Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.


  • @thestrangest That thing was finished a long ago. I showed that although Religion actively opposed the research, they were not responsible for that ban, which was the prime example you cited.


  • @sir-devil said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:

    @thestrangest That thing was finished a long ago. I showed that although Religion actively opposed the research, they were not responsible for that ban, which was the prime example you cited.

    THEY WERE. That's what I'm still saying


  • @thestrangest and I asked you to show a evidence proving that instead of some video about a scientist explaining the ideology behind the religious people involved in the ban and not explain why religion was the primary reason behind the ban.
    You made the statement and you have the burden of proof.


  • @sir-devil I am going to say this one more time. DO you have any proper evidence against my argument or something of significance to add to this argument?

  • Watch Anime Eyes

    @sir-devil said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:

    @thestrangest and I asked you to show a evidence proving that instead of some video about a scientist explaining the ideology behind the religious people involved in the ban and not explain why religion was the primary reason behind the ban.

    George Bush was religious. The only/most used arguments against the research are religious. G. Bush took the side of the religious people on the 2 questions he wanted to answer to make the ban which is that embryos are human life whilst atheists and scientists even back then said that they were not. Do I have to continue or recite the info I already gave about this

    You made the statement and you have the burden of proof.

    I already provided proof


  • @sir-devil this is boring man


  • @sir-devil sorry I didn't write that correctly. I just edited it


  • @thestrangest Ah... again are we. First I asked a proper evidence. Like something that has some credibility like an article or something not some speculations from your side. I presented one that in his speech he just included religion as one of the reason and for the reminder he said things that were in the favor of "Ethicist" who are not the same as religious people. Although the statements of "Ethicist" were similar to religious people, they are not one and the same. I need you to provide something that can explicitly prove this wrong, can you?


  • @thestrangest FINALLY.


  • @thestrangest but not for me, lol! I'm enjoying this. Haha

  • Watch Anime Eyes

    @sir-devil said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:

    @thestrangest Ah... again are we. First I asked a proper evidence.

    Which I didn't want to re-recite but instead referenced and asked if I really need to re-recite them

    Like something that has some credibility like an article or something not some speculations from your side.

    Sure I'll reproved them

    I presented one that in his speech he just included religion as one of the reason and for the reminder he said things that were in the favor of "Ethicist" who are not the same as religious people.

    Same shit. He means the ethical question of weather an embryo is human life or not which has a religious answer that is anti-research

    Although the statements of "Ethicist" were similar to religious people

    THEY ARE RELIGIOUS STATEMENTS

    they are not one and the same.

    They are

    I need you to provide something that can explicitly prove this wrong, can you?

    I hope what I wrote here is enough.

    George Bush says in his speech:

    "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?"
    .
    .
    .
    NOT FROM THE ARTICLE ABOUT GEORGE BUSH AND HIS SPEACH : Sam Harris wrote a book published in 2004. 3 years after the G. Bush speech and explains in chapter 7.1 as he did in the video how religious people consider an embryo to be a form of human life or at least be sacred and that atheists and scientists of course did not at the time (he was writing this in 2003 which is close enough to the George B. Signing and therefore explains the views of both sides in that time)

    Pages of chapter 7.1 CONTAIN THE SAME SHIT AS THE VIDEO

    Link to the book:

    https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.popeye-x.com/downloads/other/Sam.Harris.-.The.End.of.Faith.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjomsDzt5vZAhXDOhQKHS1eCB4QFjAAegQIDxAB&usg=AOvVaw3vdRTGmdwrxxCWxtxmOjHQ
    .
    .
    .
    From the article:

    "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 statements were intended, however, to show comprehension of the ramifications of restricting federal funding for research on embryos, not support for funding research on human embryos. Here Bush finally stated his belief that life is a “sacred gift from our Creator,” and that he feels compelled to promote protection of and respect for life. Not wanting to completely eliminate potential benefits that could arise from research, he enjoined scientists to proceed with caution. He then outlined a compromise intended to allow for scientific advances without sponsoring the crossing of ethical lines with tax dollars."

    The things that George Bush said came from here

    https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/president-george-w-bushs-announcement-stem-cells-9-august-2001


  • @thestrangest

    He means the ethical question of weather an embryo is human life or not which has a religious answer that is anti-research

    Yes, it has a religious answer but that doesn't mean that everyone opposed it just for that one answer.

    THEY ARE RELIGIOUS STATEMENTS

    They are

    You are repeating my statement. You used the same argument against me once, remember.
    https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/does_ethics_require_religion

    ethical concerns pondered by scientists and by parents who want to help their children, or who want to have children; recognized widespread religious debate

    Again, I talked about this. Religion is shown to be one of the reason. And the rest of the ethical reasons and there's no mention about whether that ethics are influenced by the religion or rather based on a more secular reason.

    Here Bush finally stated his belief that life is a “sacred gift from our Creator,” and that he feels compelled to promote the protection of and respect for life.

