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


  • @sir-devil like I said, it was a success due to a lack of research and information


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

    No. The videos are proof enough retard. Watch the fucking videos.

    Yeah, nice little words you use there when I have shown you the proof.


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

    And what then? We are going to get the people working on mars to get back to earth because a war or lack of resources is preventing us from improving living conditions on mars. Why would we not keep people on another planet during nuclear war if there's a chance of the human race going extinct. When it comes to natural resources running out i think SolarCity has got this one covered

    So, you accept that there's a chance a war could happen. What if, the war turns our world into a nuclear wasteland.

    I'm not saying that your statement is not probable. All I'm saying is that my statement is also probable to happen


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

    They're unlikely. Being f'd by AI is much more likely

    Asking for me to provide the proof to show that you, your statement. Anyway, my statement was an argument to your original statement.


  • @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.:

    I said both. I actually said that atleast 2 times
    Example:

    WHAT is not confirmed to happen. In my 1st statement i only said "Definitely". We are definitely going to mars, curing aging, becoming able to do advanced genetic modification and what else did i say. As long as nothing horrible happens before the end of the 23rd century all of that will definitely happen

    You are citing a counter-counter-argument against a counter-argument which was an argument against your statement. You can't cite something like that when we are talking about your statement; not you counter-statement. It was because I said that you said "Unlikely" in your original statement and you proceeded to deny it and now, you are saying that you said both while citing a counter-statement to my argument, which was not part of the thing we were arguing about.

    Jesus fucking potato salad. I didn't say that what you stated was unlikely. You copied that from a different post than the one you were replying to because in that one i had admitted that the things you said can happen were fairly likely because you provided sources after i saud that they weren't likely along with the statement "X, Y and Z will happen aslong as nothing horribly bad would happen"

    Banning government funding in the US for like 10 years, having religious leaders like the pope being against embryonic stem cell research, and still having "religious activists" working against it . Watch the fucking vids I'm not an expert on this shit

    Ooh... Getting hot, are we?

    Hot potato hot

    If you can't keep calm during a debate why then involve in it.

    The vids are plenty enough. I'm not gonna do research to explain to you something that is widely understood because i personally am not an expert on the topic but only have read critiques and condemnation in some books of how the religious have greatly harmed advancement in stem cell research. The ban on government funding by G. Bush is the thing that's cited the most as it was for purely religious reasons abd lasted around 10 years

    Btw out of the three examples, only the first one has actively responsible for the underdevelopment of the research (which I have shown that religion was not the primary reason for its success)

    No you ducking didn't.

    During G. Bush speach whilst banning government funding

    "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."

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

    and other two are just "Opposing" it. They are just showing their disapproval. They are not cutting funds or destroying lab.

    Sure ignore them then


  • @thestrangest and are you going to ignore the statements from those Doctors. This is called the fallacy of Cherry picking.


  • @sir-devil It has the support of FDA, professors and a multitude of doctors. It gave the necessary presence and power in the court, not some religious people.

  • Watch Anime Eyes

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

    @thestrangest You haven't even read the article. So, you have any power to give out assumptions that all of them are religious. If you got to say that, give us the proof.

    and Non-religious reasons you ask, Here you go, (These are direct quotes from the article)

    The statement was coordinated by the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity in Bannockburn, Illinois. It was released at a press conference at which Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas) said that research on human embryonic stem cells is “immoral, illegal and unnecessary”.

    Immoral according to religious beliefs. This is a religious reason

    Young, who served as FDA commissioner under President Ronald Reagan, compared the development of cell and tissue therapies from embryonic stem cells to the making of saddles from human skins by Nazi Germans.

    This is just not even a reason to not do development of cells and tissue

    John Gearhart, a professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, says it is unproven that stem cells from adult tissue can generate all the tissues of the body.

    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


  • @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.:

    No. The videos are proof enough retard. Watch the fucking videos.

    Yeah, nice little words you use there when I have shown you the proof.

    Ive disproven everything


  • @thestrangest not to mention that the videos were actually enough


  • @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. You were the one to argue that religion is not necessary for morality.

    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. 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.


  • @sir-devil

    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.


  • @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.

  • Watch Anime Eyes

    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

  • Watch Anime Eyes

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

    @sir-devil

    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.