Of course, everyone wants to be surrounded by "good people. But a truly good person is not someone who always goes along with others and agrees with the opinions of others. It is someone who knows how to be honest and frank, who is able to be themselves, who is willing to give, but who also stands up for their interests, beliefs and values while maintaining their dignity.
Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.
-
@thestrangest Where? I can't see any.
-
@sir-devil like I said (it's the third time), It was a success due to a lack of research or information
-
@sir-devil if they knew the things in the article you have cited, the doctors and professors would have supported it, weakening the opposition and making it possible for it not to be approved.
-
@sir-devil It would be similar to the current situation. The Doctors, professors, and others support it while some religious people oppose it.
-
OH MY GOODNESS JUST STOP ALREADY
@sir-devil said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:
@thestrangest said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:
Immoral according to religious beliefs. This is a religious reason
Immoral doesn't mean religion. It means that it doesn't conform to views of morality.
Yes and in this case it could have been secular or religious morality. The only way stem cell research can be immoral s if youre going by religious morality therefore it was religious morality
You were the one to argue that religion is not necessary for morality.
Yes there's also secular morality but it's not the one we're talking about in this case. The US is 80% religious. The burrow was full of religious people
This is just not even a reason to not do development of cells and tissue
That's not a reason to ban funding for research. If anything that means that we needed more reseach to understand how to grow adult tissue. We now know much more and can do things like this : https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.popsci.com/amp/scientists-grow-transplantable-hearts-with-stem-cells&ved=2ahUKEwiY--eDnJvZAhUBDOwKHUumBWAQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2NHXqUsufKusPHLB37snC0
This is plain stupid. You are citing an article written in 2016 against a article written in 1998.
Yes i am. To show that he was wrong and that we needee research to be able to grow human orgins in 2016 but he thought it wasn't proven that we can but that's why we needed research in the first plave
The point is, how could the people know about this when they are not even able to grow most cells, which makes them think that they are unnecessary which in turn makes them oppose it.
Yeah but that's not a reason to oppose it. That's saying we might be able to grow orgins but we don't know therefore need research but NO it is not proven that we can grow orgins therefore we should not do research
"It's not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste
much of it. Life is long enough, and it's been given to us in generous measure for accomplishing the greatest things, if the whole of it is well invested." - Seneca the younger(4BC-65AD)P.S. In debates, I'm second to none
I've left the site so if anyone wants to contact me(i won't always be free to talk tho), my Snapchat is thejaberom, any further questions shall be reported to willow and passed onto me
-
@sir-devil said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:
Immoral doesn't mean religion. It means that it doesn't conform to views of morality. You were the one to argue that religion is not necessary for morality
He also doesn't even talk about religion. You can't say something against a person which he doesn't even say or implied. This is a strawman fallacy.
The only moral opposition ever provided against stem cell research HAVE BEEN RELIGIOUS ONES
-
@thestrangest said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:
Yes and in this case it could have been secular or religious morality. The only way stem cell research can be immoral s if youre going by religious morality therefore it was religious morality
Strawman again. You are just misrepresenting his statement to make it easier to attack. The argument they had was that the research was killing embryo cell which was similar to killing babies. Is this religious? No. It's just that they didn't know that not the truth. Remeber we are talking something that happened in 1998. You can't use your current views of such stuff to argue against it. It would be stupid.
Yeah but that's not a reason to oppose it. That's saying we might be able to grow orgins but we don't know therefore need research but NO it is not proven that we can grow orgins, therefore, we should not do research
That was not a reason to oppose it but that was a counterpoint to their opposition. They didn't knew that. If they did they would have supported it. Remember in those times, they were thinking about just growing humans tissues and cells not growing entire organs.
The only moral opposition ever provided against stem cell research HAVE BEEN RELIGIOUS ONES
No, as per the article the majority of the support came because it was against their general morality. There's no proof to support that the doctors and professors opposed it because of religion.
-
@thestrangest said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:
Yes there's also secular morality but it's not the one we're talking about in this case. The US is 80% religious. The burrow was full of religious people
This is also a fallacy. You are just generalizing people and showing unrelated data to make it easier to attack.
Let us assume that US population was 80% religious back then but does it mean that the doctors and professors that supported it were religious; No.
-
@sir-devil DIDN'T YOU READ THE G. BUSH SPEACH. DIDN'T HE SAY THAT THE REASONS HE'S BANNING FUNDING ARE RELIGIOUS ONES
"The speech began with a description of stem cell research and the debate surrounding it. It pointed to ethical concerns pondered by scientists and by parents who want to help their children, or who want to have children; recognized widespread religious debate; and noted that there is disagreement even between people sharing the same faith. Bush described the current state of stem cell research by identifying the source of embryos preferred by scientists, namely excess embryos left over after couples attempt in vitro fertilization (IVF). Some of these extra embryos are frozen, he said, some implanted in mothers, and some donated to science for research."
.
.
.
"In considering these ethical concerns, Bush continued, two key ethical questions must be addressed. First, do embryos qualify as human life, and second, if embryos are going to be destroyed anyway why shouldn’t they be used for the greater good?"
.
.
.
The answer to the first question for a religious person is yes and for an atheist no
.
.
.
