glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
He doesn't have to. This isn't a trial, he doesn't have a need to prove his point beyond a reasonable doubt. And while I disagree with his point I recognize it as being a valid concern and thus a worthy argument in making a democratic decision on whether to fund this or not. While like you I don't feel the moral concerns on this subject are such that the reseearch should be disallowed, simply dimissing them as invalid will do your side no favors when it comes when it comes time to make the decision on whether to federally fund it or not.
Unfortunately, I think you are right. Prescription drugs is a very large business. That's why unchecked capitalism isn't a good idea, because not all positive things neccessarily make money.
Your original point, in case you've forgotten it, is that Europe (implying all of it) doesn't allow stem cell research. You cited four countries that have banned it, I cited four countries that allow and fund it. If that's not a rebuttal, what is? Again, you're ignoring simple facts because they challenge your own beliefs.
Stroking your own ego is hardly a rebuttal.[/quote]
I'm not stroking my own ego, I'm merely asserting that most people are capable of moral reasoning, something you dismiss out of hand when others disagree with you.
Resorting to logical fallacies is the last resort of those who know they're beaten. Yours is called Argumentum ad Verecundiam ("appeal to authority"). In short, you argue that someone's knowledge of stem cell research research is a requisite to render an opinion on whether it should be federally funded or not.[/quote]
Of course I make this argument. It would be absurd not to. Do you take your car to your doctor when it's broken? As others have pointed out, without sufficient knowledge of the science at hand, your dismissal of this field of research is laughable. And no, this is not a logical fallacy (though you've certainly made enough ad hominem attacks). To be a logical fallacy, the authority cited must not be an expert in the field. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I clearly know far more than you do about this topic.
Unfortunately, you seem to be blinded by your own myopic vision of what the federal government is and is not supposed to be spending money on.
You've basically stated that stem cell research, alternative energy technologies etc. are passing fads, yet you obviously know very little about them. You sound absurd. Feel free to squirm and wiggle some more, and continue telling yourself how much you know and how well you can argue. I'm sure if you use more personal attacks you'll convince lots of people to see things your way - who cares about facts and evidence?
I am not forcing him in anyway to do anything at all. I know how he feels about this issuse, I'd like him to express as to why he beielves what he does.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
My original point is, and I quote, "most of whom have banned or severely restricted this type of research) fear as the memories of eugenics are still very fresh in their minds." Here's some links to show the current state of affairs
story link
story link
Note the unambiguous statements that "The European Parliament on Thursday voted for a complete ban on human embryonic stem cell research" and "the practice, which is legal in the UK but banned in many European countries." You can't seem to bring yourself to admit that you were wrong, even showing a complete and reckless disregard for the facts. You even go so far as point out four countries which allow the practice, but ignore the fact that the EU has banned funding for it. Since the EU charter requires unanimous consent for these issues, I'd say that this is a pretty serious setback. You saying I implied all of Europe completely ignores the very clear language I used in my post, and twists it to an completely unrecognizable statement to fit your agenda. You're simply digging yourself into a deeper hole the longer you maintain this losing argument.
Again, this is completely immaterial to the question to whether this research should be federally funded. You cavalierly dismiss those without detailed knowledge on a research field of study as being unqualified to judge whether tax monies should be used to support it, without realizing that's not how democracy works. If I served in the military and you didn't, that doesn't mean I have the right to cut you off from your citizen's right to vote on how much the federal government spends on defense. I've already pointed out your logical fallacy, yet you persist in it.
Wrong on both counts. We've already demonstrated that in this thread.
And your problem is that you're blinded by your ignorance of what the federal government is and what it's supposed to be spending money on.
I will gladly share the reasons for my belief. It is just that there are currently several threads on stem cell research, and many more that are very blatantly attacking Christianity, so I have to repeat myself across multiple threads.
In this thread I replied with my view and the reasons for my belief. Due to the specificity and timing of your question, I assumed you had already read it since it deals directly with our ability to know when human life begins, and I posted it about 20 minutes before you asked me this question.
