-s/<itzo- Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais This is contradictory. You're using the excuse that we shouldn't play Gods, while at the same time stating that there's no religious meaning meant by it. The last paragraph is not a rational argument, and even if there's no religious intent behind it (which I somehow doubt), it still has no place in a debate. And debates are per definition rational. my comments were not religious in general. when i said "i don't see how anybody could want to create soul-less beings, or who would want to be one." and you replied back saying: "Believe what you will. When the world is hanging in a thread because Christians can't accept that their morals are ignored, we'll see who can do better." "This ceased to be a debate when people stopped using rational thought. Talk about souls and whatnot has no place in a rational debate. If you want this to be a debate, leave your religious "facts" far out of this. first off i'm not even christian. what makes you draw the conlusion that my sayings where christian like. what makes you assume that. and what makes you say this is not a place to talk about religous beliefs in a rational debate. what do you have against christians? just because theres religion, it doesn't have to be a debate. that whole statement right there is what i responded to. my comments where not, how do you say "religious facts". and just because i said its not our place and its only in GOD's hands it didn't mean all my saying was for religous reasons. you can't be so narrow minded here. expand your horizons of thinking. because you only have one perception of me. can't it be that my comments can go beyond religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by s/<itzo catholic here, dude. Are these your words? If they are, you're a Christian. my comments were not religious in general. when i said "i don't see how anybody could want to create soul-less beings, or who would want to be one." and you replied back saying: You're quoting me selectively. I did not reply the following to what you stated I did. and what makes you say this is not a place to talk about religous beliefs in a rational debate. Because religious beliefs aren't rational. Prove they are, and I'll reconsider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by -s/<itzo- what do you have against christians? Depends on their behavior. I have a problem with Christianity (and all other religion, save perhaps the shamanistic ones). My reasoning goes something like this: Jerusalem is taken by christians. The entire population is murdered. Now that isn't normal behavior in warcraft of that time, it was just senseless genocide. All religions have these ´funny´ little quirks (save, again, some or all shamanistic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-s/<itzo- Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais Are these your words? If they are, you're a Christian. yes they are but Catholic and Christians are totally different. i'm really surprise at you Cjais. i suggest you look for some info on this because i really don't have the time to explain all of this to you. i mean why do you think theres two seperate class for it. what you just said is like saying all religions are the same. see what i mean. you don't even know your facts but you still ramble on. You're quoting me selectively. I did not reply the following to what you stated I did. well you made those comments after i said my statement. Because religious beliefs aren't rational. Prove they are, and I'll reconsider. Cjais, ill get back to you on this one. this is a very complex way of thinking so it will be long. its 12:04PM and i haven't slep yet. after i came home late last night i decided to go to Lucas Forums and athe next thing you know i was up arguing with you the whole mourning. the answer to that question lies mostly in your way of thinking. so when i wake up i'll get back to ya' on this ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Catholic and Christians are totally different. Catholicism is a subsect of Christianity, which is a subsect of Judaeism. what you just said is like saying all religions are the same. Aah, but they are... I haven't seen any material difference. see what i mean. you don't even know your facts but you still ramble on. C'Jais is generally more up-to-date on facts like you, if what I have seen so far is representative of the two of you. well you made those comments after i said my statement. Aah, but he responds to your suggestion of finding a workable alternative to therapeutic cloning, not to soul-less clones, as you claim that he does... Quoting like that is known as ´fraud´ in some circles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camus Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 ...owch... Harsh topic... yet I see no blood... O_O lol You know... I see "God" all over the place... O_o The idea of cloning is a moral choice... Just because others do it doesnt mean you have to... If you think what you think good... More power to you... but lets not forget... Others here think diffrently and dont hold the same views as you... You the indiviual... just because there is a clone of you doesnt mean its going to view things the same way... Its our views and concepts that make us individuals... a Human body is a Human body... doesnt matter where or how it was made... Just as long as it posses the few things that can define it as being human... thanks for even reading my simple athiest views on cloning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-s/<itzo- Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Aah, but he responds to your suggestion of finding a workable alternative to therapeutic cloning, not to soul-less clones, as you claim that he does... Quoting like that is known as ´fraud´ in some circles... goo points but FRAUD! give me a break here. comman, i'm tired as hell and i'm still debating with you guys. to some point my mind is not clear but i do know what i'm talking about. it was really fun having this intelligent conversation with you guys. so when when i wake up better get your thinking caps on cuz i have alot to say and i will be more specific