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



  • @thestrangest

    simple modifications

    Yeah, a Simple modification that requires planning and execution that would require at least 200 hundred years. For one, it doesn't have an atmosphere, then it's doesn't have a magnetic field and also, the temperature variation is too high. We can set up base stations on mars but we won't be able to make it into a habitual planet.

    http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/blog/ten_reasons_not_to_live_on_mars_great_place_to_explore-118531
    https://www.popsci.com/how-did-mars-lose-its-atmosphere
    http://time.com/4845251/mars-life-toxins-microbes/

    K. I didn't but sure

    Why are you adamant about disagreeing with me? Just take a look and see if you have used the word "likely"?

    You made the statement. You have the burden of proof to say that they're likely

    here you go,
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/here-are-5-ways-the-unthinkable-could-happen-nuclear-war-21522
    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170821-how-prepared-are-we-for-the-impact-of-a-nuclear-war

    and for the dystopian, I don't have to present a proof. It's been the way all these years. It's likely to happen again.

    Then again, these things are probable. Are you sure that they won't happen? I used to the word "What if" to illustrate such themes which shows that they are not confirmed to happen but do have a chance to happen.

    The population on mars won't be big enough for such a possibility anyways. Would it

    One, if the population is big enough then that means it is not a good option. Two, in case of a small number of people leaving the planet, who do you think is more likely to be allowed to survive. Intelligent people; bullshit.

    What is that supposed to mean. The only thing holding back things like stem cell research is religion. If genetic modification will be held back by superstition it will be religious superstition. In either case i don't know what anti-vaxxers have to do with this

    In case you didn't understand, I presented the "Anti-vaxxers" as a proof to show that people can oppose useful things without basing it on religion an why do you think that stem cell therapy is held back by religion? Do you have any proof to offer? I can't find anything to show that religion is a responsible for hold back stem cell research.


  • Watch Anime Eyes Banned

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

    @thestrangest

    simple modifications

    Yeah, a Simple modification that requires planning and execution that would require at least 200 hundred years.

    Yes that's simple. 200 years is nothing compared to the future 1000 year old human lifespan.

    For one, it doesn't have an atmosphere, then it's doesn't have a magnetic field and also, the temperature variation is too high. We can set up base stations on mars but we won't be able to make it into a habitual planet.

    You said it. It will take around 200-300 years. That's nothing

    http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/blog/ten_reasons_not_to_live_on_mars_great_place_to_explore-118531

    https://www.popsci.com/how-did-mars-lose-its-atmosphere
    http://time.com/4845251/mars-life-toxins-microbes/

    K. I didn't but sure

    Why are you adamant about disagreeing with me? Just take a look and see if you have used the word "likely"?

    I said i agreed without looking. Still didn't look

    You made the statement. You have the burden of proof to say that they're likely

    here you go,
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/here-are-5-ways-the-unthinkable-could-happen-nuclear-war-21522
    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170821-how-prepared-are-we-for-the-impact-of-a-nuclear-war

    K you got me here

    and for the dystopian, I don't have to present a proof. It's been the way all these years. It's likely to happen again.

    Then again, these things are probable. Are you sure that they won't happen? I used to the word "What if" to illustrate such themes which shows that they are not confirmed to happen but do have a chance to happen.

    Didn't i say " X will happen,.... Y will happen and L will happen ASLONG AS NOTHING HORRIBLY BAD HAPPENS before X date" like a hundred times

    The population on mars won't be big enough for such a possibility anyways. Would it

    One, if the population is big enough then that means it is not a good option.

    Not true. It is a good place to survive if something bad happens on earth

    Two, in case of a small number of people leaving the planet, who do you think is more likely to be allowed to survive. Intelligent people; bullshit.

    Rich and intelligent people. Yes

    What is that supposed to mean. The only thing holding back things like stem cell research is religion. If genetic modification will be held back by superstition it will be religious superstition. In either case i don't know what anti-vaxxers have to do with this

    In case you didn't understand, I presented the "Anti-vaxxers" as a proof to show that people can oppose useful things without basing it on religion

    Yeh but anti-vaxxers are rare, right. When it comes to big outcry against something like stem cell research it's always religious people

    and why do you think that stem cell therapy is held back by religion?

    Because it is. It is widely known that it is you can't oppose me on this one

    Do you have any proof to offer?

    Do i really have to. This can't be the first time you've heard about religious people opposing embryonic or normal stem cell research. I'm not going to provide statistics you go do your homework. Here's a simple explanation of what's happening

    Atheist on the topic:

    Other:

    I can't find anything to show that religion is a responsible for hold back stem cell research.

    Search better. This is too widely known for you not to know this


  • Watch Anime Eyes Banned

    @sir-devil i didn't even watch all those vids halfway through. But I'm sure they'll put you up to speed on stem cell research



  • @thestrangest

    It will take around 200-300 years

    That's just a speculation. It might take longer. Then again, 300 years is too long of a time. With the current direction the world is going on, it way too long. There's a lot of chance for many things to go wrong within that time period. I said that it would take more than 200 years but actually, it's just the time required to pump enough CO2 and other stuff to melt its polar ice caps. There's a chance that the artificial atmosphere won't hold up. Even if it holds up, there' nothing one can do about the missing magnetic field.

    Didn't i say " X will happen,.... Y will happen and L will happen ASLONG AS NOTHING HORRIBLY BAD HAPPENS before X date" like a hundred times

    No, you said that things I suggested are unlikely to happen which is in line with my statement.

    They're unlikely.

    Now you are contradicting yourself.

    Yeh but anti-vaxxers are rare, right. When it comes to big outcry against something like stem cell research it's always religious people

    Now, this hilarious and sad. They have brought an outbreak of measles which was cured years ago.

    https://www.wired.com/2017/05/anti-vaxxers-brought-war-minnesota-came-measles/
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/doctor-blames-andrew-wakefield-son-catching-measles-vaccine-mmr-autism-anti-vaxxers-measles-a7813001.html

    Do i really have to. This can't be the first time you've heard about religious people opposing embryonic or normal stem cell research. I'm not going to provide statistics you go do your homework. Here's a simple explanation of what's happening

    They oppose stem cell research but are they the major reason for underdevelopment in Stem Cell Research? You said that they are holding it back but how? Are they actively preventing or disturbing the research? I said that I'm not able to find any source for it. I'm repeating your statement to yourself.

    You made the statement. You have the burden of proof

    You are contradicting yourself again.



  • This post is deleted!


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

    500 years would not be much. If going interplanetary on a planet where we can comfortably stay takes 1000 years it would be good enough. My point is that aslong as we move some people to mars even if they can't live there comfortably then we won't go extinct if something bad happens on earth

    And you have completely missed my point. I said that it was a long time because before it is completed, many things could happen. Life wars or economic depression. After all, all our natural resources are about to be used up. It is more than enough a reason for a possible war. There are lot of reason that it won't be allowed to proceed easily.

    Where did i say "They're unlikely" in my previous reply? I did not

    Look it up. You did. Why are even asking me? You can do it yourself. It was your statement after all.

    This is sad but doesn't prove that anti-vaxxers aren't rare. Just proves that a significant enough quantity of them exists. How many anti-vaxxers are there

    If there's a significant amount of them, then that means that they are not rare. Anyway, what about 20-25 % of all parents. Are they rare still?

    https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/2/15/14231266/anti-vaccine-movement-trump

    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

    Okay. Since you didn't give another source or not care enough to research it (which is not good move during a debate), I found out an article published back then.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/21942

    If you read it, you would find that although the opposition was started by 100 anti-aborters, where a portion of them was basing it on religion, it was successful only because they had the support of many doctors. The supporters of that protest include the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a former surgeon general, director of the Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University, Washington DC, and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

    That protest was successful due to a lack of research and information.
    From this, it proves that I was in the right to pull that card of the burden of proof.


  • Watch Anime Eyes Banned

    @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.:

    500 years would not be much. If going interplanetary on a planet where we can comfortably stay takes 1000 years it would be good enough. My point is that aslong as we move some people to mars even if they can't live there comfortably then we won't go extinct if something bad happens on earth

    And you have completely missed my point. I said that it was a long time because before it is completed, many things could happen. Life wars or economic depression. After all, all our natural resources are about to be used up. It is more than enough a reason for a possible war. There are lot of reason that it won't be allowed to proceed easily.

    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

    Where did i say "They're unlikely" in my previous reply? I did not

    Look it up. You did. Why are even asking me? You can do it yourself. It was your statement after all.

    I LOOKED AND DIDN'T FIND IT. In the post i was talking about how i changed my opinion and agreed with you after you provided sources. Jeez. You have the purden of proof here too

    This is sad but doesn't prove that anti-vaxxers aren't rare. Just proves that a significant enough quantity of them exists. How many anti-vaxxers are there

    If there's a significant amount of them, then that means that they are not rare. Anyway, what about 20-25 % of all parents. Are they rare still?

    Holy fucking shit

    https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/2/15/14231266/anti-vaccine-movement-trump

    This is fucking insane

    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

    Okay. Since you didn't give another source or not care enough to research it (which is not good move during a debate), I found out an article published back then.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/21942

    If you read it, you would find that although the opposition was started by 100 anti-aborters

    Huh. 100 anti-aborters = 100 religious people

    where a portion of them was basing it on religion

    Bullshit. All of them were. I haven't even read the article and I'm 100% sure that they were. Non-religioys anti-aborters are extremely rare. 1 in a million I'd say

    it was successful only because they had the support of many doctors.

    DOCTORS OPPOSING ANTI-ABORTERS wtf are you talking about. Doctors are the ones who want to be doing stem cell research in the 1st place. This is definitely in America where there aredoctors that don't believe in evolution

    The supporters of that protest include the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a former surgeon general, director of the Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University, Washington DC, and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

    WHICH ARE ALL RELIGIOUS. The only reasons to protest against stem cell research are religious ones. Find me a case where somebody used a non-religious reason. There isn't

    That protest was successful due to a lack of research and information.
    From this, it proves that I was in the right to pull that card of the burden of proof.

    No. The videos are proof enough. Watch the fucking videos. Go read the speach of G. Bush when he banned government funding of stem cell research if you want. That's plenty generous. The value of the proof doesn't change from text to video format



  • @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.

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

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



  • @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”.

    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.

    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.



  • @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.


  • Watch Anime Eyes Banned

    @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 Banned

    @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


  • Watch Anime Eyes Banned

    @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



  • @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.


 

View More Recent Topics

Loading...