If you need me to elaborate on what I said, or if you have any questions feel free to respond.
The mind boggles. You've said yourself you have no ethical opposition to stem cell research, simply that you think it is a waste of tax payer dollars, because it is a trendy fad.
Again, do you have the technical background necessary to determine whether or not stem cell research is waste of taxpayer dollars?
Stop painting false analogies that have only military personnel determining how to spend money on the military. That was never my point - where did I say that biologists alone should determine the funding? My point was to call you out as someone whose opinion on the merits of stem cell research is worthless given that you have no idea what it is, or what it is capable of doing. Does that mean you should not have a say in how tax monies are spent? Certainly not, but it doesn't mean your opinion is valuable, or right (the beauty of a Democracy: every idiot has an opinion that counts).
When Congress writes up the budget for the DoT to whom do they turn for advice on whether or not redesigned highway systems would be worth the investment? Joe Schmoe off the street who simply doesn't like his hard-earned tax money pissed away on pet projects? Or authorities whose opinions are relevant like civil engineers? (Oh wait, to you getting the opinion of an expert is the white flag of defeat, rofl.)
You, sir, with your lazy & uninformed opinions, are the reason why this country continues to depend more and more on menial service & labor jobs rather than jobs requiring any sort of specialized training and knowledge - you know, the fad jobs. Good day.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
You are missing my point, namely that you're attempting to advocate taxpayer money on this project on its merits. Others claim that other projects (alt fuel, nanotechnology, etc) are things we should spend money on. Given the finite resources of the treasury, obviously we can't fund all of them, or do so without reducing funding to another area. I'm simply pointing out that many of those who support federal research for stem cells also advocate spending on other R&D, while likewise supporting increased spending on what they see as core government functions (welfare, etc). Something somewhere has to give. Couple that with the strings that federal money brings, and you have an argument on why the money should not be spent on embryonic stem cell research which is completely independent of the question of the worthiness of stem cell research as a standalone project. Only you seem determined to paint me as a Luddite because I disagree with your premise to federally fund the research.
Your premise would be valid IF the decision to spend the money was a done deal. Then of course, expert advice on how the money should be spent would be of utmost importance. But since we're spending whether or not the money should be spent at all, I fail to see where expert opinion is a necessary prerequisite. People make decisions every day on whether to spend money on things that they have no scientific expertise in, for example a couple days ago I purchased a $1,600 Sealy Reflexion mattress. Whether I have the knowledge on current mattress-making technologies and the science of latex mattress design, manufacture, and distribution is immaterial to my purchase decision.
Oh, if only I could be as smart as you so that I could render an opinion on stem cell research. I'm not worthy.
The 2005 budget of the NSF is ~$5.5 billion. You know that is a pissant amount compared to what other programs receive.
Where have I said anything about anything other than science research? You didn't appreciate being depicted as a religious zealot, yet now you're trying to do just that - assuming someone is something they're not.
Your argument rests on two premises. The first, that we can't afford it. Well, that is exactly where the merits of the research become relevant. Are its merits more than the x amount of dollars we spend elsewhere? Who is qualified to answer this question? Second, you're leery of strings attached to government funding. You also don't seem to understand the 'strings attached' to receiving NSF monies, but then again, I doubt you've actually received any. What, pray tell, are you basing your paranoia upon?
Then how did you make your purchase decision? Did you speak with the salesperson? Did you test out the competitors by seeing if they were worth their price tag? No, of course you don't need to be a mattressologist (?) to do this, but we're not talking about you buying mattresses, are we? Again, another false analogy.
What were you saying earlier about being a toddler? Go do some research yourself and learn about these technologies. Then, if you continue to dismiss them as fads, your opinion might actually have some merit. Until then, keep your mouth shut to avoid embarassing yourself any further.
What is your point? Nothing in article 1 section 8 of the US constitution says anything about the FBI, teachers, fire fighters or anything I was talking about. In fact a lot of the current military (something that all libertarians agree should be controlled and funded by the Government) is not listed as something the congress can provide (i.e. Marines, Special Forces, Air Force, NASA). You can quote section 8 till you are blue in the face, but that does not respond to my questions.
Anyway, my point is the constitution does not say a lot of things the government provides is specifically allowed or banned from doing. So your argument is kind of lacking in actual fact. But one thing the constitution does say is ?Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To ? provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States? Therefore if the US government wanted to fund stem cell research (as long as it is uniform and considered part of the general Welfare of the US) it is allowed to do so.
I myself will agree abortion is a very controversial issuse. I myself see it as unforunate and should be avoided if possible.
You claim that "war" and "abortion" are senseless having no meaning. That's not true at all. They've got a meaning, though I am sure you don't generally agree with it. By definition I'd say war is the conflict agaisnt an enemy and abortion is the termination of pregnancy. You're also assuming that a fetus is infact person. You're implying that a fetus (or in the the subject we are discussing embroynic stem cells) has a brain.
Would you classify war and/or abortion a nessicarry evil?
How can you define clear knowledge? It's impossible to be a completely unbiased person and have complete knowledge on the subject. What you're saying is that some things are impossible. You're not terminating pregnacies or destroying embryos. If you've had any kids you've created embryos.
Beilef is not enough for this, you're being vastly illogical with enforcing your own un-founded beilefs amoung others.
Abortion and E.S.C.R doesn't really effect you at all, leave it alone. No one's making you donate your stem cells or anything of the such.
Alright, so far we are in agreement.
I said that war and abortion are tragedies, and that I wish they could be avoided. I did not say that all war is senseless and has no meaning. I could point out numerous examples of senseless wars. I can also say that I think all war should have been avoided, but that doesn't mean I think that it is possible to avoid all war. Indeed, war is often neccessary and justified, and it can have a noble purpose that is good.
A very easy example is WW2. I wish it could have been avoided. The world would have done good to have stopped Hitler from rising to power. But, since they did not, and since he launched a global war, our entrance into WW2 was justified, reasonable, and good.
Alright.
I'm not assuming a fetus is a person. I'm acknowledging that unless I take direct action to stop it, that fetus will become a person, just like you or me. That is what abortion is doing, and I believe that is wrong.
War is not a "neccessary evil". It is often justified and good, but not always. There are many examples of senseless war.
Here is what I'm talking about:
"Popular opinion on the matter tells us that resorting to force in certain situations is ?necessary? to save the lives of victims of injustice (including ourselves). Yet such actions are also held to be ?evil? because warlike acts are ?inhuman? and do not follow the model of Christian living found in the life of Jesus."
War can be something very neccessary and meaningful. Abortion, however, if it is murder, would very very rarely be acceptable. The only case I can think of is if a mother's life is dangered by the birth (this represents <3% of all abortions). Even then the decision would be so traumatic to make, between your own life and that of your child. Obviously, abortion is a terrible thing, like you said.
I'm suggesting that it is best to procede with caution when faced with issues you do not fully understand. This holds especially true with that which matters most: human life. Is there something more precious that we know of? It would be callous to claim to know these details about the beginning of human life without having definitive proof. That is not something I am doing here.
As a Christian, my moral beliefs are grounded in faith, and secured by reason. I have given you my reasons in as much detail as you have asked, but you are free to doubt them. Likewise, I am free to share them.
The "it doesn't affect you" arguement has no bearing here. If you knew innocent people were being slaughtered in another country, I bet you would feel compelled to help them. Personally, I would think that these people deserve justice and that we should help them, even if that country's conflict does not affect me directly.
Basically, if fetuses are human, then abortion is murder. It is the purposeful ending of an innocent life. Something very tragic indeed. If abortion is indeed murder, few would sit idly by and say that it does not effect them. That would be an irresponsible and selfish choice to make. So in essence, the arguement once again returns to the heart of the abortion issue: when does human life begin? That is the center of the real debates on abortion.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter