position as uncertainty because of this reason. Spending time to DISPROVE something is an unnecessary waste of time when one can simply ask the claimer to PROVE his claim. As is the case with the teapot.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 08:09 PM
Where does he get his beliefs? Why should that source, whatever it is, influence decisions on stuff like this?

I think he was talking about when those beliefs are placed in front of science(stuff we can prove).

The default is not non-existance. The default should be uncertainty.

Uncertain until proven guilty?

Are you uncertain about the existence of a Zebra/Kangaroo hybrid I just thought up? If not, how do you KNOW it does or doesn't exist?

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:11 PM
I think he was talking about when those beliefs are placed in front of science(stuff we can prove).



Uncertain until proven guilty?

Are you uncertain about the existence of a Zebra/Kangaroo hybrid I just thought up? If not, how do you KNOW they do or don't exist?

Fantastic way to look at it.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 08:11 PM
Embyros aren't even a fertilzed egg, or a zygote and isn't in the process of forming a human being

Your biology facts are not correct. An embryo, in a human, IS a fertilized egg that has begun cell division.

A zygote is formed by the fusion of the egg and sperm and continues to divide. It has all the dna of a complete human organism. It's just one of the stages of growth.

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 08:11 PM
Because certain people have an invisible freind in the sky that tells them it's morally wrong. As a result science and important medical research has to be held hostage because gasp their tax money might be used to pay for something that conflicts with their pseudo morals.

Sorry brother but your ignorant post requires some correction. First of all, it is the right of ANY citizen of our country to complain if their tax money is being spent in a way not acceptable to the standards of the taxpayer in question. Secondly, ones beliefs are not PSEUDO morals but REAL morals. I could just as easily say that you are a ****ing moron because you think that GOD doesn't exist. Be careful of being condescending about the beliefs of others that don't agree with you.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:12 PM
Sorry brother but your ignorant post requires some correction. First of all, it is the right of ANY citizen of our country to complain if their tax money is being spent in a way not acceptable to the standards of the taxpayer in question. Secondly, ones beliefs are not PSEUDO morals but REAL morals. I could just as easily say that you are a ****ing moron because you think that GOD doesn't exist. Be careful of being condescending about the beliefs of others that don't agree with you.

Where do you get your "morals" from?

patteeu
06-23-2007, 08:14 PM
I think he was talking about when those beliefs are placed in front of science(stuff we can prove).

How do we justify laws against murder? Who has proved that murder is wrong?

How does science prove that ESC research is OK?

Uncertain until proven guilty?

Are you uncertain about the existence of a Zebra/Kangaroo hybrid I just thought up? If not, how do you KNOW it does or doesn't exist?

I suppose I'd be a bit uncertain if the only person I've ever heard mention it didn't just admit that he thought it up. As it is, I'm pretty comfortable believing that it doesn't exist. I've never seen the European continent, but I have a pretty solid belief about it's existence because I've heard the testimony of a large number of people, past and present, who claim to have had substantial first person experience with it.

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 08:16 PM
I have a hard time believing that given time, research into embryonic stem cells would continue to be fruitless. The science might not be there yet, but I'm confident that at some point, science can unlock the keys to these cells. I haven't heard a convincing theory about why ESC would be less valuable sources of medical treatments than ASC in the long run.

I guess the moral to my supposition is that if you have a moral objection to the use of ESC research that's fine, but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the current, practical argument against it or you might someday find it turned around on you.

Why even bother Pat if other types of SCR are bearing fruit and ESCR isn't? One doesn't reinforce failure, right?

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 08:16 PM
How do we justify laws against murder? Who has proved that murder is wrong?

We looked at the numbers and came to the conclusion that it wasn't very beneficial to society.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:17 PM
How do we justify laws against murder? Who has proved that murder is wrong?

Humans have. Humans that know that killing each other is self defeating. If Adam had killed Eve, the creation story wouldn't be, well, of creation. Most animals don't attack their own kind.

The agreement not to kill somebody else is not reliant upon any supernatural power.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 08:18 PM
I mentioned Russel, as it was to be expected for him to say what he said as he was an atheist. I did not attack any poster; nor him...just that of course he'd say that. He was a communist too. Bald and basic fact. Am I discrediting his pov....yes. He's fair game as a public figure, now dead. Not someone I'm inclined to believe has the best values. IMO.

As for doing things based on beliefs, I was inferring that was true of the side making this claim. All law is based on someone's morality, ethics or values....same is true for atheist's. There is no law that isn't. All choices involve values.

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 08:20 PM
Where do you get your "morals" from?

What difference does it make IJH? I merely pointed out that asshats who ridicule others because of their belief system (hence their moral code) are themselves the most intolerant dumbasses in existence.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:20 PM
Why even bother Pat if other types of SCR are bearing fruit and ESCR isn't? One doesn't reinforce failure, right?

That doesn't mean we should STOP ESCR because it hasn't born fruit YET. It could just as easily prove to be BETTER than SCR. However, to get to that point - if it exists, which is anyone's guess - it needs funding and research. If it wasn't for research how would we know that SCR is getting benefits. And research requires funding. It was just private funding now.

As for public funding, I would be fine with funding only SCR, but not funding ANY stem cell research is flat out counterproductive, in my opinion.

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 08:22 PM
I mentioned Russel, as it was to be expected for him to say what he said as he was an atheist. I did not attack any poster; nor him...just that of course he'd say that. He was a communist too. Bald and basic fact. Am I discrediting his pov....yes. Not someone I'm inclined to believe has the best values. IMO.

As for doing things based on beliefs, I was inferring the was true of the side making this claim. All law is based on someone's morality, ethics or values....same is true for atheist's. There is no law that isn't. All choices involve values.

Outstanding post. Repski.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:22 PM
I mentioned Russel, as it was to be expected for him to say what he said as he was an atheist. I did not attack any poster; nor him...just that of course he'd say that. He was a communist too. Bald and basic fact. Am I discrediting his pov....yes. Not someone I'm inclined to believe has the best values. IMO.

I am not committing an ad hominem. I am committing an ad hominem.

Your hatred of communism is interesting because Communism is ideal. However, human implementation can never be the ideal form - like Marx's concept had. Greed is the culprit, as well as other things.


As for doing things based on beliefs, I was inferring the was true of the side making this claim. All law is based on someone's morality, ethics or values....same is true for atheist's. There is no law that isn't. All choices involve values.

Correct, and I am saying those are INDEPENDENT from any supernatural.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:25 PM
What difference does it make IJH? I merely pointed out that asshats who ridicule others because of their belief system (hence their moral code) are themselves the most intolerant dumbasses in existence.

It makes a difference because the belief system one possesses has a DIRECT influence on what they will believe. Most of the time, that is.

And when one belief system dominates the rest, it leads to a majority morality being imposed on a minority or cumulative minority of belief systems. Granted, there is overlap. Anyway, the majority/minority battle revolves around where we pull our morals. The religious will pull from their respective religions and dogmas. Therefore, the different dogmas seem to fight.

There isn't a common ground for where morals are derived. It is, however, independent from any supernatural being.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 08:25 PM
I mentioned Russel, as it was to be expected for him to say what he said as he was an atheist. I did not attack any poster; nor him...just that of course he'd say that. He was a communist too. Bald and basic fact. Am I discrediting his pov....yes. He's fair game as a public figure, now dead. Not someone I'm inclined to believe has the best values. IMO.

You're still attacking him ad hominem. You're ignoring the argument he actually set up and instead criticizing him.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 08:26 PM
Your hatred of communism is interesting because Communism is ideal. However, human implementation can never be the ideal form - like Marx's concept had. Greed is the culprit, as well as other things.
I had you pegged correctly from the beginning then. You say it can't be implemented but consider it ideal. It is not ideal....it's criminal. This implies you like this general camp of thinking just don't think it can be applied in a practical sense. I could tell all along from your arguments.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:28 PM
I had you pegged correctly from the beginning then. You say it can't be implemented but consider it ideal. It is not ideal....it's criminal. This implies you like this general camp of thinking just don't think it can be applied in a practical sense. I could tell all along from your arguments.

Wow, you had me pegged. Just as I seem to have you pegged as an ad hominem arguer.

And how exactly is Communism criminal? I don't follow that leap.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 08:29 PM
You're still attacking him ad hominem. You're ignoring the argument he actually set up and instead criticizing him.
Attacking who? Russell? He's fair game. He was a public figure.

As for irish, I didn't even read his argument....I skimmed it. I just wanted to comment about the part on Bertrand Russell. I wasn't interested in getting into the debate on stem cells just some of what was used as back up. K?

Do I have your permission or are you arguing the poster now and not my points?

That's like saying, I can't use the fact that some of Marx's children died of malnutrition when he had a middle-class income and job, that he was a traitor who turned even his fellow revolutionaries in for a buck or mooched off his pal Engels. He was a dispical man in real life, a criminal, yet thousands took to his criminal ideas.How this any different than reporting the scandals on Bush/Cheney etc.?

patteeu
06-23-2007, 08:29 PM
Why even bother Pat if other types of SCR are bearing fruit and ESCR isn't? One doesn't reinforce failure, right?

Why would anyone want to pursue the development of heavier than air flying machines when balloons are the only type of machine that has borne fruit in man's quest to defy gravity? /late 19th century

The answer is that someone sees potential in the as yet fruitless research that they don't see in the technologies of the present.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 08:32 PM
Attacking who? Russell? He's fair game. He was a public figure.

Yes. You said you weren't attacking him though.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:33 PM
Attacking who? Russell? He's fair game. He was a public figure.

As for irish, I didn't even read his argument....I just wanted to comment about the part on Bertrand Russell.

That's like saying, I can't use the fact that some of Marx's children died of malnutrition when he has a middle-class income and job or that he was a traitor who turned even his fellow revolutionaries in for a buck. He was a criminal yet thousands took to his criminal ideas.How this any different than reporting the scandals on Bush/Cheney etc.?

It's okay to commit the ad hominem fallacy against public figures?

And it does say a lot that you didn't read my argument as well. Interesting.

No, it isn't like saying what you say in your long paragraph. The fact that Marx's children died of malnutrition when he has a middle-class income and a job is not ad hominem. However, the second part - about being criminal - has absolutely NOTHING to do with the validity of his ideas.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 08:34 PM
Wow, you had me pegged. Just as I seem to have you pegged as an ad hominem arguer.

Like this:
Your hatred of communism is interesting because Communism is ideal

And how exactly is Communism criminal? I don't follow that leap.
You have to ask? No thanks. Not the subject of this thread.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:35 PM
Like this:



You have to ask? No thanks. Not the subject of this thread.

Do you even know what ad hominem is? That doesn't even fit into that. I said Your hatred for Communism is interesting. Because it is ideal. That in no way misses your point and content and attacks YOU.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 08:36 PM
We looked at the numbers and came to the conclusion that it wasn't very beneficial to society.

LOL, sure you did.

Humans have. Humans that know that killing each other is self defeating. If Adam had killed Eve, the creation story wouldn't be, well, of creation. Most animals don't attack their own kind.

The agreement not to kill somebody else is not reliant upon any supernatural power.

Please. Humans have not proven that murder is wrong or self defeating. Many of us agree that it is so, but that's different than proof. It's not an objective fact, it's a value judgment.

Besides, these same arguments can be used against abortion and destructive ESC research. Rejection of abortion or ESC research are not reliant upon any supernatural power.

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 08:36 PM
It makes a difference because the belief system one possesses has a DIRECT influence on what they will believe. Most of the time, that is.

And when one belief system dominates the rest, it leads to a majority morality being imposed on a minority or cumulative minority of belief systems. Granted, there is overlap. Anyway, the majority/minority battle revolves around where we pull our morals. The religious will pull from their respective religions and dogmas. Therefore, the different dogmas seem to fight.

There isn't a common ground for where morals are derived. It is, however, independent from any supernatural being.

The first part of your post I agree with to an extent. However, saying morality is independent from any "supernatural being" is being hopelessly naive IMO. For many, myself included, morals are derived from the teachings of the selfsame "supernatural being".....in my case Jesus the Christ. You don't have to agree with me, just recognize that there are many that don't agree with you.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 08:37 PM
It's okay to commit the ad hominem fallacy against public figures?
If you're stating your opinion yes.

However, the second part - about being criminal - has absolutely NOTHING to do with the validity of his ideas.

I disagree....I feel his pyschological profile and basic criminality led to his ideas. Just as Stalin's rule was rooted in his. It's valid, imo. Just not to you.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:39 PM
If you're stating your opinion yes.



I disagree....I feel his pyschological profile and basic criminality led to his ideas. Just as Stalin's rule was rooted in his. It's valid, imo. Just not to you.

So if Einstein was clinically insane, his Theory of Relativity wouldn't hold an iota of water?

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 08:41 PM
Do you even know what ad hominem is? That doesn't even fit into that. I said Your hatred for Communism is interesting. Because it is ideal. That in no way misses your point and content and attacks YOU.
Yes I do. In a debate it's arguing the poster and not the post.
I was arguing your choice of Bertrand Russell and why. I was doing no different than you do when someone has the slightest spiritual basis for their pov.

If someone's behavior, such as a public figure is bad in someone's opinion that's fair game. If a writer was in a certain ideological camp that is valid to bring up if it has some relevance to his ideas or if it's your opinion that it would discredit his opinion for that reason. I think it does. Someone made a claim that values, if supernatural aka religious completely discredits their take on an argument. Aren't you doing the same thing?

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 08:41 PM
Why would anyone want to pursue the development of heavier than air flying machines when balloons are the only type of machine that has borne fruit in man's quest to defy gravity? /late 19th century

The answer is that someone sees potential in the as yet fruitless research that they don't see in the technologies of the present.

Bad example Pat. I wasn't discussing whether or not the research should continue UEBERHAUPT. Simply that funding of a failing program isn't in the best interest of the greater good when other techniques are working. Why bother researching a 3 wheeled wheelbarrow when a single wheeled version is more efficient?

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:44 PM
LOL, sure you did.



Please. Humans have not proven that murder is wrong or self defeating. Many of us agree that it is so, but that's different than proof.

Besides, these same arguments can be used against abortion and destructive ESC research. Rejection of abortion or ESC research are not reliant upon any supernatural power.

How have humans not proven that murder is wrong or self defeating? It's pretty easy. In fact I'd argue it's genetic, but I am not a geneticist. It is however, undoubtedly, an inherited (except for the few people who rebel) aspect from the childhood rearing - the parents.

Who agrees that murder is not wrong or self defeating? The only argument I can see for that is that we are now the dominant species and murders won't make or break the species. However, when that time was here, it would make or break the species and I doubt that the supernatural played any role in the basic tenet of prolonging a species.

CHIEFS4EVER just disagreed with the last sentence, in principle at least. You are right, there are overlap people who reject abortion or ESC who don't rely on any supernatural power. I admitted that. However, the majority of people are religious and therefore adhere to the morals their religion has dictated which is "derived" from a supernatural. Therefore, they are inherently connected.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 08:44 PM
Yes I do. In a debate it's arguing the poster and not the post.

It's when you discredit the material because of the source and not because of the actual content of the material. You completely ignored the argument set up because Russel was a commie.

You realize how unintelligent that kind of thinking is? And you're actually advocating that.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 08:47 PM
So if Einstein was clinically insane, his Theory of Relativity wouldn't hold an iota of water?
Yet he wasn't insane, as far as I know, so it's not valid.
There are some scientists that say his t of r is wrong as it's an arbitrary.
There were some who said the same in his time too.

He was actually pretty spiritual...shouldn't that discredit him in your's and irish's eyes? I'd think so.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 08:49 PM
He was actually pretty spiritual...shouldn't that discredit him in your's and irish's eyes? I'd think so.

ROFL

"Einstein believed in God. I can't believe anything he ever said."

You realize how silly you sound right now?

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:49 PM
Yes I do. In a debate it's arguing the poster and not the post.
I was arguing your choice of Bertrand Russell and why. I was doing no different than you do when someone has the slightest spiritual basis for their pov.

If someone's behavior, such as a public figure is bad in someone's opinion that's fair game. If a writer was in a certain ideological camp that is valid to bring up if it has some relevance to his ideas or if it's your opinion that it would discredit his opinion for that reason. I think it does. Someone made a claim that values, if supernatural aka religious completely discredits their take on an argument. Aren't you doing the same thing?

This is flat out wrong.

First of all, you are playing semantics here because it is a message board. Your attack on Russell was pure ad hominem because you attacked HIM and not his MESSAGE. The fact that you didn't attack ME for bring up his ideas doesn't make it NOT an ad hominem.

The last paragraph is wrong too. The first sentence is true but has nothing to do with ad hominem. IT would have to overlook his IDEAS and attack him instead.

As for the question, the answer is no. Simply put, attacking someone's stance on the basis that their "values" are flawed because of a supernatural basis, is not the same as attacking THEM because they believe it.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 08:51 PM
It's when you discredit the material because of the source and not because of the actual content of the material. You completely ignored the argument set up because Russel was a commie.

You realize how unintelligent that kind of thinking is? And you're actually advocating that.
I don't consider impeaching sources to be invalid. They do that to witnesses in a court of law all the time. I think it depends on the relevancy too...even ah definitions have exceptions to their rules. I used BR primarily because he was an atheist and his pov was typical of one...when you were using the underlying beliefs to discredit others. Commies are not known for having much respect for human life general.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 08:51 PM
Bad example Pat. I wasn't discussing whether or not the research should continue UEBERHAUPT. Simply that funding of a failing program isn't in the best interest of the greater good when other techniques are working. Why bother researching a 3 wheeled wheelbarrow when a single wheeled version is more efficient?

It may well have been a bad example (although I don't really think so), but I'm not aware of anyone showing that ESC research is the 3 wheeled wheelbarrow of stem cell research. Unless you are imposing some kind of arbitrary time horizon for results, I don't know why you'd consider ASC research more efficient than ESC research.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:52 PM
Yet he wasn't insane, as far as I know, so it's not valid.
There are some scientists that say his t of r is wrong as it's an arbitrary.
There were some who said the same in his time too.

He was actually pretty spiritual...shouldn't that discredit him in your's and irish's eyes? I'd think so.

