posted
Isn't it embarrassing that the states have to try and fill the huge hole in scientific research made by the religious prejudice of our undereducated num-skull President.
Next time lets try and elect someone that actually took and passed a science course in high school and might even know what he means by new-klew-lur.
posted
Believe it or not ethics come into place here, as it should. Just because some do not agree with the practice of embryonic stem cells from (which every human started from) does not mean they are against all stem cell research. I do not think that ONLY people who are deemed (religious) as you seem to think see the ethics involved here...
IP: Logged |
It does bug the crap out of me every time I hear Bush pronounce it that way... Jimmy Carter did the same thing, except it was even more pathetic because he did graduate work in nuclear physics at Union College and should have known better. Curious, who did you vote for in 1976?
Back on topic though, based on your comments, I am assuming that you think stem-cell research should be federally funded?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
No research should be excluded on religious whim, as is the case with stem cell work, no matter what is the area of investigation.
To think otherwise is accepting the decisions of the Catholic Church to put Galileo in prison for publiching in Italian (it was a well known fact in the Church and in scientific circles at the time, but had not been printed in a living language before) that the Earth revolved about the sun.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by urnso77: As long as they dont use embryonic cells I'm all for it! Think of all the diseases this can help cure.
You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of knowing what a stem cell is or isn't. Once again, you are claiming knowledge that you don't have and isn't viable in the light of day.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ruthie: Believe it or not ethics come into place here, as it should. Just because some do not agree with the practice of embryonic stem cells from (which every human started from) does not mean they are against all stem cell research. I do not think that ONLY people who are deemed (religious) as you seem to think see the ethics involved here...
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: No research should be excluded on religious whim, as is the case with stem cell work, no matter what is the area of investigation.
To think otherwise is accepting the decisions of the Catholic Church to put Galileo in prison for publiching in Italian (it was a well known fact in the Church and in scientific circles at the time, but had not been printed in a living language before) that the Earth revolved about the sun.
Bdgee,
I agree with you there, however, I was wondering if you think stem-cell research should be funded by the government?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
Religious whim as you put it is not the case..Believing that one life is as valuable as the other is an ethical choice..Also, there is also quite a bit of potential using umbilical stem cells as well. There is never justification for taking an innocent life. As far as religious whim is concerned, I know there are many people with no religios convictions at all, as is their right. You can take religion totally out of this discussion and the reasoning still stands...
IP: Logged |
posted
I think all manner of research should be funded by the government, medical research first and formost among them all.
It is not rational to allow some individuals to hold patent rights on the right of others to life.
Education is the key and the tool that makes this society powerful and successful (and generous) and every infringement, of whatever size, on learning and scholarship lessens both, not to mention the horrible effects it has on our world wide standing as a leader of societies.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ruthie: Religious whim as you put it is not the case..Believing that one life is as valuable as the other is an ethical choice..Also, there is also quite a bit of potential using umbilical stem cells as well. There is never justification for taking an innocent life. As far as religious whim is concerned, I know there are many people with no religios convictions at all, as is their right. You can take religion totally out of this discussion and the reasoning still stands...
You are on a one way road driving with a one track mind. Sadly, the prevailing traffic isn't going your way and you refuse to accept it. A wreck is going to happen and you are going to be the cause.
This isn't 1400.
No one is even suggestion that a law be passed to make abortions required and your insinuating that someone is is cheap.
Each time you and your hubby have sex and it isn't at exact "that" time you are "fertile", millions of potential lives die inside you, every one of them he deposits. Even if it is at that precise time, millions die in order that one succed.
In this day and time, it is possible to reproduce humans with the aid of modern science so that only dozens of sprem would die in order that one live, why aren't you deriding that henious waste of life via the more fashionable (and enjoyable) method of reproduction?
Are you telling me that God, who is perfect and makes no mistakes, has "chosen" to let some potential life die? Which ones? Why those and not some others? And why, then, is it so wrong to do like God? Since he is God, couldn't he, if life is prescious in the way you are proporting, have as easilly chosen to not let those potential lives die? Isn't that being a mite arbituary?
I don't care if in some isolated cases, some 6 month fetus, via the application of modern medical practices, might live and become a functioning normal person, 99.99% can't and it isn't rational to insist that they can. Instead, you use that sanme sick argument against the killing of sperm, without which (at least for the present) no normale person will or can develop into a functioning human.
Ignorance is not a replacement for facts.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: I think all manner of research should be funded by the government, medical research first and formost among them all.
It is not rational to allow some individuals to hold patent rights on the right of others to life.