    Now, this is slightly tricky. In here he is saying that life is a sacred gift and it is meant to be protected and the prevalent ethicist (Scientist, doctors, and professor) in that opposition believes that the embryo is a life in itself.
    It could either mean that he thinks due to religious reason or since the ethics say that the embryo is a life and he wants to protect and respect lives. You could say that that was a religious statement but you can't prove that his belief of embryo being a life is due to religion or ethics and since I don't/can't find anything to prove or oppose this, I would stop arguing against this.

    And since We are just repeating the previously done arguments in other statements, I won't be arguing to them too. So, that's it. GG.

  • Watch Anime Eyes

    @sir-devil said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:

    @thestrangest

    He means the ethical question of weather an embryo is human life or not which has a religious answer that is anti-research

    Yes, it has a religious answer but that doesn't mean that everyone opposed it just for that one answer.

    THAT'S THE ONLY ANTI E.S.C. RESEARCH ANSWERS AND ITS RELIGIOUS=EVERYONE WHO WAS AGAINST STEM CELL RESEARCH WAS USING RELIGIOUS LOGIC

    THEY ARE RELIGIOUS STATEMENTS

    They are

    You are repeating my statement. You used the same argument against me once, remember.
    https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/does_ethics_require_religion

    ETHICS CAN EITHER BE RELIGIOUS OR SECULAR
    SECULAR = SUPPORTS STEM CELL RESEARCH
    RELIGIOUS = OPPOSES STEM CELL RESEARCH
    THEREFORE THIS WAS RELIGIOUS ETHICS

    ethical concerns pondered by scientists and by parents who want to help their children, or who want to have children; recognized widespread religious debate

    Again, I talked about this. Religion is shown to be one of the reasons.

    Let me fix this:

    ethical concerns pondered by scientists and by religious parents who want to help their children, or who want to have children; recognized widespread religious debate

    Scientists were always around 75% pro-E.S.C. because that is what is and was the percentage of neurologists and biologists back then research as evident from the book.

    The percentage of atheists is so today but I'm not sure 15 years ago but it was probably very similar.

    All the rest of the people who were against stem cell research were religious.

    And the rest of the ethical reasons and there's no mention about whether that ethics are influenced by the religion or rather based on a more secular reason.

    YOU DON'T NEED A MENTION.

    There is NO FUCKING WAY FOR SECULAR MORALITY TO OPPOSE ESC RESEARCH BECAUSE YOU PRIMARILY NEED TO BELIEVE THE AN EMBRYO IS A SACRED LIFE FORM WITH A SOUL TO OPPOSE ESC RESEARCH THEREFORE THE ETHICS WAS RELIGIOUS. FUUUUUUUCK. HOW IS THIS NO CLEAR TO YOU

    Here Bush finally stated his belief that life is a “sacred gift from our Creator,” and that he feels compelled to promote the protection of and respect for life.

    Now, this is slightly tricky. In here he is saying that life is a sacred gift and it is meant to be protected and the prevalent ethicist (Scientist, doctors and proffesor) in that opposition believes that the embryo is a life in itself.

    Wrong. It was just him who believed that. Non-religious Scientists (which are most scientists) were clear on that an embryo was not a sacred form of human life and so were atheists. This is a purely religious belief as evident. But forget the doctors. A lot of US doctors don't even believe in evolution, they're idiots so not for the sake of argument they're opinion is irrelevant. As apparent from the fact that lots of US doctors don't believe in evolution that means that a lot of them are religious so of course they'd be taking the religious side if the argument.

    It could either mean that he thinks due to religious reason or since the ethics says that the embryo is a life and he wants to protect and respect lives.

    No.

    He thinks that the embryo is a life because of religious reasons like he said "sacred gift from our creator" and the ethics he was holding are religious ethics. Or did you mean burrow of ethics, yeah they also believed it was sacred life and should be preserved because of religious reasons since that's not what scientists stood for at the time and they're not scientists.

    You could say that, that was a religious statement but you can't prove that his beleif of embryo being a life is due to relegion or ethics and since

    I can. He said "sacred gift from our creator" which means that it's a religious belief. He was Christian. Duh

    I don't/can't find anything to prove or oppose this, I would stop arguing against this.

    Man. Do your own research please. It is very known among secularists and scientists that the reason for the ban of funding stem cell research is strictly religious. I was only explaining this to you, it has always been proven


  • @thestrangest said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:

    THAT'S THE ONLY ANTI E.S.C. RESEARCH ANSWERS AND ITS RELIGIOUS=EVERYONE WHO WAS AGAINST STEM CELL RESEARCH WAS USING RELIGIOUS LOGIC

    THEY ARE RELIGIOUS STATEMENTS

    NO FUCKING WAY FOR SECULAR MORALITY TO OPPOSE ESC RESEARCH BECAUSE YOU PRIMARILY NEED TO BELIEVE THE A EMRYO IS A SACRED LIFE FORM WITH A SOUL TO OPPOSE ESC RESEARCH THEREFORE THE ETHICS WAS RELIGIOUS. FUUUUUUUCK. HOW IS THIS NO CLEAR TO YOU

    How many times should I repeat? We are talking about a period almost 20 years ago. Back then, it wasn't a widespread knowledge that the embryo can't be considered to be life. Back then, in this context, Secular ethics is not much different from Religious ethics. Can't you see the point?! Back then, almost everyone thought that the embryo was just a tiny form of the baby and thus, killing it would be similar to killing a baby. I will repeat again, it was not a widespread knowledge that embryo can't be considered to be a baby. To have that thought, one doesn't need to think that baby has a soul, he just needs to look at that as a tiny baby.

    He thinks that the embryo is a life because of religious reasons like he said "sacred gift from our creator" and the ethics he was holding are religious ethics. Or did you mean burrow of ethics, yeah they also believed it was sacred life and should be preserved because of religious reasons since that's not what scientists stood for at the time and they're not scientists.

    Like I said, I don't have anything on bush's statement

    Do your own research please. It is very known among secularists and scientists that the reason for the ban of funding stem cell research is strictly religious. I was only explaining this to you, it has always been proven

    I have shown you stuff that proved my point that ban was not strictly due to religion. Here's more
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726839/
    http://www.pewforum.org/2008/07/17/stem-cell-research-at-the-crossroads-of-religion-and-politics/

    We are stuck in a loop. This is getting nowhere.
    This would be my last. I quit.


  • @sir-devil i just finished reading the whole liliad. Oh man that was some messed up shit at the end. Those are definitely some feels. I didn't know you only sent me the 1st to 3rd chapter out of like 7 or 8 but now that I'm done i get what you were talking about

  • Watch Anime Eyes

    @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.:

    THAT'S THE ONLY ANTI E.S.C. RESEARCH ANSWERS AND ITS RELIGIOUS=EVERYONE WHO WAS AGAINST STEM CELL RESEARCH WAS USING RELIGIOUS LOGIC

    THEY ARE RELIGIOUS STATEMENTS

    NO FUCKING WAY FOR SECULAR MORALITY TO OPPOSE ESC RESEARCH BECAUSE YOU PRIMARILY NEED TO BELIEVE THE A EMRYO IS A SACRED LIFE FORM WITH A SOUL TO OPPOSE ESC RESEARCH THEREFORE THE ETHICS WAS RELIGIOUS. FUUUUUUUCK. HOW IS THIS NO CLEAR TO YOU

    How many times should I repeat? We are talking about a period almost 20 years ago.

    17 but m'kay

    Back then, it wasn't a widespread knowledge that the embryo can't be considered to be life.

    Oh but it was as evidenced from what Sam Harris wrote in chapter 7 of the end of faith in 2003

    Back then, in this context, Secular ethics is not much different from Religious ethics.

    But it is as evidenced from the sam harris book

    Can't you see the point?!

    No i can't

    Back then, almost everyone thought that the embryo was just a tiny form of the baby and thus, killing it would be similar to killing a baby.

    NO. America is 80% religious people and those are practically the only people that believed that and made scientists listen to their bullshit and obey their superstition when they resulted in the ban of government funding.... as evidenced in the sam harris book

    I will repeat again, it was not a widespread knowledge that embryo can't be considered to be a baby.

    Amongst scientists and secularists it definitely was

    To have that thought, one doesn't need to think that baby has a soul

    But religious people did and that's why the ban was passed as evidenced of the description of both sides you watched and the "sacred gift from our creator" comment from G. Bush

    he just needs to look at that as a tiny baby.

    And still think that it has a soul. Religious people thought all simple forms of human life have souls from embryos to even some religious people thinking that sperm and eggs have souls today.

    He thinks that the embryo is a life because of religious reasons like he said "sacred gift from our creator" and the ethics he was holding are religious ethics. Or did you mean burrow of ethics, yeah they also believed it was sacred life and should be preserved because of religious reasons since that's not what scientists stood for at the time and they're not scientists.

    Like I said, I don't have anything on bush's statement

    I'll just understand this as you agreeing with me because you wrote that badly

    Do your own research please. It is very known among secularists and scientists that the reason for the ban of funding stem cell research is strictly religious. I was only explaining this to you, it has always been proven

    I have shown you stuff that proved my point that ban was not strictly due to religion. Here's more

    NO YOU HAVEN'T

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726839/
    http://www.pewforum.org/2008/07/17/stem-cell-research-at-the-crossroads-of-religion-and-politics/

    What are these links and how do they prove what you said. If you don't quote the parts you are referencing as i did then they don't prove shit because i won't bother opening them


  • @thestrangest said in Depression and anti-social issues. We all need help.:

    @sir-devil i just finished reading the whole liliad. Oh man that was some messed up shit at the end. Those are definitely some feels. I didn't know you only sent me the 1st to 3rd chapter out of like 7 or 8 but now that I'm done i get what you were talking about

    It was my first 4chan feels thread


  • If anyone has figured out how not to be an anti social depressive shithead, let me know. I’m not very good at subsidizing my depression 🤨


  • @megatron well I am anti but not depressed. People are fucked up always backstabbing and shit. Erm I’m waffling on about fuck all helpful so just smoke weed..... advice of a true good person.....


  • @megatron how about you get it diagnosed first to find out if you are truly depressed