It's a hypothetical. You didn't bother answering the question.

Spiritual is not the same as believing in God.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 08:54 PM
How have humans not proven that murder is wrong or self defeating? It's pretty easy. In fact I'd argue it's genetic, but I am not a geneticist. It is however, undoubtedly, an inherited (except for the few people who rebel) aspect from the childhood rearing - the parents.

Who agrees that murder is not wrong or self defeating? The only argument I can see for that is that we are now the dominant species and murders won't make or break the species. However, when that time was here, it would make or break the species and I doubt that the supernatural played any role in the basic tenet of prolonging a species.

CHIEFS4EVER just disagreed with the last sentence, in principle at least. You are right, there are overlap people who reject abortion or ESC who don't rely on any supernatural power. I admitted that. However, the majority of people are religious and therefore adhere to the morals their religion has dictated which is "derived" from a supernatural. Therefore, they are inherently connected.

Instead of just saying that murder has been proven to be wrong or self-defeating, go ahead and prove it. Or link me to the proof. I think you are confusing proof with belief.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:54 PM
I don't consider impeaching sources to be invalid. They do that to witnesses in a court of law all the time. I think it depends on the relevancy too...even ah definitions have exceptions to their rules. I used BR primarily because he was an atheist and his pov was typical of one...when you were using the underlying beliefs to discredit others. Commies are not known for having much respect for human life general.

So, then, every creationist argument should be automatically tossed because they believe in God. Thus, their pov is typical of one (God believer).

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 08:55 PM
I don't consider impeaching sources to be invalid. They do that to witnesses in a court of law all the time. I think it depends on the relevancy too...

Yes, relevancy. Now what about what you said was relevant to Russel's argument that Irish posted? And how would it logically discredit it?

I used BR primarily because he was an atheist and his pov was typical of one...

WHAT ABOUT THE F*CKING POINT HE WAS MAKING?

Commies are not known for having much respect for human life general.

Aside from the fact that this is a retarded generalization, how was it relevant to Russel's point about the teacup?

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 08:56 PM
Instead of just saying that murder has been proven to be wrong or self-defeating, go ahead and prove it. Or link me to the proof. I think you are confusing proof with belief.

That's easy.

1 man 1 female exist. The man killed the woman in a fit of rage because she didn't wash his feet. Now there cannot be any reproduction. Oh, looks like the species is done.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 08:56 PM
On the other hand, the theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

It's from wiki but I've seen it on ad hominen sites before.
You also need to differentiate when someone just wants to express an opinion which may or not be based on fact. It may be that they just don't like something. Lastly, I did it to highlight the fallacy you were engaging in. If you haven't gotten what I was doing now...then you never will. Other than that, I don't particularly trust Commies, their writings or their ideas. I don't think it's a credible group. As I said before....JMO.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:01 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

It's from wiki but I've seen it on ad hominen sites before.
You also need to differentiate when someone just wants to express an opinion which may or not be based on fact. It may be that they just don't like somethign. Lastly, I did it to highlight the fallacy you were engaging in. Otherthan that, I don't particularly trust Commies.

So, again, let's throw a hypothetical. Perhaps you'll actually answer one of them.

Sir Issac Newton was deemed clinically insane. Thus, Calculus has no credence, because he was insane?

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 09:02 PM
It may well have been a bad example (although I don't really think so), but I'm not aware of anyone showing that ESC research is the 3 wheeled wheelbarrow of stem cell research. Unless you are imposing some kind of arbitrary time horizon for results, I don't know why you'd consider ASC research more efficient than ESC research.

Not imposing a time horizon per se, just pointing out that ASCR has borne fruit and ESCR has been an abject failure. Again, why fund something that isn't working when those funds could be doled out for something that is? The logic of that escapes me.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:02 PM
This is flat out wrong.

First of all, you are playing semantics here because it is a message board. Your attack on Russell was pure ad hominem because you attacked HIM and not his MESSAGE. The fact that you didn't attack ME for bring up his ideas doesn't make it NOT an ad hominem.

The last paragraph is wrong too. The first sentence is true but has nothing to do with ad hominem. IT would have to overlook his IDEAS and attack him instead.

As for the question, the answer is no. Simply put, attacking someone's stance on the basis that their "values" are flawed because of a supernatural basis, is not the same as attacking THEM because they believe it.


IMO


FYP

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:03 PM
Not imposing a time horizon per se, just pointing out that ASCR has borne fruit and ESCR has been an abject failure. Again, why fund something that isn't working when those funds could be doled out for something that is? The logic of that escapes me.

I think we'd both agree, then, that funding of SOME type of SCR is needed?

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 09:03 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

It's from wiki but I've seen it on ad hominen sites before.
You also need to differentiate when someone just wants to express an opinion which may or not be based on fact. It may be that they just don't like something. Lastly, I did it to highlight the fallacy you were engaging in. If you haven't gotten what I was doing now...then you never will. Other than that, I don't particularly trust Commies, their writings or their ideas. I don't think it's a credible group. As I said before....JMO.

You're still ignoring the argument.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:04 PM
FYP

Why is that relevant?

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:05 PM
So, again, let's throw a hypothetical. Perhaps you'll actually answer one of them.

Sir Issac Newton was deemed clinically insane. Thus, Calculus has no credence, because he was insane?
That's your comparison not mine though.

Again, you were discrediting the pov of some because they believed in God or a creator. I was discrediting Betrand Russel on the same basis. I wasn't trying to get involved in the general argument. Get it now?

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:05 PM
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Interesting that the above is from your source on ad hominem as well.

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 09:07 PM
I think we'd both agree, then, that funding of SOME type of SCR is needed?

Sure, but why taxpayer dollars? Let those companies who will benefit from it financially fund it IMO.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 09:08 PM
That's easy.

1 man 1 female exist. The man killed the woman in a fit of rage because she didn't wash his feet. Now there cannot be any reproduction. Oh, looks like the species is done.

LOL, that's not a proof, but I'm curious about whether you apply the same logic to homosexuality or asexuality?

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:09 PM
That's your comparison not mine though.

Again, you were discrediting the pov of some because they believed in God or a creator. I was discrediting Betrand Russel on the same basis. I wasn't trying to get involved in the general argument. Get it now?

Umm, no. I was discrediting the belief that morals are rooted in the supernatural. And therefore, pushing beliefs that ARE rooted in the supernatural shouldn't be given free range because of popularity because that would fall into the fallacy of the argument from popularity.

Yep, it's the same basis for the argument you were seeing, apparently. But you have committed ad hominem fallacies and you won't admit it nor answer my direct question.

All because you "aren't trying to get involved in the general argument"?

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:10 PM
Sure, but why taxpayer dollars? Let those companies who will benefit from it financially fund it IMO.

Well, let me equate it - funding wise - to Hong Kong's funding of city wide internet. They have speeds like 40 times faster than the fastest here and it's CHEAPER.

Say we applied this type of funding to stem cell research and it yielded results...

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:14 PM
...and you won't admit it nor answer my direct question.

All because you "aren't trying to get involved in the general argument"?
That's right...and I'm not going to. I didn't come in here to discuss that...just some of the arguments being used. :)

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:14 PM
LOL, that's not a proof, but I'm curious about whether you apply the same logic to homosexuality or asexuality?

I would apply the same logic to homosexuality. I was, actually, a proponent of letting gays have the same treatment as straight people in terms of marriage benefits etc. However, I saw the errors of my ways through a forum argument no less. (No joke.)

Gays cannot naturally procreate and thus shouldn't receive the same treatment as straight people. They can get married but their marriage shouldn't gain the same benefits of straight people when we are rewarding the procreation benefits - even if they decide not to have kids. Now, it does get a bit confusing and I haven't formulated an argument for those who are straight but cannot reproduce due to accident/genetics/operation/etc.

As for asexuality, I wasn't under the impression humans were asexual? So I'm confused.

You are correct that it is not proof, however, it is that logic that I feel is genetic/inherited. And perhaps has always been with us. I am not a geneticist so I couldn't expound either way.

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 09:15 PM
Well, let me equate it - funding wise - to Hong Kong's funding of city wide internet. They have speeds like 40 times faster than the fastest here and it's CHEAPER.

Say we applied this type of funding to stem cell research and it yielded results...

Not a good argument bro. The Nazis invested countless marks in Heavy Water research and never made a nuke. Government funding of a project is in the end more costly and counterproductive IMO. I am willing to bet that the internet funding in Hong Kong was PRIVATELY funded and those responsible are reaping the benefits. I could be wrong but I doubt I am.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:16 PM
You're still ignoring the argument.
Yes I am.

I've done this one before. I don't want to do it again...so I took the parts that interested me. Such a crime. Seems like it's a thought crime to you?

Put me up to a firing squad and shoot me now. :p

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:16 PM
That's right...and I'm not going to. I didn't come in here to discuss that...just some of the arguments being used. :)

And what's interesting is that the Russell post was addressing patteau's thoughts on the default position. Which didn't pertain to the debate of the thread.

I still would like you to admit you used an ad hominem, at least.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 09:17 PM
Not imposing a time horizon per se, just pointing out that ASCR has borne fruit and ESCR has been an abject failure. Again, why fund something that isn't working when those funds could be doled out for something that is? The logic of that escapes me.

You would fund something that hasn't worked so far because you believe there is potential that it will work in the future. You might even choose to fund that which hasn't worked so far over that which has had some success if you consider the potential for the former to be greater than the latter.

Just to be clear though, my personal position is that I'm not in favor of government funding of ESC research.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:17 PM
Not a good argument bro. The Nazis invested countless marks in Heavy Water research and never made a nuke. Government funding of a project is in the end more costly and counterproductive IMO. I am willing to bet that the internet funding in Hong Kong was PRIVATELY funded and those responsible are reaping the benefits. I could be wrong but I doubt I am.
Excellent pont. Rep

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:18 PM
Not a good argument bro. The Nazis invested countless marks in Heavy Water research and never made a nuke. Government funding of a project is in the end more costly and counterproductive IMO. I am willing to bet that the internet funding in Hong Kong was PRIVATELY funded and those responsible are reaping the benefits. I could be wrong but I doubt I am.


Perhaps, but I also wonder why we should pour trillions into a futile war and ignore a beneficial area. But that's a different topic for a different day.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 09:22 PM
Yes I am.

I've done this one before. I don't want to do it again...so I took the parts that interested me. Such a crime. Seems like it's a thought crime to you?

Put me up to a firing squad and shoot me now. :p

I guess if you're admitting your argument is unintelligent, there's not much I can add. :p

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:23 PM
In your opinion. Says the posting cop and thought police.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 09:24 PM
I would apply the same logic to homosexuality. I was, actually, a proponent of letting gays have the same treatment as straight people in terms of marriage benefits etc. However, I saw the errors of my ways through a forum argument no less. (No joke.)

Gays cannot naturally procreate and thus shouldn't receive the same treatment as straight people. They can get married but their marriage shouldn't gain the same benefits of straight people when we are rewarding the procreation benefits - even if they decide not to have kids. Now, it does get a bit confusing and I haven't formulated an argument for those who are straight but cannot reproduce due to accident/genetics/operation/etc.

As for asexuality, I wasn't under the impression humans were asexual? So I'm confused.

You are correct that it is not proof, however, it is that logic that I feel is genetic/inherited. And perhaps has always been with us. I am not a geneticist so I couldn't expound either way.

That surprises me (about homosexuality). Would you be receptive to criminalizing homosexuality like we've criminalized murder since you've applied the same logic to determine that they are wrong/self-defeating? I don't necessarily want to hijack the thread with this, I'm just curious about how far you are willing to take it.

Back to the main topic: couldn't the same genetic/inherited logic be used as an argument against the destruction of embryos? 1 man 1 female exist. They copulate. They allow the embryo to be destroyed. The species ceases to exist when the man and woman cease to exist.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:29 PM
That surprises me (about homosexuality). Would you be receptive to criminalizing homosexuality like we've criminalized murder since you've applied the same logic to determine that they are wrong/self-defeating? I don't necessarily want to hijack the thread with this, I'm just curious about how far you are willing to take it.

No, because it isn't hurting anybody. Murder does. I feel the non-allowance of tax benefits etc is enough.


Back to the main topic: couldn't the same genetic/inherited logic be used as an argument against the destruction of embryos? 1 man 1 female exist. They copulate. They allow the embryo to be destroyed. The species ceases to exist when the man and woman cease to exist.

But here is where the population argument helps me just as it helps you argue murder isn't detrimental to the species as a whole AT THE CURRENT TIME.

Plus, embryos are sometimes destroyed naturally. We call that miscarriage. I am not sure if miscarriage embryos are usable but I am also confident that the embryos the bill was referencing were going to be discarded ANYWAY.

Moreover, embryos can easily be created with the excess of sperm and eggs that labs have.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:34 PM
Interesting that the above is from your source on ad hominem as well.
I know what it is....but it was a bald and basic fact being pointed out not an "attack." I didn't call him scum, a moron or an idiot. If you think telling the truth about what a persons believes spiritually and politically is an attack well then I'm sorry but I disagree. It's a point of reference. I was impeaching your source.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 09:36 PM
But here is where the population argument helps me just as it helps you argue murder isn't detrimental to the species as a whole AT THE CURRENT TIME.

Which is one of the reasons why your response to my request for proof isn't a proof (as you've acknowledged).

Plus, embryos are sometimes destroyed naturally. We call that miscarriage. I am not sure if miscarriage embryos are usable but I am also confident that the embryos the bill was referencing were going to be discarded ANYWAY.

I'm sure some people consider that a travesty. However, our society for the most part still considers it murder to kill someone who has a terminal illness or who is on death row.

Moreover, embryos can easily be created with the excess of sperm and eggs that labs have.

And, of course, so can people with the minor additional hurdle of finding a womb for gestation. And I suspect that that won't be a hurdle for much longer.

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 09:36 PM
Perhaps, but I also wonder why we should pour trillions into a futile war and ignore a beneficial area. But that's a different topic for a different day.

Fair enough. I think you and I are closer on the war issue than you might think. What a ****ing waste of lives and money. The same idiotic dickheads that planned this fiasco didn't give a thought to what happens after the original battle is over. Not trying to take this thread to an irrelevant tangent but if an old infantry soldier thinks about this stuff, why didn't the gubment? Did they honestly think that the Iraqis would throw a ticker tape parade every week after it was initially over? I'm not against the original premise of what we did, only against the utter and complete lack of foresight into what happens AFTER the initial shooting stops. Pisses me the eff off.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:39 PM
I know what it is....but it was a bald and basic fact being pointed out not an "attack." I didn't call him scum, a moron or an idiot. If you think telling the truth about what a persons believes spiritually and politically is an attack well then I'm sorry but I disagree. It's a point of reference. I was impeaching your source.

Umm, no. You were discrediting his CONTENT based on what he was "atheist" and "communist".

That's called ad hominem.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:42 PM
ROFLYou realize how silly you sound right now?
So you are using ad hominem now?
Takes one to know one right....that's what they say.

"Me thinks you doth protest to much!"

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 09:42 PM
I know what it is....but it was a bald and basic fact being pointed out not an "attack."

Him being communist is a fact. Saying communists are criminals and people who lack compassion for human lives is not a fact and can't be logically used to discredit his teapot argument.

I didn't call him scum, a moron or an idiot. If you think telling the truth about what a persons believes spiritually and politically is an attack well then I'm sorry but I disagree. It's a point of reference. I was impeaching your source.

Him being a communist had nothing to do with the argument Irish quoted. The argument wasn't even his opinion. It was a hypothetical. Feel free to pick apart what might be wrong with his hypothetical. Saying it's invalid because he's a communist is simply not intelligent discussion.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:43 PM
Which is one of the reasons why your response to my request for proof isn't a proof (as you've acknowledged).

Okay, but you won't accept that it is natural just like dogs don't go around killing other dogs (for the most part). Animals almost never attack with the intent to kill their own species, for the most part.



I'm sure some people consider that a travesty. However, our society for the most part still considers it murder to kill someone who has a terminal illness or who is on death row.

Am I missing something? I am genuinely confused on what, what you quoted and your response have to do with each other.



And, of course, so can people with the minor additional hurdle of finding a womb for gestation. And I suspect that that won't be a hurdle for much longer.

True. But couldn't you split the difference?

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:45 PM
Him being communist is a fact. Saying communists are criminals and people who lack compassion for human lives is not a fact and can't be logically used to discredit his teapot argument.



Him being a communist had nothing to do with the argument Irish quoted. The argument wasn't even his opinion. It was a hypothetical. Feel free to pick apart what might be wrong with his hypothetical. Saying it's invalid because he's a communist is simply not intelligent discussion.

Or replace communist for "atheist" and in the first sentence change it to "people who lack a good moral pov can't be logically used to discredit his teapot argument.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:46 PM
Him being communist is a fact. Saying communists are criminals and people who lack compassion for human lives is not a fact and can't be logically used to discredit his teapot argument.
Did you not see my chart on how many fully viable people outside the womb they've killed. They broke all the records.



Him being a communist had nothing to do with the argument Irish quoted. The argument wasn't even his opinion. It was a hypothetical. Feel free to pick apart what might be wrong with his hypothetical. Saying it's invalid because he's a communist is simply not intelligent discussion.
Did you miss where I said, I didn't read his argument. I just selected out using BR for the reason I posted earlier.

I'm done with this now....are you?

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 09:49 PM
So you are using ad hominem now?
Takes one to know one right....that's what they say.

"Me thinks you doth protest to much!"

I really don't think you understand what ad hominem is.

An ad hominem would be me saying your opinion on Illegal Immigration doesn't matter because you're a woman. Or because you don't like communists. It's completely irrelevant to the content in your opinion.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 09:56 PM
Did you not see my chart on how many fully viable people outside the womb they've killed. They broke all the records.

First off, I was disagreeing with you using a generalization. Then you dipped your brush in that generalization(which was faulty to begin with) and painted a nice broad stroke.

Secondly, your chart ignored around 99% of history and was incredibly objective in defining what constituted those deaths. Kotter and I already got into this. Would you attribute the Holocaust to Christianity?

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 10:03 PM
I really don't think you understand what ad hominem is.

An ad hominem would be me saying your opinion on Illegal Immigration doesn't matter because you're a woman. Or because you don't like communists. It's completely irrelevant to the content in your opinion.
I do and I've accused others of it here before...if they do it to a poster.
I mainly try to steer away from it when I debate a person.( unless it's payback but more often I try to use ignore)
A public person can be criticized for any reason.


Where I disagree with you is that it was totally irrelevant. It's not to me.
Because I don't think you get why I did what I did...which was to highlight the same thing you you were doing.

Other than that I can say whatever I want and I can have any opinion I want whether or not it's based on facts.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 10:07 PM
I do and I've accused others of it here before...if they do it to a poster.
I mainly try to steer away from it when I debate a person.( unless it's payback but more often I try to use ignore)
A public person can be criticized for any reason.


Where I disagree with you is that it was totally irrelevant. It's not to me.
Because I don't think you get why I did what I did...which was to highlight the same thing you you were doing.

Other than that I can say whatever I want and I can have any opinion I want whether or not it's based on facts.

A public person can be criticized for any reason. Correct!

BUT NOT WITH AD HOMINEM FALLACIES

You can say whatever you want and have any opinion whether or not it's based on the facts. You can believe, for example, that 2+2=6. And if you did, even though you are certainly able to hold such an opinion, doesn't mean you aren't unintelligent for ignoring facts. If you get what I'm saying.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 10:07 PM
Am I missing something? I am genuinely confused on what, what you quoted and your response have to do with each other.

The travesty (in some people's minds) that I was referring to was the fact that embryos were destined to be discarded anyway, with or without ESC research.

The parts about killing terminally sick people and death row inmates was supposed to be the full grown adult analogy to destroying embryos that were destined to be discarded. Similar logic to that which would be used to judge the former examples to be murder can be applied to the destruction of embryos that have no real "expectation" of a future.

True. But couldn't you split the difference?

Now it's my turn to be confused. FWIW, I think I'm pretty much splitting the difference on this overall issue with my "no to public financing" + "no to banning" position. If you mean something else, I need a clarification.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 10:11 PM
The travesty (in some people's minds) that I was referring to was the fact that embryos were destined to be discarded anyway, with or without ESC research.

The parts about killing terminally sick people and death row inmates was supposed to be the full grown adult analogy to destroying embryos that were destined to be discarded. Similar logic to that which would be used to judge the former examples to be murder can be applied to the destruction of embryos that have no real "expectation" of a future.

Then, again, we're back to someone's view on what is "human" and what is not. I like the natural line called Birth.

If it isn't, then everyone here is 9 months older than they are telling people. :)


Now it's my turn to be confused. FWIW, I think I'm pretty much splitting the difference on this overall issue with my "no to public financing" + "no to banning" position. If you mean something else, I need a clarification.

I meant sending half to waiting wombs and half to research.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 10:12 PM
A public person can be criticized for any reason. Correct!

BUT NOT WITH AD HOMINEM FALLACIES

You can say whatever you want and have any opinion whether or not it's based on the facts. You can believe, for example, that 2+2=6. And if you did, even though you are certainly able to hold such an opinion, doesn't mean you aren't unintelligent for ignoring facts. If you get what I'm saying.
I didn't ignore any facts. BR was an atheist and a communist.
I wasn't a participating in Irish argument.

go bowe
06-23-2007, 10:13 PM
I really don't think you understand what ad hominem is.

An ad hominem would be me saying your opinion on Illegal Immigration doesn't matter because you're a woman. Or because you don't like communists. It's completely irrelevant to the content in your opinion.or because she's a certifiable nut case with strange notions?

bat-shit crazy, like kotter in his prime...

makes most moonbats look like moonies...

loony tunes, wacko, wrong, and strange...

perfect for chiefsplanet...

we need a resident moonbat so jaz can take a few days off every now and then...

jmo of course... :p :p :p

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 10:15 PM
I didn't ignore any facts. BR was an atheist and a communist.
I wasn't a participating in Irish argument.

You IGNORED his CONTENT to discredit him. You let FACTORS OF CHARACTER discredit his CONTENT.

It doesn't matter if you were participating in my "argument". You used an ad hominem, plain and simple.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2007, 10:26 PM
Then, again, we're back to someone's view on what is "human" and what is not. I like the natural line called Birth...

Not always a hard and fast line. If I'm reading another thread correctly, that cop in Ohio was just charged with two murders. One for his girlfriend, the other for their unborn child. Isn't murder limited to human victims?

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 10:27 PM
Not always a hard and fast line. If I'm reading another thread correctly, that cop in Ohio was just charged with two murders. One for his girlfriend, the other for their unborn child. Isn't murder limited to human victims?

I think so, but there's so much hypocrisy in our legal system and government that nothing is clear.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 10:27 PM
Bertrand Russell believed in scientific eugenics and the progression and improvement of the races.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 10:29 PM
Bertrand Russell believed in scientific eugenics and the progression and improvement of the races.

Thank you for facts.

This is not an ad hominem because you didn't discredit his content in the same post.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 10:30 PM
Bertrand Russell believed in scientific eugenics and the progression and improvement of the races.

"Therefore he didn't know how to properly prepare a souffle."

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2007, 10:36 PM
"If I were to suggest that there is a perfect social order based on the idea 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,' nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the perfect social order is impossible to implement because of man's imperfect nature. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a perfect social order were affirmed in books from the 19th century, taught as the sacred truth day after day, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

— Bertrand Russell

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 10:46 PM
"If I were to suggest that there is a perfect social order based on the idea 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,' nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the perfect social order is impossible to implement because of man's imperfect nature. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a perfect social order were affirmed in books from the 19th century, taught as the sacred truth day after day, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

— Bertrand Russell
Beautiful post! Rep!

See what pipe smoker's think!

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 10:52 PM
Beautiful post! Rep!

See what pipe smoker's think!

Again, you fall for ANOTHER ad hominem.

You are letting what he has said in the past influence what he was saying in my post or even in the quote Cleveland Bronco posted.

Seriously, I don't think you understand what ad hominem means.

Again:

If Newton was a Communist/atheist/pot smoker/etc, would that discredit his Calculus work or his Law of Gravity?

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 10:53 PM
I don't like BR's white hair. I wondering if there is enough funds to see if esc or asc will be able to revive him too. :hmmm:

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 10:55 PM
I don't like BR's white hair.

You are baiting me into an ad hominem. Half of me wants to bit and half doesn't.

I'm not going to.

However, I must point out that this post is the exact same type of post in the other thread where you posted "Did someone say something?". It was like a fifth grader with their fingers in their ears and screaming "nanannanannananana". It's immature behavior.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 10:59 PM
So my way of saying you're on ignore (temporarily) so you don't bother was over your logical head that you couldn't infer that. Aren't your the master of correct inference?

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 11:01 PM
So my way of saying you're in ignore and don't bother was over your logical head that you couldn't infer that.

Other than that, I just give you back what you put out.

Oh, I could and did infer that when you put me on ignore in the other thread. Interestingly enough, it came off and you responded in this thread.

I do have to admire your ignore style. Put anyone who doesn't agree with you or points out your logical fallacies on ignore. It's cool. Don't take it personally, I'm not.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 11:02 PM
Oh, I could and did infer that when you put me on ignore in the other thread. Interestingly enough, it came off and you responded in this thread.

I do have to admire your ignore style. Put anyone who doesn't agree with you or points out your logical fallacies on ignore. It's cool. Don't take it personally, I'm not.
Your inferences are wrong. I just don't consider you a worthy opponent like I do others that do disagree with me. I LMAO all through this thread from the BR comment on. You fell for the bait.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 11:07 PM
Then, again, we're back to someone's view on what is "human" and what is not. I like the natural line called Birth.

If it isn't, then everyone here is 9 months older than they are telling people. :)

That's why I think personal belief is the critical factor here rather than scientific fact or proof, regardless of where that personal belief comes from.

FWIW as I'm sure you're aware, conception, implantation, and first cell division are also bright lines and I'm sure that people who know more about the development of a human embryo could add more to the list.

If we add 9 months to our ages, I'm coming up on a birthday again. Yippee! :)

I meant sending half to waiting wombs and half to research.

Ah, I see. As long as it's not publicly funded research, I'm OK with it.

Silock
06-23-2007, 11:14 PM
Where do you get your "morals" from?

Morals, by definition, are derived from the beliefs of the people around you. Morals belong to a group, not to an individual.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 11:17 PM
That's why I think personal belief is the critical factor here rather than scientific fact or proof, regardless of where that personal belief comes from.

FWIW as I'm sure you're aware, conception, implantation, and first cell division are also bright lines and I'm sure that people who know more about the development of a human embryo could add more to the list.

If we add 9 months to our ages, I'm coming up on a birthday again. Yippee! :)



Ah, I see. As long as it's not publicly funded research, I'm OK with it.

I know they are bright lines but the lines were only made bright - at least from what I observed - by religious people who place a supernatural power or religious dogma as their basis. Kotter will disagree, but I digress.

I remember reading Sam Harris' take on it. He is an almost fully fledged neurologist ( IIRC ).

A 3-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 11:18 PM
Morals, by definition, are derived from the beliefs of the people around you. Morals belong to a group, not to an individual.