Education is the key and the tool that makes this society powerful and successful (and generous) and every infringement, of whatever size, on learning and scholarship lessens both, not to mention the horrible effects it has on our world wide standing as a leader of societies.
Bdgee,
So you trust the government to hold patent rights on the right of others to life?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
Bdgee, you're reminding me of that Monty Python song in the Meaning of Life. "Every sperm is precious, every sperm is great. If a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate."
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Browndog: Bdgee, you're reminding me of that Monty Python song in the Meaning of Life. "Every sperm is precious, every sperm is great. If a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate."
posted
Let me restate my question Bdgee. If, like you suggested, there were no patents restricting medical practice in any way, and all research was funded via government subsidies, do you trust that:
#1) The government would spend the money in an efficent, proper fashion?
#2) The government would only spend as much money as was nessicary and on programs with merit?
#3) The government would share the results of the taxpayer funded research with everyone?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't recall calling anything a subsidy, That is rightwing code you are attempting to impose on me. I will not be so restricted, that is, to your limited and warped perception of the "welfare" clause of the Constitution.
Obviously, without proper or actual reason and basis, you intend to imply that:
#1) The government would not spend the money in an efficent, proper fashion?
#2) The government would mispend as money thaat was not a nessicary and on programs without merit?
#3) The government would share the results of the taxpayer funded research with everyone?
Your premiss that the Government will always do wrong is a testiment to your viscious bios and people like that should never be permitted to judge the merit or lack of merit of scholarship.
The Government would NOT own anything resulting from research it funed, and neither would anyone else.
Moreover, should some "thing" result from non-government funded research be necessarry for the health or welfare of any person or group of persons (here excluding the common misuse of the word person to include corporations and other entities that are not human beings) the government will not recognize, or allow to be recognized, any patent or right to that "thing" preventing or restricting the application of that "thing", in the particular case.
IP: Logged |
If, like you suggested, there were no patents restricting medical practice in any way, and all research was FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT, do you trust that:
#1) The government would spend the money in an efficent, proper fashion?
#2) The government would only spend as much money as was nessicary and on programs with merit?
#3) The government would share the results of the taxpayer funded research with everyone?
Also, assuming you were correct (which you aren't BTW) that my "premiss" is that "the government would always do wrong", it would not indeed be that unfounded...
Just look at the government's tract record, a method you all to often suggest when discussing what might result of GWB's actions.
I am not the only one to share a healthy scepticism of trusting the government.
A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master. - George Washington
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
Just look at the government's tract record?
well lessee?
A) the moonwalks, B) Mars Rovers that actually ran many months more then they were designed to C) The Mississippi River Levee project... you hear about a lot of problems, but i suggest you back to the 1920's to see how bad it would bee with nothing D)Yellow fever is gone from the Americas... E) Polio is dead F) Smallpox is dead G) Malaria is gone from the Americas.. H) we hit a comet with an eight hundred pound copper "bullet" July 4 2005... pretty dam amazing since it was going over 20,000 mile per hour and the comet was 268 million mile "out"
the list goes on and on...
the problem we have today is actually pretty new.. it's called Bush
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, There are indeed some cases in which government funded projects have been successful, and the space program is a good example of such. However, one could also name many circumstances in which the government has been a failure, and many of them are before Bush Jr. came around.
More importantly, my "trust" issue with the government is not limited to the United States government or even Democracy, but rather any government that exists or has existed in the past, and again I want to point out that a healthy mistrust/skepticism of any government is critical to the survival of freedom.
If you carefully read my comments you will note that I did not suggest the government will ALWAYS do wrong. This is a false assumption put forth by Bdgee, that I played along with for the sake of discussion.
You will note, by his own quote:
"Obviously, without proper or actual reason and basis, you intend to imply that....".
Simply because one suggests that the government might fail in any particular instance is not a suggestion that it will always fail. Taken literally, and without assumptions, my comments were ASKING Bdgee if he personally trusted the government to be responsible enough to be in charge of all research in the field of medicine.
A simple yes or no answer and maybe even a brief reasoning why would have sufficed, but alas, that is never the case with Bdgee.
Personally, I do not trust the government enough to put it in charge of my health, among other things, and I just wanted to know if Bdgee did.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
Also Glass, a little nit-pick here, not a big deal but I want to set the record straight... We didn't really "hit" a comet going 20,000 mile per hour 268 million mile away.... We parked our bullet in the middle of the comet's 'road', if you will, and waited until it got ran over. It was still impressive though.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
you asked? i answered, that was just off the top of my head..
i happen to know quite a bit more than the average person about molecular biology...
that's the issue at the core of stem cell research..
Bush is shafting our country in this area.. there is no other way to put it. ask Nancy Reagan...
this claim about life being so precious really trips my trigger coming from people that were ready to go kill anybody in the way of them getting Sadam... and that's what they did too..
at minimum? there are already 400,000 frozen embryos being held "in stasis" right now... i'm talking about fertility clinics that ALWAYS make more than they need.. those embryos are in limbo. i don't hear anybody questioning whether fertility clinics should be shut down... if you are truly a survival of the fittest conservative? you should be for shutting them down since reproduction is part of survival of the fittest...
BTW? patents are only good for 17 years... most of these "gene patents" are just for "brownie points" in the "industry"...getting a patent on your resume is better than a paper... most patents really don't add up to a lot of control or $$$..
note that i said MOST.. some of 'em are worth alot... and the U Cali system is getting rich off 'em..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I understand that Glass, and personally I disagree with Bush on his extremist religious stance on stem-cell research. It is archaic and backwards, and as Bdgee suggested, reminiscent of the 1400's.
I am not opposed to stem cell research, though, based on my limited understanding of it, I prefer that we find a way to use adult stem cells, since we know so little about when "life" actually begins. IMO, until we have a better understanding of that, we should focus on other areas (like adult stem cells), that we can be sure are not harming anything one could consider human life. From what limited material I have read on the subject, there are some who are making great strides in the realm of adult stem cells that may eventually eliminate the need for embryonic stem cells.
My objection lies with Bdgee's, (and other's), suggestions that the best route to pursue this research is via government funding. I hope this makes sense, and clears up any doubts about what I am opposed to.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
what if i told you that there are a lot of really good scientist IN the govt cuz they can spend more time working on their research and less time chasing grant money and lying alot to get it?
what if i told you that most federal research money ends up in private hands anyway, and that is the only way to get the startup money to do real research cuz it's so risky?
what if i told you that in the last five years i have personally watched more than a half-dozen small-cap bio-techs with really good projects get stripped of their assets and value by the "street"?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well considering you know more about it than I do, I'd probably believe you. While it would make me less skeptical of government involvement, I would still be wary of it, and IMO, rightly so.
I am not 100% opposed to government funded projects, as anyone who has read my posts regarding solar power knows.... I just always approach them with reservations, and view them as a last resort, or in some cases, the lesser of two evils, as should anyone who is considering government funding of anything.
Anytime you give the government control over something, you are giving up some freedom. IMO decisions on these issues should not be made frivolously, and 9 times out of 10, my first answer to any question regarding whether or not the government should be given control over something will be "NO, but I'll think about it."
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
but those are facts, i will say there are a lot of civil servants that don't pull the load too.. but in the end? there really are a lot of good people that are happy to have some job security, enough money to live decently and do the work they want to do... the private sector has become so cutthroat in the last 25 years that a lot of people just don't have any faith in them anymore...
even State Universities were dropping tenured profs a couple years ago cuz of budget problems...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, I think I would have less objection to "government funded" projects if I were able to give money to those directly involved in carrying out the project and get a tax deduction for it instead of being taxed and having to trust that the government will make sure the money all goes to where they say it will when they take it from you. The way the system is now, there are too many "middle men", and too much of what is collected through taxes slips through the "cracks" and into the pockets of the "civil servants".
Personally I know a few civil servants, who like you say, work hard and pull their weight, happy to be doing a job they enjoy. However, and maybe it is unique to my personal experiences, they and a few others are the exception to the rule, and probably 90% of all civil servants I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with are perfect examples of the inefficiency, complacency and laziness that IMO, permeates throughout the government of this great country all the way up to the highest levels.
Then again, I've been told many times I am a pessimist, so perhaps I am just seeing the glass as half empty.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: Glass, There are indeed some cases in which government funded projects have been successful, and the space program is a good example of such. However, one could also name many circumstances in which the government has been a failure, and many of them are before Bush Jr. came around.
More importantly, my "trust" issue with the government is not limited to the United States government or even Democracy, but rather any government that exists or has existed in the past, and again I want to point out that a healthy mistrust/skepticism of any government is critical to the survival of freedom.
If you carefully read my comments you will note that I did not suggest the government will ALWAYS do wrong. This is a false assumption put forth by Bdgee, that I played along with for the sake of discussion.
You will note, by his own quote:
"Obviously, without proper or actual reason and basis, you intend to imply that....".
Simply because one suggests that the government might fail in any particular instance is not a suggestion that it will always fail. Taken literally, and without assumptions, my comments were ASKING Bdgee if he personally trusted the government to be responsible enough to be in charge of all research in the field of medicine.
A simple yes or no answer and maybe even a brief reasoning why would have sufficed, but alas, that is never the case with Bdgee.
Personally, I do not trust the government enough to put it in charge of my health, among other things, and I just wanted to know if Bdgee did.
"if you carefully read my comments you will note that I did not suggest the government will ALWAYS do wrong. This is a false assumption put forth by Bdgee, that I played along with for the sake of discussion. "
I have carefully read your comments and I have to agree that you do not and have not consistantly and without failure fostered or "suggest(ed) the government will ALWAYS do wrong."
Indeed, in the past, you have not only insisted that, unequivacated trust and absolute acceptance of any thing this Administration does or wants to do is first required in order to have any right to any opinion and that any statement that is not absolutely sanctioned by (indeed, preferrably authored by and copied from) the Administration is, among other things, un-American, unpatriotic, communistic, stabbing the troops in the back, antiwar, and others.
You have, indeed, stated that this Administration is pure and 100% right and MUST be trusted completely (or the terrorist win).
To ballance that, you have been even more steadfast in your condemnation, withourt any reason except a constant insistance that "government can't be trusted", opposed any and everything not originating from among the far rightwing extremist republican war-mongering mostly evaangelical fascist.
In the process of doing either, you lace your post with the baited code words of the far rightwing and inject hateful labels on whatever isn't approved of by the RNC.
"Anytime you give the government control over something, you are giving up some freedom."
Really? I haven't seen much you have said supporting that.
You argued long and hard that the acts passed by the republican Congress, as requested by the Administration, which undermine the Constitutional freedoms that make us Americans and make us able to believe we have a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" should be accepted, even worshiped, by all.
In addition to the supporting, absolutely, the efforts of the Administration to undermine our freedoms through legislation (contrary to what you clim above) you have also supported, absolutely, every sickening abuse of international law and violation of treaties that this Administration has claimed is justified in order to catch the terrorost, even though is has been long obvious that the number one terrorist of all, Ben Laden, was being allowed to carry on with his brand of terror, free of fear of retribution and free of fear of being caught, in order that Bush could continue endangering the whole world with his personally chosen invasion and occupation of Iraq. My God! Bush has made us Ben Laden's equal.
"...my first answer to any question regarding whether or not the government should be given control over something will be "NO, but I'll think about it."
Nonsense. If it is a republican dominated goverenment offering any measure what-so-ever, you do not present anything but demands for compliance. If it is not a government absolutely dominated by the republican party, you never think about it, you condemn any proposal instantly and hatefully.
"...my comments were ASKING Bdgee if he personally trusted the government to be responsible enough to be in charge of all research in the field of medicine."
"A simple yes or no answer and maybe even a brief reasoning why would have sufficed, but alas, that is never the case with Bdgee."
"Personally, I do not trust the government enough to put it in charge of my health, among other things, and I just wanted to know if Bdgee did."
Lets get down and be honest for a change. I resent your implications and bald statement that I have called for any entity "to be in charge of all research in the field of medicine" (or any other foeld). Any implication thereto ot therefrom, however construed or misconstrued by you or anyone, be it medical or non-medical research, is a disgusting attempt to plant a lie by implicatiuon. Moreover, your assinine demand that I respond with a "simple yes or no answer" to your "loaded" insinuations is an insult.
I completely reject and find disgusting your suggesting that I advocate any form of government control of any issues of the personal lives of any one of the people. And NOTHING I have said is an argument to place government in charge of anything or is to be so construed. You, however claim to quote me as saying "government should be in charge of medical research".
I DID NO SUCH THING!
I said and I repeat, the government should never fail to fund medical research. That is NOT, however you want to construe it, a suggestion that government should " be in charge of research" or the results thereof or any of its implications and future benifits.
"A simple yes or no answer and maybe even a brief reasoning why" to your question, as stated, requires the acceptance of the false premisses you have imbedded therein. I do not support government control of much of anything but the assurance that each of us is guartanteed the government's most absolute effort in supporting the rights and privileges the Constitution assures us we have (i.e., the American dream and the American way of life) and those of common human decency (something not even hinted at in the current Administration).
I have never thought that the government should be in control of mine or anyone elses health and I resent you working out a series of implications that I do or even might.
"My objection lies with Bdgee's, (and other's), suggestions that the best route to pursue this research is via government funding. I hope this makes sense, and clears up any doubts about what I am opposed to."
The last route to funding research of any kind, when practical developement from research for the good of the society is of even minor concern (thaat is, in order to "provide for the general welfare")is to put it in the hands of private (non-governmental entities) business, where the search for the almighty dollar is paramnount rather than the good of the people.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