"Regarding the first question, he said, one scientist had told him that a five-day-old cluster is not even a real embryo, but is actually a pre-embryo, not deserving to be called life because it cannot develop on its own. On the other hand, an ethicist with whom Bush had spoken argued that because all human life has humble beginnings, embryos deserve protection as what the ethicist referred to as the seeds of the next generation."
.
.
.
"It is important to note that the desire to protect human life as cited by Bush would not be an issue if some did not think embryos qualify as a type of human life."
These are just religious reasons masked behind in secular vocabularyhttps://embryo.asu.edu/pages/president-george-w-bushs-announcement-stem-cells-9-august-2001
"It's not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste
much of it. Life is long enough, and it's been given to us in generous measure for accomplishing the greatest things, if the whole of it is well invested." - Seneca the younger(4BC-65AD)P.S. In debates, I'm second to none
I've left the site so if anyone wants to contact me(i won't always be free to talk tho), my Snapchat is thejaberom, any further questions shall be reported to willow and passed onto me
-
@sir-devil said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:
@thestrangest said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:
Yes there's also secular morality but it's not the one we're talking about in this case. The US is 80% religious. The burrow was full of religious people
This is also a fallacy. You are just generalizing people and showing unrelated data to make it easier to attack.
No it is a strong argument
Let us assume that US population was 80% religious back then but does it mean that the doctors and professors that supported it were religious; No
The scientists are 60% religious. The doctors are just dumbasses and in any case I wasn't talking about the doctors but on the bewrrow of ethics which is definitely basing their conclusion on the idea that an embryo is a human person and should be researched upon which is a religious view and the only one that was ever used against stem cell research along with the others that say all stem stem cells even pre-emryonic are not to be researched upon which is also a religious one
"It's not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste
much of it. Life is long enough, and it's been given to us in generous measure for accomplishing the greatest things, if the whole of it is well invested." - Seneca the younger(4BC-65AD)P.S. In debates, I'm second to none
I've left the site so if anyone wants to contact me(i won't always be free to talk tho), my Snapchat is thejaberom, any further questions shall be reported to willow and passed onto me
-
@thestrangest No, he said that religious reasons were one of the reasons along with ethical concerns of scientist and the concern of parents. Note that, he mentioned the ethical concerns first, usually, it is due to having a higher priority which is also supported by the article I cited.
btw ethics =/= religion
an ethicist
ethicist, not someone religious
-
@sir-devil said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:
@thestrangest No, he said that religious reasons were one of the reasons along with ethical concerns of scientist and the concern of parents. Note that, he mentioned the ethical concerns first, usually, it is due to having a higher priority which is also supported by the article I cited.
btw ethics =/= religion
an ethicist
ethicist, not someone religious
FORGET THAT look at what he said next
-
@thestrangest said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:
The answer to the first question for a religious person is yes and for an atheist no
I can't find this statement in the article.
-
@sir-devil and the following statement uses the word 'Ethicist".
-
@sir-devil said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:
@thestrangest said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:
The answer to the first question for a religious person is yes and for an atheist no
I can't find this statement in the article.
Watch this video i already sent you:
That's the 4th(out of 4) horsemen of neo-atheism. A PhD in neurology and Bachlors in philosophy
"It's not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste
much of it. Life is long enough, and it's been given to us in generous measure for accomplishing the greatest things, if the whole of it is well invested." - Seneca the younger(4BC-65AD)P.S. In debates, I'm second to none
I've left the site so if anyone wants to contact me(i won't always be free to talk tho), my Snapchat is thejaberom, any further questions shall be reported to willow and passed onto me
-
which is definitely basing their conclusion on the idea that an embryo is a human person and should be researched upon which is a religious view
No, not at all. Why is it religious? There wasn't a widespread knowledge about it back then. There assumed it was a life because they didn't know.
Regarding the first question, he said, one scientist
note that it says, one scientist. It shows that it wasn't a widespread knowledge and something that was found recently.
-
@thestrangest just to see what it got. I'm going to watch it
-
@sir-devil said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:
which is definitely basing their conclusion on the idea that an embryo is a human person and should be researched upon which is a religious view
No, not at all. Why is it religious? There wasn't a widespread knowledge about it back then. There assumed it was a life because they didn't know.
Regarding the first question, he said, one scientist
note that it says, one scientist. It shows that it wasn't a widespread knowledge and something that was found recently.
THE VIDEO I JUST MENTIONED WAS MADE BEFORE THE BAN WAS LIFTED. BY A SCIENTIST. THE GUY SPEAKING IS A SCIENTIST
"It's not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste
much of it. Life is long enough, and it's been given to us in generous measure for accomplishing the greatest things, if the whole of it is well invested." - Seneca the younger(4BC-65AD)P.S. In debates, I'm second to none
I've left the site so if anyone wants to contact me(i won't always be free to talk tho), my Snapchat is thejaberom, any further questions shall be reported to willow and passed onto me
-
@thestrangest said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:
Watch this video i already sent you:
That's the 4th(out of 4) horsemen of neo-atheism. A PhD in neurology and Bachlors in philosophy
Btw, this has no relevance in here. We are talking about Bush's speech and the reason he bans the funds.
-
THE VIDEO I JUST MENTIONED WAS MADE BEFORE THE BAN WAS LIFTED. BY A SCIENTIST. THE GUY SPEAKING IS A SCIENTIST
Not when, the ban was implemented, right? So, no relevance.