I would agree with that. However, groups that derive their morals from an individual are equally wrong. I would argue religion is this way.

Silock
06-23-2007, 11:18 PM
Most animals don't attack their own kind.

Wow, that's not true at all. Animals are, by nature, incredibly territorial. Most animals will attack their own kind. They won't, however, attack their own group or unit without reason. Ever seen what happens when two groups of chimpanzees clash over the same territory? Or packs of wolves? Or lions? Or birds?

They usually won't attack without a good reason like territory or dominance disputes. But they have no problem at all with killing their own kind given the usual circumstances around which that happens.

Silock
06-23-2007, 11:19 PM
Bad example Pat. I wasn't discussing whether or not the research should continue UEBERHAUPT. Simply that funding of a failing program isn't in the best interest of the greater good when other techniques are working. Why bother researching a 3 wheeled wheelbarrow when a single wheeled version is more efficient?

Indeed. It's more like arguing the merits of a Leer jet over the Spruce Goose.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 11:19 PM
Your inferences are wrong. I just don't consider you a worthy opponent like I do others that do disagree with me. I LMAO all through this thread from the BR comment on. You fell for the bait.

What are you even talking about now?

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 11:22 PM
Morals, by definition, are derived from the beliefs of the people around you. Morals belong to a group, not to an individual.
Obviously his morals are superior because his source is superior because he declares it so as fact when it is opinion.

BCD
06-24-2007, 12:25 AM
Because certain people have an invisible freind in the sky that tells them it's morally wrong. You're a ****ing prick! I support it. Don't dump on myself and others because we have a belief in a higher power. No, I don't think you're are going to hell, but I wish you would. Dick!

Silock
06-24-2007, 12:30 AM
You're a ****ing prick! I support it. Don't dump on myself and others because we have a belief in a higher power. No, I don't think you're are going to hell, but I wish you would. Dick!

Wow, and Christians wonder why people think we're hypocrites...

BCD
06-24-2007, 12:36 AM
Would you attribute the Holocaust to Christianity?No, because Hitler wasn't a Christian.

BCD
06-24-2007, 12:39 AM
Wow, and Christians wonder why people think we're hypocrites...My problem with athiests are they are ALWAYS trying to disprove in the existance of a higher power. I know. I WAS an athiest.

Logical
06-24-2007, 01:52 AM
My problem with athiests are they are ALWAYS trying to disprove in the existance of a higher power. I know. I WAS an athiest.I hate to say it, but was this a duh moment?

Silock
06-24-2007, 05:36 AM
My problem with athiests are they are ALWAYS trying to disprove in the existance of a higher power. I know. I WAS an athiest.

I'm just commenting that telling someone that you want them to go to Hell isn't very . . . God-esque.

BucEyedPea
06-24-2007, 09:55 AM
No, because Hitler wasn't a Christian.
You're right. Much is made of this point, but it doesn't wash. There's very conflicting info on his Christianity. There is evidence he was into the occult even. In fact the Nazis were into the occult and even engaged in what is considered or was considered at one time irregular sexual practices. So much the Christianity label.

irishjayhawk
06-24-2007, 10:24 AM
No, because Hitler wasn't a Christian.

He most certainly was.

irishjayhawk
06-24-2007, 10:29 AM
My problem with athiests are they are ALWAYS trying to disprove in the existance of a higher power. I know. I WAS an athiest.

Please refer to Post 27.

Just curious, care to share your conversion story?

BCD
06-24-2007, 12:47 PM
He most certainly was.Some information suggests he was into the occult.

BCD
06-24-2007, 01:13 PM
Please refer to Post 27.

Just curious, care to share your conversion story?Watching the birth of my son started it. I grew tired of trying to argue with believers. There are some things that science cannot answer. I have taken the 'live and let live' approach. Back to my son. It wasn't just his birth. Its been the 8+ years of his life. The love I have for him. Doesn't make sense to me that these feelings just occur out of thin air. It is truly a gift. Where did it come from? God? As the years go by, I believe that more and more. I think Creationism and evolution work hand in hand. I don't go to church. I don't feel I need to. I don't feel people need religion 'beaten' into them. I hate when athiests denounce the existance of 'Him' just as much as I hate it when 'bible beaters' say non-believers are doomed to be Condemned. Condemned to eternal damnation.

BCD
06-24-2007, 01:16 PM
Please refer to Post 27.
I cannot prove to you that there is a 'higher power' anymore than you can prove to me that there is NOT...

WilliamTheIrish
06-24-2007, 06:52 PM
Maybe we should have government funded research into ad hominem attacks? I think it's important for this board and for society, that we get this critical issue resolved.

Then possibly we could tackle something simpler. Like stem cell research.

Ugly Duck
06-24-2007, 07:23 PM
My problem with athiests are they are ALWAYS trying to disprove in the existance of a higher power.

I'm an atheist & don't feel that I have to disprove gods & stuff. The burden of proof is those expousing outlandish beliefs in talking snakes and golden hemorrhoids, not on us atheists.

BCD
06-24-2007, 09:08 PM
I'm an atheist & don't feel that I have to disprove gods & stuff. The burden of proof is those expousing outlandish beliefs in talking snakes and golden hemorrhoids, not on us atheists.I agree. Believe what you believe. Like I said earlier, Live and let live.

irishjayhawk
06-24-2007, 10:46 PM
I cannot prove to you that there is a 'higher power' anymore than you can prove to me that there is NOT...


But that's the point. It isn't up to me. And thus, when a believer admits there is no proof, it raises questions to me as to how, in a court of law, they could get past the innocent until proven guilty or in this case non-existent until proven existent.

irishjayhawk
06-24-2007, 10:48 PM
ANd as far as the live and let live philosophy. I'd be gun ho on that camp if I didn't see religion infiltrate government and education and laws etc. That pisses me off for the reason above.

And as far as things believers regularly trot off as "answers" to the above post, I think they are two of man's biggest cop outs: free will and faith.

BCD
06-24-2007, 11:53 PM
ANd as far as the live and let live philosophy. I'd be gun ho on that camp if I didn't see religion infiltrate government and education and laws etc. That pisses me off for the reason above.

And as far as things believers regularly trot off as "answers" to the above post, I think they are two of man's biggest cop outs: free will and faith.I don't care about religion in government. Its been there since they drafted our Dec. of Independence. I don't like it in schools. School is for Reading, writing, arithmetic, etc.

ClevelandBronco
06-24-2007, 11:54 PM
"If I were to suggest that there is a perfect social order based on the idea 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,' nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the perfect social order is impossible to implement because of man's imperfect nature. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a perfect social order were affirmed in books from the 19th century, taught as the sacred truth day after day, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

— Bertrand Russell


See what (they) think...

They've done the best they can do by ignoring the hypocricy of the seemingly heroic quote from Russell that can so easily be turned on its ear in its reworking.

Their politics are their religion, Buc. That's why they go nuts when we question something so simple as their politics.

Their gods are Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Moore, et al. Of course they bristle, and that's why they try to find a vulnerable position in our faith.

BCD
06-24-2007, 11:56 PM
He most certainly was.

Was Hitler a Christian?
By John Baskette - but the information came from Marty Helgesen in a soc.religion.christian post.

The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:


Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)


14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

irishjayhawk
06-25-2007, 09:33 AM
They've done the best they can do by ignoring the hypocricy of the seemingly heroic quote from Russell that can so easily be turned on its ear in its reworking.

Their politics are their religion, Buc. That's why they go nuts when we question something so simple as their politics.

Their gods are Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Moore, et al. Of course they bristle, and that's why they try to find a vulnerable position in our faith.

I have no idea what your talking about...

Us, pot smokers, philosophers, atheists in general, nonbelievers in general?

And again, if you were to take that quote and say it is a good reason not to take my quote into account, it would be an ad hominem.

irishjayhawk
06-25-2007, 09:35 AM
@BCD

http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

It goes both ways, but I think we could agree that at SOME point he was Christian and that's where he got all of his antisemitism.

HolmeZz
06-25-2007, 10:30 AM
Eventhough he was influenced by Christianity, the point I was making was about BEP's chart. If she was to chart all the deaths that have come that could be attributed to religion(or just done by someone who believed in a God), you'd have to include the Holocaust. Her chart did not.

BCD
06-25-2007, 10:49 AM
@BCD

http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

It goes both ways, but I think we could agree that at SOME point he was Christian and that's where he got all of his antisemitism.He was a ****ed up individual. That cannot be argued.

irishjayhawk
06-25-2007, 11:44 AM
He was a ****ed up individual. That cannot be argued.

True that.

BCD
06-26-2007, 09:19 AM
@BCD

http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

It goes both ways, but I think we could agree that at SOME point he was Christian and that's where he got all of his antisemitism.I watched a program on one of the discovery channels agout Hitler. Trying to find the root of his hatred of everything Jewish. It speculated his father, which he never knew, was Jewish. Also, He tried to get into an art institution in Vienna. He was denied. The panel was said to have been Jewish.

Baby Lee
06-26-2007, 09:28 AM
It goes both ways, but I think we could agree that at SOME point he was Christian and that's where he got all of his antisemitism.
Sidebar: Anyone speak German? Is it true that Gott Mit Uns roughly translates to 'I have gloves with no finger holes?'