next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 3, 2003 Author Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by Camus ...owch... Harsh topic... yet I see no blood... O_O lol You know... I see "God" all over the place... O_o The idea of cloning is a moral choice... Just because others do it doesnt mean you have to... If you think what you think good... More power to you... but lets not forget... Others here think diffrently and dont hold the same views as you... You the indiviual... just because there is a clone of you doesnt mean its going to view things the same way... Its our views and concepts that make us individuals... a Human body is a Human body... doesnt matter where or how it was made... Just as long as it posses the few things that can define it as being human... thank you i thought id have to say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camus Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Your welcome... but it is true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by -s/<itzo- goo points but FRAUD! I stand by what I said about selective quoting being fraud. I can even give you an example of why this is so: If you said that "Nazism is bad", and I responded with "yes it is", then, if taking a quote out of context was not fraud, someone could claim that, when asked whether "science is bad", I said "yes it is". Now obviously that is not viable... BTW: People posting here should be aware that even reproductive cloning (which I do not support) only produces genetically identical individuals. Not even their appearance is alike (much to the surprise of the scientists who cloned a cow...). the answer to that question lies mostly in your way of thinking. False. Big time. Really big time. Rationalism is clearly defined as being the philosophy of approaching every problem from a logical, empirical angle, and religion does not fit that bill. No way of thinking can remedy this. *Sees C'Jais' explanation and realises that it is much more complete* *Points down to C'Jais' post* Also I think that a MOD should change the poll to reflect the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning, because at the present state it can be impossible to cast your vote (if you are for one and against the other). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by -s/<itzo- yes they are but Catholic and Christians are totally different. If you really mean this, know that you're going up against the dictionary, inventing your own language or perverting the one already established. I'd like to see you win this one. what you just said is like saying all religions are the same. Even though I didn't imply that at all, what's the difference really? You worship a god. Sure, the rituals might differ, and even though you're technically the same grade of nutcase as the that Raelian dude, you're still convinced your dogmas are the best - without any proof whatsoever. well you made those comments after i said my statement. You've outright lied twice now. Go check where I made the comment you quoted. Go check which piece of text I quoted you from the answer to that question lies mostly in your way of thinking. Rationalism is well defined. It's looking at everything from a reasonable/sensible perspective. If you want to change that definition, go right ahead. Sensible means you have to use your senses. This leaves God out. Reasonable means you have to be able to give reason for your opinion. And since reason is based on empirical evidence, it also leaves God out. You take your pick: Pervert the language or make up your new, improved one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 3, 2003 Author Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by Camus Your welcome... but it is true... sadly yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Also I think that a MOD should change the poll to reflect the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning, because at the present state it can be impossible to cast your vote (if you are for one and against the other). Most polls in this place are so badly construed I rarely vote anymore. The Christian one was nice, however. Even though my name is Christian, which made me think twice about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais You take your pick: Pervert the language or make up your new, improved one. I think that Orwell had an opinion on "language improved v. 1.2" or Newspeak, as he called it... I recall something like: The perfect tool of oppression... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunClown Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Originally posted by cjais At that stage, they're cells of yourself. I suppose you cry tears of mourning too when you cut yourself, destroying hundreds of cells that could in fact be grown into clones of yourself. If all scientists have to do is scratch there arms to get cells, why do they have to take cells from fertilized embryo's? The embryo is developing into a fully grown human. My arm is not going to kill me the same way taking the stem-cells from a fertilized embryo (human in their very early development stages) would. I see a very big difference here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediNyt Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 The world is over populated the last thing we need is more people. If your gonna clone something, clone things like healthy organs for transplants and endangered species of animals and plants. As for stem cell stuff I spose its cool to clone fetuses for research in helping people with disabilities like paralysis. Thats a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunClown Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 The world is over populated the last thing we need is more people...As for stem cell stuff I spose its cool to clone fetuses for research in helping people with disabilities like paralysis. Thats a good thing. Isn't feotus just the impersonal term for a human being. After all weren't you just a 'foetus' once? Perhaps scientists should have cloned you. Then again, wouldn't you just be attributing to the overpopulation of the planet. However, I don't have a problem with 'theauropetic' cloning as long as we aren't growing another living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being strictly for the purpose of having there organs harvested. There is already enough of that in third world countries going to rich countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoguePhotonic Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 If you think it hasn't been done you must be crazy...and with our technology I'm sure there are countless labs where they **** with genes and have mutants of every shape and form....why wouldn't there be?....it's like if we had a warpdrive technology and never used it....to much to explore not to.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 I support Theraputic Cloning for stem cell research. I do not approve Reproductive Cloning which is what they did with Dolly the sheep. I think its foolish not to research Theraputic cloning, the advantages would be endless. Think of all the patients that will be saved by not having to take anti-tissue rejection medication from transplants. If that arsehole Senator Brownback gets his way, that dream will be scattered into the wind.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Originally posted by -s/<itzo- if you carefully read what i posted i'm all for the technology part. you know to get get rid of birth defects, viruses and for organ replacement/spinal regeneration, etc... Using cloning to remove natural diseases, etc is still saying reprodutcive cloning is fine. That is picking and chosing what attributes get to passed on into the future human genome.... The amount of wrong, IMO, about chosing a "better" baby than others is unbelievable. It is no better than the "Saddam creates an army of super humans" type of event, as it only perpetuates those things that people believe should be continued in humans... Many of us talk about far fetched events, but so far human history has told us that if people can think of it, then people are stupid enough to try it. Therapeutic cloning, is still something I am not convinced about. To me, it still gives the "who gives a stuff" attitude where people do not have to care as much for the way they treat their bodies, since they can have organs replaced. "Hon, I drunk too much alcohol, about time I got that kidney cloned" - There are people out there that would use it that way, and they would have the money to pay for it. Currently there is no legislation in any country in the world to stop many of the weird and wonderful things that we come up with here on the LF's. It is a technology that is in such an infancy, that we have no idea where it will lead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 6, 2003 Author Share Posted January 6, 2003 no hes sayin that like a dude is born with a small liver he can go in and get his liver cloned but made normal and then gets it transplanted into him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Theraputic cloning is not physically possible at this point, only theory. A human embryo has been cloned but it did not last very long. Basically you clone the embyro and remove the dna and use it to make stem cells which could be used to more or less grow organs that match a particular tissue make up. However the research has been put on hold until some polititions get they're heads out of they're asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerd_Annhilator Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 well i heard that the first clone, dolly the sheep aged very fast, 2 times faster than normal, so i think it might have the same outcome on humans,so it is basically,if they did clone people would lower life expectancy. cloning humans also kills the original.....um whats the word.... embrio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Originally posted by Nerd_Annhilator well i heard that the first clone, dolly the sheep aged very fast, 2 times faster than normal, No. so i think it might have the same outcome on humans,so it is basically,if they did clone people would lower life expectancy. No. cloning humans also kills the original.....um whats the word.... embrio? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Originally posted by FunClown If all scientists have to do is scratch there arms to get cells, why do they have to take cells from fertilized embryo's? Here's how it's done: You take a cell from the person you wish to clone. You insert the DNA "core" of that cell into an egg cell which has had its DNA removed. Conception otherwise proceeds as normal, but with the slight difference that it's only going to be the DNA from the person you wish cloned that is going to be used. Here's an interesting factoid: In the egg cell, there are mitochondries(sp?) which have DNA of their own. These are not removed, and as such, a small part of DNA remains in the egg cell otherwise sucked dry from that. This results in a clone that cannot be currently better than 99% clone. Which is still fairly impressive. For therapeutic cloning, you wait until the embryo has developed to the 4 cell stage, and then take these stem cells for further research and (in theory) to implant in the clone host as a way of healing the spine. It's called an embryo for a reason. At that stage of it, you can't distinguish between a pig embryo and a human one. If you were to examine the DNA in the cell, it'd kill it. The stem cells at this stage cannot be considered an individual. Trust me, in the dictionary sense of the word, I'm right. Your beliefs are hindering scientific progress which might save people. If the whole world believed the way you do, all the Mr. Smiths would never be able to walk again. The Christian church was once against abortion, sexual prevention and sex before marriage (it probably still is, but it holds no real power today) - the world has changed. It's morals are not the same as yours. At this stage of history, it's much easier to change your beliefs and morals, than try to change the world's. For the latter cannot be done anymore. This isn't the dark ages anymore, where religious belief decided your life in the entirety of Europe. The world has awakened. Excepting perhaps Ireland and the Bible belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.