HolmeZz
06-26-2007, 09:39 AM
I watched a program on one of the discovery channels agout Hitler. Trying to find the root of his hatred of everything Jewish. It speculated his father, which he never knew, was Jewish. Also, He tried to get into an art institution in Vienna. He was denied. The panel was said to have been Jewish.

Everything I've learned points towards it being fueled by the art school rejection.

And I thought it was his mother who was Jewish(and in the Jewish religion, faith is passed down based on the mother).

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 10:19 AM
Eventhough he was influenced by Christianity, the point I was making was about BEP's chart. If she was to chart all the deaths that have come that could be attributed to religion(or just done by someone who believed in a God), you'd have to include the Holocaust. Her chart did not.
Of course not. It wasn't motivated by religion. It was RACIALLY motivated. This was discussed in the thread the chart was post in. See my post #9 as well as the contributions of others. Hitler wanted to build a superior race.
Post #9
Hitler is in there on the site as a killer but I decided he does fit this category.
That was RACIALLY motivated democide, not religious.

Jews are both an ethnic group and religion...but were killed due to their race. However 80% of them claim to be atheists. Hitler killed about 21,000,000 people overall if you read the site and 3 million were Catholics. He also killed the feeble minded etc.

There is also a question as to whether he was really a Christian or not too.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=143713

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 10:21 AM
On, btw HolmeZz....did you edit your claim in here, that Isaac Newton was certified insane? Implyin' that this was concurrent with his development of calculous. I went lookin' for it, a few days ago, after doing some research on it. He had a nervous breakdown, or was thought to have had one, and this insanity was 15 years after his calculus findings—not concurrent. He also shares credit with another on calculus too. Leibniz. There was a controversy over this at the time.

However, his insanity is not related to nor affected his discoveries.

HolmeZz
06-26-2007, 10:33 AM
Of course not. It wasn't motivated by religion. It was RACIALLY motivated. This was discussed in the thread the chart was post in. See my post #9 as well as the contributions of others. Hitler wanted to build a superior race.
Post #9

It was his RELIGIOUS belief that God placed all the races on the planet in order to fight for survival. As wikipedia puts it, he believed it was his divine mandate.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.""

HolmeZz
06-26-2007, 10:36 AM
On, btw HolmeZz....did you edit your claim in here, that Isaac Newton was certified insane? Implyin' that this was concurrent with his development of calculous. I went lookin' for it, a few days ago, after doing some research on it. He had a nervous breakdown, or was thought to have had one, and this insanity was 15 years after his calculus findings—not concurrent. He also shares credit with another on calculus too. Leibniz. There was a controversy over this at the time.

However, his insanity is not related to nor affected his discoveries.

I never mentioned Newton. That was probably Irish.

His point was that if we discovered something that showed Isaac Newton to be completely insane, it wouldn't call into question the validity of gravity or calculus.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 10:47 AM
It was his RELIGIOUS belief that God placed all the races on the planet in order to fight for survival. As wikipedia puts it, he believed it was his divine mandate.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.""
That divine mandate certainly is not Christian.
He still killed many others who were Christian as well.
There is disagreement about him being a Christian.
His actions were decidedly non Christian.

Further, he hated Commies too. Marx was originally himself, a Jew but changed to a Christian but was really an atheist. It's thought by some that he did this to avoid discrimination. I asked a Jewish friend once, why so many Jews, even today fall within the Marxist camp politically. She admitted this was unfortunately true. You do know Israel is rigidly socialistic, right?

HolmeZz
06-26-2007, 10:50 AM
That divine mandate certainly is not Christian.
He still killed many others who were Christian as well.
There is disagreement about him being a Christian.

I'm going to ignore digging up stuff about him being Christian because you've ultimately proven my point. Whether he was Christian or not, his actions were the result of his religious beliefs. And therefore, being a believer of a Creator, he should've been included on your chart.

His actions were decidedly non Christian.

So what, the typical Atheist condones all the deaths you want to attribute to Atheism?

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 11:05 AM
Of course not. It wasn't motivated by religion. It was RACIALLY motivated. This was discussed in the thread the chart was post in. See my post #9 as well as the contributions of others. Hitler wanted to build a superior race.
Post #9


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=143713

And yet the two biggest killings for the secular side was Stalin and Mao. Yet those were in the name of religion - namely atheism.

It's kind of hard to be in the name of something when a) it isn't a religion and b) even if it was, it wasn't atheism.

By B I mean that Communism and political factors were the things that ushered in deaths. Atheism was a by product of the politically motivated dogma.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 11:06 AM
I'm going to ignore digging up stuff about him being Christian because you've ultimately proven my point. Whether he was Christian or not, his actions were the result of his religious beliefs. And therefore, being a believer of a Creator, he should've been included on your chart.



So what, the typical Atheist condones all the deaths you want to attribute to Atheism?
Sorry he was building a pure Ayran race, which came from Asia btw.
You know the root word of Iran.
He was NOT a Christian. He was into the occult which is anathema to a real Christian. Anyone psychopath, which he was, can twist and pervert any belief system or form of govt as well.

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 11:07 AM
Sorry he was building a pure Ayran race, which came from Asia btw.
You know the root word of Iran.
He was NOT a Christian. He was into the occult which is anathema to a real Christian.

Yet he was Christian as a boy. When he gave it up is what's in the air, AFAIK.

Again, name a group that killed in the name of atheism.

HolmeZz
06-26-2007, 11:08 AM
Sorry he was building a pure Ayran race, which came from Asia btw.
You know the root word of Iran.
He was NOT a Christian. He was into the occult which is anathema to a real Christian. Anyone psychopath, which he was, can twist and pervert any belief system or form of govt as well.

"I'm going to ignore digging up stuff about him being Christian because you've ultimately proven my point. Whether he was Christian or not, his actions were the result of his religious beliefs. And therefore, being a believer of a Creator, he should've been included on your chart."

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 11:14 AM
Hitler's record is still topped by atheistic driven ideologies:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH_C_MORTACRACIES.GIF

BTW, it's not religion that's the issue in govt deaths. If you study that site it's about systems that concentrate power at the top....like Nazi Germany, who were National Socialists. That's the only way an atheistic or religious system can get away with such acts. Leftist systems concentrate power. That is really the key issue AFAIC.

He was elected; then ruled by decree and the Nazi's were the majority in the govt at the time. A classic case of the tyranny of the majority.

HolmeZz
06-26-2007, 11:17 AM
I accept your apology for the poor chart.

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 11:18 AM
Hitler's record is still topped by atheistic driven ideologies:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH_C_MORTACRACIES.GIF

BTW, it's not religion that's the issue in govt deaths. If you study that site it's about systems that concentrate power at the top....like Nazi Germany, who were National Socialists. That's the only way an atheistic or religious system can get away with such acts. Leftist systems concentrate power. That is really the key issue AFAIC.

He was elected; then ruled by decree and the Nazi's were the majority in the govt at the time. A classic case of the tyranny of the majority.

ROFL

I love it. "atheistic driven ideologies". It could have easily - and probably is supposed to be - "Communistic driven ideologies.

Again, both mass murderers employed Communism and Communism in our implementations thus far have brought atheism with it. It was NOT atheism bringing Communism. Therefore, it wasn't in the name of atheism.

HolmeZz
06-26-2007, 11:19 AM
Atheists don't value human life.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 11:24 AM
Atheists don't value human life.
Not all. There is a big pro-lifer on another board I know who is an atheist.
Just sayin' those who keep saying it's religious folks who kill the most are just guilty of projection. Get it now?

The difference is communists felt religion was the opiate of the people and felt a need to suppress it wholesale. Even the Orthodox Church's religious agents were KGB. They were religion haters and bashers--just as dangerous imo.

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 11:29 AM
Not all. There is a big pro-lifer on another board I know who is an atheist.
Just sayin' those who keep saying it's religious folks who kill the most are just guilty of projection. Get it now?

The differenc is communists felt religion was the opiate of the people and felt a need to suppress it wholesale. Even the Orthodox Church's religious agents were KGB. They were religion haters and bashers.

No because no one was killed in the name of atheism where as in the name of "insert religion here" has killed way more.

The things you are trying to pin on atheism, even as you supposedly clarify", are based in COMMUNISM. You even say "communists felt religion was the opiate of the people and felt a need to suppress it wholesale.". You just prove my point. atheism was a consequence of communism. Not the other way around. So attributing the deaths to atheism is wrong.

HolmeZz
06-26-2007, 11:30 AM
Not all. There is a big pro-lifer on another board I know who is an atheist.

:rolleyes:

And there are religious people who are pro-choice.

Some people don't regard abortion as the taking of an innocent life. You just don't understand that viewpoint.

Just sayin' those who keep saying it's religious folks who kill the most are just guilty of projection. Get it now?

No. Everyone's guilty of murders. It's not something you can attribute to one group of people. And you're not any better when you're trying to justify religious deaths by pointing out that communistic deaths are much more numerous(with the help of a completely flawed chart to boot).

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 11:32 AM
Unfortunately, the bald n' basic fact is that many atheists worship the state for a religion. Use the state for social engineering etc. to create the type of society they want to live in. No different than their alleged opposition. They can be just as sanctimonous and judgemental in enforcing their own secular morality system of beliefs. Many of them don't live n' let live either.

Just an observation of mine.

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 11:34 AM
Unfortunately, the bald n' basic fact is that many atheists worship the state for a religion/ Use the state for social engineering etc. They can be just as sanctimonous and judgemental in enforcing their own secular morality system of beliefs. Many of them don't live n' let live either.

Just an observation of mine.

So are we done on the Communism vs Atheism blame fest?

And yes, it does go both ways. Of course there are far more religious people who don't live and let live. Of course, that's because they have the majority and out number us.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 11:38 AM
Can I help it that you missed my entire point originally.
No you can't say it's most religious folks that's my point.

See post #3 in this thread as well as the name of the thread.
You do not fall into this category though.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=163589&highlight=Atheist+education

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 11:42 AM
Can I help it that you missed my entire point originally.
No you can't say it's most religious folks that's my point.

See post #3 in this thread as well as the name of the thread.
You do not fall into this category though.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=163589&highlight=Atheist+education

Well, I disagree. Especially given that you admitted communism is what's to blame not atheism. If those are eliminated, then it is easy to say that.

Yay. I don't fall into the category of people who have a billion dollars and are atheist. :p

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 11:49 AM
Where do you two fall on the political spectrum?

Are you Marxists?

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 11:50 AM
Where do you two fall on the political spectrum?

Are you Marxists?

Dead center Moderate. Sometimes I lean slightly left. But No, not Marxist.

HolmeZz
06-26-2007, 11:55 AM
Where do you two fall on the political spectrum?

Are you Marxists?

Just liberal. Not some advocate of Communism.

I'm also not an Atheist. I'm Agnostic.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 12:01 PM
Dead center Moderate. Sometimes I lean slightly left. But No, not Marxist.
I'm not buyin it. Too many people who claim to be moderates aren't.
Today, the center has shifted to the left anyways. I can tell by your views in the speech thread. You support federal expansionism into the states and have a big govt intepretation of the Constitution and judicial activism.

Govt should grow proportionally but it has not. The enormous growth of the federal govt has shifted the center to the left. So moderates today are still to the left of the center.

And liberal today is not the same as what a liberal meant at our nation's founding. That's classical liberalism which is what a paleo-conservative is or right-libertarianism. Most liberals today are Marxists or semi-Marxists. Definitely big govt types.

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 12:02 PM
I'm not buyin it. Too many people who claim to be moderates aren't.
Today, the center has shifted to the left anyways. I can tell by your views in the speech thread. You support federal expanisionism into the states and have a gov govt intepretation of the Constitutional and judicial activism.

Govt should grow proportionally but it has not. The enormous growth of the federal govt has shifted the center to the left. And liberal today is not the same as what a liberal meant at our nation's founding. That's classical liberalism which is what a paleo-conservative is or right-libertarianism. Most liberals today are Marxists or semi-Marxists. Definitely big govt types.

Fine don't buy it. Every test I've taken that "determines" your alignment has put me in the center or a few (less than 5 pegs) to the left.

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 12:03 PM
I'm not buyin it. Too many people who claim to be moderates aren't.
Today, the center has shifted to the left anyways. I can tell by your views in the speech thread. You support federal expansionism into the states and have a big govt intepretation of the Constitution and judicial activism.

Govt should grow proportionally but it has not. The enormous growth of the federal govt has shifted the center to the left. So moderates today are still to the left of the center.

And liberal today is not the same as what a liberal meant at our nation's founding. That's classical liberalism which is what a paleo-conservative is or right-libertarianism. Most liberals today are Marxists or semi-Marxists. Definitely big govt types.

How can I be big govt types if I'm saying they shouldn't have ruled against the kid? Isn't that the definition of small government?

HolmeZz
06-26-2007, 12:03 PM
God, she's annoying.

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 12:04 PM
God, she's annoying.

And for harping on about judgmental atheists and stuff, she does an awful lot of judging herself.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 12:06 PM
The thing about those tests, as I've often posted depends on the questions and understanding of their creator. Maybe you are as a sum total, but most religion haters are on the left even if moderate to the left side of moderatism.

Everyone likes to say they're a moderate becuase it sounds better....or reasonable.

Me I'm to the right, but of today's center. I favor limited govt meaning a reduced role for the feds. And I say the police powers belong to the states and that get's decided by majority rule most of the time. That means with 80% of the people being Christian, those set of values. Deal with it.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 12:08 PM
God, she's annoying.
So aren't you. I'd be thrilled if you both put me on ignore.

HolmeZz
06-26-2007, 12:09 PM
So aren't you.

Thanks?

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 12:10 PM
And for harping on about judgmental atheists and stuff, she does an awful lot of judging herself.
I don't claim to not judge. I just don't judge religions very much. Like I've posted I don't care if someone wants to worship rocks....it doesn't
affect me. I do judge systems that concentrate too much power...as I feel they are dangerous. Those do affect me.

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 12:20 PM
I don't claim to not judge. I just don't judge religions very much. Like I've posted I don't care if someone wants to worship rocks....it doesn't
affect me. I do judge systems that concentrate too much power...as I feel they are dangerous. Those do affect me.

I was talking about the constant judging of people - like me, for instance. How you "pegged" me and how you think I'm a liar for saying my political alignment is moderate.

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 12:24 PM
The thing about those tests, as I've often posted depends on the questions and understanding of their creator. Maybe you are as a sum total, but most religion haters are on the left even if moderate to the left side of moderatism.

Everyone likes to say they're a moderate becuase it sounds better....or reasonable.

Me I'm to the right, but of today's center. I favor limited govt meaning a reduced role for the feds. And I say the police powers belong to the states and that get's decided by majority rule most of the time. That means with 80% of the people being Christian, those set of values. Deal with it.

I love how you lump people to one side or the other. Just like when people say LEFTIST on issues that clearly aren't really partisan. Religious haters are on the left, apologists on the right. Which I guess - at least the apologist part - is true. Hence the religious right.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 02:56 PM
Thanks?
:hmmm: Yet you're the one admonishing about ad homimem. Lol!

Baby Lee
06-26-2007, 03:02 PM
How is this discussion even going on?
How do you prove a killing based in Atheism?
"Hurrr, I kill people because I don't believe something."
If an atheist kills, it can be for any number of reasons, but [s]he's not gonna attribute the killing to the lack of a belief in a higher power.
People who attribute killings to a definitive cause [inferiority of the killed, blasphemy by the killed, philsophical differences] invite speculation as to root causes. People who just kill do not leave that door open.
Might as well ask for a ledger of people who killed for no reason at all.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 03:02 PM
I love how you lump people to one side or the other.

That's right. There is a political spectrum....and everyone is on it.

Just like when people say LEFTIST on issues that clearly aren't really partisan.
Some aren't true.

Religious haters are on the left, apologists on the right. Which I guess - at least the apologist part - is true. Hence the religious right.

Tend to be. Don't forget religion is the "opiate of the people."
I look at total povs and the rational for things.

Other than that, I've got a damn good nose for accuracy on these things.
I asked two posters on my first board, due to their statements, if they were communists. Lo' and behold they were honest and said they were. I only asked because some of their rationales were right out of the Communist Manifesto.
'Eh I don't care...I actually became good friends with them. I even dated one once. I've studied it quite a bit myself. Today, we're a semi Marxist country and most don't even know it.JMO.

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 03:04 PM
How is this discussion even going on?
How do you prove a killing based in Atheism?
"Hurrr, I kill people because I don't believe something."
If an atheist kills, it can be for any number of reasons, but [s]he's not gonna attribute the killing to the lack of a belief in a higher power.
Might as well ask for a ledger of people who killed for no reason at all.

That's the point. If she wants to argue that secularism versus religious killing, that's fine. But arguing atheism is flat out wrong.

But then one has to be careful in that secularism is a much, much broader spectrum than religion.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2007, 03:08 PM
I never said just "atheists" though. I said "atheistic socialism"...ya' know a system with concentration and centralization of power. You can twist it to worsen all you want, but I was defending religious folks against the charge they were the biggers killers or murderers in the history of this planet. Remember now? That's all I was doing. But it's okay with me if you don't want to see that. :)

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 03:08 PM
Oh, and secularism doesn't necessarily include atheism. For example, political institutions that are secular may not necessarily be atheistic as well.

Baby Lee
06-26-2007, 03:10 PM
That's the point. If she wants to argue that secularism versus religious killing, that's fine. But arguing atheism is flat out wrong.

But then one has to be careful in that secularism is a much, much broader spectrum than religion.
So is arguing that atheism has something over belief systems because atheism doesn't lead to killing. It might, but there's no clear indicia of attribution. Conversely, anyone who kills over any kind of belief invites speculation of a religious element to their belief.

patteeu
06-26-2007, 03:32 PM
Dead center Moderate. Sometimes I lean slightly left....

Please. How can you be a dead center Moderate, when I'm a dead center Moderate and we disagree so often? :p

irishjayhawk
06-26-2007, 04:14 PM
Please. How can you be a dead center Moderate, when I'm a dead center Moderate and we disagree so often? :p

That's scary. :harumph: